Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Frank Apisa,

do you argue with evidence or just my conclusion? If you argue with evidence you are merely ignorant of science. If you argue with my conclusions you are merely a closet theist who loudly espouses some kind of qgnosticism but doesn't spend enough time on what we do or do not know to enable you to make a more studied choice.
For me, I will defend your right to your opinion here, but I will remind you that its not based on the very reason you like to champion.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

do you argue with evidence or just my conclusion? If you argue with evidence you are merely ignorant of science. If you argue with my conclusions you are merely a closet theist who loudly espouses some kind of qgnosticism but doesn't spend enough time on what we do or do not know to enable you to make a more studied choice.
For me, I will defend your right to your opinion here, but I will remind you that its not based on the very reason you like to champion.

Farmerman, you wrote:

Quote:

...we have evidence that life WAS NOT created in a blinding effort of intelligence.

I responded:

Quote:

We have no such thing...and more than likely, never will.

We don't.

We have no evidence that everything we supposedly see and think...did not come into being a split second ago...all the supposed memories and sights.

We also have no evidence that life WAS NOT created in a blinding effort of intelligence at some time in the past.

You have overstated the case...and I thought it appropriate to mention that you did. I notice that Spendius did also.

All the rest of your comment made no sense to me and was probably just angry offal.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We also have no evidence that life WAS NOT created in a blinding effort of intelligence at some time in the past.

I see, and on what do you base your conclusion?

4 Replies

@farmerman,

Bloody hell fm!! Apisa has nothing to base it on. How many times does he need to say it for it to enter your cranium? He even said it in the quote.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I see, and on what do you base your conclusion?

Oh ****, Frank, now you've gone and done it! You've been asked to justify your maundering.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

And that simple fact is obvious because none of us have any evidence either. Apisa's problem is that he needs to disapprove of our way of life in order to disapprove of the Christian version of pretending there is an intelligent design.

It's your problem too.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
We also have no evidence that life WAS NOT created in a blinding effort of intelligence at some time in the past.

I see, and on what do you base your conclusion?

You have no evidence about how life was created, Farmerman. You do have some ambiguous evidence about how it got from wherever it started to now...but there is still the possibility that the ONLY life existing is the mind that occupies what I think of as me. Everything could be an illusion. Evolution could be just the way some "intelligence" devised in a blinding effort at some instant.

The theists and the IDers (capitals) are absurd to assert what they assert. At best they offer blind guesses about REALITY.

Many atheistic assertions are every bit as absurd. At best they offer blind guesses about REALITY.

1 Reply

@spendius,

you say you "don't have any evidence" when actually what you nd Apisa are saying is tht you don't know about nor understand the evidence that IS out there.

Hes stuck with his view because its a macho thing not an intellectual discourse. Juust because he says that He doesn't know of any evidence doesn't mean that there isn't a mountain of it from which more studied conclusions could be made. Both he and you are being lazy layabouts in this arena of knowledge.

NOT HAVING anything to offer in defense of your position is not worth my time. At lest Herld and Romeo offer things to shoot at. You and Frqnk think that your positions are representative of "deeper thinking" when jut the opposite is being displayed. merely engaged in that Monty Python "Argument Sketch".

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Juust because he says that He doesn't know of any evidence doesn't mean that there isn't a mountain of it from which more studied conclusions could be made. Both he and you are being lazy layabouts in this arena of knowledge.

You've described yourself, Farmer, in a number of areas.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...but there is still the possibility that the ONLY life existing is the mind that occupies what I think of as me. Everything could be an illusion. Evolution could be just the way some "intelligence" devised in a blinding effort at some instant

That's all nice but its a coput to you trying to better understand how the earth came to blossom with all kinds of life. You are starting to sound like ican with his ridiculous pieces and tireome irrelevant calcultions about how ID HAD chosen all the things that science has disclosed.ll you are doing is skipping all the math.
A totally chaotic earth history with several near wipeouts makes it obvious that, were there supreme intelligence, the first thing it had to divest itself of was OMNIPOTENCE. So, if thts the case then its not a supreme intelligence at all. Its merely a journalist watching the top and start appearance of life .
Youre more involved with science fiction.

Im still interested in what would convince you that life was Not created and directed by a SI.

Of course I don't KNOW how life was created, I never said I did. I said I was convinced by the existing data and conclude that it originated in a manner I spoke of in the previous posts. Time and energy and chemicals can "create" all sorts of compounds and biopolymers. I don't make a religion out of NOT BELIEVING, I just don't have any time for it.
ANyway, the preponderance of evidence supports a naturalistic beginning of life on the planet. Id give it about an 85%. Theres nother 18% for pangenesis and tht leaves bout 2% for "outside intelligent influence"

By Drakes own equation and The" Fermi Paradox", we may now only be in the center of an emerging life pool in the galaxy. Such a pool is still developing interplanetary travel, let lone intragalactic travel. We don't hear from anyone (yet). Perhaps all that means is that they havent overcome the communication and trvel distance issue in order to seed our planet by intelligent means.
When it comes to gods, All that does is immediately sshut down all research and applications development. (It turns us into barroom philosophers with little to add to the storehouse of knowledge)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im still interested in what would convince you that life was Not created and directed by a SI.

Nothing would.

You are stuck in an anti-ID (capitalized) mode, Farmerman...and you simply will not see the whole picture of what is being discussed.

For the record, the Intelligent Design (capitalized) nonsense, in my opinion, does not truly rise to the level of nonsense. It is blather...pseudo-science, hypocritical pretend substitution for Creationism.

But what I see you and so many others doing is to become as absurd on the other side of that coin.

I left A2K at one time because of my reaction to a discussion we were having...and your appalling unwillingness to concede the obvious.

We were discussing something Spendius had written...and I paraphrased his comments in a way I saw almost as an extended tautology.

This is approximately what I wrote (you've seen this again since):

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design (non-capitalized).

I did not say there was a god; I did not even say there was the possibility of a GOD...I merely posited for discussion a hypothetical...namely that IF there were the possibility of a GOD...there would be a possibility of intelligent design. (You seemed to be stuck in an "it is an impossibility" mode on that question...and obviously still are.)

I stipulated that IF what exists was intelligently designed...then it obviously was designed in the way we are discovering through scientific investigation. Essentially nothing changes if "the possibility of intelligent design" is acknowledged.

You could not accept that and suggested that my reasoning was "fucked up" (I think you called it) and that I was all sorts of vile and disgusting things for daring to venture down that avenue.

You are doing it here again. You seem to think that there actually is evidence that life could not have been devised by an intelligence...which evidence, you truly do not have. And, like devout theists who INSIST that there is plenty of evidence that there HAD TO BE intelligent design involved, you are refusing to budge in the face of arguments that are compelling.

Why?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm not agnostic fm. I have no doubts. I'm not guessing. God or gods are inventions of mankind which happen in time and space on earth in the hope they will provide a utilitarian solution to various sets of problems at a price the traffic will bear. Sometimes not.

I do not know what it might be that you don't believe in unless it is the precepts deriving from one particular invention. I see them as the result of trial and error. Error meaning failure. The only non-failure, so far, leaving aside Kalihari bush people, who had better hope oil is not discovered where they live, is the Christian God.

That I think That will fail is a matter of opinion. You know that this world of ours will pass away eventually even if the Christian God lasts that long. It will cease to exist. Thus IT can't exist now. There is nothing to not believe in.

You are the lazy thinker. There you were at school and you knew that the priests who taught you were minions in a world-wide organisation lasting a very long time. And with infrastructure and hierarchies of momentous proportions leaving an indelible stamp on our cultural physiognomy. In every last crevice. A Pagan would never have built an imitation currach for ******* fun.

And to satisfy your urge to disobey the precepts they tried to teach you or possibly just to disobey any authority figures you had a butt at them. A minuscule butt. A candle in the sun.

Being a stubborn so and so, as all butters are, you still make the same points now that you did then, with increasing dashes of pop-science added as you read more publications designed to find favour with your attitude. Once up on your hindlegs spouting your pride became engaged. You couldn't back down without losing face which is a truly dreadful thing to have happen.

Not for you Leopold Bloom's final "still, there must be something in it" after Joyce allowed him a few pages to **** on the Church better than any of you lot can. Your position remains that there is nothing in it despite it being a world-wide organisation of great wealth and power and with GW Bush welcoming its then leader to your shores with-- "I hope he isn't going to scold me".

And, besides the pop-science, you take the wildness of various heretical cults of Fundies, or even the wildness of one of their members, in order to attack the core of the Church. And you never lay a glove on it.

And an evolutionist pulling on the compassion udder over the genocides, destructions, lootings, rapings, pillagings and whatnot is pure farce. Only a Christian is entitled to make that pitch.

Get your Monte Python script on that. It is you who is like Apisa. Get the Catholic Church is the root of both your agendas.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Nothing would.

Pretty arrogant of you. BYE!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I did not say there was a god; I did not even say there was the possibility of a GOD...I merely posited for discussion a hypothetical...namely that IF there were the possibility of a GOD...there would be a possibility of intelligent design. (You seemed to be stuck in an "it is an impossibility" mode on that question...and obviously still are.)

I never said anything of the sort. I said tht your argument is basically a time waster. It hs no purpose in being. I paraphrased you using the Easter Bunny myth and you got miffed.

In this point (which you are again wasting my time but I needed one closing comment)

The preponderance of the evidence supports a non ID origin of life on the planet and NO EVIDENCE refutes that conclusion. That is merely a fully valid conclusion based upon the evidence. There is a lot of evidence that REFUTES an ID origin of life and we use these every day in exploration (issues of truncated species and sedimentary hiatii)
You are the one trying to be the macho bully. If you don't like my education and experience then just politely say bye bye like I just did. Maybe Ill see you on some thread we CAN agree upon.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I have no idea nor interest in what you just hacked out there spendi. Perhaps your mates will massage your ego.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

I did not say there was a god; I did not even say there was the possibility of a GOD...I merely posited for discussion a hypothetical...namely that IF there were the possibility of a GOD...there would be a possibility of intelligent design. (You seemed to be stuck in an "it is an impossibility" mode on that question...and obviously still are.)

I never said anything of the sort. I said tht your argument is basically a time waster. It hs no purpose in being. I paraphrased you using the Easter Bunny myth and you got miffed.

Nothing I am saying is a waste of time, Farmerman...yours or anyone else's. I say what I say because I consider it worthwhile to the discussion at hand. I suspect you find what I have to say uncomfortable or inconvenient rather than a waste.

Do whatever you want. In the meantime, when I see you spouting the atheistic equivalent of what the theists spout...I will call it to your attention.

You are invited to disregard it if it makes you uncomfortable or if it is inconvenient to your arguments.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The preponderance of the evidence supports a non ID origin of life on the planet and NO EVIDENCE refutes that conclusion.

That it simply not true. It is not in our power to even talk about such things in any meaningful way.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I have no idea nor interest in what you just hacked out there spendi.

Obviously. Why would you? It would make no sense at all for you to have any interest in what I said.

But you would need some idea of it in order to say you had no interest in it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

farmerman wrote:
...
we have evidence that life WAS NOT created in a blinding effort of intelligence.

We have no such thing...and more than likely, never will.

All the evidence we have and all the scientific knowledge available to humanity clearly show a naturally evolving cosmology and biology. Granted that isn't "Absolute Proof" that super-magic didn't start it all. But if every scrap of scientific knowledge related to cosmology and biology just screams "natural causes" (which it does), then it's more than reasonable to carry that knowledge back to a consistent presumption of natural cause, rather than to flippantly introduce magic as a somehow equal counter option.

So Yes, we do have evidence that life WAS NOT created in a blinding effort of intelligence. We don't have proof. But we do have evidence.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

That's the kind of evidence that a reasonable person can go with.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know