76
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 06:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design
While I never denied this statement, I have laughed at its inanity.
SCience or auto mechanics would no more even entertain such a stupid pointless phrase in reasearch than they would announce that ,

"IF THERE WERE UNICORNS THERE COULD BE UNICORN **** ON THE FREEWAY"

WHile its NOT a tautology , it IS silly and a dumass waste of logic, time, and common sense.

Please continue in your lone quest for proof of unicorn ****, Im busy

You and Leadfoot have a unique bond of belief and I think its been discussed and debunked by Folks whove mae their contributions based upon an assumption of " methodological naturalism". Notice, they dont go out and dwell on the evidence-free basis of naturalism, they just report the evidence out there ALL OF WHICH , seems to comply nicely with the naturalistic components. Notice, noone has spent ANY time trying to proove methodological naturalism, it only falls into play. Why not start the Frank Apisa research foundation to investigate that "If there were some gods they could use ID as a method by which they work"

--GOOD LUCK with that.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 07:05 am
@Leadfoot,
I've been coming up with some things new for a couple of days now. Anyway, likewise, if you come up with something new regarding your god hypothesis, let me know. The god of the gaps approach is dated.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 07:25 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
You and Leadfoot have a unique bond of belief and I think its been discussed and debunked by Folks whove mae their contributions based upon an assumption of " methodological naturalism". Notice, they dont go out and dwell on the evidence-free basis of naturalism, they just report the evidence out there ALL OF WHICH , seems to comply nicely with the naturalistic components. Notice, noone has spent ANY time trying to proove methodological naturalism, it only falls into play. Why not start the Frank Apisa research foundation to investigate that "If there were some gods they could use ID as a method by which they work"

I doubt Frank would claim much of a 'bond' with me but anyway...

Methodological naturalism is more than an assumption in most cases, it is taken as an absolute (which seems oddly un-scientific) by most scientists and is taught that way in universities. And I would never deny that it DOES work in most cases. And of course it keeps scientists from going down the road looking for 'unicorn ****' on any old whim. There are exceptions of course. Newton wasted a lot of time looking for mathmatical formulas for decoding the bible for instance.

I should make it clear that my belief in God is not in anyway based on the evidence of ID. My 'finding God' happened quite separately. The interest in ID was driven by a different question. I wondered, if there were a God, what were the logical limits for a God who wanted to conceal his own existence from the intelligent beings that he created. Assuming he did not put any artificial limits on them, it would not be a trivial task and there would have to be some point at which the subterfuge breaks down. 'ID' gives some indication of what that point might be.

I realize that you and others classify that as 'searching for unicorn ****' and I get that. You do help the process in your own way. The juvenile heckling is of no help at all though.

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 07:47 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
if there were a God, what were the logical limits for a God who wanted to conceal his own existence from the intelligent beings that he created. Assuming he did not put any artificial limits on them, it would not be a trivial task and there would have to be some point at which the subterfuge breaks down. 'ID' gives some indication of what that point might be.


I see this as a cop-out where , in order to believe ID, one must avoid the massive-evidence based connections between the earth's calendar, the environment, and the directions that life takes. To a scientist, I dont think teleological arguments can be evidenced .Its just a Franks ladder of "IF THIS HAPPENS....THEN THIS CAN HAPPEN..."
Youre ID inquiries actually are a more sophisticated version of Frank.(Thats why I drew youse together).
Frank does the double ended "bacon and eggs" argument. You merely MUST avoid investigating lifes living space (Like the fact that, *)) mya a deicing earth gave rise to fresh water and the rise of a type of organism that had , until tat time, remained in a steep minority, they liked living in the newer non methanogenic environment and began emitting a toxic gas which then became a medium for other types of life that rapidly exploited this newer environment).

The sequence of when this occured and , more boldly-WHY, makes your and Frankies arguments less sound. (Unless, instead of a god of the gaps, we must create a god of the tricks)

Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 08:39 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

I see this as a cop-out where , in order to believe ID, one must avoid the massive-evidence based connections between the earth's calendar, the environment, and the directions that life takes.

This shows me that you really didn't follow my train of thought at all. I have no imperative to 'believe' ID. It is merely a possible avenue for me to investigate the question I mentioned before. It is often thrown out as an accusation, but I freely admit that my belief in God preceeded my interest in ID (and even the discovery of DNA). That's probably where Frank and I don't fit.

A possibly related question I'm following is why many very intellegent people have an inability, or lack of desire, to think in the subjunctive mood. There seems to be a high correlation between that and the rejection of teleological questions.
Quote:

To a scientist, I dont think teleological arguments can be evidenced


Not a surprise :-)
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 09:52 am
@Leadfoot,
one follows the other. I merely submit that you are not an objective arbiter of your own opinions and beliefs since youve got a lot of initial capital invested. I readily admit my own shortings in that area and I should be more receptive to other (more objective) opinions critique the bases of my overall "beliefs"
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 11:25 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

one follows the other.

I can objectively reject that conclusion, there are too many exceptions for that to be true.
Quote:

I merely submit that you are not an objective arbiter of your own opinions and beliefs since youve got a lot of initial capital invested.

We both have a lot of initial capital invested in our positions. People vary widely in their ability to be objective about themselves. I think we both probably value that ability. The moments when I become aware of when I haven't been objective about myself I can only describe as 'transcendent'.
Quote:

I readily admit my own shortings in that area and I should be more receptive to other (more objective) opinions critique the bases of my overall "beliefs"

So how do you determine when someone else is more objective than yourself? Especially when proof is not possible. Or do you avoid that dilemma by rejecting any question where that is possible? Your answer might help me to answer that question about subjunctive mood.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 11:32 am
Apparently, pointing out the basic flaws of someone's thought processes is now considered to be heckling. I've yet to see Leadfoot adequately address criticisms of his core world view.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 11:41 am
Farmerman wrote:
"IF THERE WERE UNICORNS THERE COULD BE UNICORN **** ON THE FREEWAY"

That certainly characterizes the obsessive crap Frank has been uttering for years..
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 11:50 am
After reviewing past posts, adding timur to ignore.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 12:07 pm
I am reminded of the satirical thread i once started in which i said that i had put all the idiots on ignore. I then kept posting as though i couldn't see anyone else's posts. It shot right over some people's heads.

Leadfoot may be headed that way for real, though, if he keeps putting people on ignore.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 12:15 pm
@Leadfoot,
http://www.elftown.com/img/drawing/40337_1097949184.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 12:49 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
So how do you determine when someone else is more objective than yourself?
When someone brings that into the discussion as a shortcoming of my attempt at an analysis. In science, we are quite used to critique from avuncular to the strident. As long as I hve to stop and think about a comment and I cannot dismiss it out of hand, thats something Id better consider.

Quote:
Especially when proof is not possible
Usually proof is only possib;e in logic and geometry. We look for repeatable evidence that can lead to experiments . I find my own worldview very open to the way the evidence fits the theory. ID has no such grounding. Everything in ID requires that some piece of objective science be ignored or dismissed .
All the arguments (like Irreduciblecomplexity) have been debunked over and over.

Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 02:50 pm
@farmerman,
Leadfoot Quote:
"So how do you determine when someone else is more objective than yourself?"
Quote:

When someone brings that into the discussion as a shortcoming of my attempt at an analysis. In science, we are quite used to critique from avuncular to the strident. As long as I hve to stop and think about a comment and I cannot dismiss it out of hand, thats something Id better consider.


Damn good answer.

Leadfoot Quote:
"Especially when proof is not possible"
Quote:
Usually proof is only possib;e in logic and geometry. We look for repeatable evidence that can lead to experiments . I find my own worldview very open to the way the evidence fits the theory.

No argument with that either.

That is more or less the approach I took when I first asked myself 'what if there is a God?', a question that requires the subjunctive mood, and hence my interest.

The only experiment I could think of to test for that was to assume he was a rational being and had some interest in man and use myself and life as the test case. That's the sort of test that will convince no one but the test subject himself but the evidence it produced fit the hypothesis so well and for so long that even during a time I was sure God was not a good thing, I could not deny his reality. It was a lack of objectivity about myself that caused that erroneous conclusion about him and why I regard that as so important.
Quote:

ID has no such grounding. Everything in ID requires that some piece of objective science be ignored or dismissed .
All the arguments (like Irreduciblecomplexity) have been debunked over and over

I have read all the best proponents of ID (there are bad ones too obviously) and the best critiques I can find but still not convinced that ID can be dismissed out of hand. Still looking and learning all I can about cellular biology to make a final call though.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 03:23 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design
While I never denied this statement, I have laughed at its inanity.
SCience or auto mechanics would no more even entertain such a stupid pointless phrase in reasearch than they would announce that ,

"IF THERE WERE UNICORNS THERE COULD BE UNICORN **** ON THE FREEWAY"

WHile its NOT a tautology , it IS silly and a dumass waste of logic, time, and common sense.

Please continue in your lone quest for proof of unicorn ****, Im busy

You and Leadfoot have a unique bond of belief and I think its been discussed and debunked by Folks whove mae their contributions based upon an assumption of " methodological naturalism". Notice, they dont go out and dwell on the evidence-free basis of naturalism, they just report the evidence out there ALL OF WHICH , seems to comply nicely with the naturalistic components. Notice, noone has spent ANY time trying to proove methodological naturalism, it only falls into play. Why not start the Frank Apisa research foundation to investigate that "If there were some gods they could use ID as a method by which they work"

--GOOD LUCK with that.



FACT IS:

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

You, Farmerman, do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that fact in any meaningful way...which means, by acknowledging the significance of the comment.

You, and the others here who agree with you, proceed from the position that a "god" is impossible...therefore intelligent design is impossible.

The truly hilarious buffoons in this discussion...are the people like you who want so much to pooh-pooh the obvious.

And here is the obvious once again:

IF THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD...THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The people insisting there is intelligent design are people devoted to the notion of a GOD. I think they are stuck in an unfortunate guess.

But you guys...with all your talk of science and logic...are clowns.


http://costumei.com/pictures/2013/02/Circus-Clowns.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2015 03:34 pm
@Leadfoot,
oh, Michael Behe ( a major scientific proponent of ID) has attempted, by going all the way back to molecular biology and its role in "sudden and unique appearance" of metbolic or enzymatic reactions.
For example, Behe leaned heavily upon the enzymatic "train" of reactions involved in blood clotting . This , he called "irreducible complexity" meaning that no further initial steps could be determined that did not involve this enzymatic train (or as he called a cascade).
Unfortunately for Dr Behe, several scientists found that blood clotting coul occur with several less of these enzymes and several otherreactions involving other enzymes were also capable of affecting clotting. So the reactions, though complex, were hardly irreducible.
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2015 01:17 am
@farmerman,
That veers into the area of evolution rather than abiogenesis but I do think there are good replies to the critics of irreducible complexity. I think this one by Able has merit and applies to all examples of IC I've looked at.
Quote:

Critics are placing Darwinian evolution in an effectively unfalsifiable position, where no level of complexity can falsify it. Proponents of Darwinism are effectively arguing that if an explanation is merely possible, then it defeats counter-arguments. As David Abel writes, this is an unhealthy state for science:

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. ... But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientifically productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" One chance in 10^200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)
MrIntelligentDesign
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2015 02:33 am
@Leadfoot,
GUYS, as long as you don't know the scientific and universal definition and explanation of intelligence, all of us cannot understand the whole natural realm.

But don't be sad since that definition had already discovered by me...

I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.


Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.


Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.



If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2015 02:47 am
@MrIntelligentDesign,
Your screed is pretty ludicrous, but it might be plausible to some of the rubes out there--if you could write coherently in the English language. However, given that you English sucks, and is often nonsensical, about all people are going to do is laugh at you, or simply ignore you altogether.
MrIntelligentDesign
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2015 03:22 am
@Setanta,
Grammars are fixable but wrong science are not! English is my 3rd language now but some people could understand them. Maybe you have a poor analytical mind..
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 08:52:34