0
   

The Intelligent Designers - who were they?

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 06:32 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
If you are saying you believe in free will


Of course I believe in free will. I choose every single move I make. I choose what to write in this post, and I choose when to leave my chair.

neologist wrote:
you would be one of the few on this board holding such a position.


I doubt that. Unless you're defining "Free Will" in some way which I don't understand.
Interesting to me that of the 562 posts in this ongoing discussion of FREE WILL, I find none by you and precious few by those who consider free will a reality.

I resist any temptation to say we have any common agreement, however, given your constant reliance on ad lapidem rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 07:26 pm
In science, if it can be described in an equation its deterministic (except when its not) :wink: If its goverened by field equations, that gives bounds to the number of actual outcomes possible. HOWEVER, IMHO all this is totally compatible with free will.

Remember John Locke stated that "free will" was just eyewash anyway, when discussed within the bounds of scientific possibilities. Dont we think that genetics (just the human genome) limits all possible outcomes of genetic congress (albeit one bigass number). So, by definition free will is not boundless.

To me "free will" is merely exercising possible outcome selections while reading from a menu of possibilities.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:28 pm
real life wrote:
Yes, Adam and Eve existed. The story of Eden is not allegorical.

I've made no secret of it. That is my position.


Then your position is laughable. Do you believe in leprechauns and santa clause, because they are no different.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:30 pm
In other words, our free will is subject to our physical limitations.

I would agree; but our latitude is considerable.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:38 pm
neologist wrote:
Interesting to me that of the 562 posts in this ongoing discussion of FREE WILL, I find none by you and precious few by those who consider free will a reality.


So what. Do you find that meaningful in some way.

Questions of free will usually arise from people who are trying desperately to find some meaning in their own view of God. And I'm not interested in any of that. Even when 'free will' discussions are purely philosophical, I am only marginally interested.

That's just my personal preference for where to spend my time.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:44 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Interesting to me that of the 562 posts in this ongoing discussion of FREE WILL, I find none by you and precious few by those who consider free will a reality.


So what. Do you find that meaningful in some way. . .
Only in that you thought it relevant to express doubt.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:49 pm
neologist wrote:
Only in that you thought it relevant to express doubt.


We started out with a nice entertaining exploration of what a non-magical designer might look like, which led to a deeper understanding of how braindead the idea of ID is. And now we're onto some drudgery about free will. How did this happen?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:54 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Only in that you thought it relevant to express doubt.


We started out with a nice entertaining exploration of what a non-magical designer might look like, which led to a deeper understanding of how braindead the idea of ID is. And now we're onto some drudgery about free will. How did this happen?
Your ad lapidem response here:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Though it may seem to multiply elements, it may perhaps be the quintessential explanation in favor of free will.


Free will is not in question. It needs no explanation, it never has. You're just adding more and more unecessary complexity to everything in an attempt to rationalize and justify your own belief in a personal god. Give it up. The answer is obvious; your assumptions are wrong.

Free will is not in question in the natural world. It's only in question in your world.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:03 pm
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Only in that you thought it relevant to express doubt.


We started out with a nice entertaining exploration of what a non-magical designer might look like, which led to a deeper understanding of how braindead the idea of ID is. And now we're onto some drudgery about free will. How did this happen?
Your ad lapidem response here:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Though it may seem to multiply elements, it may perhaps be the quintessential explanation in favor of free will.


Free will is not in question. It needs no explanation, it never has. You're just adding more and more unecessary complexity to everything in an attempt to rationalize and justify your own belief in a personal god. Give it up. The answer is obvious; your assumptions are wrong.

Free will is not in question in the natural world. It's only in question in your world.


So, you brought up free will, and I tried to tell you it wasn't worth typing about. And given that you got us off onto this, I don't even want to look up ad lapidem to find out what it means.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:47 pm
farmerman wrote:
rl
Quote:
Interesting also that science is looking at the possibility that all humans descended from one woman.


You realize that the "eve" reference in science is based upon extrapolation of genetic data using an evolutionary model? You do realize that?

Where science use a metaphor to make mDNA extrapolation more understandible, you want to make believe that geneticists are using this in a literal Biblical sense? Please rl, try to follow along and quit making up your own personal endings.

You know of course that sometimes scientists use the word "create" and they dont mean actual Biblical Creation?


I didn't 'make believe' anything. I simply pointed out this line of inquiry.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 08:14 am
rosborne979 wrote:
. . . So, you brought up free will, and I tried to tell you it wasn't worth typing about. And given that you got us off onto this, I don't even want to look up ad lapidem to find out what it means.
Laughing
OK, you win this one.
But, in my defense, I only advanced my propositions in the interest of rhetoric.
And it is quite obvious you haven't looked up the definition of ad lapidem, although rl has observed your tendency without naming it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 08:20 am
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
rl
Quote:
Interesting also that science is looking at the possibility that all humans descended from one woman.


You realize that the "eve" reference in science is based upon extrapolation of genetic data using an evolutionary model? You do realize that?

Where science use a metaphor to make mDNA extrapolation more understandible, you want to make believe that geneticists are using this in a literal Biblical sense? Please rl, try to follow along and quit making up your own personal endings.

You know of course that sometimes scientists use the word "create" and they dont mean actual Biblical Creation?


I didn't 'make believe' anything. I simply pointed out this line of inquiry.
Yeah, farmer. You read entirely too much into rl's post. It's true that he may interpret the facts differently, but the facts still exist.
0 Replies
 
Teleologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 12:17 pm
Earl wrote:
Quote:
For those in support of a biological theory that includes intelligent design, what conclusions may be drawn about the designers themselves? ....To me, a race of humans that are far further advanced in biological engineering would be the most obvious candidates as the designers.


Sounds reasonable to me. SETI explorers make assumptions about the human-like nature of designers, along with their communication technology, in order to search the skies for ETI, likewise when it comes to the origin of life on earth, we can make assumptions about the human-like nature of the designers, along with their biotechnology, in order to search the living world for traces of Mind.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 07:22 pm
If we were designed by another intelligent species, who designed them? And who designed their designers? Somewhere along the line you must have intelligence either evolving naturally or appearing by magic. I don't believe in poofism, and don't see the point of postulating beings who evolved far past our own level but in less time.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 09:51 pm
Terry wrote:
If we were designed by another intelligent species, who designed them? And who designed their designers? Somewhere along the line you must have intelligence either evolving naturally or appearing by magic. I don't believe in poofism, and don't see the point of postulating beings who evolved far past our own level but in less time.


Evolution postulates an increase in information and complexity in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The idea that order and complexity increase naturally is in contradiction to everything we can observe about our universe. Systems do not organize themselves without intelligent input.

The usual evolutionist's answer to this is that 'the Second Law doesn't apply to open systems'.

When asked which systems in the universe are 'open', they answer 'all of them.'

Thus, according to evolutionists, we have a foundational scientific law that applies to nothing.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 10:43 pm
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says NOTHING about an increase in information or complexity. It ONLY applies to entropy, a concept that few people seem to grasp. When random molecules arrange themselves into ordered crystalline structures, entropy increases (heat of crystallization). When molecules form themselves into strands of DNA, entropy is increased by the chemical processes involved. When vast amounts of information are created and stored in minds, books or computer systems, entropy increases because waste heat is given off in every process involved.

I wish all creationists would take a course in engineering before parroting misinformation about stuff they do not understand.

Now, how about answering the question of who designed the designers?
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:58 am
Thermo-dynamics, which is a combination of the phrase thermal-dynamics, applies to heat. Systems use energy to do work. Work can never be done with 100% efficiency so some of the wasted energy is released as heat.

When a central processing unit of a computer receives electricity and performs computations, some of the energy is wasted and is released as heat. The same concept applies to humans. Humans use food and oxygen as their energy source, the brain performs calculations, some of the energy is wasted and is released as heat. This is why your forehead is hot. When you run and your muscles use their energy sources to perform work, the muscles release the wasted energy as heat. The sweat glands of your body trap that heat in a liquid which gets pulled away from the body by evaporation. This is practically the same way liquid cooling systems for computers work, the heat gets trapped by the liquid and is pulled away from the source of the heat.

Where creationists and various other theists screw up in visualizing the system at work is that they forget the body is an open system. An isolated system will decrease its entropy overall but open systems can locally increase their own entropy as long as they have an external source of energy. An isolated system is one where there is no external source of energy. The Universe is the only isolated system that exists.

The Universe, however, contains open systems. Plants, which can obtain matter and energy from external sources, such as the nutrients in the soil and the solar energy of the Sun, are open systems. We, humans, are open systems in that we obtain matter and energy from external sources, such as plants, animals, and the oxygen released by plants. We can take the energy from these external sources to do work. Because this work is not 100% efficient, we release heat from our bodies. If the human body didn't follow the second law of thermodynamics, we would be able to use the food and oxygen with 100% efficiency and not release heat from our bodies. The fact that you can take the temperature of someone's forehead is proof that we follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Another common mistake made by creationists and theists is thinking that thermodynamics applies to chemical combinations. For example, the human body is such a complex combination of chemicals that it goes against the laws of thermodynamics. Remember my creationist/theist friends, thermodynamics applies to thermal energy and not chemicals. Honestly, just think about it, if the complexity of the human body didn't jive with thermodynamics then we would've thrown away the law of thermodynamics hundreds of years ago. What use would we have for the ideas, and why would we call them laws, if we knew they were wrong? The human race has observed absolutely nothing in this Universe that contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. If we had then they wouldn't be called laws. Feel free to consult the work of Allan H. Harvey, here, who is a Christian with a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering who not only says the same thing as I do, but also shares the same feelings as I do in the sense that Creationists and other Theists should stop making this pathetic argument.

Real Life, haven't we had this conversation before? (Farmerman, do you remember participating in that discussion?) Did you forget what I said about thermodynamics before? Or have you willingly ignored the truth so you can spread lies in a vain attempt to convert people to your sect of insanity? I do not mind if someone wants to put forth arguments in favor of God's existence; what I do mind, however, is when the most obvious of truths are misrepresented as falsehoods. Please stop advancing this argument, it only makes people take your arguments less seriously.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 08:11 am
Terry wrote:
. . . Now, how about answering the question of who designed the designers?
Ask Telly; My roast is not in that oven.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 09:06 am
rl
Quote:
Evolution postulates an increase in information and complexity in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
RL, as a strict Creationist, likes to borrow from wherever he can to try to make a point. This is one of those that arises from William Dembski, hence an ID attempt at science.

RL has used it about 5 or 6 times in the past threads , so hes not giving a crap about its context. As you and Terry said, he has no understanding of the imposition of the LAws of Thermo in an environment where the abundant available energy to the systems are in the Teracalorie range.

He must consider that photosynthesis or other forms of respiration are all in violation of 2Thermo also.

dS=Dq/T. As long as the Dq within the planet and from outside (the sun) are in extreme excess, we can go evolving away to our hearts content.
NOW, when the sun burns out or the magnetodynamic core quits, we will probably not have to worry about evolution as our biggest loss..
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 10:24 am
real life wrote:
Evolution postulates an increase in information and complexity in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


Wrong. Just plain wrong. How many times are we going to have to tell you this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 05:38:09