Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Produkt & riley,

There is a great deal of direct and indirect metaphysical evidence, as well as logic and reasoning - all of which are outlined in this thread by me and others - to support the theory of Intelligent Design.

Whether you wish to accept that evidence or not is entirely up to you, as it constitutes an emotional hurdle which you have to overcome on your own.

Frankly, I really don't care if you do or not.



To My Fellow Proponents Of Intelligent Design,

I thank you for your input of logic, your links, and your support in this endeavor.

There is a great deal of direct and indirect metaphysical evidence, as well as logic and reasoning - all of which are outlined in this thread by me and others - to support the theory of Intelligent Design.

Really? Nothing outlined in this thread has shown any evidence at all for an IDer, a god, or metaphysical concepts.

What I've seen is..

Oh gee boy, too complex, let's take the lazy route and proclaim the glory of our lord.

You say the universe is impossible without a diety, not a single one has backed up this silly claim. Using IC as evidence is just plain ridiculous, that right there is a sign of self defeat. You know you've got nothing so what do you do? Let's attack thing's scientist's can't explain as of yet and say that because they can't that means it was designed. Let's claim you can't get something from nothing and contradict ourselve's OPENLY and say god just always existed. And you claim to be using logic? Eh... maybe a four year olds logic perhaps. The story of your god is umm... 4Kyrs tops. The history of our species, 200Kyrs +/-. Logic or the need to believe so blindly?

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Produkt & riley,

There is a great deal of direct and indirect metaphysical evidence, as well as logic and reasoning - all of which are outlined in this thread by me and others - to support the theory of Intelligent Design.

Not even 'astronomically small' evidence.. it is nill. People are quite capable of reading the entire thread for themselves and seeing the avoidence, saying it's so doesn't make a case and you proved nothing.

To My Fellow Proponents Of Intelligent Design,

I thank you for your input of logic, your links, and your support in this endeavor.

I don't hear any applause.
Bowing out? A thankyou speech? You realise what this forum is for don't you [aside from racking up points]? Are you running for grand mod?

We were very patient.. where is this evidence? Can't provide it.. at least admit it instead of wasting peoples' time.

[edit on 12-3-2006 by riley]

Paul_Richard,

There is no God, and here is the proof:

1) ID supporters' argument that:

a) Everything has a cause
b) There must be a first cause

is contradictory by itself. If everything has a cause, then there is no first cause. If there is a first cause without a cause, then not everything has a cause.

In other words, if everything should have a cause, then God should have a cause too; perhaps another God. But that is illogical, because the chain of Gods is infinite.

2) the concept of God creating something means that God exists in a spacetime continuum that is larger than God himself. The concept of creation means that there was a state before creation and a state after creation, which means that God exists within his own universe. Therefore God is not infinite, and the question "who created God's spacetime" pops up.

3) if the universe is too complex to have been created by itself or be eternal, then God, who is the creator of the complex thing called Universe, is more complex than the universe, and therefore God is also created by someone else.

If God is of equal complexity to the universe, then the universe need not have been created.

If God is of lesser complexity than the universe, then God could not have created the universe.

In all 3 cases, God does not exist.

4) The presence of many Gods during Earth's history simply makes it impossible for God to exist. If God existed, he would certainly not favor one group of people over the other.

5) There is a logical problem with God and the evil of this world. Since God created everything, God created evil (either directly, or indirectly).

6) Then there is the problem of free will. If God knows every possible state of this universe, since he knows all the possible trajectories of all particles, then the outcome of the universe is predetermined, and therefore there is no free will, which means God is a sadist and we can not escape our destiny. If, on the other hand, there is free will, then prophecies are invalid, and therefore the Christian religion is invalid, and therefore there is no God.

7) the universe works with mathematics. If God designed it, then God is a mathematician. Therefore God's primary tool is logic. Therefore this analysis is true, because it is logical, therefore there is no God.

8) There is no logic behind creating 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 stars and then planting humans in one planet in one star of all these stars, if we humans are never gonna see those stars upclose.

9) ID supporters claim that "no one can understand God because God is something supernatural", yet ID supporters claim that they have understood that the universe is created by God.

10) if God is eternal and somehow we can assume that the problem of God's spacetime is solved, then no matter how long this universe exists, it does not exist for God, because any time period is infinitely small compared to eternity.

11) the universe may be wrapped in an eternal series of big bangs and big crunches. We know there was a big bang, but we do not know if there were other big bangs before it.

12) Even if all the above is false (which it is not, but just for the sake of this argument), there is no proof or disproof that God exists. To put it differently, the propability of this universe being a simulator is 50%, but even if we make it 100% that this universe wes created, there is absolutely no proof that the makers of this simulator are the biblical God.

13) religion is contradictory: God gave us the urge for sex, and then God tells us that sex is illegal without marriage. Why God gave us the urge for sex before we are married, even from adolescence?

14) Do animals have a soul? if they do not, then how come they can do the same things a human does, albeit to a lower degree? animals have feelings, animals have deduction, animals form languages, animals form tools.

15) ID is based on the argument that "this world is too complex to have been created randomly". But how do we define "too complex"? there is no complexity criterion to compare the universe with. If we implicitely compare it with our own creations, then it is indeed "too complex". Since we do not have an absolute criterion to measure its complexity, then we can not tell if it is complex or not. Maybe in the future humans will be able to construct reality "pixel by pixel", just like a video game.

I hope these arguments are enough for a first dose. Please read them carefully before replying.




[edit on 15-3-2006 by masterp]

ID is in no way can be compared to evolution. it's not even in the same league.

evolution was built on observations in wildlife and closer to home 'us'. ID was built on trying to find anything to show evolution was wrong.

there are now these observations in evolution and whether you believe or not, there is substantial evidence to suggest evolution.

the only ID evidence or obsevation is things like 'the spider web 'had' to be designed...end of'. that's not evidence. that's a mere guess.

evolution is not a mere 'guess'. that's where they are hugely different again.

i also love how creationist love adding on the end of evolution 'ist' or 'ism' to create an 'evolutionist' or 'evolutionism' to bring it down to their religious level.

masterp

I realize that this wasn't intended for me but I hope you don't mind if I give it a go. We'll have to agree on a few things otherwise you're just setting up strawmen and knocking them down... which ain't much fun.

Am i correct to assume that we are talking about God as described in the Bible? I believe the answers/beliefs would be the same for Jews, Muslims and perhaps all monotheists, but i'm no authority so i'm not sure. I'm not familiar enough with the texts of other faiths so my answers/comments will be based on what i believe as a Christian.

Or in other words my belief is that God is (1), which works on a couple levels actually :

Etymology of the Word "God"

God can variously be defined as:
(1) - the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
(2) - the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
(3) - the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

Number one works here too, just so we're clear on what i mean when i say God. Further reading on the nature of God as depicted in Scripture can be found here.

Would i be correct to assume that you have no issue conceptualizing an infinite (ie, no begining) universe or multiverse? If so why is the idea of an infinite God (ie no creator) illogical in your opinion? I hope you realize that you've made a choice here and not a decision based on "proof." My faith is in God while your's is in nature or science perhaps, would that be a fair statement?

There is no God, and here is the proof:

1) ID supporters' argument that:

a) Everything has a cause
b) There must be a first cause

is contradictory by itself. If everything has a cause, then there is no first cause. If there is a first cause without a cause, then not everything has a cause.

In other words, if everything should have a cause, then God should have a cause too; perhaps another God. But that is illogical, because the chain of Gods is infinite.

(Emphasis mine) Firstly I have no idea where you got that (cause-first cause) example from nor do I know what ID theorist argues it (as you have), so got a link for me? For the IDers like myself who do believe that God is the Designer/Creator (not all IDers do BTW) I would recommend you read up on the argument over causation and the scientific method (last two FAQs links under "ID Status" are relevant to that.) In my opinion atheism is as scientifically bankrupt as it is philosophically, of course that's just me.

Our universe has a creation point, at a specific time in our past (+-14bya) all matter, energy and indeed space/time itself was created. Or perhaps you're arguing against Big Bang Theory? Did you plan on presenting your evidence against BBT? Or your evidence for the mechanism of the BB which is not supernatural? Logic dictates that whether our universe's creator is my God or your infinite multiverse it has to operate outside, or idependant of, our space/time, no? Perhaps you plan to use the 'fine tuning' and complexity arguments to infer your multiverse, that would be interesting.

There is a "first cause" to our universe and that 'mechanism' is supernatural for both of us, ie we've both made a faith based choice... interpretations may vary. At the least I hope i've shown that your "proof" that there's no God is at best a strawman and worst just bad philosophy. The (g)od you describe isn't worthy of worship and certainly not the God that I worship or the God of Scripture imho.

2) the concept of God creating something means that God exists in a spacetime continuum that is larger than God himself. The concept of creation means that there was a state before creation and a state after creation, which means that God exists within his own universe. Therefore God is not infinite, and the question "who created God's spacetime" pops up.

Now you know where God 'lives', ie His space/time? Seems you have some information, evidence, or proof of that which does or does not exist outside of our universe. Please share. Here again is, in the context of my beliefs, just a few examples of why you've only knocked down your own strawman. It's easy to win an argument when you get to frame your opponents position for them I know but...

Hebrews 3:4 "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."

Job 37:5 "God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding."

John 4:24 "God is spirit."

Psalms 90:1-2 "Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Hebrews 4:13 "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

Here's a pretty descent (short) read on the Christian perspective of the nature of God. IOW even if you could prove a negative (ie, there's no God) you couldn't disprove God. If you could He wouldn't be God ... and well you see where that's heading.

We're slowing moving this discussion into theology and philosophy instead of origins so i'll move on.

3) if the universe is too complex to have been created by itself or be eternal, then God, who is the creator of the complex thing called Universe, is more complex than the universe, and therefore God is also created by someone else.

If God is of equal complexity to the universe, then the universe need not have been created.

If God is of lesser complexity than the universe, then God could not have created the universe.

In all 3 cases, God does not exist.

Sheesh, see above. I will however agree with you; your version of god does not exist. The rest of your examples are equally faulty and illogical...

I know i've seen these topics debated as nauseum over in BTS. Perhaps finding those threads and jumping in with your questions and observations would be a good idea. If you'd like me too i can find the threads (i've seen/read) where each of your points is being/has been disussed just ask or use the search function. Not trying to dodge you but based on your approach i'm sure we'd never come to any sort of an agreement, outside of an agreement to disagree if that.

FYI none of these issues/topics are scientific, they're philosophical and theological arguments that will probably go on 'till this world ends... some people enjoy them and it seems that the atheists around ATS post more about Jesus and God than anything else. IOW i'm sure somebody will go 'round and 'round with you if that's what you're looking for, not usually my cup of tea. Not giving you too hard of a time here, they wouldn't/didn't convince me when I was a non believer either (was never an atheist though.) And when it comes to 'Why do I Believe' i'm not the best at qualifing that or putting it into words. Queenannie and junglejake do a fine job imho and they're certainly not shy about discussing there faith with the skeptics... *shrug*

7) the universe works with mathematics. If God designed it, then God is a mathematician. Therefore God's primary tool is logic. Therefore this analysis is true, because it is logical, therefore there is no God.

Yeah let me know how that one works out... when you finish your thought that is.

8) There is no logic behind creating 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 stars and then planting humans in one planet in one star of all these stars, if we humans are never gonna see those stars upclose.

Book-chapter:verse where it states God only created life on Earth, thanks. Would you like some examples of believers who do not believe we are alone in the universe? Or are you arguing that because some Christians believe this all the rest of us must as well... or was this just another strawman?

9) ID supporters claim that "no one can understand God because God is something supernatural", yet ID supporters claim that they have understood that the universe is created by God.

Perhaps you're aware of the ID concept that the designer can't be identified? Belief that God created the universe is not an ID concept, hypothesis or "theory." You debunk ID the same way you do God, you create your own defintion and then show why your defintion is illogical. Again i agree, your version makes no sense.

10) if God is eternal and somehow we can assume that the problem of God's spacetime is solved, then no matter how long this universe exists, it does not exist for God, because any time period is infinitely small compared to eternity.

Huh? Your words here... "God is eternal" followed by an example of "time periods" to refute God.
*shrug* Perhaps this page will help, you've done one or both of these several times now - papyr.com...

non-sequitur If a writer draws conclusions from premises that are not logically connected to the conclusion, then s/he has committed a non-sequitur.

[..and...]

strawman: Writers who misrepresent an opponent's position so that it is easier to refute the opposition are guilty of presenting a straw man argument. This unfair and fallacious since the writer truly fails to refute the real arguments that have been made.

11) the universe may be wrapped in an eternal series of big bangs and big crunches. We know there was a big bang, but we do not know if there were other big bangs before it.

The bang-crunch-bang-crunch scenario aka the "oscillating universe" TMK is not currently the favored cosmological model of our universe... correct me if i'm wrong. Here are a couple reasons why an oscillating universe is unlikely:
- Not enough matter in the universe (about 1/10 of what's needed) to overcome the expansion (ie, never did/could have collapsed)

- If there was the critical mass to overcome the expansion the universe would 'crunch' with no (necessarily) 'bang' or 'bounce.'

-"entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death."

-Current measurments suggest that the shape of the universe is not closed (ie, oscillating.)

Also see: map.gsfc.nasa.gov... Also see: www.astronomytoday.com...

Scientists working at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Ontario, Canada have finally revealed the fate of the Universe ...
They have managed to calculate the mass of the elusive neutrino particle and have concluded that the combined mass of the colossal amount of neutrinos in our universe is not enough to halt a universal expansion. The universe is therefore destined to expand forever until it becomes a cold, dark place devoid of all signs of life.

It's not definitive by any means, but the numbers, measurements and observations seem to contradict an oscillating model... again correct me if i'm wrong here.

12) Even if all the above is false (which it is not, but just for the sake of this argument), there is no proof or disproof that God exists. To put it differently, the propability of this universe being a simulator is 50%, but even if we make it 100% that this universe wes created, there is absolutely no proof that the makers of this simulator are the biblical God.

"above is false (which it is not...)" please see link(s) above... Who's the "maker" in your opinion if not the Biblical God? What are you talking about re: universe is/may be a simulator? Just curious. If ID states anything it's that our universe and/or life itself is no random accident... it doesn't validate Christianity or any other religion so you'll get no arguments from me on that. ID does however refute atheism... which is why i'm sure you're so opposed to something you've quite obviously (based on what you write) never researched objectively. The way you muck up even the basics of the design paradigm is evidence of this... the same could be said for your theological arguments also imo.

15) ID is based on the argument that "this world is too complex to have been created randomly". But how do we define "too complex"? there is no complexity criterion to compare the universe with. If we implicitely compare it with our own creations, then it is indeed "too complex". Since we do not have an absolute criterion to measure its complexity, then we can not tell if it is complex or not. Maybe in the future humans will be able to construct reality "pixel by pixel", just like a video game.

You're making the fallacious argument that ID is based on what we don't know, ie too complex so God must've did it. I suggest you get familiar with the actual arguments put forth by design theorists and not the oppostion strawmen. It's actually you and your ilk who are making arguments based in/on ignorance... just FYI. I'll post some links re: ID at the end of my post... you can just Google the key words read the first paragraph of an opposition essay and be back in 30 minutes or less to refute ID. I've done this dance once or twice before.

I hope these arguments are enough for a first dose. Please read them carefully before replying.

I did and did also years ago when i first became aquainted with them. The majority of your post belongs in BTS imo, where you can feel free to argue for atheism or against Christianity all you like... you'll find no shortage of support 'round here for your beliefs in my experience.

The majority of your post is based on ignorance of ID and Christian theology imo. On top of that you've got the two so intertwined that it's hard to tell where your version of one ends and the other begins.

shaunybaby

ID is in no way can be compared to evolution. it's not even in the same league.

evolution was built on observations in wildlife and closer to home 'us'. ID was built on trying to find anything to show evolution was wrong.

You make no distinction between random undirected neoDarwinain evolution and the directed evolution ID proposes? What is your evidence that all life can be described via natural selection acting on random mutation alone (ie, NDT)? I imagine that most the evidence you speek of (did you post any?) doesn't contradict ID.

the only ID evidence or obsevation is things like 'the spider web 'had' to be designed...end of'. that's not evidence. that's a mere guess.

evolution is not a mere 'guess'. that's where they are hugely different again.

i also love how creationist love adding on the end of evolution 'ist' or 'ism' to create an 'evolutionist' or 'evolutionism' to bring it down to their religious level.

Wow... the O&C forum, to quote a friend, has really "become the bottom of the ATS barrell." ID is not a "mere guess" and no level headed NDT critic is suggesting evolution is either. Would you like me to show some examples of "evolutionists" whom claim the label - evolutionist, Darwinist or neoDarwinist? Would you like examples from the peer reviewed literature that use these terms? Would you like to know where these terms originated and again those scientists who claim them? And a spider web is designed... by the spider, unless you're arguing in support of another mechanism. Would you care to provide a link to the spider web ID hypothesis... from an ID theorist?

Ok guys some reading material, enjoy:

Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design From idea.berkeley authored by W. Dembski (.pdf):

Variational Information

Uniform Probability

Searching Large Spaces

Specification

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information W. Dembski from: ARN


Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible Complexity Revisited (.pdf) W. Dembski from: idea.berkely

Irreducible Complexity And Darwinian Pathways M. Gene from: arn.org

Irreducible Complexity pg.1 - Pg. 2



Directed (goal oriented) evolution aka the Front Loading Evolution hypothesis:
Archive for the 'Front-loading' Category Various contributors from: telicthoughts.com

Misconceptions about front-loading "Krauze" from: telicthoughts.com

Abundant Traces of Front-Loading From: idthink.net

Factories, Front-loading, and COGs. M. Gene from: idthink.net

ID Status
The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories S. Meyer - Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press)

Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

ID 101 M. Gene from: telicthoughts.com

FAQ: Will intelligent design lead to false positives (or could it eventually say that "everything" is designed)? From: ideacenter.org

FAQ: Is intelligent design an appeal to miracles or the supernatural?


*I hope these arguments are enough for a first dose. Please read them carefully before replying*

Regards and God bless,
-Rren

if the spider web was designed, then why don't all spiders use the web?

surely all spiders should use a web to catch prey right?

the fact that not all spiders do use webs, shows evolution.

the fact that some make trap doors to pop out of when prey wonders by, or perhaps just in general a spider that hunts rather than waits for it's prety to land in a web.

that's evolution my friend. not a mere random mutation.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
if the spider web was designed, then why don't all spiders use the web?

surely all spiders should use a web to catch prey right?

the fact that not all spiders do use webs, shows evolution.

the fact that some make trap doors to pop out of when prey wonders by, or perhaps just in general a spider that hunts rather than waits for it's prety to land in a web.

that's evolution my friend. not a mere random mutation.

Ok let's try this another way. Why does a spider web contradict the design inference? Who said the web was a result of "random mutation?" What does any of this have to do with the ID debate... did you want to teach us about finches next?

Oh good grief...

id doesn't seem to have any direct proof, it just seems to try poking pinholes in evolution...

well, hate to break it to everyone, but evolutionary theory isn't a very simple matter that can simply be summed up, the first book on it (origin of species by darwin) is pretty long. since then numerous texts with different variations on the same basic theory have come out. evolution isn't an idea written in stone, it's a fluid concept that can be molded, similar to a non-newtonian liquid.

Originally posted by Rren
Ok let's try this another way. Why does a spider web contradict the design inference? Who said the web was a result of "random mutation?" What does any of this have to do with the ID debate... did you want to teach us about finches next?

Oh good grief...

you said up there how can we tell if it's evolution or just a random mutation.

hence, why i was saying that spiders that don't use webs to catch prey, we're not by chance or random mutation, they evolved that way.

if the spider web was designed, then all spiders should use it right? but they don't. that was my point.

evolution often comes with a reason. ID just states that things were and always have been designed that way. then when ID gets in a sticky situation, they say that first there was ID, then there was evolution (put in motion by god), and that's that. there's no point arguing with a person who believes in ID, because you end up at either of those two points.

either the person refutes outright to believe in evolution, or they come to the conclusion that ID was first, then evolution was set in motion by god.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Rren
Ok let's try this another way. Why does a spider web contradict the design inference? Who said the web was a result of "random mutation?" What does any of this have to do with the ID debate... did you want to teach us about finches next?

Oh good grief...

you said up there how can we tell if it's evolution or just a random mutation.

hence, why i was saying that spiders that don't use webs to catch prey, we're not by chance or random mutation, they evolved that way.

if the spider web was designed, then all spiders should use it right? but they don't. that was my point.

(emphasis Rren)- Where are you getting this stuff from? The ability of the spider to make a web and the design of the web itself are two seperate issues... and again I know of no ID theorist who's saying close to what you imply they do.

evolution often comes with a reason. ID just states that things were and always have been designed that way. then when ID gets in a sticky situation, they say that first there was ID, then there was evolution (put in motion by god), and that's that.

What material have you read that gives you that definition of ID? I suggest you read the link i posted above "Front Loading Misconceptions," you have this twisted strawman version of ID, and that my friend is that.

there's no point arguing with a person who believes in ID, because you end up at either of those two points.

either the person refutes outright to believe in evolution, or they come to the conclusion that ID was first, then evolution was set in motion by god.

I honestly don't know what else I could say... I agree "there's no point arguing..." I have no interest in learning more about your version of ID and quite obviously you don't want to discuss actual ID. *shrug*

Regards,
-Rren

my version of ID?...

ID is one thing and one thing only.

It suggests that a devine being, 'God', created everything in the day, that we see today, nothing has changed so on etc. that's what ID is. Despute it or worm your way out, that's what it is.

Evolution is change for a 'reason'. Oftern the misconception of evolution is that you'll hear someone say 'so the eye just evolved by accident then'. evolution isn't an accident. it's how life finds a way, and that way is through change.

Still confused... because you seem to be.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
my version of ID?...

ID is one thing and one thing only.

It suggests that a devine being, 'God', created everything in the day, that we see today, nothing has changed so on etc. that's what ID is. Despute it or worm your way out, that's what it is.

You honestly don't understand the difference between young earth creationism and ID?? Worm your way out of it all you like... but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Evolution is change for a 'reason'. Oftern the misconception of evolution is that you'll hear someone say 'so the eye just evolved by accident then'. evolution isn't an accident. it's how life finds a way, and that way is through change.

Evolution (mainstream) is not goal directed as ID supposes, it is (in the mainstream view) natural selection acting on random (beneficial) mutation where ID supposes mutation is directed - that is not Darwinian evolution. The eye didn't evolve by "chance," then what was the "reason" (based in NDT) that didn't involve chance mutation? Life finds a way because it has the ability to adapt... no one is arguing with you. What is the origin of this ability? That is the debate... read a book.

Still confused... because you seem to be.

Yeah it's me who's confused.

Have a nice day,

-Rren

Originally posted by Rren
You honestly don't understand the difference between young earth creationism and ID?? Worm your way out of it all you like... but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

where did you get young earth creationism from...

The eye didn't evolve by "chance," then what was the "reason" (based in NDT) that didn't involve chance mutation?

the human eye is just an advanced form of how a snail sees the world.

do you really need me to tell you 'why' the eye evolved, or why an eagle has better sight than humans, or why a dog has better smell and hearing than humans... are you really that dumb that you need the reasons behind those to be explained.

Yeah it's me who's confused.

Have a nice day,

do you always enjoy being this condescending?

all your post is screaming is arrogance and stupidity. you're bring up things like young earth creationism...i'm not sure why. then you need me to tell you the 'reasons' behind the evolution of sight.

maybe it's you who should go read a book.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by shaunybaby]

Hi Rren,

In my brief hiatus from this thread, you have carried it on your own quite well.

I applaud you for that.



It is indeed important to distinguish between the Creationist, Judeo-Christian concept of God and that of Intelligent Design. ID does not require an active God in our affairs, only a higher power who started The Big Bang. In this way, proponents of ID who do not embrace the Judeo-Christian concept of God actually side with the tenets of Deism.

My conception of God is somewhat different than the Judeo-Christian version. I don't believe that the being who started ALL THAT IS was endless in power and spirituality (as the Universe is not infinite, just extremely large) or that He/She is still around. I have concluded that all souls are what is left of Him/Her. The familiar phrase among the traditional clergy that "a piece of God is in all of us" points to this.

Melvin Morse is a pediatrician and well-known author and researcher on the Near Death Experiences of children. An attractive lady once suggested to him that he try prayer so he decided to give it a try. He got down on his knees and asked to understand the relationship of man to God. Later, the answer came to him in a flash of insight: the word fractal.

A fractal is a piece of a greater whole which contains the program or blueprint of that greater whole. Like a hologram, if you break it up into little pieces, it still contains the entire original picture.

In following this logically...souls are fractals of light of The Original Creator.

Fuel for metaphysical contemplation.

Thanks for your help.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Rren
You honestly don't understand the difference between young earth creationism and ID?? Worm your way out of it all you like... but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

where did you get young earth creationism from...

You said; "It [ID] suggests that a devine being, 'God', created everything in the day, that we see today, nothing has changed so on etc. that's what ID is." Which is not ID it's creationism... there is no current ID hypothesis that i'm aware of that states God did anything in "the day" (that's Biblical literalism ie YECism) nor any ID hypothesis which states "nothing has changed"... which admittedly may not be YECism but it isn't ID and infact i have no clue where you got the idea from... care to share your source?

the human eye is just an advanced form of how a snail sees the world.

do you really need me to tell you 'why' the eye evolved, or why an eagle has better sight than humans, or why a dog has better smell and hearing than humans... are you really that dumb that you need the reasons behind those to be explained.

How dumb i am aside... yes explain to me "why" the eye evolved (that 1st eye - take me to the start if you will). FYI i don't need to why an eagle has better sight than humans or dogs a better sense of smell... it's irrelevant and speaks exactly to my point re: you have no clue what you're arguing against. Thanks for learnin' this ol' dummy though.

do you always enjoy being this condescending?

You've been rational and respectfull? I think you should re-read your posts.

all your post is screaming is arrogance and stupidity. you're bring up things like young earth creationism...i'm not sure why. then you need me to tell you the 'reasons' behind the evolution of sight.

Ok thanks for the insight... spot on as usuall. Do you make a distinction between the evolution of sight and its' origins... and i showed you above why i made the YEC comment. Regardless you misrepresented ID, maybe YECism as well, your "logic/arguments" are a little hard to follow.

maybe it's you who should go read a book.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by shaunybaby]

Almost done with Green Eggs and Ham but that Dr. Seuss is pretty complicated for a dummy like me... i'll let you know how it turns out. Back to your (uber informed) hating, don't let me keep ya.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Hi Rren,

In my brief hiatus from this thread, you have carried it on your own quite well.

I applaud you for that.

I doubt nobody else would agree with you or even read the links i provided, but thanks none the less.

Not much "discussion" about origins goes on around here... the only critics who seem to get involved nowadays manage to make their arguments without ever having researched the topic or the source of the ideas/hypotheses/theories being offered. *shrug* Oh well it's still a topic i find interesting and spend quite a bit of time researching... my days posting in O&C are about over though, it's all rather pointless... course i've said that before.

It is indeed important to distinguish between the Creationist, Judeo-Christian concept of God and that of Intelligent Design. ID does not require an active God in our affairs, only a higher power who started The Big Bang. In this way, proponents of ID who do not embrace the Judeo-Christian concept of God actually side with the tenets of Deism.

That won't listen to you man. I'm Christian, I support ID research the two are NOT mutually inclusive... which has been demonstrated ad nauseum. The best ID critics around dropped that line of BS awhile ago, for the most part atleast. Some folks 'round here are so anti-Christian/God/Theist/Deist/what-have-you that they can't see past the foam coming out their mouth long enough to make a cogent, relevant argument... like i don't know arguing the spider web, an eagle's visual acuity, or a dog's hightened sense of smell. Which are so irrelevant to the debate that it'd be laughable if not so frustrating.

My conception of God is somewhat different than the Judeo-Christian version. I don't believe that the being who started ALL THAT IS was endless in power and spirituality (as the Universe is not infinite, just extremely large) or that He/She is still around. I have concluded that all souls are what is left of Him/Her. The familiar phrase among the traditional clergy that "a piece of God is in all of us" points to this.

We are created in His image works too, no?

Melvin Morse is a pediatrician and well-known author and researcher on the Near Death Experiences of children. An attractive lady once suggested to him that he try prayer so he decided to give it a try. He got down on his knees and asked to understand the relationship of man to God. Later, the answer came to him in a flash of insight: the word fractal.

A fractal is a piece of a greater whole which contains the program or blueprint of that greater whole. Like a hologram, if you break it up into little pieces, it still contains the entire original picture.

In following this logically...souls are fractals of light of The Original Creator.

I've read some stuff (mostly from agnostic IDers if memory serves except Dembski who's Christian) that the "design" may be implemented from the quantum scale/realm. If your interested in reading some more on that let me know, i'll have to dig through my folders, papers and books to find where i read that so it may take some time. Everything is pretty disorganized right now...

Fuel for metaphysical contemplation.

Thanks for your help.

Gotta love those metaphysical contemplations... i know i do.

Anytime... but like i said no help could improve the atmosphere around here re: ID/origins i'm afraid. Too many folks trying to get on the bandwagon imo. You don't have to understand ID or the ToE, so long as you are a defender of Darwinism you're the "smart one" who really "gets it" ... oh well, mom still loves me and my kids are too young (4&5) to know how dumb i am.

Have a good one man see ya around,

-Rren

(edit) Paul_Richard thought you might like this... more your theological cup of tea... if you will.

www.blavatsky.net...

Helena Blavatsky, in 1888, was the first person to use the phrase "intelligent design" to convey her understanding of evolution.
She used the phrase to convey the idea that the evolution of the species was guided by an underlying purposeful intelligence in nature. This intelligence is different from the "God" of theistic religions. Orthodox science opposes the whole notion of any intelligence design and insists on chance without any guiding direction. This makes her view a distinct alternative to both religion and science.

However, it was not just a view - it was based on knowledge. This intelligence in nature can be sensed and known through the mind by advanced seers. A body of seers have checked, tested, and mutually verified their observations on this matter over very long periods of time before accepting them as valid. In this way their observations have become knowledge.

One important conclusion of the seers is that Darwinism does explain some facts of evolution.

However, those facts are only minor details. Science does observe and record examples of those minor details of evolution. This confirms the views of the seers.

The seers are also aware that the origin of the species - as opposed to the origin of subspecies - is determined by purposeful intelligence engaged in design. New science of the last few decades shows that this view is consistent with the facts of nature. Modern science also shows that the facts of nature very strongly contradict the predictions of Darwinism when it attempts to explain the origin of the species. So the science of the last few decades again supports the views of the seers on the origin of the species.

Blavatsky brought this knowledge of the seers to the West in 1875 and recorded it pre-eminently in her book, The Secret Doctrine, published in 1888. She called this body of knowledge "Theosophy".

The material below outlines these conclusions and assertions and gives more detail.

Just more to ponder, enjoy.



[edit on 21-3-2006 by Rren]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Rren]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
In my brief hiatus from this thread, you have carried it on your own quite well.

I applaud you for that.

Originally posted by Rren
I doubt nobody else would agree with you or even read the links i provided, but thanks none the less.

There is an ethical philosopher by the name of Felix Adler that you may want to do a search in Google sometime. He espoused that success is not measured by one's popularity but by one's character. That life is ultimately tragic and that with the ruin and end of it, if we have lived a life of principle, there is a glory that shines.

This of course is right on the mark.

The hero is one who kindles a great light in the world, who sets up blazing torches in the dark streets of life for men to see by. - Felix Adler

There may be more who read and listen now (or will later) than you realize.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
It is indeed important to distinguish between the Creationist, Judeo-Christian concept of God and that of Intelligent Design. ID does not require an active God in our affairs, only a higher power who started The Big Bang. In this way, proponents of ID who do not embrace the Judeo-Christian concept of God actually side with the tenets of Deism.

Originally posted by Rren
I'm Christian, I support ID research [and] the two are NOT mutually inclusive... which has been demonstrated ad nauseum...Some folks 'round here are so anti-Christian/God/Theist/Deist/what-have-you that they can't see past the foam coming out their mouth long enough to make a cogent, relevant argument...

That is all quite true.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
My conception of God is somewhat different than the Judeo-Christian version. I don't believe that the being who started ALL THAT IS was endless in power and spirituality (as the Universe is not infinite, just extremely large) or that He/She is still around. I have concluded that all souls are what is left of Him/Her. The familiar phrase among the traditional clergy that "a piece of God is in all of us" points to this.

Originally posted by Rren
We are created in His image works too, no?

Partially...in the sense that we all contain within us the greater design.

Technically speaking, I don't think that we were actually created. We came into being from His/Her division into trillions of basically spiritual souls - the true meaning behind The Great Fall - not from being manifested by His/Her Godhead.

IMO, the latter approach is the better one for creating consciousness, but as the saying goes... Hindsight is 20/20.

The animal kingdom points to The Original Creator having been more masculine than feminine in personality.

Originally posted by Rren
Melvin Morse is a pediatrician and well-known author and researcher on the Near Death Experiences of children. An attractive lady once suggested to him that he try prayer so he decided to give it a try. He got down on his knees and asked to understand the relationship of man to God. Later, the answer came to him in a flash of insight: the word fractal.

A fractal is a piece of a greater whole which contains the program or blueprint of that greater whole. Like a hologram, if you break it up into little pieces, it still contains the entire original picture.

In following this logically...souls are fractals of light of The Original Creator.

Originally posted by Rren
I've read some stuff (mostly from agnostic IDers if memory serves except Dembski who's Christian) that the "design" may be implemented from the quantum scale/realm. If your interested in reading some more on that let me know, i'll have to dig through my folders, papers and books to find where i read that so it may take some time. Everything is pretty disorganized right now...

Agnostic IDers?

I wasn't aware of that term.

Originally posted by Rren
Fuel for metaphysical contemplation.

Thanks for your help.

Originally posted by Rren
Gotta love those metaphysical contemplations... i know i do.

The quote from Helen Blavatsky is very good. I am sure it would hold more weight with people if she had a better reputation. She was challenged in the social graces department but was nonetheless a good thinker. Maybe she was led by Spirit to coin the term "Intelligent Design." That would make sense.

Hang in there.



[edit on 21-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Agnostic IDers?

I wasn't aware of that term.

It's probably not proper. I just meant ID advocates whom are also agnostic. The ID advocates over at telicthoughts.com... are mostly(all?) agnostics. In fact mattison0922 is an agnostic ID advocate.

The quote from Helen Blavatsky is very good. I am sure it would hold more weight with people if she had a better reputation. She was challenged in the social graces department but nonetheless a good thinker. Maybe she was led by Spirit to coin the term "Intelligent Design." That would make sense.

Hang in there.

I'm not all too familiar with her but thought you'd appreciate her POV re: ID. Seems you're already familiar with that school of thought though... good to get it on the board anyway imo. Lest all the critics brand all IDers of being a single-minded flock without differing opinions on the theological implications of ID. The community/movement is growing and encompasses many different world-views and philosophies. Heck you, mattison and myself are perfect examples of that... of course this is all a ruse to indoctrinate ya'll with Christian theism... suckers. j/k

Regards,
-Rren

Originally posted by Rren
You said; "It [ID] suggests that a devine being, 'God'

yeah notice 'devine being' hence a 'higher power' god would also be included in that 'higher power'.

Which is not ID it's creationism... there is no current ID hypothesis that i'm aware of that states God did anything in "the day" (that's Biblical literalism ie YECism) nor any ID hypothesis which states "nothing has changed"... which admittedly may not be YECism but it isn't ID and infact i have no clue where you got the idea from... care to share your source?

the whole point of ID is that things were designed one way, and do not change. if they changed that'd be evolution.

How dumb i am aside... yes explain to me "why" the eye evolved (that 1st eye - take me to the start if you will). FYI i don't need to why an eagle has better sight than humans or dogs a better sense of smell... it's irrelevant and speaks exactly to my point re: you have no clue what you're arguing against. Thanks for learnin' this ol' dummy though.

i'm arguing against an arrogant, condescending person i think.

'why' the eye evolved, i thought was obvious. to 'see'. to 'see' better. for predators to see their prey and the prey to see the predator. although what is normally the case is that the prety will actually hear or smell the predator first rather than see it.

not sure why you seem to have a problem grasping the concept of evolution.

i mean, you say that i don't have a grasp on ID, yet here you are having to ask me 'why' the eye evolved. i thought that was pretty obvious 'why' it evolved.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by shaunybaby]

Hey, show me a possible intelligent designer, and I'm in.

Entity, person, flying spaghetti monster... whatever you got. Define it for me, show me it exists, then show me how it's possible for it to have intelligently designed something.

I think the biggest argument against the notion of intelligent design is that most designs you run across are not all that intelligent. Even I can figure out a better design than some of the stuff running around. So the most you can say is that who or whatever the designer was, it kind of probably wasn't or isn't really that intelligent.