Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by marg6043

 

Humans are apes, fyi.

i guess charlton heston didn't get that memo either.

[edit on 6/22/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


There sure was a lot that guy didn't get. Hopefuly by now God's taken him to one side and set him straight. Possibly with the aid of some crayons.

reply to post by dave420


lol? i'm honestly not sure what to make of your last post; either you didn't get my joke, or yours has gone over my head.

reply to post by JPhish


It might be a bit of both :-P

This way out of the paper bag

Originally posted by JPhish
Nothing can ever be measured with certainty because of human error

We have measuring devices that are accurate to margins of error many orders of magnitude below the human threshold of perceptibility: electron microscopes, atomic clocks. We have devices to look at these devices, report their findings back to us and even analyze those findings: recording media of all kinds, computers. You don't need a flesh-and-blood scientist peering through a microscope and making calculations with a slide rule.

only things trialled countless times can be "predicted".

This is called induction, and it is something humans, and many animals besides, apply intuitively. It is a perfectly acceptable way of making predictions about the world, though it is not particularly scientific.

However, these are mere side issues. Let's move on, shall we?

you apply knowledge retrieved through inference and experimentation, to your logic

No, you do not. You apply logic to knowledge retrieved through experiment or arrived at through induction. But no doubt that is what you intended to say - you just got the words a bit mixed up - so never mind. Let's get on to the key statement of your post:

our logic is not perfect. (according to evolution)

You mean to say our logic is not perfect because we are evolving.

Well, think again. The rules of logic have nothing to do with human evolution. They are an inevitable outcome of the principle of causality. Human beings did not invent them; we merely discovered and articulated them. However much and in whichever direction humans evolve, the principles of logic will remain unchanged, as they have since the beginning of time.

So the following is simply untrue:

Evolution says that everything is constantly adapting and evolving, even us. If we are subject to "change" . . . our minds and logic are as well. This implies that our logic is either near "perfect" and declining, or not even close yet still progressing.

We may evolve in a direction that deprives us of our ability to understand the rules of logic (doubtless with creationists and intelligent-design advocates leading the way) or we may not. But how we evolve has no effect on the rules of logic, which are universal.

As for this,

Everyones perception of the world varies. What i see as the color orange, you may perceive as the color blue. We both know it as orange, but there's really no way to ever know we're experiencing the same things. Which makes everything inherently subjective to some degree.

I have dealt with such reasoning already in this post on another creationist-authored thread.

So you see, JPhish, this little joke of yours...

Even though evolution pretty much mocks the very reason(logic) that supports it; it still may be correct occasionally. But according to evolution, only through random chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

...might have had a better chance of being funny if its premise wasn't so hollow. But seriously, is this the wonderful stuff that I was supposed to learn by reading C.S. Lewis? Goodness me, as Tolkein must have said. You merely confirm my long-held belief that the man couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by dave420


Yes I understand that one also, still I will stick with the alien intervention due to realization that the universe is vast and we have not clue what planets are out there with life similar to us.

I do not follow organized religion, neither subscribe to the old bible believes as they are not my own.

But I still regard the bible stories, myth and lore to be quite interesting and colorful, with some historical value given by the same people that were trying to keep track of their history, the Israelis.

Originally posted by Astyanax
This way out of the paper bag

I see no evidence for a paper bag.

Originally posted by JPhish
Nothing can ever be measured with certainty because of human error

We have measuring devices that are accurate to margins of error many orders of magnitude below the human threshold of perceptibility: electron microscopes, atomic clocks. We have devices to look at these devices, report their findings back to us and even analyze those findings: recording media of all kinds, computers. You don't need a flesh-and-blood scientist peering through a microscope and making calculations with a slide rule."

Who interprets these devices? Who made these devices? Who imagined these devices?

Oh . . . right . . .

only things trialled countless times can be "predicted. This is called induction, and it is something humans, and many animals besides, apply intuitively. It is a perfectly acceptable way of making predictions about the world, though it is not particularly scientific.

However, these are mere side issues. Let's move on, shall we?

It’s not a side issue because it relates directly to science; most specifically physics.

If you’re saying that induction is not scientific, then there’s a problem, because it is applied in math . . . It’s applied in everything.

you apply knowledge retrieved through inference and experimentation, to your logic

No, you do not. You apply logic to knowledge retrieved through experiment or arrived at through induction. But no doubt that is what you intended to say - you just got the words a bit mixed up - so never mind.

No, to say that the knowledge or data was arrived at through induction is superfluous. I said “1 2 3” you said “ah ha! ZERO 1 2 3!” everyone knows the zero is there . . . let’s grow up?

Originally posted by JPhish
our logic is not perfect. (according to evolution)

Originally posted by Astyanax
You mean to say our logic is not perfect because we are evolving.

No, if I wanted to say that I would have.

The rules of logic have nothing to do with human evolution. They are an inevitable outcome of the principle of causality. Human beings did not invent them; we merely discovered and articulated them. However much and in whichever direction humans evolve, the principles of logic will remain unchanged, as they have since the beginning of time.

That’s like saying computers have been around since the beginning of the universe because all of the atoms that make up a computer and the laws which govern its processes have always existed. You’re being absolutely absurd.

If there were no conscious entities to put trust and confidence in logic . . . it would cease to exist. Therefore it was not always there. We not only articulate logic, but we created it. Because we created it, it is flawed.

This statement still holds

Originally posted by JPhish
Evolution says that everything is constantly adapting and evolving, even us. If we are subject to "change" . . . our minds and logic are as well. This implies that our logic is either near "perfect" and declining, or not even close, yet still progressing.

Originally posted by Astyanax
We may evolve in a direction that deprives us of our ability to understand the rules of logic (doubtless with creationists and intelligent-design advocates leading the way) or we may not. But how we evolve has no effect on the rules of logic, which are universal.

I’ve already showed that your line of reasoning in this regard is wrong.

Originally posted by Astyanax in the thread he linked
science has shown us how our brains and senses operate, and in what ways they sometimes play us false.

Thank you for conceding to my argument even though it was under the guise of resistance.

This assertion still stands aswell.

Even though evolution pretty much mocks the very reason(logic) that supports it; it still may be correct occasionally. But according to evolution, only through random chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[edit on 6/23/2008 by JPhish]

'm quite amused to find that not one of you have even bothered to reply to my reasoning and theory...

I would love some input.

Thanks

MR - L

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Let's get one thing straight once and for all. Intelligent Design is NOT the same thing as Creationism! To clarify this I'm going to define Creationism. A Creationist is a person who believes that the Book of Genesis is literally true...that the world was created in 7 days(around 4004BC), that Adam was created out of dirt by God's breath and the Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs...LITERALLY!!

Wrong. I believe we were created and I definitely do not believe the world is 6000 years old or that the Bible is the "Word of God". You are describing "Christians", not "creationists".

Originally posted by marg6043

I remember it was that men and apes shared a common ancestor

I think that's the biggest joke. Evolutionists trying to make it look like they're not saying we evolved from apes. This "common ancestor" we "evolved" from looked like an ape and was not "intelligent". Sounds like an ape to me

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by

Studenofhistory

 

That might be true, but the Intelligent Design movement, that we hear so much from, was born directly from the Creationist movement. They just changed their name so people wouldn't laugh quite so much, and would give them at least 4 minutes before realising they're the same old joke trying to muscle its way to the grown-ups table.

Dave, I figured you were above belittling people because their opinion differed from yours.

Guess I was wrong

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Lannock]

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Lannock]

reply to post by JPhish

You are arguing one of two hypotheses, though it is not at all clear that you have understood the distinction between them.

The hypotheses are:

1. human beings are prone to error, therefore their conclusions regarding anything cannot be trusted; or,
   
2. human beings share one or more cognitive blind spots because of the way they are made, and these prevent them from ever understanding reality (or truth if you prefer) without the help of some other entity.

The first of these hypotheses may be true of an individual or even a large group, but the error can easily be eliminated by following such basic elements of the scientific method as replicability of results and peer review.

The second simply does not matter. Reality, as far as humans are concerned, is reality as experienced by humans. There is no 'more real' reality than this.

Paper bags are hard to see as paper bags when one is trapped inside them.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JPhish

 

The first of these hypotheses may be true of an individual or even a large group, but the error can easily be eliminated by following such basic elements of the scientific method as replicability of results and peer review.

Yes, it may be true. But isn't this inductive reasoning?? Would you ever be able to verify any of this because of our inability to perceive reality in its pure state??? If there is no unbiased source to cross examine the results . . . you can not circumvent the inevitability that human error is still dynamically operating within the system.

The second simply does not matter. Reality, as far as humans are concerned, is reality as experienced by humans. There is no 'more real' reality than this.

Yes your right . . . but some fault lies with the assumption that everyones reality is the same . . which is why i addressed the varying perceptions among individuals earlier.

It would seem that if the universe was without consciousness. their would be no biased and everything would be true and perfect. Humans cannot comprehend this world in it's entirety. Occasionally they might see glimpses of it.

Paper bags are hard to see as paper bags when one is trapped inside them.

agreed, that's why i humorously said

Originally posted by JPhish
I see no evidence for a paper bag.

[edit on 6/23/2008 by JPhish]

i guess thi post gives ground for speculations : so here it is mine
I believe that our universe is indeed created by some extra-dimmensional form of intelligence. The universe itself is an informational matrix, and everything is designed to evolve . We have a brand new science called "evolutionary computing" that tries to do exatcly the same - sure at an infinitely smaller scale.

this 66 minutes video example is quite interesting , however you need patience as the speaker is not very gifted in talking


video.google.com...

reply to post by JPhish

I see your point, or rather points. We seem to be arguing the basic question of epistemology, that of rationalism vs. empiricism: whether the mind creates its own reality, or whether there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses.

I believe this question is resolved (in a compromise) by modern biology, particularly neuroscience. You are evidently not convinced. Which is fine, of course.

Perhaps we ought to take this to Skyfloating's new Philosophy forum and leave these good folk here to get on with their discussion?

reply to post by Astyanax


lol i couldn't agree more.