Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by Phage

I can't. I also cannot assume there is no other example. There is a problem with falsification of such a proposition, just as there is a problem with falsification of "intelligent design".

But the OP has offered no "undeniable proof" that it did. Except of course for this: If Earth is not unique it is proof. If it is unique it is also proof.

Fair. I appreciate that you are willing to concede that on the basis of rational thought as it were, we are on a level playing field. Admittedly, this puts the entire discussion in the realm of ideology and perspective rather than science.

Clearly the title of the OP was not meant to imply that the evidence presented was "undeniable proof" to all. Just that this information, in his view, is evidence enough for an intelligent designer. I know you know this, but we have to keep in mind that just because something can be denied or held in belief by an individual does not give any sway to the argument one way or the other unless tactile "proof" is presented in support or against....which in this case I don't foresee as a possibility.

Therefore, nothing to this point has been an adequate refutation to the OPs postulations. If you can show that the conditions we enjoy here on earth are in fact not extraordinary, you just might have a case.

reply to post by Phage

can't. I also cannot assume there is no other example. There is a problem with falsification of such a proposition, just as there is a problem with falsification of "intelligent design".

And yet, some people say that the Universe is not infinite because we cannot see beyond a certain scope. In other words, we can only see a finite portion of the Universe(so therefore nothing really exists for us beyond that.) Applying your principle, just because we only see a certain scope does not mean there is not more to the Universe beyond that.
As for falsification of intelligent design, do you still believe that the mathematical squaring of the circle involving the moon and earth are just a coincidence, and the relationship to the building of the pyramids also coincidence, and do you see all mathematics in the Universe as evidence of chaos and not intelligent design?

I'm quite interested in and waiting for the counter-argument that life on earth is blind chance and a random happenstance or a complete fluke, and then based on what we have here, how that notion supports the contention that it's "par for the course" out there. I don't see how that two-sided argument can be made at the same time..

LIFE is clearly the goal and objective of this cosmic evolutionary process, and so if it's designed and fine tuned in favor of life, right from the get go by anticipation, then that's an intelligent first/last cause because it denotes purpose and intent. Who or what that intelligence or what I call the Creative Agency is is an unknown, but that it can be inferred or deduced to exists based on effects from initial causes is clear, and it makes infinitely more sense than that it all fell together by accident, that's absurd and ridiculous in the face of the data which is our own existence and that of life as we find it, not to mention these curious design elements made as if perfectly designed in favor of life.

Best regards,

NAM

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

And yet, some people say that the Universe is not infinite because we cannot see beyond a certain scope. In other words, we can only see a finite portion of the Universe(so therefore nothing really exists for us beyond that.) Applying your principle, just because we only see a certain scope does not mean there is not more to the Universe beyond that.
As for falsification of intelligent design, do you still believe that the mathematical squaring of the circle involving the moon and earth are just a coincidence, and the relationship to the building of the pyramids also coincidence, and do you see all mathematics in the Universe as evidence of chaos and not intelligent design?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll still answer it:

I see it as evidence that there was possibly a force (not necessarily intelligent) influencing the fallout of the Big Bang or whatever produced this universe. However, I would like to add that WE HAVE NOT A DAMN CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT FORCE IS. And if our greatest scientists don't have the answer yet, then don't even think about suggesting that you do. Or at the very least, impress upon us that you have a theory that brings you a sense of personal satisfaction regarding your place in the universe. As that would be a much more accurate statement.

reply to post by OpenMinds83

Creationists and religious types just claim whatever we discover is gods will or whatever. Its really quite sad that humans still tend to think in stone age terms instead of throwing off the shackles of faith and seeing our universe for what it is

Since you know better exactly what it is, why don't you tell us all then. My Dad used to tell a story that a man would wet his bed every night, and it bothered him so much, that he went to a psychiatrist to get help. The psychiatrist went through all the motions of helping him understand the emotional aspects of his life. After many months of therapy, the man was sure by now he knew the reasons for his wetting the bed every night.
Now he still wets the bed but at least now he knows why.



Even you knew the specific mechanics of creating the Universe, what would you do with such knowledge? Would you create your own Universe?

Today scientists are learning how to clone. They desire to mimic creation and grow test tube babies, controlling all the genes and chromosomes to make more perfect babies.
In the end, why do this when babies are already being made daily to such an extent that people are actively recommending population controls.
So what is the genuine purpose of creating life in a test tube?
Of course eugenics is a big part of that, but that is assuming that the baby born with a defect is not also part of God's wonderful creative scheme. That is assuming that because that person assumes a form we don't understand, or requires someone else to care for them means that person is not beautiful in some way we don't perceive.
Again, what would you do with knowledge of the Creative power?

Anything and Everything is denyable. Just like Anything and Everything can be viewed through religios vision, or political vision, or military vision, or what ever kind of vision the viewer wants. To me, the ultimate expression of arrogance and ignorance is the annoncement of understanding 'God'. I am assuming that, once we each get to the otherside, we'll all instantly KNOW truth, and no longer care about anything at all that happened in this 'reality'. I also assume that we'll no longer be seperated by our insignificant beliefs. Individuals of a certain strain won't feel the need to tell others what to think, because we'll all already know. But, I can't say for sure.

Originally posted by TownCryer
Anything and Everything is denyable.

Yeah "undeniable" might have been a bad choice of words for the title.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Today scientists are learning how to clone. They desire to mimic creation and grow test tube babies, controlling all the genes and chromosomes to make more perfect babies.
In the end, why do this when babies are already being made daily to such an extent that people are actively recommending population controls.
So what is the genuine purpose of creating life in a test tube?

The quest for perfection. The scramble to master the process of creating the "perfect" human being, or maybe even manually triggering evolution within our species, thereby generating a controlled domino effect of Homo Superior. At that point, any number of things could happen. We could interbreed, we could become pets, we could become a military planet managed by a select group of these superior beings, so on and so forth. The possibilities are staggering.

But that's the dark side of test tube babies and the doors opened by that. Personally, I don't think we should have ever put such an emphasis on the desire for a more impervious, more skilled, more genetically-inclined-to-stellar-achievement science project. The more we strive to be greater, the more we forget about what our weaknesses taught us. Much like Captain America, sometimes being bigger isn't always better unless you remember what it's like to be small and weak.

And I would hazard a suggestion that our species is more than willing to forget its days of being small, weak and ignorant should the opportunity arise for us to become something...greater.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I'm quite interested in and waiting for the counter-argument that life on earth is blind chance and a random happenstance or a complete fluke, and then based on what we have here, how that notion supports the contention that it's "par for the course" out there. I don't see how that two-sided argument can be made at the same time..

edit on 31-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Don't hold your breath.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

As for falsification of intelligent design, do you still believe that the mathematical squaring of the circle involving the moon and earth are just a coincidence, and the relationship to the building of the pyramids also coincidence, and do you see all mathematics in the Universe as evidence of chaos and not intelligent design?

There is no squaring of the circle in that little demonstration. Maybe you should find out what squaring a circle really means. It has nothing to do with that exercise in obfuscation.

For your answer about coincidence, did you read this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and do you see all mathematics in the Universe as evidence of chaos and not intelligent design?

Mathematics is a creation of humans. The relationships (the above not withstanding, there are actually some valid relationships) which mathematics reveal are a result of our Universe being the way it is. In another Universe 2 + 2 might not equal 4. Just as we are the way we are a result of the environment in which we evolved, as would any life anywhere be.

I guess coincidence is now good enough to be considered proof? I guess I have proof of the 11-11 theory. Everytime I look at the clock there's a 1. And you know what else? I randomly look at the clock during basketball games and notice when it's 11:11. It can't be coincidence.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You're right it was directed at someone else, even someone on a different thread, but thanks for answering. I see the mathematics in the Universe as being the best evidence of intelligent design. Otherwise there would be no order, it would just be all chaos. One can find mathematics in the formation of flower petals, in the design of the human face, so many things(even as Da Vinci portrayed in his art), how can anyone deny that intelligence exists in the Universe and designed everything mathematically? Assigning that intelligence to an anthropomorphic form was the work of our ancestors who had no other way of portraying an unportrayable thing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

As for falsification of intelligent design, do you still believe that the mathematical squaring of the circle involving the moon and earth are just a coincidence, and the relationship to the building of the pyramids also coincidence, and do you see all mathematics in the Universe as evidence of chaos and not intelligent design?

There is no squaring of the circle in that little demonstration. Maybe you should find out what squaring a circle really means. It has nothing to do with that exercise in obfuscation.

For your answer about coincidence, did you read this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes, I see what you are saying here. If it was precisely so, the earth would be a precise sphere and not one with a few bumps and rough edges.
So you deny that mathematics is found in the Universe? So man created mathematics. Nicely humanist.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, I see what you are saying here. If it was precisely so, the earth would be a precise sphere and not one with a few bumps and rough edges.

No. I'm saying that there is no significant relationship, coincidental or otherwise.


See my edit.

reply to post by DB340

Wish I could star this 700 times.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Nicely humanist.

Thoroughly realist.

Originally posted by Barcs
I guess coincidence is now good enough to be considered proof? I guess I have proof of the 11-11 theory. Everytime I look at the clock there's a 1. And you know what else? I randomly look at the clock during basketball games and notice when it's 11:11. It can't be coincidence.

edit on 31-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

In case you missed it, the OP is arguing that our conditions on earth cannot conceivably be coincidence. An infinitesimally more complex matter than your 11:11 coincidence. Silly rabbit.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

then its very existence could be questioned.

Yes, and man questions many things. But then we would have to question our own existence. Using the Descartes model I mean.
We are created. That means there must be a creative force. It doesn't have to assume the form of a human with a white beard and all...see what I mean?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Does it assume "purpose"?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Nicely humanist.

Thoroughly realist.

Awww, you ruined Donald in Mathemagic land for me