Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

Good and Evil is just a societies interpretation of the time, as has been pointed out. The fact the universe is so vast and we are such a tiny part of it would lead me to believe that we are irrelevant in the scale of things.

God is the Sun, you know what happens with it and without it.

reply to post by Phage


Your answer of what science is , is clear.

It is no different, AT ALL, than any religion, IE designed and controlled to be powerless in the end, since it is never looking for the truth of anything, only "how we want to think things work".

A whole lot of hope and faith, Why would SCIENCE care if it will continue, it is not concerned with how it became, or how it will unbecome.

Kind of like the doctor's in a Cancer Treatment Center who believe they are doing good, whilst all the while really accomplishing nothing, but delaying the BAD ENDING.

reply to post by ParasuvO

Your answer of what science is , is clear.

Apparently not clear enough to prevent you from making the following mistake:

It is no different, AT ALL, than any religion, IE designed and controlled to be powerless in the end, since it is never looking for the truth of anything, only "how we want to think things work".

It is nothing at all like a religion. Science is a methodology, not a set of beliefs. Anyone can apply this method. There is no "Pope of Science" telling people what to believe; people explore the world for themselves using the methods of science. Please explain what you mean by the phrase "the truth of things." Something tells me you do not mean it in the sense most people would understand it. Furthermore, your perception that science is about wanting a particular outcome is completely wrong. It is religion, not science, that attempts to force the natural world into preconceived categories. For example: "good" and "evil" as substantive objects.

A whole lot of hope and faith, Why would SCIENCE care if it will continue, it is not concerned with how it became, or how it will unbecome.

I can't quite make sense of this word salad. Science cannot "care" for anything, as it is a procedure.

I think it is wishful thinking to think that would COULDN'T become like this on accident. If humanity is any example, the creation of modern humans could easily be the result of a broken condom in the galactic backseat on a drunken Saturday night. I think I'm going to start promoting the Drunken Design Theory. Maybe someone will let me teach a class.

reply to post by neoholographic


Science only explains the natural laws, does not create them.

Humans are endowed with the ability to understand nature, and benefit from it, due to faculties that God has given to humans.

God wants humans to utilize the material, and biological wealth for living well, and advance spiritually. Human life is the opportunity given by God to humans for advancement of soul.

The life forms are created by God at the start of Creation, on different planets, by his immense power.

There is no evolution of life as Darwin proposed; and cannot be. The natural process is adaptation by which an animal can change in response to environmental and food parameters, within the limits of its biological processes.

The lifeforms employ remarkably complex chemistry, even the simplest ones, that creating a life form artificially has never happened.

It is time for humans to lose their arrogance and submit to God.

reply to post by ParasuvO

Why would SCIENCE care if it will continue, it is not concerned with how it became, or how it will unbecome.

Science doesn't care (being a way of looking at things, not an entity). But I do.

Kind of like the doctor's in a Cancer Treatment Center who believe they are doing good, whilst all the while really accomplishing nothing, but delaying the BAD ENDING.

You mean everyone dies eventually? Yeah, that's true.

Or are you talking about something else? I had my last chemotherapy treatment about 26 years ago. That's a pretty good delay so far.

edmc^2
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Well, sorry if you can't handle the truth.

Fact is, upon closer study, Darwin got it wrong. His conclusion is wrong. There was no evolution - but variety and adaptation.

Curious. By any chance you still subscribing to Darwinian Evolution?

If so why?

At the moment no-one actually "knows the truth".
Not you, not I, not anyone.
So it's a completely void and frankly arrogant comment which suggests you know it.
In some respects I hope we never find "the truth" as by definition that's where science would finish.

Are you commenting on your personal study of Darwin's findings or merely regurgitating what you've read elsewhere?
Have you actually taken time to sit down and read "On The Origin of Species" to see what's written about his methodology and conclusions?
Thought not.
I get the feeling that you think that the whole of evolutionary theory rests upon this book similar to the way the whole of christianity rests upon one book.
It doesn't.
That was a starting point for a new branch of biology, that's all.
The theory of evolution has evolved dramatically since then (pun most definitely intended).
It's quite possibly, no definitely, the most intensively studied theory ever.
So to suggest it relies solely upon Darwin's book is ludicrous in the extreme and shows an unassailable ignorance on your part.

Oh, please read up on what differentiates evolution and adaptation and then realise Darwin wrote about evolution.
As did another naturalist independently and at exactly the same time and one which religious folk never mention, Alfred Wallace.

Pardon?

edmc^2
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Well, sorry if you can't handle the truth.

Fact is, upon closer study, Darwin got it wrong. His conclusion is wrong. There was no evolution - but variety and adaptation.

Curious. By any chance you still subscribing to Darwinian Evolution?

If so why?

At the moment no-one actually "knows the truth".
Not you, not I, not anyone.
So it's a completely void and frankly arrogant comment which suggests you know it.
In some respects I hope we never find "the truth" as by definition that's where science would finish.

Are you commenting on your personal study of Darwin's findings or merely regurgitating what you've read elsewhere?
Have you actually taken time to sit down and read "On The Origin of Species" to see what's written about his methodology and conclusions?
Thought not.
I get the feeling that you think that the whole of evolutionary theory rests upon this book similar to the way the whole of christianity rests upon one book.
It doesn't.
That was a starting point for a new branch of biology, that's all.
The theory of evolution has evolved dramatically since then (pun most definitely intended).
It's quite possibly, no definitely, the most intensively studied theory ever.
So to suggest it relies solely upon Darwin's book is ludicrous in the extreme and shows an unassailable ignorance on your part.

Oh, please read up on what differentiates evolution and adaptation and then realise Darwin wrote about evolution.
As did another naturalist independently and at exactly the same time and one which religious folk never mention, Alfred Wallace.

One, two or three questions:

Do you always believe what you don't know? If so what do you call it?

And if you always believe what you don't know then what are you?

And oh, btw - the complete title of Darwin's book is:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

I read it and got bored as it's full of nonsense.

It's a waste of time imho.

As to arrogance, notice the following giants of evolution theory. What they said:

“too foolish for serious consideration.” -- H. S. Shelton on those who believe in the concept of special creation.

“If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” -- Biologist Richard Dawkins

“Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.” -- Professor René Dubos

edmc^2

Pardon?

edmc^2
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Well, sorry if you can't handle the truth.

Fact is, upon closer study, Darwin got it wrong. His conclusion is wrong. There was no evolution - but variety and adaptation.

Curious. By any chance you still subscribing to Darwinian Evolution?

If so why?

At the moment no-one actually "knows the truth".
Not you, not I, not anyone.
So it's a completely void and frankly arrogant comment which suggests you know it.
In some respects I hope we never find "the truth" as by definition that's where science would finish.

Are you commenting on your personal study of Darwin's findings or merely regurgitating what you've read elsewhere?
Have you actually taken time to sit down and read "On The Origin of Species" to see what's written about his methodology and conclusions?
Thought not.
I get the feeling that you think that the whole of evolutionary theory rests upon this book similar to the way the whole of christianity rests upon one book.
It doesn't.
That was a starting point for a new branch of biology, that's all.
The theory of evolution has evolved dramatically since then (pun most definitely intended).
It's quite possibly, no definitely, the most intensively studied theory ever.
So to suggest it relies solely upon Darwin's book is ludicrous in the extreme and shows an unassailable ignorance on your part.

Oh, please read up on what differentiates evolution and adaptation and then realise Darwin wrote about evolution.
As did another naturalist independently and at exactly the same time and one which religious folk never mention, Alfred Wallace.

One, two or three questions:

Do you always believe what you don't know? If so what do you call it?

And if you always believe what you don't know then what are you?

And oh, btw - the complete title of Darwin's book is:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

I read it and got bored as it's full of nonsense.

It's a waste of time imho.

As to arrogance, notice the following giants of evolution theory. What they said:

“too foolish for serious consideration.” -- H. S. Shelton on those who believe in the concept of special creation.

“If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” -- Biologist Richard Dawkins

“Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.” -- Professor René Dubos

edit on 20-12-2013 by edmc^2 because: arrogance

"Do I always believe what I don't know?"
Odd question. I don't profess to know what I don't know. If I know something then it's on an empirical level. Belief doesn't come into it.

"And if you always believe what you don't know then what are you?"
See my answer above.

I put the popular title in for his book as most people do.


"I read it and got bored as it's full of nonsense."
I don't believe you.
If you did read it, which I doubt, you have read it with a mindset to dismiss it irrespective of what it said as it clashed with your belief system.
The consequence of you accepting what it suggested was more than you could bear.
Ergo, it wasn't the book that was (is) full of nonsense.

And I was calling you arrogant.
Specifically your initial statement about the implication that you were party to the "truth".
I'd probably add sanctimonious to that as well.

So by all means try to refute Darwin's first book but don't forget all of his other books and papers too.
Then go through and refute all of the other works in the same area and all of the branch areas.
Best put a fair bit of time aside though as there's an awful lot to get through.
Then when you've done that see if you can come up with something better than saying "It's a waste of time imho".
In a scientific perspective your opinion is both pointless and worthless.
If you wish to be taken seriously then you'll have to do things properly.



Personally I can't help but think that there is an amazing amount of ignorance in people who are not educated or knowledgeable in a specific field trying to counter someone who has studied that field inside and out.
Is this what forces the perceived arrogance of of the scientists when they expose them for this ignorance?

Grimpachi
reply to post by sulaw

 

Exactly my point. Using the term self-evident needs to be backed up by facts and “evidence”. Using the word plausible is not backed by anything except opinion but the sentence itself remains valid. The claim however can be disproved.

You see...there is only "inside the box". To say that there is an "outside the box", it must be only said as plausible not self evident, because there is no proof whatsoever that there is indeed an "outside the box" and therefore the claim can be disproved...here watch me do it...

Inside top...inside bottom...inside sides... See there...no "outside the box" exists, so...it must be a false statement...
There is no "outside the box".

Isn't science wonderful?

Pardon?

edmc^2

Pardon?

edmc^2
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Well, sorry if you can't handle the truth.

Fact is, upon closer study, Darwin got it wrong. His conclusion is wrong. There was no evolution - but variety and adaptation.

Curious. By any chance you still subscribing to Darwinian Evolution?

If so why?

At the moment no-one actually "knows the truth".
Not you, not I, not anyone.
So it's a completely void and frankly arrogant comment which suggests you know it.
In some respects I hope we never find "the truth" as by definition that's where science would finish.

Are you commenting on your personal study of Darwin's findings or merely regurgitating what you've read elsewhere?
Have you actually taken time to sit down and read "On The Origin of Species" to see what's written about his methodology and conclusions?
Thought not.
I get the feeling that you think that the whole of evolutionary theory rests upon this book similar to the way the whole of christianity rests upon one book.
It doesn't.
That was a starting point for a new branch of biology, that's all.
The theory of evolution has evolved dramatically since then (pun most definitely intended).
It's quite possibly, no definitely, the most intensively studied theory ever.
So to suggest it relies solely upon Darwin's book is ludicrous in the extreme and shows an unassailable ignorance on your part.

Oh, please read up on what differentiates evolution and adaptation and then realise Darwin wrote about evolution.
As did another naturalist independently and at exactly the same time and one which religious folk never mention, Alfred Wallace.

One, two or three questions:

Do you always believe what you don't know? If so what do you call it?

And if you always believe what you don't know then what are you?

And oh, btw - the complete title of Darwin's book is:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

I read it and got bored as it's full of nonsense.

It's a waste of time imho.

As to arrogance, notice the following giants of evolution theory. What they said:

“too foolish for serious consideration.” -- H. S. Shelton on those who believe in the concept of special creation.

“If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” -- Biologist Richard Dawkins

“Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes.” -- Professor René Dubos

edit on 20-12-2013 by edmc^2 because: arrogance

"Do I always believe what I don't know?"
Odd question. I don't profess to know what I don't know. If I know something then it's on an empirical level. Belief doesn't come into it.

"And if you always believe what you don't know then what are you?"
See my answer above.

I put the popular title in for his book as most people do.


"I read it and got bored as it's full of nonsense."
I don't believe you.
If you did read it, which I doubt, you have read it with a mindset to dismiss it irrespective of what it said as it clashed with your belief system.
The consequence of you accepting what it suggested was more than you could bear.
Ergo, it wasn't the book that was (is) full of nonsense.

And I was calling you arrogant.
Specifically your initial statement about the implication that you were party to the "truth".
I'd probably add sanctimonious to that as well.

So by all means try to refute Darwin's first book but don't forget all of his other books and papers too.
Then go through and refute all of the other works in the same area and all of the branch areas.
Best put a fair bit of time aside though as there's an awful lot to get through.
Then when you've done that see if you can come up with something better than saying "It's a waste of time imho".
In a scientific perspective your opinion is both pointless and worthless.
If you wish to be taken seriously then you'll have to do things properly.



Personally I can't help but think that there is an amazing amount of ignorance in people who are not educated or knowledgeable in a specific field trying to counter someone who has studied that field inside and out.
Is this what forces the perceived arrogance of of the scientists when they expose them for this ignorance?

Pardon, there are many books published by well respected evolutionist armed with the latest knowledge about life and I'm sorry to say that even them admitted that Darwin's theory or his version of evolution has many holes. He made mistakes that can't be corrected, thus they have to come up with different explanations to salvage the same theory.

In addition, we have the internet at our disposal which contains so many explanations about Darwin's evolution theory. Many offer quite revealing truth.
Many offer summaries of the book for those who don't want to waste their time.
And below is just sone of the hundreds out there. So to tell me that I don't know what's in the book is arrogance on your part.

www.sparknotes.com...
www.sparknotes.com...

Heck, even Wikipedia has one here: en.wikipedia.org...

But since you're so sure of Darwin's theory of evolution is correct and believable, let me please ask you this then?

What is the foundation of Darwin's Origin of Species.

This to me is the MOST crucial question of all as it will show whether you're right or wrong.

So what say you?

Edit:

As a summary on my part, here's what Darwin found during his few weeks of visit on the Galapagos 180 years+ ago.

He saw:
1. That living things on the Galapagos Archipelago were similar to those on the South American continent, and then concluded that they came from there originally - not being created on the Galapagos.

and

2. That over the years, variations in those species on the Galapagos made them somewhat different from the ones on the mainland.

These two basic observations made his BELEIF stronger that:

Plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that eventually they EVOLVED into entirely different forms of life. Hence the evolution theory.

Now are his observations based on BELIEF or scientific truths when he said the following?

“The Galapagos Archipelago ... bears the unmistakable stamp of the American continent. The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America?”

Any idea why he used the word: "created"?

reply to post by edmc^2


Good points,

Like I said Darwin's theory was built on incomplete information. When the instructions were found, Darwin's theory should have been dismissed for intelligent design but Darwin's theory had become a crutch to those who wanted to say we don't need God because we have Darwin.

Darwin basically saw how species change over time and said this diversity that's replicated through reproduction is responsible for all the species we see. This is why Darwin thought there would be a ton of evidence of this gradual change in the fossil record. This is because Darwin's theory is a fishing expedition but instead things looked more directed and species suddenly appeared in the fossil record. This is a hallmark of intelligent design but of course Darwin followers came up with punctuated equilibrium. Darwin recognized this problem:

The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[64][65] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[66]

Darwin realized his theory is simply false if there's not this overwhelming evidence of gradual change. But Darwin's theory was no longer about science but the evolution vs. creationism debate. So Darwin's theory became a religious tenet of atheism and materialism and common sense was thrown out of.

Dawkins called this "a wrinkle" but it's more like a gulf.

Dawkins also emphasizes that punctuated equilibrium has been "oversold by some journalists",[55] but partly due to Eldredge and Gould's "later writings".[56] Dawkins contends that the theory "does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity".[57] It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory," and "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis".[58]

en.wikipedia.org...-VQR-66

Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist but as a faithful follower of the religion of Darwin. There's even growing support for directed mutations which would be a hallmark of intelligent design.

The hypothesis of directed mutagenesis was first proposed in 1988 [4] by John Cairns, of Harvard University[5] who was studying Escherichia coli that lacked the ability to metabolize lactose. He grew these bacteria in media in which lactose was the only source of energy. In doing so, he found that the rate at which the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize lactose was many orders of magnitude higher than would be expected if the mutations were truly random. This inspired him to propose that the mutations that had occurred had been directed at those genes involved in lactose utilization.[6][7]

Later support for this hypothesis came from Susan Rosenberg, then at the University of Alberta, who found that an enzyme involved in DNA recombinational repair, recBCD, was necessary for the directed mutagenesis observed by Cairns and colleagues in 1989.

The directed mutagenesis hypothesis was challenged in 2002, when John Roth and colleagues showed that the phenomenon was due to general hypermutability due to selected gene amplification, and was thus a standard Darwinian process. Later research published in 2006 by Jeffrey D. Stumpf, Anthony R. Poteete, and Patricia L. Foster, however, concluded that amplification could not account for the adaptive mutation and that "mutants that appear during the first few days of lactose selection are true revertants that arise in a single step".

en.wikipedia.org...

That last sentence because the mutations that occurred were DIRECTED at genes involved with lactose utilization IN A SINGLE STEP not through gradual change.

Here's more:

The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs; electromagnetic intercommunication and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes Dr Mae-Wan Ho

Conventional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations plus the ‘central dogma’ assumption that environmental influences cannot change nucleic acids or become inherited. The central dogma has been invalidated at least since the early 1980s concomitantly with the emergence of the new genetics of the fluid genome [1, 2] (Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication). Similarly, the randomness of mutations has been called into question since the 1970s in experiments demonstrating that cells subject to non-lethal selection come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply [3] (see [4] To Mutate or Not to Mutate, SiS 24).

Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations. I suggest that specific electromagnetic signals emitted by key molecules that can relieve the stress are communicated directly to activate the transcription and mutation of the requisite gene(s).

www.i-sis.org.uk...

Darwin's theory is simply the enemy of intelligence. You have to abandon common sense and rational though in order to accept it. How can random mutations give the sequence of DNA letters meaning?

It's simply makes no sense. Let's look at the hypothetical BLUE organism.

Say you have an organism that's transcribed by the letters gghjjBLUEzzcd

In order for transcription factors to bind to the sequence of letters BLUE those sequence of letters have to have meaning. This is another hallmark of intelligent design. We give meaning to letters, numbers and symbols and then machinery reads those sequences. We call these things instructions. DNA is a language that gives instructions on how to build a protein.

It's like the hypothetical monkey sitting at the typewriter. In order to type Shakespeare plays and sonnets intelligence first has to design a typewriter and give meaning to the sequence of letters that make up a Shakespeare plays and sonnets.

There's no way random mutations can give meaning to these sequences. The BLUE organism could never exist in Darwin's world. Even if random mutations stumbled on the word BLUE why would the sequence have any meaning to the transcription factors? BLUE wouldn't be any different than NNHG unless the sequence is first given meaning by intelligence.

reply to post by neoholographic


And here I can't accept ID cuz it's only a belief.

reply to post by neoholographic


Thanks Neo. You're quite right.

And knowing what we now about the world of DNA, it's absolutely mind boggling how evolutionist can't see the evidence of an ingenious design, the intelligence behind the structure of this molecule.

They readily accept the ridiculous: Design Without Intelligence!

Instruction without an Instructor.

That coded INSTRUCTIONS within each DNA molecule came about through undirected chance events that took place over the course of millions of years.


As if TIME was the causal force behind it all!

And they BELIEVE this!!!

Just amazing.

reply to post by DJW001


Thankyou.I'm sure thats good,just starting out.Enjoying the thread all btw

also,if by intelligent design,where did the designer come from?infinite mate,gotta be.

reply to post by infinitedreamer

Don't expect an answer.

For all their scoffing at the theory of evolution, what they believe is just as bad if not worse.

infinitedreamer
also,if by intelligent design,where did the designer come from?infinite mate,gotta be.

One question:

Does an "infinitedreamer" exist?

If you can answer this question, then you get the idea.

reply to post by Pardon?

At the moment no-one actually "knows the truth".
Not you, not I, not anyone.
So it's a completely void and frankly arrogant comment which suggests you know it.
In some respects I hope we never find "the truth" as by definition that's where science would finish.

How do YOU know that? How do YOU know that non of us knows the truth??

What authority do you or anyone else have to make a claim like that?

Evolution is a jigsaw without all the pieces.

Look at religious origins, its man made in its entirety. Add the fact we are dust like in the overall scale of the universe and our views, beliefs have no relevance in the scale of it.

In universal terms we are virus destroying a body that is the Earth. We are a product of our environment and when we leave, the universe will continue to do what it does.