intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- discipler0
um, that's what i just said, sputnik. Go back and read what i just said.
And don't you think that the current scientific findings which demonstrate huge holes in Darwinism should be taught? Or do you want our kids to continue to be spoon fed steamboat-era naturalims masquerading as science?
- ukit0
Right. I thought we were talking about the origin of everything, not necessarily the universe. I'm talking about the idea that everything, if you will, requires an "uncaused" first cause. It seesm to be one of the most difficult concepts for people to get their head around.
- IRNlun60
Again what is the benefit of ID when the conclusion to every question is Intelligent Designer™?
- ********0
causation is a concept that makes sense only if we accept a linear flow of time. For our human existence/brains this workks. On a quantum level time might not even have a direction, and some physicists are postulating (and seeking proof) that time doesn't even exist...so if in fact time isn't linear there is no nedd for a "first causer"
- -sputnik-0
what you just said:
"Bush only wants I.D. to be explored alongside Darwinism."
or am i looking at the wrong snipped, cause dude you spew out a lot of stuff. that he wants to do that is moronic.
the scientific theory is not what i am questioning...it is any RELIGIOUS teaching in SCHOOL. teach your kids who orchestrated the big band at home...i have no problem with that. but get it out of the classroom.
- ********0
Again what is the benefit of ID when the conclusion to every question is Intelligent Designer™?
IRNlun6
(Sep 30 05, 13:13)
-----------------------
Answer: Power.If you're all cozy with said "Intelligent Designer" well then you're the big Alpha Gang on the Planet, no? And you can tell other people to modify there behabior to suit your tastes because it's in violation of Big Daddy's plan, and well, you oughta know because you're his Chosen interprter.
Pure Nietsczchean, apelike Will to Power dressed up in a ministers collar...
- deep_throat0
hehe, and it begins with the cell already in place, deep-throat. Do you see now?
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 13:04)OMG discipler, you are really dense. Can't believe you're having difficulty understanding the simple model
That CELL does not represent a living cell tissue!! It is a cell on a grid - as in a square!!!! But that cell, which can represent a helium atom for instance, goes through changes over time and time and time and time, subject to the MACHINATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE, and becomes these MAD COMPLEX patterns, that look like life!!!
I think one of the great things about these abstract models is that they demonstrate how the very term "life" is so enthrall to human subjectivity. But anyway, thats another topic.
- discipler0
Incorrect on several counts, deep throat. First off, making shots at my intelligence level merely demonstrates that you are intimidated. It certainly doesn't make you appear any brighter. Secondgly, a great majority of I.D. scientists and theorists posit that everything was programmed by the designer to unfold a certain way. And the majority of I.D. theorists and proponents that i've met are agnostic. So, you make unwarranted assumptions. Furthermore what the information that you are not privy to, yet speak about as though you had it nailed down, is principles of self organization. When you actually study the biochemistry behind molecular life, you quickly find out that the core irreducibly complex machines (like the ceel) DO NOT self organize. This is an assumption from silence by naturalists. Finally, Astrophyisics and cosmology has demonstrated clearly the uniqueness of our position and laws of physics which demonstrate the need for a designer. These are set to an impossible tolerance. So, given the hugeness of our expanding universe, we are still at an incredibly unlikely scenario with the fine tuning of our laws.
- -sputnik-0
wow, talk about being trapped in a box.
- discipler0
exactly my point, deepthroat!!! The model is numeric and has no bearing in the realm of molecular life! You are trying to force it to demonstrate something that it doesn't. For the gazillionth time, science has demonstrated that irreducibly complex molecular life does not proceed from simplicity to complexity in through gradualistic evolutionary mechanism. It cannot.
- ukit0
Thanks Tick. Exactly what I was trying to say. What if time is just a quality that only exists within our part of existence?
I think when you get into the origin of everything, it gets so mind-blowingly complex that it really tests the limits of human imagination. Especially when with really far-out physics, so little of it can be tested. So of course people resort to the knee-jerk response of, a humanlike intelligence must have created everything. Which is a pretty darn unimaginative, simplistic and uninspired explanation, if you ask me.
- deep_throat0
What you need to realize is that the numeric model you have does not demonstrate simplicity to complexity in the realm of organic life. It's simply a numeric abstract
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 13:02)god, we're back to square one with you. IT IS A MODEL.
A COMPUTER MODEL.
A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
It is designed to reveal PATTERNS!
The word COMPLEXITY, is a CONCEPT (highly subjective at that)
What that model is trying to demonstrate is a PRINCIPLE of how COMPLEXITY can arise out of SIMPLICITY and SELF-ORGANISE.
This can be applied to organic life - becaue you're using terms such as INFORMATION, COMPLEXITY, and SELF-ORGANISATION in discussing organic life.
Seriously - what is so hard about this to get??
- mrdobolina0
discipler, you take shots at my intelligence level all of the time. how is that different? I'm not a physicist and niether are you.
and even if you were, you belive in the fucking boogeyman.
- deep_throat0
. Watch carefully: irreducibly complex organisms CANNOT be produced by evolutionary processes and irreducibly complex organisms are the building blocks of life. These machines need ALL of their components at once, which the mechanism of natural selection would prevent from happening. So, the point is that these complex machines were the product of intelligent design.
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 13:02)see now you're not even arguing or discussing your just repeating the same point over and over. What is that you said? talking louder doesn't mean you're right?
- discipler0
deep throat, it's at this point that you should realize that you are trying to apply a numeric principle that doesn't apply to the realm we are discussing. The fact that the "game of life" is not even treated in I.D. and evolutionary literature might be a clue to this. And I think the phD's involved in said literature might be of more impressive credentials than you and I. Namely, William Dembski. Again, pleeeeaaase go read his treatment on numeric probabilities.
- ********0
Which is a pretty darn unimaginative, simplistic and uninspired explanation, if you ask me.
ukit
(Sep 30 05, 13:19)
0--------------
I agree - and completely so far from sublime as possible. IF I believe in a supreme being he bette rbe so supreme that he can come up with some sick shit I can't even begin to understand..in fact I want to be standing there all in awe and humbled by it. This ID stuff is just crappola...
- ukit0
If monkeys came up with religion, what do you think they would worship? Probably some giant monkey in the sky. Same thing with people.
- discipler0
you are just throwing up arguments from silence now, deep throat (kuz). You make presuppositions about notions that are not real, like imaginary self-organization of irreducibly complex machines. Science has shown this does not happen. A fact you keep ignoring.
Watch me use all caps too:
IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX MACHINES (THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE) DO NOT SELF ORGANIZE.
INFORMATION ALWAYS... ALWAYS HAS A COGNIZANT ENTITY AS IT'S AUTHOR. NO MATTER HOW MANY STEPS YOU TRY TO PUSH THINGS BACK.
- deep_throat0
"Secondgly, a great majority of I.D. scientists and theorists posit that everything was programmed by the designer to unfold a certain way."
Programmed to UNFOLD A CERTAIN WAY, is called Evolution no matter if it was programmed to be that way or not. (You're really trying my patience with your perpetual idocy).
- discipler0
and kuz, i keep repeating myself because you keep ignoring the crucial data i'm presenting you with.