Intelligent Design, but is God Smart Enough?

[Jose Fly]

See the following link for a description of how dishonest the movie "Expelled" was in characterizing the Sternberg situation....

Richard Sternberg | Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks

As I've said before, it's pretty much impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

 

[ChristineM]

No, James McVay was the government-aassigned special investigator. It was Richard Sternberg who was persecuted and "expelled" from his post.

What do you think the title, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", means?! The establishment is forcing scientists to sustain a commitment to materialism, and quash anyone supporting an opposing viewpoint. (Or at least, just keep silent.) That is a "herd-mentality."

Sounds like it means personal engrandisement of the the deliberately delusional to me.

Perhaps you don't actually want to understand the meaning of science. Consensus makes for stronger peer review. If you consider that to be a herd mentality then maybe you need to do something about those who jc called his flock

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sounds like it means personal engrandisement of the the deliberately delusional to me.

Perhaps you don't actually want to understand the meaning of science. Consensus makes for stronger peer review. If you consider that to be a herd mentality then maybe you need to do something about those who jc called his flock

Well, it seems as if we're just going to have to conclude this banter, and say simply we agree that we disagree.
I hope you have a good day, and wish you the best.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, it seems as if we're just going to have to conclude this banter, and say simply we agree that we disagree.
I hope you have a good day, and wish you the best.

Figures

 

[viole]

Talking about Abraham's God: What proof do we have that this god is smart enough to design human life and all of existence?

One of the things that appear very odd under the design scenario is the design of predators and prey.

They seem to be optimized to an equilibrium. Bot preys and predators seem to have design that help them against ... design of the other. Possibly from the same designer. Which is weird. Why would anybody design things in such a clever way to beat its own design, and vice-versa? Prima facie, it seems pointless.

My theory is that God, or the alleged designer, is bored. It is like those loners on a desert island with only a chess board and chess pieces. All He can do is playing against Himself.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Figures

What "figures"?!

Was this conversation between us, achieving anything?

Your beliefs are based on nothing concrete! Every "peer-reviewed" article (dealing with TOL) is replete with 'maybe's', 'possibly's', and ''could-have-been's'....nothing conclusive. Only supposition.

Some studies have even proclaimed macroevolution is occurring, when it's only been observed that organisms are simply adapting themselves to a different environment.

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Then we have
'Pakicetus the forerunner of whales'....'Archaeopteryx the link between dinosauria and birds'....please. You won't even find consensus among your own pro-evolutionary biologists on most of these 'transitional' issues.

If I'm wrong, prove otherwise.

Yes, my beliefs are as stated in the Scriptures, both Hebrew and Greek portions taken altogether, within and between.

I'm gonna start a thread soon, maybe tomorrow, on all that @Ingledsva has attacked in the Bible.

You're welcome to join in (attack my beliefs).


But continuing on with this subject of ID, is fruitless.

 

[viole]

Don't you think that the human's brain is a sign of a smart designer?

If my brother in law has a human brain in his skull, which is a big if, then definitely not.

Joking aside, what makes you believe that the human brain hints to a smart designer? Because of our smartness in being able to go to the moon and discover the truths about evolution? Or rather because of our smartness in believing in thousands of different mutually exclusive gods, and in things like homeopathy and black cats bringing bad luck?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

One of the things that appear very odd under the design scenario is the design of predators and prey.

They seem to be optimized to an equilibrium. Bot preys and predators seem to have design that help them against ... design of the other. Possibly from the same designer. Which is weird. Why would anybody design things in such a clever way to beat its own design, and vice-versa? Prima facie, it seems pointless.

My theory is that God, or the alleged designer, is bored. It is like those loners on a desert island with only a chess board and chess pieces. All He can do is playing against Himself.

Ciao

- viole

Very interesting post!

If macroevolution is accurate, I could envision bunny rabbits evolving stronger deterrent counter-measures, like bigger teeth or sharp claws. It seems all they have is speed and camouflage.

Almost as if there's a balance that needs to prevail. Could it be, heaven forbid....designed?

 

[Jose Fly]

Some studies have even proclaimed macroevolution is occurring, when it's only been observed that organisms are simply adapting themselves to a different environment.

I tried to get another JW member to address this and she refused, so perhaps you'll be more willing to explain....

What is "macroevolution" to you? And what is the difference between "adaptation" and "evolution" to you?

But continuing on with this subject of ID, is fruitless.

Well yeah.....ID creationism is dead....has been for some time now.

 

[viole]

Very interesting post!

If macroevolution is accurate, I could envision bunny rabbits evolving stronger deterrent counter-measures, like bigger teeth or sharp claws. It seems all they have is speed and camouflage.

Almost as if there's a balance that needs to prevail. Could it be, heaven forbid....designed?

Sure. Design a bit there. then design the counter-measure there. And now the counter-counter measures. Wait, we need counter-counter-counter measures. And so on.

And the point is?

BTW: That game eventually stopped working for 99% of all species that inhabited earth.

A human engineer wth such a track record on his CV would be a homeless bum. But you seem to believe that someone with the same score is the smartest and most powerful being in the Universe.

Really?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

If my brother in law has a human brain in his skull, which is a big if, then definitely not.

Joking aside, what makes you believe that the human brain hints to a smart designer? Because of our smartness in being able to go to the moon and discover the truths about evolution? Or rather because of our smartness in believing in thousands of different mutually exclusive gods, and in things like homeopathy and black cats bringing bad luck?

Ciao

- viole

Believing in the black cats bringing bad luck isn't that far different from believing that the unconscious stones
brought life to existence and fashioned the human brain.

 

[ChristineM]

What "figures"?!

Was this conversation between us, achieving anything?

Your beliefs are based on nothing concrete! Every "peer-reviewed" article (dealing with TOL) is replete with 'maybe's', 'possibly's', and ''could-have-been's'....nothing conclusive. Only supposition.

Some studies have even proclaimed macroevolution is occurring, when it's only been observed that organisms are simply adapting themselves to a different environment.

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Then we have
'Pakicetus the forerunner of whales'....'Archaeopteryx the link between dinosauria and birds'....please. You won't even find consensus among your own pro-evolutionary biologists on most of these 'transitional' issues.

If I'm wrong, prove otherwise.

Yes, my beliefs are as stated in the Scriptures, both Hebrew and Greek portions taken altogether, within and between.

I'm gonna start a thread soon, maybe tomorrow, on all that @Ingledsva has attacked in the Bible.

You're welcome to join in (attack my beliefs).


But continuing on with this subject of ID, is fruitless.

Wrong, every bs claim by creation "science" (your reading material) is full of nonesence, deliberate obduscation and vagery. Real science (and the vast majority of people) on the other hand accepts evolution based on proven facts.

Evolution has been proven beyond doubt
Welcome to Evolution 101!

That you refuse to accept facts and instead use lies and deception to justify your faith to yourself says much about that faith.

Yes its fruitless because you refuse to accept proven facts.

Btw, our argument was about the proven con job film that you condone. And again my beliefs are based on documented fact

 

[viole]

Believing in the black cats bringing bad luck isn't that far different from believing that the unconscious stones
brought life to existence and fashioned the human brain.

So, no much of a design, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

So, no much of a design, right?

Ciao

- viole

Where did i say so? people only believe what they want to believe, it has nothing to do
with the amazing brain that humans have.

 

[1robin]

Talking about Abraham's God: What proof do we have that this god is smart enough to design human life and all of existence?

1. Bronze age men described God as Omniscient long before anyone knew how complex life was. They didn't have the questions yet got all the answers right.
2. Human life and all of existence exists and there is no natural explanation for their existence. By existence I do not mean changing from one state of affairs to another. I mean coming into being.
3. The universes parameter's are balanced on a knife edge that is so improbable that even the greatest men of science have to admit this universe appears to be designed.

Fred Hoyle
"Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 Ð 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. Hoyle was a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-written with his son Geoffrey Hoyle. Hoyle spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and served as its director for a number of years. He died in Bournemouth, England, after a series of strokes."(wiki)

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

Schaefer reacts to this statement with "My own view is that .. these skeptics .. are unintentionally supporting the position put forth by St. Paul nearly two millennia earlier.." (Romans 1:20) Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981

"It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner... Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."p130.

"The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems... cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible... The correct position we think is... an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life... This is tantamount to arguing that carbonaceous life was invented by noncarbonaceous intelligence."

"the intelligence which assembled the enzymes did not itself contain them ... which by no means need be God, however." p139. {See he is no special pleader, he is just reporting the facts}

Evolution from Space
Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 1/12/1982.
"Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture... So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true."

Mathematics of Evolution, 1999
"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory."

New Scientist, November 1981
"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling, of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I tried to get another JW member to address this and she refused, so perhaps you'll be more willing to explain....

What is "macroevolution" to you? And what is the difference between "adaptation" and "evolution" to you?


Well yeah.....ID creationism is dead....has been for some time now.

I'm sorry for the delay in replying, I've been ill. I will respond to this when I more fully recover.

Hope you're doing good.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah I know, don't you hate it when those 'stupid' scientists who figured out how to tame electrons so we can interact on this forum and created vaccines that allows people to live decades longer act like they know what they're talking about? The way they act it's as if they think that the silly scientific method actually works! Good thing we're too smart to let them fool us, huh?

(shaking my head in dismay that anyone could be so willfully ignorant)

Edison was home schooled, The Wright brothers were high school drop outs, Bill Gates flunked college, they were not 'scientists'

'scientists' were too busy forming an academic consensus on things like phrenology, Piltdown man, steady state..

Who was actually using science the method, rather than simply using the label?

 

[Phantasman]

Talking about Abraham's God: What proof do we have that this god is smart enough to design human life and all of existence?

Abrahams God wasn't smart enough. Had he been, man would have been infinite as the true God is.

The God of the physical is not the God of the Spirit. John 8 , 1 Corinth 15

 

[QuestioningMind]

Edison was home schooled, The Wright brothers were high school drop outs, Bill Gates flunked college, they were not 'scientists'

'scientists' were too busy forming an academic consensus on things like phrenology, Piltdown man, steady state..

Who was actually using science the method, rather than simply using the label?

ROFL... you don't become a scientist because you went to a certain school. silly. You are a scientist if you employ the scientific method, which is what ALL of the people you mentioned did. .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

ROFL... you don't become a scientist because you went to a certain school. silly. You are a scientist if you employ the scientific method, which is what ALL of the people you mentioned did. .

I agree entirely, and by which definition, the maintenance man at my school who employed some fairly tricky physics and chemistry to keep everything running, was a true scientist. While the physics teacher who simply read from books, was not.

I'm glad we agree, but you run into many people who insist that the label 'scientist' should explicitly be restricted to someone with official academic credentials, regardless of demonstrable achievements


Similarly we have no doubt that the Wright brothers, Edison, Gates employed the method- even though they were not labelled scientists, because there are demonstrable results.

But do you think those actual academic 'scientists' by profession that believed in phrenology, eugenics, Piltdown man, were rigorously employing the scientific method? or was something quite different guiding their far more authoritative academic opinions? It's debatable at the very least