Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

[McBell]

Once we establish that Intelligent Design is not creationism...

You have yet to do that.
All you have done is made the bold empty claim.
When are you going to substantiate said claim?

 

[Dante Writer]

I ask you what fostered the genesis of those spirits, that fostered the genesis of that, that fostered the genesis of them ... etc. Ultimately the only way to break out of that tautology requires one of two approaches:

1. Acceptance of noninterventioned abiogensis, or
2. Belief that the universe has always been and is without a beginning, the same with life.

In either case lets take the simple answer and not complicate it with unrequited baggage, like indemonstrable and necessary spirits and such.
Parsimony, that you praise so highly.

Funny- you worked so hard with your buddies to try and stop this discussion and now here you are wanting to participate!

 

[Sapiens]

The theories you consider more parsimonious I believe ignores/denies phenomena that does not fit the seemingly simple theories. Hence more complex theories are needed.

Inventing mythologies that satisfy your aesthetic is hardly parsimonious, it simply adds mythological complexities.

What trap is caused by saying the fundamental consciousness always existed. And if you ask why, I would reply it is beyond my knowledge. I am not denying that existence is basically a mystery.

That is absurd on the face, the minute you say that it is "beyond my knowledge" parsimony requires that you take a step back to "where did the universe come from?" answer, "beyond my knowledge." Thus exactly the same answer is reached yet parsimony is preserved, and presupposition is avoided.

 

[Dante Writer]

I actually like this thread. Do you have a theory about the origin of life Dante? Do you subscribe to an alien God concept like Chariots of the Gods? I'm not making fun. Genuinely interested in your thoughts.

Thanks!

I do have a general hypothesis and I am building up to that with these discussions. First I have to get people over their phobia of Intelligent Design so they can see things objectively.

 

[Sapiens]

Funny- you worked so hard with your buddies to try and stop this discussion and now here you are wanting to participate!

No one was trying to stop discussion, everyone was just showing you their opinion of your performance.

 

[Midnight Rain]

"but the only cases we have of ID is human made."

I thought I made that clear in my post. ID does not require a God or even a Genius.

Indeed. However there is no difference between humans guiding evolution and nature guiding evolution. Its the same process. In which case it meas that ID isn't required or even part of the discussion beyond that. Is there somewhere you feel it should be interjected in current scientific discussions where it has been left out?

 

[Dante Writer]

I thought I'd stop back to see how this thread was progressing &.....oh....oh, my gawd!
There's broken glass, wrecked tables, dangling participles & pigeon feces everywhere!
I'm not sweeping up here until this is over.

You and your buddies tried trashing a good discussion and failed!

 

[Dante Writer]

There are other hypothesis for the origin of life, evolution does not address that at all, at most it alludes to it.
I'm not avoiding anything, do show me where I've done this, or how.

Links to support argument requested. Dawkins is a starkly against ID in all of its known psuedo scientific forms and I do not know Crick.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No substance in your posts and just spamming your blog.

Run along!

His blog is part of his signature. Do you not understand how forums work or something?

 

[George-ananda]

Inventing mythologies that satisfy your aesthetic is hardly parsimonious, it simply adds mythological complexities.

I am looking for a theory that explains 'beyond the normal' (paranormal )human experiences that are not explainable under materialism (except by denial). Materialism becomes disqualified given these 'beyond the normal' experiences that dramatically shows consciousness can not be explained through materialism.

That is absurd on the face, the minute you say that it is "beyond my knowledge" parsimony requires that you take a step back to "where did the universe come from?" answer, "beyond my knowledge." Thus exactly the same answer is reached yet parsimony is preserved,

I consider evidence of those who claim experience beyond the physical. Your ballpark is strictly materialist science.

 

[Midnight Rain]

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

I remember that question. I don't see how it supports your point. He was asked specifically when and where could it EVER be possible that ID was found to be involved in the evolution of life on our planet. And his answer was that if another civilization existed that arisen without ID it could have engineered life on this planet or at least tinkered with it. And if it did exist you might find something in the DNA. However he didn't say that it did exist. He was giving a hypothetical to when it could ever actually be possible.

 

[Sapiens]

I am looking for a theory that explains 'beyond the normal' (paranormal )human experiences that are not explainable under materialism (except by denial). Materialism becomes disqualified given these 'beyond the normal' experiences that dramatically shows consciousness can not be explained through materialism.

I consider evidence of those who claim experience beyond the physical. Your ballpark is strictly materialist science.

I stick to materialist science, I've seen too many claim such experience as you do as a result of (for example) hypoxia, psychotomimetics, disease process and even simple electrical shock. With such mundane explanations available, and so many more possible, it stretches credulity and parsimony to invoke the occult.

 

[George-ananda]

I stick to materialist science, I've seen too many claim such experience as you do as a result of (for example) hypoxia, psychotomimetics, disease process and even simple electrical shock. With such mundane explanations available, and so many more possible, it stretches credulity and parsimony to invoke the occult.

There-in lies our fundamental difference. I have heard ten times over enough evidence that tells me beyond all reasonable doubt that this universe is dramatically more complex than materialism understands. And that is after skeptical inquiry. Eastern wisdom traditions better fit the data.

 

[Sapiens]

You and your buddies tried trashing a good discussion and failed!

If our message did not get through, we are none the worse for it ... now, on the other hand, if our message did not get through, you have "failed" to learn.

 

[Sapiens]

There-in lies our fundamental difference. I have heard ten times over enough evidence that tells me beyond all reasonable doubt that this universe is dramatically more complex than materialism understands. And that is after skeptical inquiry. Eastern wisdom traditions better fit the data.

You are wrongly styling materialism as static. You are just attempting to leap ahead without looking and winding up in a belief system rather a knowledge base, because you are trying to follow a regression line well outside of your actual existing data set. You may be right, but giving all the possible directions that the data could move, it is highly unlikely. There is a word for that, and all meanings apply: irrational!

 

[Deathbydefault]

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

That does absolutely nothing for your argument against me.
I'm not saying your version or Dawkins version of ID is in anyway impossible, what I am saying is that ID and evolution are separate.
The origin is irrelevant to evolution, because evolution happened regardless of that.

We can speculate all day everyday about our origins, or the origin of life as a whole, and we will go nowhere with it.
I'll say it again, these hypothesis about the origin of life are not involved with evolution in the slightest, at most they are alluded to.
The reason they are alluded to is because evolution did happen, so there was some sort of origin for that process to take place.

Lastly, I'm still waiting for you to show me where I have avoided evolution not addressing life's origins.
I have no intentions of letting that go.

 

[George-ananda]

There is a word for that, and all meanings apply: irrational!

Where am I 'irrational' in my thinking? (I do pride myself on a rational approach to spirituality/truth)

 

[Maponos]

I prefer 'murikan on a burger myself.

American cheese is an abomination.

 

[Sapiens]

Where am I 'irrational' in my thinking? (I do pride myself on a rational approach to spirituality/truth)

Primarily in that by stepping outside of your actual data set you are making assumptions that are based on, or in accordance with, reason or logic. It requires a leap (without looking) of faith.

 

[Sapiens]

American cheese is an abomination.

It is not real cheese, rather it is a petroleum product.