PROBABILITY OR POSSIBILITY OR JUST IMPOSSSIBLE

[George-ananda]

You have no credible evidence at all for you a deity or thought process being in any aspect of biology.

As I said many times, it is beyond the reach of current science/biology.

 

[outhouse]

As I said many times, it is beyond the reach of current science/biology.

So is imagination and fantasy and mythology though. It could be man made is my point.

 

[Bunyip]

As I said many times, it is beyond the reach of current science/biology.

George, all scientific research that has ever been conducted has been into things that were at the time 'beyond the reach of current science'. Science is the tool we apply to what is beyond our knowledge in order to understand it.

Science is how we explore what is currently 'beyond the reach' or our knowledge.

 

[Unification]

And what sort of long shot is your alternative idea that some sort of conscious intelligent designer just manifests from nothing and starts creating stuff? What created it?

Spirit is not limited in any way. It is not created nor can it be destroyed. It is certainly not an entity, person, or individual. These things by their very definitions are limitations. God is not an individual, but if God were an individual then God would have to have a cause. And that defeats the traditional idea of God.

Mathematics is based on 0=0. Reality is based on mathematics but mathematics is based on nothing. No-thing.

Our common notion of nothing is incorrect. There is no such thing as nothing. Nothingness (spirit / primordial consciousness) contains infinite potential, which is dynamic by nature.

 

[Unification]

George, all scientific research that has ever been conducted has been into things that were at the time 'beyond the reach of current science'. Science is the tool we apply to what is beyond our knowledge in order to understand it.

Science is how we explore what is currently 'beyond the reach' or our knowledge.

Spirit/conscious/nothingness has always been beyond scientific reach, and knowledge and understanding, reality, evidence, all matter, has always come from consciousness. Science is based on nothing/consciousness/spirit. As is everything.

All knowledge and intelligence comes from an external conscious source to our internal receiving brain.

 

[Unification]

Why the false dichotomy?

Never mind, you have to have a gap....

There is no such thing as "gaps." One should "never" rely on all "mind," it's the mind that limits itself to define and be constrained to "gaps."

 

[Unification]

If they were at all intelligent, then you wouldn't need to go through trial and error.

The very thought that God, creator or designer was involved in biological genetics, would only show how utterly malevolent and stupid this being, when it cause a child to be born blind, death or some terribly diseases.

Does a Designer really need to be involved with two blonde and blue-eyed parents would have a child or children with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Genetics explained hereditary, but the next step up is mechanism of evolution. It doesn't take a genius for parents passing on specific gene to offspring, and from ancestors to descendants, that have better chance of survival, if any environmental changes were to occur.

Why is so hard for creationists to see that?

Evolution is not talking about creating life out of non-living matters/materials, so evolution is not talking about the origin of first life.

Evolution is about multiplying through reproduction, passing on genes to the next generations, and that some genes are better than others that will allow them to adapt to changes, not only surviving, but thrive too.

Intelligent Design advocates are just idiots, who want to use ID to teach creationism in a science classroom. Both creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing to do with science, just religious smokescreen.

Do you really want to know why Intelligent Design is not accepted among the international science communities? The reasons are really simple:

1. It is not science.
2. And it does required physical evidences to support their fairytale claims, of some silly non-existing invisible being, they called "Designer".

No one, but naive or ignorant or biased Christian creationists believe such craps that come from Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is living proof that stupidity and dishonesty exist among creationists.

ID and religion are polar opposites. Forcing ID upon only religion is assumptive. Most religion is easy to pick on, why it's so easy to attack is evident. ID has nothing to do with religion. Most religion gives ID a negative label. Science is based on ID. Evolution is based on ID. ID is just a term that's battered around and labeled by emotional minds. Same with the word "God," "faith," "belief," ... They are brought up and an automatic assumptive mindset automatically thinks "religion"..... And most's panties get emotional when those mere words are brought up.

What is physical?

"Does not require physical evidences".....

Reality is based on mathematics, but mathematics is based on nothing. No-thing. Reality is based on math(information)

And there is no such thing as nothing, nothing is spirit/primordial conscious.

We can say that we came from a rock, or anything physical, but we must remember that the rock is really not made up of particles. It is made up of math. Everything is. So to say that we came from rocks isn’t really that strange.
Energy is simply information in motion. Life did come from DNA(energy/subatomic particles from celestial bodies of the cosmos)

Information comes from the experience of consciousness interacting within its limited forms. Think of consciousness as being “Informed,” or as being “In-formation.”

The reason why anything (including us) seems to be real physical things made up of particles is because our souls became complex enough to create amazing brains to give us this experience. Think about a computer game. It presents worlds and characters to us as we see and experience the computer screen and controller. But really this computer game is made up of a bunch or 0’s and 1’s. It’s not really a person running around on the screen, it’s a bunch of zeros and ones. Our brains work the same way. When we pick up a rock, we aren’t really touching a physical object. Instead we are picking up a mathematical formula that our brains interpret as a solid piece of granite, quartz, or whatever. It is the hardware of our brains that allows us beings (accumulated experiences) to sense and experience physicality. The strange thing is that our brains are also not real. They, too, are just complex mathematical formulas interpreting other complex mathematical formulas. Life is truly amazing. The more complex the formula gets the more amazing life gets.

Science ignores this and calls it "gaps" yet they've indirectly proved it evident and ignore consciousness because they can't physically see it. It's rather silly. It can pick on religion all it wants because that is easy to do, but when it indirectly picks on itself, gets all of its laws from nothing and consciousness, speaks of a physical universe yet delusive minds exist, neglects its own laws and exempts the human brain and body from those laws, it also cheats itself.

 

[McBell]

There is no such thing as "gaps." One should "never" rely on all "mind," it's the mind that limits itself to define and be constrained to "gaps."

*yawn*
Sorry.
not interested in your god if all you have to offer is wishful thinking and foaming insulation.

 

[Unification]

*yawn*
Sorry.
not interested in your god if all you have to offer is wishful thinking and foaming insulation.

Don't apologize. What are you sorry for?

Not sure where "your god" even arrives by my response. Really, it would just be your mind thinking and assuming. That is delusion. Assumption. "Gaps" and "mind" getting turned into "your god." "Your god" or "my god" never existed in my response. Deceiving yourself with delusive thinking. Even to the delusive point of your own ego assuming I was asking you to even be interested in anything.

 

[outhouse]

is because our souls

Supply credible sources they are real and not mythological concepts.

 

[Unification]

Supply credible sources they are real and not mythological concepts.

A more modern word for "soul" would be "self" or "individuality" or "psyche."

Every organism has a soul. The self/individuality of an organism.

The soul of a single-celled organism would be extremely simple compared to the soul of a human. It can’t express itself through speech, thought, and complex emotions like we can, but it can respond to stimuli in the environment.

Easier to pertain to humans.

 

[outhouse]

A more modern word for "soul" would be "self" or "individuality" or "psyche."

Then use the word consciousness. Not a mythological term and I would have nothing to say.

 

[gnostic]

Humans are intelligent. Didn't the design of the car go from horse and buggy to a modern Mercedes Benz through evolution with learning through trial and error? Such were the efforts of nature beings. They are intelligent but not infinitely intelligent.

There are differences between nature and to what human "design" and "make".

And there are differences between what human design and create, and what you "BELIEVE" some imaginary beings said to have designed and create nature.

Humans are not some invisible and transcendent beings, because he had to have family, definitely parents, possible siblings or children of his own. You couldmeet a designer of cars, talk to them etc.

There are no evidences to support a Designer exist, let alone show that such Designer links to and responsible for the "design" of nature. The ID is nothing more than the same superstitious wishful-thinking garbage of "creation" theism.

 

[Bunyip]

Spirit is not limited in any way. It is not created nor can it be destroyed. It is certainly not an entity, person, or individual. These things by their very definitions are limitations.

What is 'spirit'?

God is not an individual, but if God were an individual then God would have to have a cause. And that defeats the traditional idea of God.

Mathematics is based on 0=0. Reality is based on mathematics but mathematics is based on nothing. No-thing.

Our common notion of nothing is incorrect. There is no such thing as nothing. Nothingness (spirit / primordial consciousness) contains infinite potential, which is dynamic by nature.

 

[Bunyip]

Spirit/conscious/nothingness has always been beyond scientific reach, and knowledge and understanding, reality, evidence, all matter, has always come from consciousness. Science is based on nothing/consciousness/spirit. As is everything.

All knowledge and intelligence comes from an external conscious source to our internal receiving brain.

What nonsense.

 

[McBell]

What nonsense.

Look at the huge gap he creates with it though...

 

[Bunyip]

Look at the huge gap he creates with it though...

Good point, you could fit a zillion immaterial deities into it. And still have room for leprechauns.

 

[gnostic]

ID and religion are polar opposites. Forcing ID upon only religion is assumptive. Most religion is easy to pick on, why it's so easy to attack is evident. ID has nothing to do with religion. Most religion gives ID a negative label. Science is based on ID.

What a load of BS.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is organisation made by creationists, trying to masquerade as scientific movement. It was this DI that started the ID movement.

Have you read the Institute's manifesto? I am referring to the Wedge Document?

Here is the link to a copy of the Wedge Document. It leave no doubt in anyone might that Discovery Institute is religious organisation, and the Intelligent Design is nothing more than hoax perpetrated by bunch of creationists. They are attempting to use politics, law out, PR propaganda to get schools to teach science classrooms and rhey have absolutely nothing to do with science.

Read the Wedge Document and tell me that DI & ID have nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with religion, especially with the Protestant creationists.

Behe's Irreducible Complexity is not even a "testable" or "falsifiable" hypothesis, that have rejected for peer-review because it is not testable, because Behe could never provide any link between Intelligent Designer and nature, because the Designer is not testable.

Call it what you will, but the word "Designer" is nothing more than another name for "Creator".

No scientists recognise ID or the discovery institute as being "scientific".

The Wedge Document leaves no doubt to their religious agendas.

The rest of your reply are also loads of craps.

Evolution is based on ID

ID is not based on science because it has been supply no evidences to support their creationism.

Evolution is based on the studies of biodiversity and on genes (along with mutations), and on how those genes are passed on, through parents to offspring, over x-number of generations.

The description and explanation have everything to do with selection that are naturally occurring - through hereditary, hence genetics. None of explanation explicitly or implicitly suggest deity or Intelligent Designer being involved.

ID is based on wishful-thinking that some beings been involved in creation of organic matters, and yet with no evidences to support this Designer, other than using mental contortions to twist science to fit in with make-believe logic.

What is physical?

"Does not require physical evidences".....

Reality is based on mathematics, but mathematics is based on nothing. No-thing. Reality is based on math(information)

And there is no such thing as nothing, nothing is spirit/primordial conscious.

We can say that we came from a rock, or anything physical, but we must remember that the rock is really not made up of particles. It is made up of math. Everything is. So to say that we came from rocks isn’t really that strange.

More craps.

Reality is not based on mathematics.

And science is not based on mathematics. Although maths are way to better understand or aid science, science don't rely on them as much as they are rely on EVIDENCES.

Maths rely on PROOF, while science rely on EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCE is what make science "objective". EVIDENCE is what distinguish science from maths.

 

[Unification]

What is 'spirit'?

Pure consciousness.

 

[Sapiens]

What is 'spirit'?

Pure horse puckey.