McBell
Unbound
It is most frustrating that creationists keep pushing the bold faced lie "GodDidIt" is an explanation...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question on Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You have to wonder......what does ID creationism have to do with gaps in the fossil record? Why are such gaps a necessary prediction for this "designer"?
"Creative intelligence" is not a mechanism, it's a trait.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Given that "God did it" is the whole point behind creationism in the first place, I really can't say I'm surprised that creationists keep pushing it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be creationists.
McBell
Unbound
How rude.
To ruin a perfectly good whine with logic and reason...
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Sorry dude.....
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
How does order come from disorder?
How would we know it is order (or intilligence?) and how is order more vaulable than disorder since one comes from another rather than disorder seen as is?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I've been a huge fan of Dr. Susskind ever since I first started reading about string theory. A remarkable man.
There is no such need, except by the emotional constraints of some people and doctrines.
Some people claim that life could not arise independently, and quite a few also fail either to understand or to accept natural selection.
It looks like vanity to me, to be frank.
That is pretty much the answer for your next few questions.
Look at some of the links in It Ain't Necessarily So's post #43 in the Abiogenesis is Not Working thread:
Exactly. It's all chemical and biological algorithms.
What is this "Darwinism" that doesn't accept fossil evidence?
There's no mysterious, false gaps controversy. Fossils are rare. Gaps are to be expected, and every intermediate creates two more gaps. How many fossils would it take for you to accept them as part of a series?
Creative Intelligence is no "proven method." If anything demands a leap of imagination it's not the "unknown spontaneous mechanism" of ordinary chemistry, but the magic and intentionality of an invisible, intelligent entity.
There is no empirical evidence of such an entity, or of intentionality, or of any need for anything other than ordinary, chemical processes
ID "explains" nothing. It just proposes an agent.
My laptop doesn't breed, there are no little laptops with variations for natural selection to work with.
Hint: You do not understand the mechanisms of evolution, ergo, the validity of your opinions on it are of questionable validity.
Are you're seriously proposing this as a rebuttal? I'm surprised you didn't include a photo of a crocoduck.
There is no paradox. Variation happens. Copy errors, mutations, reproductive variation, genetic drift -- These do not apply to machines, it's a false analogy.
Last edited:
Ordinary chemistry, laws of Nature... whatever. Fill your sink with ping-pong balls, they'll automatically assume a precise interpositional pattern -- no intelligence required. Sometimes all it takes is a single molecular pattern to get things started:
There are no "values," and a reasonable person doesn't posit intelligence unless there is evidence of intelligence, ie: unless there's evidence the laws of Nature have been tampered with.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
godnotgod
Thou art That
There is no First Cause, simply because there is no such 'material' Universe. Quantum Physics now says that all particles in the Universe are actually standing waves. It's like when you see a wheel spinning at a certain speed; at some point it appears to be standing still, or even going backwards. But the materiality effect of standing waves is on another scale. These 'particles' are actually being created by fluctuations in the fields in which they 'exist'. And so now physicists have turned their attention from the 'particle' to that of the surrounding field. Hence, 'Field Theory'. 'Particles' are energy, not 'matter'. All material reality, then, is a virtual reality. In terms of Quantum Physics, we are living in a world of 'superposition of possibilities' and not a Newtonian world of atomic materiality. What we perceive as a material world is in reality an illusion, or as the Hindus have noted for over 4000 years, maya. We see a material world of forms not created, but manifested by an underlying intelligence; pure abstract intelligence, called The Unified Field in science, 'The Ground of Being' in Hinduism. But we don't see it that way via our ordinary conditioned awareness. We see a Universe with First Cause, in time and space. We don't see it as The Absolute, Brahman, etc. In the words of Vivekenanda:
"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
The Equations of Maya
Your analogy with a house is not good. The Universe is not a made 'thing', or artifact; it is grown in an organic process that is an unfolding, a huge difference.
"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
"Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
The Equations of Maya
Your analogy with a house is not good. The Universe is not a made 'thing', or artifact; it is grown in an organic process that is an unfolding, a huge difference.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Maybe pattern is another word for intelligence? Mayb another word for god?
That depends on the person. I pt value in the laws of nature, as those laws "take care of us" (if we want to make it personal) but I agree, no intelligence (if talking about an outside entity) is needed. I don't see how evidence will make it more valuable than just living with what we have without needing evidence for anything for it to be valuable for us.
Almost as frustrating as evolutionists claiming "NaturalSelectionDidIt".
Not all non-believers are evolutionalist, though. National selection or life evolving naturally and sustained by energy among other things is just a fact. I don't understand how you can devalue this, really.
If I replaced intelligence in my OP with god, and I was a blank slate looking at a building, why and how would I assume that the building was created from nothing?
Everything is "created" or formed to what we define in our existence by pre-existing things. So, if I found out someone built this house, why would I put more value and just disregard the house and worship the builder?
That is like saying thank you to a person who gives you a gift but throw the gift away because it is not as valuable if at all as the person who gave it. Yet, they both go hand in hand. But in this case, we do not know if there is a creator because everything is created (or came into our existence) from pre-existing things. The Bible isn't a science book and science books admi they know nothing. So neither party can say anything is a fact; they can just theorize, make claims, and state what writer's believe but that's it.
There isn't really anything wrong with "not knowing." Unless believers can't live without belief in god because it comforts them that even though they don't know, at least they can trust someone who does. Though I wouldn't disvalue people who can find value in not knowing (the wisdom when one gets older, the less they realize they know) and put more sacredness in what's present than what's not.
Why is the unseen more sacred than the seen?
Who knows. No one has answered that question either.
Why?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Hmm was just listening to Sherlock Holmes stories!
So that would be the point, unless we can 100% utterly eliminate any person possibly arranging the stones, that is by far the more probable explanation right?
So too with God, if we merely allow both (God and unguided natural mechanisms) the slightest chance to exist, the more probable is clear.
In other words: atheism must eliminate God from the playing field entirely to allow chance to win out. But the same does not apply the other way around, you can keep all the natural mechanisms you like, God is still the less improbable explanation
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I'm not sure how those are examples of ID creationism explaining how anything happened or providing a mechanism.
An excellent synopsis, but, for me, "intelligence" implies a facility with data manipulation and decision making.
Pattern, natural law, Nature -- as long as we agree on the meaning we won't be talking past one another. For me, though, "intelligence" implies a conscious, decision-making entity, rather than a quantum field.
Value and sanctity are in the eye of the beholder.
Yes. Familiar, understood mechanisms we experience in everyday life are much more probable than magic.
I don't see it. Atheism pretty much ignores the concept of God. It doesn't need to eliminate anything. It makes no assertions, so incurs no burden of proof.
It's the theists who posit an invisible, magical entity.
Well, we have evidence that people can write "help". Especially, when lost in a desert island.
Alas, we have no evidence of God doing anything.
This is a consequence of the following logical fallacy: if intelligence is known to produce structured things, that entails that structured things can only be produced by an intelligence. This is an obviously logically unwarranted conclusion.
So your analogy fails miserably.
Ciao
- viole
One way is by being guided by natural properties of the elements and the environment.
Waterdrops spontaneously acquire a roughly spherical shape due to its material properties. Snowflakes usually observe six-sided symmetry for the same reason. The properties of electromagnetic charges make it so that random spreads of those spontaneously organize themselves in various ways as they interact. Random mixtures of matter are organized by mass and/or particle size when subject to enough movement and gravity or acceleration and/or filters. Matter properties make it so that heat spreads itself in predictable ways.
We don't. We can however notice that intelligence would have certain likely consequences, which are not often found.
Presumption of intentional order is apparently valuable to people who are too attached to the idea of a conscious creator.