The Mystery Thread

[Dan From Smithville]

[Laughs]

Look everybody! @Subduction Zone has a Christian sock puppet!

And here I deleted my previous post because I thought I was being a bit harsh. Now you have sunk even lower than I thought I had fallen. Thank you for that. SZ and I are friends from previous forums. We are not the same person. Funny. That old stalker of mine used to make this cheap claim every time he was outdone by someone too.

 

[Earthling]

And here I deleted my previous post because I thought I was being a bit harsh. Now you have sunk even lower than I thought I had fallen. Thank you for that. SZ and I are friends from previous forums. We are not the same person. Funny. That old stalker of mine used to make this cheap claim every time he was outdone by someone too.

My jest wasn't necessarily accusing you of literally being a sock puppet. Just to play it safe. I mean a figurative interpretation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You said:



I'm not interested in discussing science with someone who must make the assumption that I'm biased due to my own confusion and ignorance. And to clarify, thus saving you time of searching through my threads to determine what I am and am not interested in let me add this to the aforementioned statement.

Anymore. As in I'm no longer interested.

When I said "I am here to discuss science and defend it against people that are biased against it over their own confusion and ignorance" there are two distinct categories in that sentence. One, the discussion of science and to the defense of science against the confused and ignorant. Is it telling that you threw yourself in the second category immediately? Why do you think you did that?

 

[Earthling]

When I said "I am here to discuss science and defend it against people that are biased against it over their own confusion and ignorance" there are two distinct categories in that sentence. One, the discussion of science and to the defense of science against the confused and ignorant. Is it telling that you threw yourself in the second category immediately? Why do you think you did that?

Because that was the accusation you were lamely trying to tempt me with. I give you my word, the next time I mention science you can follow up on your intentions with me under those assumptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My jest wasn't necessarily accusing you of literally being a sock puppet. Just to play it safe. I mean a figurative interpretation.

It does not hurt my feelings. I like SZ. He may not sugar coat things and that raises hair, but all I have known him to be is honest in his responses. I do not hold his lack of belief against him and maybe that helps build bridges rather than meet him with arrogance and tear them down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because that was the accusation you were lamely trying to tempt me with. I give you my word, the next time I mention science you can follow up on your intentions with me under those assumptions.

What would you like to know about science, so that I can prepare?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because that was the accusation you were lamely trying to tempt me with. I give you my word, the next time I mention science you can follow up on your intentions with me under those assumptions.

I have to go. It's has gotten later than I realized. I'll let you have the last word if you are one of those that needs it. Not that I am saying you are, but I find some people feel they need it.

 

[Earthling]

What would you like to know about science, so that I can prepare?

Those questions are in the thread . . . for you have different questions.

1. Did Jehovah God create Adam and Eve. Male and female humans?
2. Was Jesus a real person and did he think that god created Adam and Eve. Male and female humans?
3. If God didn't create them, and they evolved, how did they sin and why would Jesus have been your savior since you were 12 years old?
4. If pine trees and elephants are related with a common ancestor what is that ancestor?

 

[gnostic]

There is only a single case of an ID article reaching a peer reviewed journal in the scientific mainstream. All the rest are just ID reviewers rubber stamping articles by other ID advocates.

That's one of the problems, ID reviewers approving works of other ID authors. That wouldn't be "critical review" on literature.

None of the authors from the Discovery Institute (DI) wrote any falsifiable hypothesis and the Discovery Institute are no place to review any literature of actual scientific hypotheses.

If the people of DI have any integrity, they cannot objectively critical review texts that support authors' works on ID.

One of the dishonesty that ID supporters can be exhibited with Michael Behe and the ID book, Of Panda and People (1989) written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis.

Behe was involved in the 3rd edition, which was renamed to The Design of Life (1993), where he contributed to the chapter regarding to blood clotting. It was revealed that he was not only co-author of Of Panda, but also listed as one of the "critical reviewers".

How can Behe possibly reviewed work critically, when he was co-author?

Biased much?

They (DI) also have their people to write review on every editions Of Panda, with positive reviews.

The lack of integrity among the ID advocates are simply staggering.

 

[Jollybear]

Since everything exists and there is no evidence of design, it must be. Anyway, your laughable attempt at straw man scientific methodology does not provide any reason to consider design to be any more than the religion that it is.

I am saying that you have not been able to demonstrate the existence of design in nature or the existence of a designer.
Because there is no evidence for it.

You didnt really answer my question.

Ill put it another way. You are a christian, right? And as a christian, you believe God designed the world, yes, no?

What is chance-time? Is this what scientists are really saying? Where are your references supporting this as a valid question. If you cannot show a designer, how can you ask questions about one?

This dont make any sense. Whats wrong with asking the question whether a designer made the universe, or nothing-chance-time made it? To find the truth, you got to ask questions FIRST, then do the work of finding the answers. Asking questions is PART of the scientific method. Right?

What work would that be? There is no scientific work in ID.

Yes.....there is. Why do i even have to say that though?

What is your basis for determining the presence of design? Is it all just a circular argument or have you been holding out on us?

That is pretty tall order and so far, you have nothing. Why don't you think about it and maybe scale it down a bit to something you can demonstrate.

This would tell you something about the patterns and functions of whatever a part is that makes up a species. How would this show design. I am not seeing it.

You do see it, if your a christian.

Are you suggesting we test God?

Maybe you should define a little more closely what you mean here.

I had stated what i meant. I meant test the world for the hallmarks of design.

Im gonna shorten this post and omit the rest for now.

 

[Shantanu]

I meant test the world for the hallmarks of design

Reality just is; and it progresses how we humans shape it: I thought this is a fundamental truth.

 

[Jollybear]

Show evidence that there is any design in a calf. I do not see it
a) Being manufactured.
b) By any manufacturer.
c) For any purpose of this manufacturer.
Hence no design.

Here are some wonders of how there parts work (designs)

"The cow has four stomachs and undergoes a special digestive process to break down the tough and coarse food it eats. When the cow first eats, it chews the food just enough to swallow it. The unchewed food travels to the first two stomachs, the rumen and the reticulum, where it is stored until later. When the cow is full from this eating process, she rests. Later, the cow coughs up bits of the unchewed food called cud and chews it completely this time before swallowing it again. The cud then goes to the third and fourth stomachs, the omasum and abomasum, where it is fully digested. Some of this digested food enters the bloodstream and travels to a bag called the udder, where it is made into milk that will come out of her teats, while the rest goes towards the cow's nourishment."

Cow Biology

Also, further wonders of the cow to its envoronment. More design.

"If you have a decent amount of land to work with, you can use your cow (or cows, whatever the case may be) to manage your pasture. Between keeping the pasture growth level managed, the cow’s manure will fertilize and nourish the ground resulting in beautiful, lush grazing for your cow year after year.

Being able to move your cow around to different sections of your pasture with rotational grazing is a great benefit to both the cow and the land as well."

5 Reasons To Have A Cow On The Homestead | The Easy Homestead

 

[Jollybear]

Reality just is; and it progresses how we humans shape it: I thought this is a fundamental truth.

Explain more?

 

[Shantanu]

Explain more?

I get concerned when people talk about Intelligent Design as if some Power has created life 3 billion years ago, and then it went through various stages of evolution to today, when I see how we humans live. We have freedom to decide how to shape our destiny: if one has a bad lifestyle one dies sooner than if one lives with proper nutrition and medications to relieve one's ailments. That is the Reality confronting us individually and it has confronted every living being since life began on Earth. Dinosaurs lived and perished: Hitler lived and perished, so what is so intelligent about that?

 

[Jollybear]

I get concerned when people talk about Intelligent Design as if some Power has created life 3 billion years ago, and then it went through various stages of evolution to today, when I see how we humans live. We have freedom to decide how to shape our destiny: if one has a bad lifestyle one dies sooner than if one lives with proper nutrition and medications to relieve one's ailments. That is the Reality confronting us individually and it has confronted every living being since life began on Earth. Dinosaurs lived and perished: Hitler lived and perished, so what is so intelligent about that?

What is so intelligent about that? Good question. Ill answer it this way:

1: just because things die, dont equel a lack of design. Illustration. Cars, buses, buildings can get damaged or destroyed, it dont make them any less designed just because they got destroyed. Likewise, in the same sense, just because dinos died, humans grow old and die, dont mean its not designed.

2: things dying is PART OF the current design. The weak must die so the strong can survive. The food chain. We eat animals, animals eat eachother. Vegetation and trees eat us and animals (firtilizer).

3: unintelligent design is STILL design. Illustration. Cars, buses, trucks, buildings of today are better design then ones built in there beginings. But, the ones in the beginings wer no less designed just because the design was inferior to designs of today. Likewise in the same sense, even if you think Gods design is unintelligent, thats no argument against ACTUAL design. Thats simply an issue you have with the designer.

4: why cant God design things that never die? Well ill answer that 2 ways:

1: we, nor anything are entitled to life or existence. God giving us life is a gift, its not an entitlement.

2: according to the judao/christian/muslim tradition God promises that in the future nothing will die or see corruption.

So, why dont he do it NOW you may ask?

Because in the current life he gave us, we must prove ourselves worthy of being accepted by him with how we live now.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is that NOT science? Tell me why? That sounds good to me. Why is that a bad thing?

This is the scientific method chart, right?

Ask a question: is the universe made by chance-time? Or is it made by a designer?

First of all, you need to explain what you mean by "made by a designer" in more detail. When was the design implemented? What are the mechanisms behind the design? Who or what caused the design?

Second, if you're going to phrase it that way you need to expound on why it's an either-or between "chance-time" and "made by a designer". For example, is your designer incapable of utilizing "chance-time"? If so, why?

Do backround research:

read both views. Read prior peoples work. Do direct research by looking to see if design is there or not.

And where have you done that? What specific scientific research did you read?

Construct a hypothesis:

in this case, my hypothesis is that intelligent design exists in our world.

Again you need to be more specific and detailed in why you mean by "design".

Test with an experiment:

experiment is finding patterns and learning the purpose and functions of the many parts that make up species.

And here's the crux of the issue. What you describe is not testing your hypothesis that things are designed. To test your hypothesis you need to identify the sorts of things you would expect to see if your hypothesis were true, and most importantly, what sorts of things you'd expect to see if your hypothesis were false.

IOW, if things were designed, we would see ______________________.

If things weren't designed, we would see ______________________.

 

[Jollybear]

First of all, you need to explain what you mean by "made by a designer" in more detail. When was the design implemented?

Be happy too. Very good, tight and objective questions your asking too.

The when is at the beginning of the universe. I define universe as all that exists. As for a year, i cannot pin that down whether it was 20 million years ago, or 20 trillions years ago, or heck, 20 thousand years ago. But, all this design and creating DID have a BEGINNING at some point in time in the past. The time i dont think is as important as knowing there was a beginning. Since everything has a cause, everything then has a beginning. So too, the universe.

What are the mechanisms behind the design?

Who or what caused the design?

Im going to lump these two questions together. Im doing this because i believe the mechanism and the WHO are the same thing in the creation and design of the universe.

First ill define God, since thats the WHO or mechanism. A formless, infinate, invisible energy. This energy is niether created or destroyed. Its eternal, no beginning to it. Its outside space, time and matter. This energy is also conscious and intelligent.

The way God created and designed is twofold. He imagined or thought what he was going to make. He pictured it. Then projected sound to create it. So, the combination of thought or imagination in combination with sound started to create. Then God kept shaping things in order to guide matter and energy to form diverse designs.

Just as DNA (information) is our blueprint, so too, God is the DNA of all the universe.

Second, if you're going to phrase it that way you need to expound on why it's an either-or between "chance-time" and "made by a designer". For example, is your designer incapable of utilizing "chance-time"? If so, why?

Theres 3 views. Many rehashes of these, but if you break it down, its only 3.

1: God created the universe
2: Universe was always here in one form or another.
3: nothing-chance-time created the universe.

The reason God dont use chance time, i think, is because of the too much order and design. Chance, i dont think can do it. It needs guidence. If i say God used chance to create, thats akin to me saying an artist splashes paint on a canvas and hope a picture of a building with trees come out of it. It wont happen.

And where have you done that? What specific scientific research did you read?

Oh boy....in the past ive read so much stuff from so many sources. Mostly websites. On different views of origins. I cant even begin to tell you what websites i went on.

As for testing design. I personally have not directly researched different functions of designs and parts. But many people have. I go by there work.

But, just being intuned with my surroundings, i do see functions, and designs. Like my heart beating, my lungs breathing. My nose. My mouth, teeth. Stomach. Fingers. Ect.

Again you need to be more specific and detailed in why you mean by "design".

Many parts that serve different functions. These many parts form an order.

And here's the crux of the issue. What you describe is not testing your hypothesis that things are designed. To test your hypothesis you need to identify the sorts of things you would expect to see if your hypothesis were true, and most importantly, what sorts of things you'd expect to see if your hypothesis were false.

Well....the sorts of things we would expect to see if my hypotheses wer true is we would see order. We would see things that have many parts that serve consistent, orderly functions. We would see complex organisms and complex species.

And lo and behold, thats what we do in fact see and find.

What we would expect to see if my hypotheses wer false is that everything would be simple. Nothing complex. No order. No parts that serve functions.

Thats what we dont find. At one time in the past, it was said the cell is simple. Until we figured out it was not.

 

[sayak83]

Here are some wonders of how there parts work (designs)

"The cow has four stomachs and undergoes a special digestive process to break down the tough and coarse food it eats. When the cow first eats, it chews the food just enough to swallow it. The unchewed food travels to the first two stomachs, the rumen and the reticulum, where it is stored until later. When the cow is full from this eating process, she rests. Later, the cow coughs up bits of the unchewed food called cud and chews it completely this time before swallowing it again. The cud then goes to the third and fourth stomachs, the omasum and abomasum, where it is fully digested. Some of this digested food enters the bloodstream and travels to a bag called the udder, where it is made into milk that will come out of her teats, while the rest goes towards the cow's nourishment."

Cow Biology

Also, further wonders of the cow to its envoronment. More design.

"If you have a decent amount of land to work with, you can use your cow (or cows, whatever the case may be) to manage your pasture. Between keeping the pasture growth level managed, the cow’s manure will fertilize and nourish the ground resulting in beautiful, lush grazing for your cow year after year.

Being able to move your cow around to different sections of your pasture with rotational grazing is a great benefit to both the cow and the land as well."

5 Reasons To Have A Cow On The Homestead | The Easy Homestead

Is the Sun designed? One may as well wax explicit about how the sun is so wonderful in keeping earth warm and full of light?
Is rain designed? One may write essays on how rain makes crops grow and gives water for parched souls.

Phenomena X being important for the rise of Phenomena Y is simply an example of causation, not design.

 

[Jollybear]

Is the Sun designed? One may as well wax explicit about how the sun is so wonderful in keeping earth warm and full of light?
Is rain designed? One may write essays on how rain makes crops grow and gives water for parched souls.

Phenomena X being important for the rise of Phenomena Y is simply an example of causation, not design.

There are very small designs (atoms) and very big designs (galaxies). And then everything inbetween.

As a recap, a design is that which is made up of many parts. Each part plays a functional role. This means each part plays a cause for something else.

A cause isolated to itself is not design. Or a part isolated from all the other parts are not design. The design comes into play when ALL THE PARTS come together and work together (doing multiple causes).

In the example you provided about the sun and water, design also plays a role. This is called the ecosystem. Everything works together. Multiple causations. If however we isolate the sun away from the water and earth, then this ecosystem design is not present. However, even if we isolate the sun, the sun has its own design within itself. Likewise if we isolate and zoom into water, its made of atoms. 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom. Thats its design. If we isolate the atoms, its design is made up of the parts protons, nuetrons and electrons.

As an analogy to all this, take all the parts that make up a house. The whole house is designed. But....if you isolate each part that plays a CAUSE, each part by itself has its own design. Wires, 4x4 wood, screws, tails, plumbing tubes, shingles, ect.

 

[sayak83]

There are very small designs (atoms) and very big designs (galaxies). And then everything inbetween.

As a recap, a design is that which is made up of many parts. Each part plays a functional role. This means each part plays a cause for something else.

A cause isolated to itself is not design. Or a part isolated from all the other parts are not design. The design comes into play when ALL THE PARTS come together and work together (doing multiple causes).

In the example you provided about the sun and water, design also plays a role. This is called the ecosystem. Everything works together. Multiple causations. If however we isolate the sun away from the water and earth, then this ecosystem design is not present. However, even if we isolate the sun, the sun has its own design within itself. Likewise if we isolate and zoom into water, its made of atoms. 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom. Thats its design. If we isolate the atoms, its design is made up of the parts protons, nuetrons and electrons.

As an analogy to all this, take all the parts that make up a house. The whole house is designed. But....if you isolate each part that plays a CAUSE, each part by itself has its own design. Wires, 4x4 wood, screws, tails, plumbing tubes, shingles, ect.

So...everything is designed??