Thread: Why are creationists dolts?

Aaaand, just in time. We have a real biologist trying to deal with questions from an anti-evolutionist/ ID proponent.

(Though who else detects a very strong hint of YEC in this list. If you want to impart a hint or a flavour, it's a good idea to be subtle when measuring out the ginger and the chili. Hints and flavours are not the same as a loud hailer system or a mouthful of food that destroys your sinuses.)

No! Not the list of stumpers again! – Pharyngula

Irreducible complexity is there in all its glory - with weasel words rather than clear propositions, though.

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

Which scientific processes could prove or disprove those particular narratives?

Dark energy and matter are tested through mathematical models and there are even attempts to indirectly detect such things. Yet, God has no fingerprint on the world. Nothing has ever been found which reasonably suggests God. She can't fit into any mathematical models, she cannot be detected, she cannot be predicted. I would argue that God cannot be evidenced because God IS the absolute absence of evidence. Where there are no explanations, reasons, logical hypotheses...there is God.

Science doesn't need to "disprove" that which cannot be, even in the smallest possible ways, demonstrated to exist.

You are correct. Outside of religious narrative, there is no scientific proof of God's existence. It may defy logic but at least half of the Earth seem to believe in God and have a fear of what lies beyond death sufficiently to believe. I cannot contradict you.

Yes I think this now moving away from the OP topic about creationism (which is fundamentally incompatible with the abundant scientific evidence - and therefore silly for any educated person to subscribe to) into the old and intractable argument about the existence or otherwise of God, on which, as you rightly say, science cannot comment. Plenty of educated people, including a great many scientists, continue to believe in God and find it helpful to follow the teachings of a religion as a guide to living their lives. Plenty of others don't see the need for this. Both stances are fair enough, it seems to me, and it is it impossible to resolve, however loudly anyone shouts - and I see some are starting to do so.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

But whose God is the right God? Must be the one with the most believers, right? How many people would be religious if they were not brain washed as children to believe? Fear of death, seems to be one of those survival instincts that all animal species share. But it takes a human brain to come up with a soul that needs saving for the promised after life. The promise of a better after life can be very appealing to many. But seems to be a very poor reason to be religious. My take on that is people want to believe there's something more after death. But really humans are no different than any other animal in that they are born and live their lives within their nature and then they die. Why does there have to be more than that? Or better, why do humans have to believe there is more than the natural cycle of life and death?

You may be correct. I certainly feel that my short life on Earth needs to be succeeded by something a bit longer with a longer chance to learn more about the Universe after death. I do fear a death with nothing else but an empty void after it. Religious texts assure me that this life is not an end in itself but part of a continuum where death is merely a "bus stop". I want to explore beyond and learn beyond this life. I want to know how the Universe was made and how the Absolute Divine shows us its attributes.

Why did humans create a soul concept? I think that religious texts, certainly for major world religions consider that consciousness reveals the presence of "something unknown", a unifying principle that survives all the changes in a human life and is impacted by action as a human attribute. Religious texts tell us that God created the souls but the concept is difficult to grasp and does not seem to be the separation of mind and body but as something which is difficult to grasp - certainly by me, at any rate. Due to my belief in a Universal Intelligence that created everything and then allowed it to be run by Universal Laws, I do believe in a soul and a judgement for the soul. This is the point that science cannot reach.

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

I do believe in a soul and a judgement for the soul. This is the point that science cannot reach.

How about psychology?

If you're actually claiming that "science can't reach the "soul" and judgement of same" (which I suspect is what you mean) then obviously not.
On the other hand no one - ever - has shown that such things exist.
I.e. NOBODY can do anything more than make unsupported claims, it's not a "failing of science" so much as a spurious and unfounded supposition.

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

at least half of the Earth seem to believe in God and have a fear of what lies beyond death sufficiently to believe.

80% of the world lives on less than the equivalent of $10 a day. 46% of the world is uneducated.I don't accept reality by concensus.

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Why? Why accept science only where there is a greater measure of certainty? What compels you to plug in the gaps in your knowledge with God?

SCience does not have all the answers to the question of why humanity finds itself in this particular form of exisatence. Science does not answer how human consciousness arrived at its current stage except to propose hypotheses including epiphenomenalism. Moreover, self-referential thought phrases indicate thought about thought and non-human primates which have been taught sign language seem unable to copy these facets of the human condition. Science cannot answer how human language arose and allowed humans to rise above other animals, write poetry and express innermost thoughts to each other on a Forum.

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

That is how I would report my belief. God does not break the laws of Physics in my opinion.

God itself defies science.

The only way we can contradict that proposal is to communicate with the living after death and to explain to the living whether or not the personality, ego, spirit...survives death.

The only way we can contradict that proposal is to communicate with the living after death and to explain to the living whether or not the personality, ego, spirit...survives death.[/QUOTE]

Isn't a hypothesis (something which can be rigorously tested) a bit better than pure assumptions with nothing to support them except for the "science can't explain it" argument?

Filling in the gaps with religion, which is dogma and therefore unalterable until some authority decides it is or isn't*, is like pulling the brakes and saying you don't need any further explanation. And if you actually do continue with research to explain a certain phenomenon, isn't that a bit sneaky? What would God say?

I don't know why people find it so hard to see through all this.


See the "Assupmtion of the Virgin Mary" defined by Pope Pius XII only in 1950. Wasn't even a hypothisis at all, was it?

Originally Posted by jgoti

See the "Assupmtion of the Virgin Mary" defined by Pope Pius XII only in 1950. Wasn't even a hypothisis at all, was it?

The mother of all assumptions!

I'll get my coat...

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

at least half of the Earth seem to believe in God and have a fear of what lies beyond death sufficiently to believe.

80% of the world lives on less than the equivalent of $10 a day. 46% of the world is uneducated.I don't accept reality by concensus.

You do realise that the argument for and against faith can use the same argument as your proposal...

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

You do realise that the argument for and against faith can use the same argument as your proposal...

Whut?
What proposal?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by jgoti

See the "Assupmtion of the Virgin Mary" defined by Pope Pius XII only in 1950. Wasn't even a hypothisis at all, was it?

The mother of all assumptions!

I'll get my coat...

No pun intended, unfortunately. Though it would have been a good one.

Originally Posted by jgoti

Isn't a hypothesis (something which can be rigorously tested) a bit better than pure assumptions with nothing to support them except for the "science can't explain it" argument?

Filling in the gaps with religion, which is dogma and therefore unalterable until some authority decides it is or isn't*, is like pulling the brakes and saying you don't need any further explanation. And if you actually do continue with research to explain a certain phenomenon, isn't that a bit sneaky? What would God say?

I don't know why people find it so hard to see through all this.

See the "Assupmtion of the Virgin Mary" defined by Pope Pius XII only in 1950. Wasn't even a hypothisis at all, was it?

I think that I did state that I believe in an original Act of Creation and that I am trying to accommodate Science with religion, treating religious doctrine as allegory and metaphor, which is the way religious texts about the origin of man were meant to be treated (IMO). Unalterable - no. Read as metaphor and allegory - yes. I prefer to fill in gaps with the idea of God as an intelligent Creator. Not by referring to events which were random and then modulated and directed by environmental conditions. The stress on random and chance is too much for my stupid mind to comprehend so I refer to a Creator who can guide and funnel his Creation into a certain direction. If I am correct, God would welcome Man to continue his quest to greater and greater knolwedge until Man reaches the boundaries of reality/the quantum world/ Participatory Antropic Principle....

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

I am trying to accommodate Science with religion

I'm STILL intrigued as to why you'd want to do that.
(Or even why you'd think possible, let alone required - too much like accommodating macramé into scuba diving...).

The stress on random and chance is too much for my stupid mind to comprehend so I refer to a Creator who can guide and funnel his Creation into a certain direction. If I am correct, God would welcome Man to continue his quest to greater and greater knolwedge until Man reaches the boundaries of reality/the quantum world/ Participatory Antropic Principle....

Okay, here's one: if god exists why doesn't EVERYONE believe?

The stress on random and chance is too much for my stupid mind to comprehend

Which is where some of us think that's what makes life wonderful. The odds for anyone of us even being born in the first place are pretty poor, less than 50% of fertilised ova result in a completed pregnancy. That's something to marvel at to start with.

For me? I'm glad and grateful to be here to see what's to be seen and to have the other lucky people in my life. And the larger world is astonishing and mysterious and exciting and ugly and nasty and incomprehensible in many ways.

It's not about being stupid or clever, it's about accepting, even enjoying, the fact that life is uncertain and shouldn't be taken for granted. We should make the most of every moment.

Originally Posted by adelady

The stress on random and chance is too much for my stupid mind to comprehend

Which is where some of us think that's what makes life wonderful. The odds for anyone of us even being born in the first place are pretty poor, less than 50% of fertilised ova result in a completed pregnancy. That's something to marvel at to start with.

For me? I'm glad and grateful to be here to see what's to be seen and to have the other lucky people in my life. And the larger world is astonishing and mysterious and exciting and ugly and nasty and incomprehensible in many ways.

It's not about being stupid or clever, it's about accepting, even enjoying, the fact that life is uncertain and shouldn't be taken for granted. We should make the most of every moment.

On this point, at least, we both agree. Life in all its manifestations is pretty awe-inspiring. Even a philospohical giant, Hegel, could not explain Nature in all its different forms and had to say: "I don't know". He just said it with more class than the rest of us: In

this externality the determinations of the concept have the appearance of an indifferent subsistence and isolation in regards to each other. The concept therefore exists as an inward entity. Hence nature exhibits no freedom in its existence, but only necessity and contingency

https://www.marxists.org/reference/a.../na/nature.htm

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

I am trying to accommodate Science with religion

I'm STILL intrigued as to why you'd want to do that.
(Or even why you'd think possible, let alone required - too much like accommodating macramé into scuba diving...).

The stress on random and chance is too much for my stupid mind to comprehend so I refer to a Creator who can guide and funnel his Creation into a certain direction. If I am correct, God would welcome Man to continue his quest to greater and greater knolwedge until Man reaches the boundaries of reality/the quantum world/ Participatory Anthropic Principle....

Okay, here's one: if god exists why doesn't EVERYONE believe?

I am still interested in Science as a source of objective truth in the hypothetico-deductive mode. However, I am not happy at the idea of Science and religion coming into conflict and am probably held in contempt by Dawkins and his followers as a weak believer. So be it! Why does God not force everyone to believe? It goes against a perception of free will IMO. I read a book many years ago by Samuel Johnson about a Prince who grew up in his Palace grounds and knew nothing else but kindness and goodness. Only by leaving the confines of goodness and coming into the real world did he actually appreciate what he had. IMO, this is why we have "badness". It focuses our minds on the contrast of good and bad. And then we learn about shades of grey later on.

The quote about accommodating macrame into scuba diving is hilarious. Enjoyed that!

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

I am still interested in Science as a source of objective truth in the hypothetico-deductive mode. However, I am not happy at the idea of Science and religion coming into conflict and am probably held in contempt by Dawkins and his followers as a weak believer.

Er, okay.
Still doesn't explain why you want (or think it possible to have) an accommodation.
They're in conflict because religion makes unscientific claims.
One, (or both) "discipline[s]" would have to cease being what it is for any accommodation to take place.

Why does God not force everyone to believe? It goes against a perception of free will IMO.

A) If god exists (as claimed by the Bible) then we CANNOT have free will anyway.
B) So god couldn't make sure we believe and still leave us with the illusion of free will?

I read a book many years ago by Samuel Johnson about a Prince who grew up in his Palace grounds and knew nothing else but kindness and goodness. Only by leaving the confines of goodness and coming into the real world did he actually appreciate what he had. IMO, this is why we have "badness". It focuses our minds on the contrast of good and bad. And then we learn about shades of grey later on.

Yeah, just another rationalisation to maintain a basically unrealistic viewpoint...

Originally Posted by jimmythesaint

You do realise that the argument for and against faith can use the same argument as your proposal...

My proposal demands following a strict set of guidelines and passing scrutiny. If I'm not mistaken, scrutinizing God is considered blasphemy.

I'll take the former method any day.

This study solves everything.

Biologists Confirm God Evolved From Chimpanzee Deity | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Looks like satire, turns out to be highbrow sarcasm.

I find the verbage here unnecessarily inflammatory. Further, the idea that being a creationist somehow makes you an idiot shows a lack of understanding about the cultural and spiritual significance of a person's religion. For myself, I have no problem letting science fill one roll in my life and religion another, generally agreeing with mainstream science on issues of science and issues of religion with my religious teachers. I'd even go so far as to say my appreciation of one increases the appreciation of the other. Any lack of understanding you see probably comes from an inability to set aside previous teachings, (including scientific and religious,) when examining new evidence/theories rather than believing in a creator. Saying that having a religion inherently makes you less scientific/able to discuss things rationally is false. Humans are more than capable of having things in their lives that fill different roles, all combining to form a general philosophy/balanced life.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I find the verbage here etc...

You are aware of what creationists claim, aren't you?
If so how can you claim that believing creationism doesn't make you less scientific?
It's a denial of science.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I find the verbage here etc...

You are aware of what creationists claim, aren't you?
If so how can you claim that believing creationism doesn't make you less scientific?
It's a denial of science.

I suppose I can see where you are coming from if you take creationism to mean the denial of evolution/random occurrences in the universe, which I suppose is the common definition for the term in the scientific community and would make you less scientific. If the OP instead means it as a belief in a G-d/gods/having a religion or believing in any role in the universe by a creator, my point stands. I guess I read it as 'religious people/those with belief in any G-d are dolts,' which may not be what the OP meant at all. If so, I apologize for assuming the worst intent. Still, I wouldn't call creationists dolts. People can believe some really wonky things and still be intelligent overall. I know some intelligent people who are strict creationists. I do not find the belief in a 6-10 thousand year old Earth or of any 'macro-evolution,' (whatever that means? it seems to fluctuate a lot and can't get anyone to pin down a consistent definition. I came extraordinarily close once with someone but I digress,) an intelligible one, but I respect their intelligence enough to not believe them when they say they came to said opinion through scientific means. Instead, I chalk it up to the human ability to believe extraordinary things if they want to believe it badly enough. Insults aren't necessary.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I suppose I can see where you are coming from if you take creationism to mean the denial of evolution/random occurrences in the universe, which I suppose is the common definition for the term in the scientific community and would make you less scientific. If the OP instead means it as a belief in a G-d/gods/having a religion or believing in any role in the universe by a creator, my point stands.

in common parlance when people talk about creationists they don't mean just anyone who tends to believe in god - by most definitions a creationist is someone who insists on the inerrancy of every word in the bible, and holds this as proof that evolution, geology, astronomy, cosmology as understood by mainstream scientists is wrong for the simple reason that their findings contradict what the bible says happens

that's what makes a creationist not just unscientific but also anti-scientific, something that does not necessarily apply to anyone who holds religion in high regard

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I do not find the belief in a 6-10 thousand year old Earth or a of any 'macro-evolution,' (whatever that means? it seems to fluctuate a lot and can't get anyone to pin down a consistent definition. I came extraordinarily close once with someone but I digress,) an intelligible one

What specifically do you find unintelligible about the understanding of macro-evolution?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I do not find the belief in a 6-10 thousand year old Earth or a of any 'macro-evolution,' (whatever that means? it seems to fluctuate a lot and can't get anyone to pin down a consistent definition. I came extraordinarily close once with someone but I digress,) an intelligible one

What specifically do you find unintelligible about the understanding of macro-evolution?

Other than the fact that it is a concept made up by people trying to attack evolution and it doesn't actually exist seeing as 'macro-evolution' would simply be minor adaptations added up over time? The definition seems to change based on whoever's talking and sometimes changes even as the same person talks. The closest I came to pinning it down from someone was something like, "It is any addition spontaneous addition of data, whereas micro evolution is the loss of data" which I suppose is a specific definition. I can respect that it isn't a wishy washy definition. But even then, it is confusing. In his model, if a giraffe contained all the traits to be a mouse, and it became one by the losing of data, but a cow added the data to have one pink mole on its nose, the former would be micro and the latter macro. The whole concept of Micro/Macro evolution isn't scientifically tenable.

Note: I realize the way I phrased it, it looked as though I was saying that evolution does not happen on a large scale. My mistake. I meant the act of defining evolution in such a way as to distinguish between minor and macro evolution, which is an invented concept, is nonsense. Not the belief in the phenomena.

Macro-evolution is a valid used term in biology describing evolution beyond that occurring within a species.

Sounds like the major problem your having with it is youve only been looking at creationist definitions, rather then biology ones.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Macro-evolution is a valid used term in biology describing evolution beyond that occurring within a species.

Sounds like the major problem your having with it is youve only been looking at creationist definitions, rather then biology ones.

They aren't talking about Macro-Evolution like that, I don't think. They are talking about 'Micro-Evolution' and 'Macro-Evolution' as it applies to one species over time changing into another. I don't think most would admit that all a Macroevolution would be is a number of 'micro' evolutions within a population added up over time.

I of course have no issue with using the word macroevolution to describe a large number of adaptations within a sepcies, but Macroevolution doesn't exist by itself. It only exists as the combination of 'microevolutions.' There are not some individual changes that are micro, and some that are macro, as I've heard some argue. I've very rarely heard the term macroevolution from biology/biologists. I've almost always heard it, 99% of the time, from people against evolution who invented their idea of macroevolution. I concede it is entirely possible this is just chance, I haven't come across the term used by scientists much due to bad luck/me not noticing it when they do. It is also possible that biologists are more careful about using the term now than before, because other people hijacked and changed the term. Whatever the reason, I'll be more careful in the future how I use the term macroevolution and do research on the various definitions of the term. Thanks.

Biology makes the distinction between the two when the transition between one species to another starts to occur. So they are partially correct in the usage, they just deny it happens.

Its all a matter of timescale and rapidity of the divergence, there isnt a "macrochange" in the way you are using it, and it shows they do not actually know biology if they are attempting to say there is.

Campbell 9th edition biology for college students specifically uses and addresses it in the coverage of evolutionary processes. Most biologists do not use it due to it in and of itself being uncontroversial in biology and not generally specifically relevant to the subject they may be covering.
:-)

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Biology makes the distinction between the two when the transition between one species to another starts to occur. So they are partially correct in the usage, they just deny it happens. Its all a matter of timescale and rapidity of the divergence, there isnt a "macrochange" in the way you are using it, and it shows they do not actually know biology if they are attempting to say there is. Campbell 9th edition biology for college students specifically uses and addresses it in the coverage of evolutionary processes. Most biologists do not use it due to it in and of itself being uncontroversial in biology and not generally specifically relevant to the subject they may be covering. :-)

All right, interesting.

When I was in elementary school, I didn't even know that creationists existed. When I found some pro-creationist videos and comments on YouTube when I was 13, I was confused and it took a while to understand that there are literally people out there today who seriously think that earth is 6000 years old. I was like, Wow.
I used to debate creationists a lot, and they use to really aggrivate me, but I ignore them now, unless they come to me first, or if I just feel like pissing myself off (isn't the human brain naturally biased for negativity?)
A good debate with a creationist eventually leads to convincing them that evolution is true.* I am not knowledgable enough about science, nor do I have enough patience and tolerance, to qualify for this. Thus I do not argue with creationists and I let others handle them. I find out that most of my "debates" were flame wars between somebody who know very little about evolution (me), and somebody who knew nothing at all (them). Many of my evolution friends said that they could get creationists to the point where they are unable to respond. I've never had this happen to me, but it sounded awesome.

* I firmly believe this is the case, unless the person believes in an unfalsifiable claim against evolution, such as "God put the evidence there to test our faith" or solipsism. A lot of creationists simply will not accept evolution no matter what, and by this statement a good debate with them is impossible.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

But do you have evidence that the universe did not "produce intelligent beings that are capable of creation" via "chance which is governed by the laws within our universe", and that there is a different mecahnism for producing "intelligent" vs "non-intelligent" systems? If you do present it, if not it is basically saying "Goddidit" and is just another unsupported belief :shrug:

Humans are proof that intelligence exist in the universe and the ability of human beings to create and/or alter things, including life, is also proof that creation or alteration by Intelligent life is possible in other places and at other incidences/occasions in space and time. I am not saying that human or our universe were created, altered, developed or guided by other beings, I am just saying that if humans are capable of such things, in theory, then its possible that other beings could have influences Us and/or the universe we live in. I dont know either way and I am not claiming to know. Someone can tell me god created it all, and without proof, I dont hold it as fact. Likewise, someone can tell me that humans, as well as our universe, is and was all created by chance, without intelligent input but, I know such a statement is not factual. Our own solar system has a lot of intelligently created things and objects in it.. We alter our own lives and the lives and genetics of other life forms on planet earth as well. Intelligent creation and alteration is just as much as a fact in the universe as creation and alteration by random and unintelligent circumstances/conditions are. The universe equally permits and allows for a mountain to be created by a volcano or by an intelligent Being.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Likewise, someone can tell me that humans, as well as our universe, is and was all created by chance, without intelligent input but, I know such a statement is not factual.

How do you "know"?
What evidence do you have?

Our own solar system has a lot of intelligently created things and objects in it.

For example?

We alter our own lives and the lives and genetics of other life forms on planet earth as well. Intelligent creation and alteration is just as much as a fact in the universe as creation and alteration by random and unintelligent circumstances/conditions are. The universe equally permits and allows for a mountain to be created by a volcano or by an intelligent Being.

Er, yeah....

I know because planet earth and everything on it is part of the universe... I know for a fact that humans create things, alter things and change life and we do so by way of intelligence, not chance. We are the part, the proof in the universe, that can gaze upon itself and created things, not by chance but by intelligent thought and action.

Now are we the only beings able to do this? Are we the only beings to ever do this? Are we the only beings that will ever be able to do this? I dont know but, we are proof that the universe is not just made up of unintelligent elements and energy.. We are proof that intelligence exist and it creates, alters and influences within the universe.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Likewise, someone can tell me that humans, as well as our universe, is and was all created by chance, without intelligent input but, I know such a statement is not factual.

How do you "know"?What evidence do you have?

Our own solar system has a lot of intelligently created things and objects in it.

For example?

We alter our own lives and the lives and genetics of other life forms on planet earth as well. Intelligent creation and alteration is just as much as a fact in the universe as creation and alteration by random and unintelligent circumstances/conditions are. The universe equally permits and allows for a mountain to be created by a volcano or by an intelligent Being.

Er, yeah....

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I know because planet earth and everything on it is part of the universe... I know for a fact that humans create things, alter things and change life and we do so by way of intelligence, not chance. We are the part, the proof in the universe, that can gaze upon itself and created things, not by chance but by intelligent thought and action.

Which doesn't, in any way, support your argument.
In other words: you don't know you believe.

Lets try it this way...

I have directv. Who created the satellites orbiting earth that receive then beam down images and sound? Would you say that those satellites were created and then placed in orbit around earth by intelligent beings or by random unintelligent circumstances?

What about those robotic rovers on Mars? Random unintelligent circumstances created them off of Mars then sent them to Mars or, created by intelligent beings, sent to Mars by intelligent beings and controlled by intelligent beings from another planet?

My point is easily understood, made and supported.. There are already things made, altered and influenced within our universe by intelligent beings. To claim otherwise is false.

Any claim you or anyone make concerning what has or has not been made, influenced or altered by intelligent beings, without proof, will not be something I will file away as factual.

You can claim nothing intelligent has done anything and someone else can claim something intelligent has done it all... Either way, they are both silly claims/statements to me.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I know because planet earth and everything on it is part of the universe... I know for a fact that humans create things, alter things and change life and we do so by way of intelligence, not chance. We are the part, the proof in the universe, that can gaze upon itself and created things, not by chance but by intelligent thought and action.

Which doesn't, in any way, support your argument.In other words: you don't know you believe.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Lets try it this way...I have directv. Who created the satellites orbiting earth that receive then beam down images and sound? Would you say that those satellites were created and then placed in orbit around earth by intelligent beings or by random unintelligent circumstances? What about those robotic rovers on Mars? Random unintelligent circumstances created them off of Mars then sent them to Mars or, created by intelligent beings, sent to Mars by intelligent beings and controlled by intelligent beings from another planet?

Yeah, you're reaching. Again.
We know that we built those - we have the drawings and the manufacturing plants.
The fact that we did so says nothing whatsoever about the universe as whole.

Your "argument" is the equivalent of claiming that since we know Earth has seas "made of" water means everything in the universe is made of water.
(I and all of my friends speak English: that must mean everyone does, no?)

We know that there are intelligent beings in the universe that can create, alter and influence. We are that proof, we are the ones who can do so. We have done so. Are we the only ones? Who knows. Can a person of science completely rule out that we are the only beings? No.

We dont know to what extent intelligent beings, if any at all, have created, altered or influenced. Any claim of absolute to the contrary is just as wrong headed as claiming there is a god that created everything. We just dont know.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Lets try it this way...I have directv. Who created the satellites orbiting earth that receive then beam down images and sound? Would you say that those satellites were created and then placed in orbit around earth by intelligent beings or by random unintelligent circumstances? What about those robotic rovers on Mars? Random unintelligent circumstances created them off of Mars then sent them to Mars or, created by intelligent beings, sent to Mars by intelligent beings and controlled by intelligent beings from another planet?

Yeah, you're reaching. Again.We know that we built those - we have the drawings and the manufacturing plants.The fact that we did so says nothing whatsoever about the universe as whole.Your "argument" is the equivalent of claiming that since we know Earth has seas "made of" water means everything in the universe is made of water.(I and all of my friends speak English: that must mean everyone does, no?)

Originally Posted by gonzales56

We know that their are intelligent beings in the universe that can create, alter and influence. We are that proof, we are the ones who can do so.

So what?
That does mean, or even imply, that intelligence had any part in the creation, structure or "design" of the universe.

Our own solar system has a lot of intelligently created things and objects in it

Still waiting...

Gonzales56 now appears to be just hand-waving and clutching at straws, if he posts anything resembling a rational argument I'll respond, until then I'm out.

It means that it is possible though. Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.

Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

We know that their are intelligent beings in the universe that can create, alter and influence. We are that proof, we are the ones who can do so.

So what?That does mean, or even imply, that intelligence had any part in the creation, structure or "design" of the universe.

Our own solar system has a lot of intelligently created things and objects in it

Still waiting...

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It means that it is possible though.

And it's also "possible" that planets are pushed round in their orbits by invisble unicorns, ridden by pixies.

Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.

False.
Since we have evidence (i.e. the laws of physics) indicating that it's "chance" and none whatsoever that intelligence played a part then one claim is silly, the other isn't.
I'll leave it, as they say, as an exercise for the student to work out which is which.

Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Ah right.
So when you said "solar system" you actually meant "on Earth" (counting orbit as "on Earth") and you meant "created by us".
I.e. an almost negligible fraction of the total number of "things" in the solar system.
In other words a non-sequitur...

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It means that it is possible though. Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.

Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Gonzales I find your argument here specious.

Surely, the only scientific (objective) reasons to attribute the existence of something to a creative act are either :

a) prior knowledge of its creation, as with man-made satellites etc, or
b) where we cannot account for its existence by a natural process,

are they not?

Once you start attributing things in nature to creation, you stop the science process. It is the intellectual equivalent to shrugging your shoulders and saying "we give up, we can't explain this." It is, in short, a wholly antiscientific stance.

Now, if you want to leave room in the world for religious belief, I would contend that the educated (as opposed to ignorant or foolish) religious believer does so due to subjective experiences which suggest something beyond the physical world and because he or she finds the precepts of a religion helpful to guide and inspire his or her life. Being subjective, they are not amenable to science. They can't be corroborated objectively, and thus do not meet the criteria to be considered real by the scientific method of enquiry.

So those for whom the scientific method constitutes a whole worldview can choose to dismiss anything like that as fantasy, on the principle that only the objective has any existence. All the religious believer can say to that is that there seems, entirely subjectively, to be more to the experience of human existence than this.

But looking for acts of creation (i.e. the overriding of natural processes) in the physical world is a fools' errand for anyone who believes in the value of science.

We know that their are intelligent beings in the universe that can create, alter and influence. We are that proof, we are the ones who can do so.

Zebra and octopus create beings in their own image - as does every tree. Beavers and elephants and birds and wombats and snakes and bower birds create spaces and habitats and accommodation to suit their own purposes.

The ability to create is not a black/ white or yes/no issue. It's a continuum - from simple instinctive behaviours through to learned and/or cooperative behaviours, some require intelligence to devise in the first place, others require intelligence to carry out apparently instinctive behaviours efficiently or robustly.

We already know that we were over-reaching when we used to claim that only people were intelligent - and able to communicate - and other animals were not. We should be much more careful about similar qualities and abilities like creativity.

It's quite enough for me that we have, as far as we know, the biggest and most flexible range of abilities related to intelligence and communication, with the added bonus of opposable thumbs making us much better able to handle and manipulate material objects.

Actually, the laws of physics tell Us that its possible for intelligent beings to create a universe. Even a designer one.. IMO, again, its just as silly to deny the real possibility that other intelligent beings could have played a roll in your existence as it is to claim that god create you and everything else.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It means that it is possible though.

And it's also "possible" that planets are pushed round in their orbits by invisble unicorns, ridden by pixies.

Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.

False.Since we have evidence (i.e. the laws of physics) indicating that it's "chance" and none whatsoever that intelligence played a part then one claim is silly, the other isn't.I'll leave it, as they say, as an exercise for the student to work out which is which.

Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Ah right.So when you said "solar system" you actually meant "on Earth" (counting orbit as "on Earth") and you meant "created by us".I.e. an almost negligible fraction of the total number of "things" in the solar system.In other words a non-sequitur...

I could not disagree with you more. Searching and looking for other intelligent beings, as well as searching for traces of technology is very important, imo, to science. Getting off earth and ultimately exploring the cosmos, as much as possible, not to just break open rocks to look for the inside of a rock, IMO, is also very important to human kind and science.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It means that it is possible though. Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Gonzales I find your argument here specious.Surely, the only scientific (objective) reasons to attribute the existence of something to a creative act are either :a) prior knowledge of its creation, as with man-made satellites etc, orb) where we cannot account for its existence by a natural process,are they not?Once you start attributing things in nature to creation, you stop the science process. It is the intellectual equivalent to shrugging your shoulders and saying "we give up, we can't explain this." It is, in short, a wholly antiscientific stance.Now, if you want to leave room in the world for religious belief, I would contend that the educated (as opposed to ignorant or foolish) religious believer does so due to subjective experiences which suggest something beyond the physical world and because he or she finds the precepts of a religion helpful to guide and inspire his or her life. Being subjective, they are not amenable to science. They can't be corroborated objectively, and thus do not meet the criteria to be considered real by the scientific method of enquiry. So those for whom the scientific method constitutes a whole worldview can choose to dismiss anything like that as fantasy, on the principle that only the objective has any existence. All the religious believer can say to that is that there seems, entirely subjectively, to be more to the experience of human existence than this.But looking for acts of creation (i.e. the overriding of natural processes) in the physical world is a fools' errand for anyone who believes in the value of science.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Actually, the laws of physics tell Us that its possible for intelligent beings to create a universe. Even a designer one.

Really?
Which particular laws of physics indicate that creation of a universe by "intelligent beings" is possible?
Do you know HOW the universe started?
And we know that the laws of physics tell us that those intelligent are NOT required: ergo to postulate (without evidence) that they were involved is silly.

IMO, again, its just as silly to deny the real possibility that other intelligent beings could have played a roll in your existence as it is to claim that god create you and everything else.

Wrong again.
It's NOT a "real possibility".

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I could not disagree with you more. Searching and looking for other intelligent beings, as well as searching for traces of technology is very important, imo, to science. Getting off earth and ultimately exploring the cosmos, as much as possible, not to just break open rocks to look for the inside of a rock, IMO, is also very important to human kind and science.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It means that it is possible though. Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Gonzales I find your argument here specious.Surely, the only scientific (objective) reasons to attribute the existence of something to a creative act are either :a) prior knowledge of its creation, as with man-made satellites etc, orb) where we cannot account for its existence by a natural process,are they not?Once you start attributing things in nature to creation, you stop the science process. It is the intellectual equivalent to shrugging your shoulders and saying "we give up, we can't explain this." It is, in short, a wholly antiscientific stance.Now, if you want to leave room in the world for religious belief, I would contend that the educated (as opposed to ignorant or foolish) religious believer does so due to subjective experiences which suggest something beyond the physical world and because he or she finds the precepts of a religion helpful to guide and inspire his or her life. Being subjective, they are not amenable to science. They can't be corroborated objectively, and thus do not meet the criteria to be considered real by the scientific method of enquiry. So those for whom the scientific method constitutes a whole worldview can choose to dismiss anything like that as fantasy, on the principle that only the objective has any existence. All the religious believer can say to that is that there seems, entirely subjectively, to be more to the experience of human existence than this.But looking for acts of creation (i.e. the overriding of natural processes) in the physical world is a fools' errand for anyone who believes in the value of science.

You have misread me.

I was not talking about the search for other intelligent ilife, which is obviously part of science.

I was talking about attributing observable things or processes to a creative act rather than a natural process.

I have the feeling you may be mixing these two things up in your argument. They are totally distinct.

A natural act is attributed to what it is.. A natural act. I am talking about claims people make contributing the unknown to being done so by way of intelligent beings or a natural act when in reality it is unknown... My point was a simple one. The universe allows for both to occur. I will not reject or accept either explaination until the unknown is known.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I could not disagree with you more. Searching and looking for other intelligent beings, as well as searching for traces of technology is very important, imo, to science. Getting off earth and ultimately exploring the cosmos, as much as possible, not to just break open rocks to look for the inside of a rock, IMO, is also very important to human kind and science.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by gonzales56

It means that it is possible though. Because of that, a claim that its not so is just as silly as a claim that it is so.Concerning your question, how can you still be waiting for an answer to "what in our solar system has been intelligently created?" How about the computer or phone you are using right now? I can list many more intelligently created things in our solar system if you wish..

Gonzales I find your argument here specious.Surely, the only scientific (objective) reasons to attribute the existence of something to a creative act are either :a) prior knowledge of its creation, as with man-made satellites etc, orb) where we cannot account for its existence by a natural process,are they not?Once you start attributing things in nature to creation, you stop the science process. It is the intellectual equivalent to shrugging your shoulders and saying "we give up, we can't explain this." It is, in short, a wholly antiscientific stance.Now, if you want to leave room in the world for religious belief, I would contend that the educated (as opposed to ignorant or foolish) religious believer does so due to subjective experiences which suggest something beyond the physical world and because he or she finds the precepts of a religion helpful to guide and inspire his or her life. Being subjective, they are not amenable to science. They can't be corroborated objectively, and thus do not meet the criteria to be considered real by the scientific method of enquiry. So those for whom the scientific method constitutes a whole worldview can choose to dismiss anything like that as fantasy, on the principle that only the objective has any existence. All the religious believer can say to that is that there seems, entirely subjectively, to be more to the experience of human existence than this.But looking for acts of creation (i.e. the overriding of natural processes) in the physical world is a fools' errand for anyone who believes in the value of science.

You have misread me. I was not talking about the search for other intelligent ilife, which is obviously part of science. I was talking about attributing observable things or processes to a creative act rather than a natural process.I have the feeling you may be mixing these two things up in your argument. They are totally distinct.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The universe allows for both to occur.

You have yet to show that this true.

I will not reject or accept either explaination until the unknown is known.

In other words you're going to cling to your belief while maintaining it's a neutral position.

Just because something can occur naturally or without an intelligent being doing it, doesnt mean scientifically you can dismiss the idea that it could have been done by an intelligent being. Your idea of how science proves or disproves something is a bit off IMO. Just because a diamond can be made without the help of an intelligent person, it doesn't mean you get to blindly look at every diamond and claim that science tells you all of them are created naturally. Again, things are created in the universe both ways.. Naturally and by intelligent beings. This is a fact.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Actually, the laws of physics tell Us that its possible for intelligent beings to create a universe. Even a designer one.

Really?Which particular laws of physics indicate that creation of a universe by "intelligent beings" is possible?Do you know HOW the universe started?And we know that the laws of physics tell us that those intelligent are NOT required: ergo to postulate (without evidence) that they were involved is silly.

IMO, again, its just as silly to deny the real possibility that other intelligent beings could have played a roll in your existence as it is to claim that god create you and everything else.

Wrong again.It's NOT a "real possibility".

If you cant understand that things are created by intelligent beings then there is no helping you. I hate to say this but, it means you are as lost as those who believe all things are made by god. Instead of god though, you believe everything is made naturally.. Same mistake though.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The universe allows for both to occur.

You have yet to show that this true.

I will not reject or accept either explaination until the unknown is known.

In other words you're going to cling to your belief while maintaining it's a neutral position.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Just because something can occur naturally or without an intelligent being doing it, doesnt mean scientifically you can dismiss the idea that it could have been done by an intelligent being.

Wrong.
Given that the laws of physics show that the universe can have happened "on its own" and lacking evidence for intelligent beings then they can be dismissed quite safely.

Your idea of how science proves or disproves something is a bit off IMO.

Where did I use the word "prove"?
And your idea of science is to grasp at straws so that you don't have to relinquish your belief.

Again, things are created in the universe both ways.

Wrong.
You persist in using "in the universe" as if we encompass the universe: we're a completely insignificant part of it.

This is a fact.

One you're extrapolating to a ridiculous extent.

And still waiting:
Which particular laws of physics indicate that creation of a universe by "intelligent beings" is possible?

Its an inflation theory.. Chaotic Inflation Theory covers it.. I believe it also predicted the new evidence they found for the big bang recently . The theory shows that it is very much possible to create a universe. Not only create a universe but, possible to create a universe and multiple universes where the physics in that universe can be specifically designed.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Just because something can occur naturally or without an intelligent being doing it, doesnt mean scientifically you can dismiss the idea that it could have been done by an intelligent being.

Wrong.Given that the laws of physics show that the universe can have happened "on its own" and lacking evidence for intelligent beings then they can be dismissed quite safely.

Your idea of how science proves or disproves something is a bit off IMO.

Where did I use the word "prove"?And your idea of science is to grasp at straws so that you don't have to relinquish your belief.

Again, things are created in the universe both ways.

Wrong.You persist in using "in the universe" as if we encompass the universe: we're a completely insignificant part of it.

This is a fact.

One you're extrapolating to a ridiculous extent.And still waiting:Which particular laws of physics indicate that creation of a universe by "intelligent beings" is possible?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/18...html?referrer=

Alan Guth might very well end up being one of sciences biggest rock stars...

"Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology first proposed the now widely accepted idea of cosmic inflation – that the starting point of the Big Bang was far smaller, and its expansion far more rapid, than had been assumed. He has investigated the technicalities of "the creation of universes in the laboratory", and concluded that the laws of physics do, in principle, make it possible." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-universe.html

Linde: "What my theoretical argument shows—and Alan Guth and others who have looked at this matter have come to the same conclusion—is that we can't rule out the possibility that our own universe was created in a lab by someone in another universe who just felt like doing it." The creation of the universe.

Regardless of your beliefs, it's possible for an intelligent being to create a universe.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Its an inflation theory.. Chaotic Inflation Theory covers it.. I believe it also predicted the new evidence they found for the big bang recently . The theory shows that it is very much possible to create a universe. Not only create a universe but, possible to create a universe and multiple universes where the physics in that universe can be specifically designed.

why do you insist on using the words "create" and "design" all the time ?
inflation theory is a way of explaining how the universe rapidly expanded from subatomic to macroscopic size - it doesn't have anything to say about whether this was an act of creation or whether it happened by design, and i can't think of any means of finding out whether the terms "creation" and "design" as applied to the big bang and the inflation theory have any meaning at all

as for your line of reasoning which translates "humans have created stuff here on earth" to "an intelligent being has created the universe", that's the same non-sequitur as Palin's conjecture : appearance of design is not proof of design, and an analogy is nowhere near the level of proof required to make your point

[edit]
also, not being able to rule out the possibility that something happened does not mean it must have happened - it's like saying that something is black just because it's not 100% white
[/edit]

Originally Posted by gonzales56

A natural act is attributed to what it is.. A natural act. I am talking about claims people make contributing the unknown to being done so by way of intelligent beings or a natural act when in reality it is unknown... My point was a simple one. The universe allows for both to occur. I will not reject or accept either explaination until the unknown is known.

Well it's a truism to say that the unknown is, er, unknown.

But while it is theoretically possible we may discover things created by intelligent beings in future, the modus operandi of natural science is to seek natural explanations. That is why it is called natural science. To date, this approach has been extremely successful at accounting for what we observe in the physical world. Nothing has been been found in nature that requires an intelligent being to have created it, as opposed it coming to be through the workings of nature.

In science we apply the principle of Occam's Razor, namely to use the simplest explanation consistent with the observations. This principle means we should never invoke creation by intelligent beings unless we are forced by the observations to do so. This has never been required to date.

Marnix, you of all people should know to actually read what I have written rather than make assumptions concerning what you think I wrote or believe. I never stated that anything outside of what humans have created, altered or influenced has been done by god or other intelligent beings. What I have said is that its not factual to claim all things are made by natural processes or all things are made by god when 1. It is unknown 2. Something could have been made by natural processes or made, altered or influenced by intelligent beings.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Its an inflation theory.. Chaotic Inflation Theory covers it.. I believe it also predicted the new evidence they found for the big bang recently . The theory shows that it is very much possible to create a universe. Not only create a universe but, possible to create a universe and multiple universes where the physics in that universe can be specifically designed.

why do you insist on using the words "create" and "design" all the time ?inflation theory is a way of explaining how the universe rapidly expanded from subatomic to macroscopic size - it doesn't have anything to say about whether this was an act of creation or whether it happened by design, and i can't think of any means of finding out whether the terms "creation" and "design" as applied to the big bang and the inflation theory have any meaning at allas for your line of reasoning which translates "humans have created stuff here on earth" to "an intelligent being has created the universe", that's the same non-sequitur as Palin's conjecture : appearance of design is not proof of design, and an analogy is nowhere near the level of proof required to make your point[edit]also, not being able to rule out the possibility that something happened does not mean it must have happened - it's like saying that something is black just because it's not 100% white[/edit]

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What I have said is that its not factual to claim all things are made by natural processes or all things are made by god when 1. It is unknown 2. Something could have been made by natural processes or made, altered or influenced by intelligent beings.

Yep and we could all just be part of the dream of the cosmic dragon. Or maybe everything is an illusion invented by your mind.

However, back in the word of science, we look at evidence and what it indicates. Just making up "it could be" stories isn't science.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Marnix, you of all people should know to actually read what I have written rather than make assumptions concerning what you think I wrote or believe. I never stated that anything outside of what humans have created, altered or influenced has been done by god or other intelligent beings. What I have said is that its not factual to claim all things are made by natural processes or all things are made by god when 1. It is unknown 2. Something could have been made by natural processes or made, altered or influenced by intelligent beings.

I think you misunderstand the scientific endeavour. It proceeds from a premiss that everything in the physical world has a natural cause. It is not a specific observation, like the other "facts" in science, but a working assumption of the scientific method. However it must be said that the success this assumption in science suggests it is pretty close to being something we can take as fact.

And furthermore the principle of parsimony (or Occam's Razor) is another key part of the scientific method. This means we do not add extra hypotheses unless they are necessary to account for the observed facts. To date, there has been no need to invoke creation by intelligence AT ALL to account for our observations in nature and there is no reason to think this will change.

Why are creationists dolts? Because they expect pseudoscientific bullshit like this http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...tml#post552616 to be taken seriously

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Its an inflation theory.. Chaotic Inflation Theory covers it.. I believe it also predicted the new evidence they found for the big bang recently . The theory shows that it is very much possible to create a universe.

Wrong again.
What your link actually states - and you quoted it - was: we can't rule out the possibility.
That's not the same as saying that we know it's possible.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What I have said is that its not factual to claim all things are made by natural processes or all things are made by god when 1. It is unknown 2. Something could have been made by natural processes or made, altered or influenced by intelligent beings.

Yep and we could all just be part of the dream of the cosmic dragon. Or maybe everything is an illusion invented by your mind.However, back in the word of science, we look at evidence and what it indicates. Just making up "it could be" stories isn't science.

You are just as entitled to believe that the possibility of advanced intelligent beings in the universe is kin to a dream of dragons just as other people are entitled to believe god gave moses ten commandments on a hill.

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

You are just as entitled to believe that the possibility of advanced intelligent beings in the universe is kin to a dream of dragons just as other people are entitled to believe god gave moses ten commandments on a hill.

Yep, there's no evidence for either one.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos..

That's not what you've been arguing here.

other beings could have influences Us and/or the universe we live in

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

Of course it is possible.

But, you know, evidence? Without that, it is just an act of faith.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

Of course it is possible. But, you know, evidence? Without that, it is just an act of faith.

I do not need to have faith that intelligent beings outside of our planet exist. Never claimed they do, just claimed that its highly probably, likely and a real possibility. What I will not file away as fact, is claims being made by others that they don't exist. Likewise, I dont listen to people who claim they do exist either. I dont know and I have not seen enough evidence to convince me either way. Both are possibilities. Just aint going to listen to those who claim to know which one it is.

All I know is that there is intelligent life in the cosmos, one planet, ours, and planets without intelligent life on them. Any and all claims concerning absolutes, all god or all void of intelligent beings creating/altering/influencing, is wrong. This can be seen on our own planet.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What I will not file away as fact, is claims being made by others that they don't exist. Likewise, I dont listen to people who claim they do exist either. I dont know and I have not seen enough evidence to convince me either way. Both are possibilities. Just aint going to listen to those who claim to know which one it is.

Oh good.
Now we're on to a straw man argument.
That's an excellent way of diverting from your original claim.
I didn't notice that at all.

Any and all claims concerning absolutes, all god or all void of intelligent beings creating/altering/influencing, is wrong.

Oh look: an absolute claim.
(And one with faulty logic to boot).

This can be seen on our own planet.

Nonsense.

Evidence isn't a concept gonzales appears familiar with.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What I will not file away as fact, is claims being made by others that they don't exist.

Has anyone claimed that?

Never claimed they do, just claimed that its highly probably, likely and a real possibility.

You don't know that it is highly probable. Life might be exceedingly rare. It might even be unique to one planet.

But earlier you said:

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Again, things are created in the universe both ways.. Naturally and by intelligent beings. This is a fact.

"Fact" is a bit more certain than "probable", no? That level of certainty smacks of faith.

We're obviously encompassing a much larger topic: Why are (some) people dolts?
Once we've established that then we can go on to sort out why they choose particular beliefs/ topics in which to exercise their doltery ¹.

1 Yes I know it's not a proper word, but it's better than "doltishness".

The statement is fact. You cannot exclude life on earth from the equation. There is, without a doubt, intelligent beings in the universe that create things... Planet earth proves that. I dont know why anyone would argue with such a statement.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What I will not file away as fact, is claims being made by others that they don't exist.

Has anyone claimed that?

Never claimed they do, just claimed that its highly probably, likely and a real possibility.

You don't know that it is highly probable. Life might be exceedingly rare. It might even be unique to one planet. But earlier you said:

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Again, things are created in the universe both ways.. Naturally and by intelligent beings. This is a fact.

"Fact" is a bit more certain than "probable", no? That level of certainty smacks of faith.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The statement is fact. You cannot exclude life on earth from the equation. There is, without a doubt, intelligent beings in the universe that create things... Planet earth proves that. I dont know why anyone would argue with such a statement.

Sorry, when you jumble the obviously true with the obviously irrational it can be hard to keep up.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The statement is fact. You cannot exclude life on earth from the equation. There is, without a doubt, intelligent beings in the universe that create things... Planet earth proves that. I dont know why anyone would argue with such a statement.

yes, there is without doubt intelligent life on earth
however, how can you so confidently extrapolate from a sample of 1 that intelligence in the rest of the universe is a given ?

human intelligence, and maybe even life as we know it may be a total one-off fluke, but there's no way of telling, one way or another, which is the more likely
even Drake's equation doesn't help to narrow the probabilities as to whether even in our galaxy the number of non-human intelligencies is very large or zero

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

I don't think anyone is disputing this much, maybe it is just not as sure as you seem to think. However, it is quite a leap from intelligent beings creating a universe and the God of Earthbound religions having done it.

If we ever advance to a level where we are able to design and then create a universe, would we be Gods? What is your definition of "god"?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The statement is fact. You cannot exclude life on earth from the equation. There is, without a doubt, intelligent beings in the universe that create things... Planet earth proves that. I dont know why anyone would argue with such a statement.

Sorry, when you jumble the obviously true with the obviously irrational it can be hard to keep up.

Dont know what you are referring to concerning your irrational claim. Please quote me, as I wrote it, and then perhaps we can go on from there..

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

I don't think anyone is disputing this much, maybe it is just not as sure as you seem to think. However, it is quite a leap from intelligent beings creating a universe and the God of Earthbound religions having done it. If we ever advance to a level where we are able to design and then create a universe, would we be Gods? What is your definition of "god"?

Never stated that I am sure of anything... Stated that I do not know... Stated that as long as its possible either way, I will not listen to people who claim to know one way or the other. Concerning intelligent beings being labelled as god or gods, I guess it depends on how advanced the technology and knowledge of all Beings involved are. If it is a simple matter of superiority, fear and/or respect in things that matter then I guess the term god or lord would apply and could be applied much easier and far more often by all beings capable of communication.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The statement is fact. You cannot exclude life on earth from the equation. There is, without a doubt, intelligent beings in the universe that create things... Planet earth proves that. I dont know why anyone would argue with such a statement.

yes, there is without doubt intelligent life on earthhowever, how can you so confidently extrapolate from a sample of 1 that intelligence in the rest of the universe is a given ?human intelligence, and maybe even life as we know it may be a total one-off fluke, but there's no way of telling, one way or another, which is the more likelyeven Drake's equation doesn't help to narrow the probabilities as to whether even in our galaxy the number of non-human intelligencies is very large or zero

Not sure at all that there is intelligent life, or any life, outside of planet earth. Earth could be alone, life on this planet could be it. That is another real possibility. I don't know....

What I do know is that there is life in the universe, on earth, that creates.. The universe, the laws that govern the universe, allows for intelligent beings to exist, create, alter and influence... This is a possibility, a real one. It could also be that life on earth is unique to planet earth,, alone, perhaps the first and last.. This is also a possibility. I do not know either way and I do not really listen to those who claim to know either way.

I am at a loss to see why this interchange between gonzales56 and others is occuring. From where I sit gonzales is making a perfectly rational and reasonable set of statements, namely.

Intelligent life exists in the universe as evidenced by homo sapiens.
This intelligent life is capable of manipulating materials and processes to create novel objects.
Therefore the universe is so structured as to permit the emergence of creative, intelligent entities.
Homo sapiens is capable of more creativity today than yesterday.
Therefore homo sapiens may be capable of more creativity in the future than in the past.
Therefore it is possible that other intelligent, creative entities may exist that could be responsible for aspects of the universe, observed and unobserved by ourselves.

What's so problematic about that? Sometimes I think some of you just like arguing for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by John Galt

What's so problematic about that?

It has eventually become clear that he is saying no more than that. It certainly wasn't clear from his first posts.

I accept that others misunderstood, but it seemed clear to me from the outset that was what he was saying and I was puzzled as to why others were misreading him. I think gonzales has espoused some odd ideas in the past and it seems to me that there is a tendency to automatically "assume the worst".

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think gonzales has espoused some odd ideas in the past and it seems to me that there is a tendency to automatically "assume the worst".

Guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

I don't think anyone is disputing this much, maybe it is just not as sure as you seem to think. However, it is quite a leap from intelligent beings creating a universe and the God of Earthbound religions having done it. If we ever advance to a level where we are able to design and then create a universe, would we be Gods? What is your definition of "god"?

Never stated that I am sure of anything... Stated that I do not know... Stated that as long as its possible either way, I will not listen to people who claim to know one way or the other. Concerning intelligent beings being labelled as god or gods, I guess it depends on how advanced the technology and knowledge of all Beings involved are. If it is a simple matter of superiority, fear and/or respect in things that matter then I guess the term god or lord would apply and could be applied much easier and far more often by all beings capable of communication.

I did say "as sure" though.

You are doing only half a job of looking at the issue by identifying what is possible and what isn't. Additionally, you have to try and figure out how probable something is. In this case I have to say, as objectively as I can, that the gods of earthbound religions are not very probable at all. In fact, I think they are very improbable indeed, as improbable as some other mythical beings are.

I know it is a tired line, but Occam's Razor applies here. Mythical beings like Zeus and Mithra are so improbable that I can confidently believe and state that they don't exist. It is the same with the gods of major religions for me and I am sure that is what is meant when people say they know gods don't exist most of the time. Is that really such an unreasonable position to have?

I believe I have addressed both sides of the coin, fully, and clearly. One side of that coin has been discussed more though, however, not due to my wants or wishes but rather, due to those who harbor serious issues against religious people going into a blind rant/rage anytime something other than pure chance is mentioned as a realistic possibility.

A knee jerk, blind reaction.. A highly defensive over reaction that is often formed by debating in an uncivilized and/or unproductive manner with others.

I find most religions about as silly as silly comes. Imaginative, creative but, clinically insane. I would also submit that the blind ability to overreact is not a healthy sign either.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I on the other hand believe it is good possibility that highly advanced beings have existed, do exist, and will exist in the cosmos.. I believe its also possible, if they exist, that they can or have created life, shaped planets, etc...

I don't think anyone is disputing this much, maybe it is just not as sure as you seem to think. However, it is quite a leap from intelligent beings creating a universe and the God of Earthbound religions having done it. If we ever advance to a level where we are able to design and then create a universe, would we be Gods? What is your definition of "god"?

Never stated that I am sure of anything... Stated that I do not know... Stated that as long as its possible either way, I will not listen to people who claim to know one way or the other. Concerning intelligent beings being labelled as god or gods, I guess it depends on how advanced the technology and knowledge of all Beings involved are. If it is a simple matter of superiority, fear and/or respect in things that matter then I guess the term god or lord would apply and could be applied much easier and far more often by all beings capable of communication.

I did say "as sure" though. You are doing only half a job of looking at the issue by identifying what is possible and what isn't. Additionally, you have to try and figure out how probable something is. In this case I have to say, as objectively as I can, that the gods of earthbound religions are not very probable at all. In fact, I think they are very improbable indeed, as improbable as some other mythical beings are. I know it is a tired line, but Occam's Razor applies here. Mythical beings like Zeus and Mithra are so improbable that I can confidently believe and state that they don't exist. It is the same with the gods of major religions for me and I am sure that is what is meant when people say they know gods don't exist most of the time. Is that really such an unreasonable position to have?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I believe I have addressed both sides of the coin, fully, and clearly. One side of that coin has been discussed more though, however, not due to my wants or wishes but rather, due to the tendency of those who harbor serious issues against religious people to avoid going into a blind rant/rage anytime something other that pure chance being a pure possibility.

I have no idea what you mean to say here.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I accept that others misunderstood, but it seemed clear to me from the outset that was what he was saying and I was puzzled as to why others were misreading him. I think gonzales has espoused some odd ideas in the past and it seems to me that there is a tendency to automatically "assume the worst".

I fully disagree with the idea that I have espoused some odd ideas in the past. I would submit that some who debate or discuss things with me, as well as with others, become over aggressive from debating to far down rabbit holes (a break might help them).

Please re-read, if you will or can be so kind Kalster... Thank You.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I believe I have addressed both sides of the coin, fully, and clearly. One side of that coin has been discussed more though, however, not due to my wants or wishes but rather, due to the tendency of those who harbor serious issues against religious people to avoid going into a blind rant/rage anytime something other that pure chance being a pure possibility.

I have no idea what you mean to say here.

Nor me.

I think that some of the problems people have with gonzales56 is that it is often very unclear what he is trying to say (kudos to John Galt for understanding from the start!) and therefore open to misinterpretation.

One of the problems is not reading what I write. . Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem. I will try to be even more simple.... It is clear to me that some folks jumped on my statement, not because they could not understand my statement, they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion triggered a knee jerk response. If that hatred was not triggered they would have been able to read clearly and understand, easily, what I had written.

Some on this thread have also been extremely lazy, not reading what I wrote but rather, only reading what others claimed I wrote as if I wrote it.. lol..

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem.

If one person doesn't understand you, that might be defensible. But if you are consistently misunderstood (as appears to be the case) then you need to look at the common factor (i.e. your communication style).

they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion

Maybe I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, but I wasn't aware you had mentioned religion. I thought you were talking about advanced aliens or something. (But maybe I misunderstood.)

How do you not understand this Strange?? Did you even read it?


"I believe I have addressed both sides of the coin, fully, and clearly. One side of that coin has been discussed more though, however, not due to my wants or wishes but rather, due to those who harbor serious issues against religious people going into a blind rant/rage anytime something other than pure chance is mentioned as a realistic possibility. A knee jerk, blind reaction.. A highly defensive over reaction that is often formed by debating in an uncivilized and/or unproductive manner with others.I find most religions about as silly as silly comes. Imaginative, creative but, clinically insane. I would also submit that the blind ability to overreact is not a healthy sign either."

The problem is not with me. You are welcomed to quote me, something I wrote here, as an example. In fact, I challenge you to do so, I challenge you to find something that is hard to understand here. Perhaps a typo? Lol...

Again, I submit the issue here actually occurred due to hatred of religion by some and not anything on my part. They jumped the gun, got defensive, and attacked without reading or even trying to understand. Blind knee jerk reaction. Not blinded by me or by words at all. Blinded by their own prejudices and hatreds. Extremely defensive.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem.

If one person doesn't understand you, that might be defensible. But if you are consistently misunderstood (as appears to be the case) then you need to look at the common factor (i.e. your communication style).

they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion

Maybe I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, but I wasn't aware you had mentioned religion. I thought you were talking about advanced aliens or something. (But maybe I misunderstood.)

Originally Posted by gonzales56

How do you not understand this Strange?? Did you even read it?


"I believe I have addressed both sides of the coin, fully, and clearly. One side of that coin has been discussed more though, however, not due to my wants or wishes but rather, due to those who harbor serious issues against religious people going into a blind rant/rage anytime something other than pure chance is mentioned as a realistic possibility. A knee jerk, blind reaction.. A highly defensive over reaction that is often formed by debating in an uncivilized and/or unproductive manner with others.I find most religions about as silly as silly comes. Imaginative, creative but, clinically insane. I would also submit that the blind ability to overreact is not a healthy sign either."

Strange is talking about the whole thread I think, or rather, the viewpoint you have been attempting to advance in it. I have been fairly mystified as well. However I have concluded that you are arguing a non-scientific metaphysical point.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

One of the problems is not reading what I write. . Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem. I will try to be even more simple.... It is clear to me that some folks jumped on my statement, not because they could not understand my statement, they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion triggered a knee jerk response. If that hatred was not triggered they would have been able to read clearly and understand, easily, what I had written.

Some on this thread have also been extremely lazy, not reading what I wrote but rather, only reading what others claimed I wrote as if I wrote it.. lol..

What, in your view, has what others have written to do with what I am asking you? My questions were directly related to the text of yours I quoted. I do not personally harbour hatred for the religious and I hope you are not implying that I do. I was making a straightforward point.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The problem is not with me. You are welcomed to quote me, something I wrote here, as an example. In fact, I challenge you to do so, I challenge you to find something that is hard to understand here.

Your immediately preceding post (#191).

I don't know what you mean by "both sides of the coin"; i.e. I don't understand what two [contradictory?] points of view you are referring to. There seem to be many different points of view in the thread.

The remaining sentences are hard work but the meaning is clearer of repeated reading (not something your should strive for in your communications). However, as with many of your posts they seem to imply a contradiction: you attack people for being anti-religion and then attack religion yourself, in quite strong terms. (Is this what you mean by "both sides of the coin"?).

All in all, just very confusing.

And, of course, it seems a complete non-sequitur to the post it was a reply to.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

One of the problems is not reading what I write. . Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem. I will try to be even more simple.... It is clear to me that some folks jumped on my statement, not because they could not understand my statement, they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion triggered a knee jerk response. If that hatred was not triggered they would have been able to read clearly and understand, easily, what I had written.Some on this thread have also been extremely lazy, not reading what I wrote but rather, only reading what others claimed I wrote as if I wrote it.. lol..

What, in your view, has what others have written to do with what I am asking you? My questions were directly related to the text of yours I quoted. I do not personally harbour hatred for the religious and I hope you are not implying that I do. I was making a straightforward point.

Your point was an invalid one though Kalster. Correct me if I am wrong but you tried to make the point that I only stated that its reasonably possible intelligent beings could be out there tinkering in the universe and nothing stating that its reasonably possible there is no highly intelligent beings outside of earth. This is just not the case.

Your point was that I have only spoke on one side of this equation, and thats not true. There is clearly no "god", no Christian god or Allah but, the idea being pushed here that everything in the universe, without doubt and for a fact, is all natural, is not so clad iron or known either. It could be so, it could not be so as well. If some of the people on this thread have a hard time understanding that, if they cant understand this and if they cant understand this, I don't care.

Originally Posted by exchemist

However I have concluded that you are arguing a non-scientific metaphysical point.

I have come to the opposite conclusion!

I think his point is that the universe (or whatever) could be natural or it could be created (by gods, aliens, machines, whatever).

I suppose that is trivially true. But this sort of "all ideas have equal weight" attitude is rather anti-scientific. Not metaphysical but not terribly useful, either.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The problem is not with me. You are welcomed to quote me, something I wrote here, as an example. In fact, I challenge you to do so, I challenge you to find something that is hard to understand here.

Your immediately preceding post (#191). I don't know what you mean by "both sides of the coin"; i.e. I don't understand what two [contradictory?] points of view you are referring to. There seem to be many different points of view in the thread.The remaining sentences are hard work but the meaning is clearer of repeated reading (not something your should strive for in your communications). However, as with many of your posts they seem to imply a contradiction: you attack people for being anti-religion and then attack religion yourself, in quite strong terms. (Is this what you mean by "both sides of the coin"?).All in all, just very confusing.And, of course, it seems a complete non-sequitur to the post it was a reply to.

Are you serious? Kalster is the one who made a statement and injected one side vs another side.. In that context, it is easily understood what two sides meant. Did you not understand I was responding to Kalster's one side vs another side statement? I quoted Kalster, it was a response to Kalster. Easily understood. The failure to understand that is on you. It is simple to see and understand if you where to read it in context.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Are you serious? Kalster is the one who made a statement and injected one side vs another side..

No, he was making a point about relative probabilities

I quoted Kalster, it was a response to Kalster. Easily understood. The failure to understand that is on you.

Except KALSTER didn't understand either.

But, whatever. Carry on communicating as you do and getting angry when you are misunderstood. It's your life.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by exchemist

However I have concluded that you are arguing a non-scientific metaphysical point.

I have come to the opposite conclusion!I think his point is that the universe (or whatever) could be natural or it could be created (by gods, aliens, machines, whatever). I suppose that is trivially true. But this sort of "all ideas have equal weight" attitude is rather anti-scientific. Not metaphysical but not terribly useful, either.

What? Lol.. I will try to make this extremely easy for you. Its simple. I do not agree with the absolutes being pushed in this thread. The choices being pushed on this thread of either all god or all natural for everything in the universe is stupid and narrow minded. Believing in god itself is silly but to declare for a fact that all things are natural is just as silly as believing god did it all. Its not factual, even if humans are it and there is no other highly intelligent beings, we have added a bit, so be it an extremely small bit, to the universe that was not done naturally.

When debating religious people, its just as foolish and silly to claim, as an absolute fact, all in the universe is, for a fact, natural. If this is not understood, I don't care lol..

If this is lost on you, or anyone else, then so be it.

Concerning what Kalster understands or not, I think he did not understand because of a few typos. I understood it as he was claiming I was only dealing with how silly and foolish it was to state, as a fact, that everything in the universe was made or influenced naturally and that I did not address or state how silly and foolish it was to believe in god.

Get it? Two sides? Coin? I dealt with both sides, both issues.. Both absolutes.