Notices
Results 1 to 75 of 75
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: chance or intelligent design?

  1. #1 chance or intelligent design? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Creating big-bang conditions or part thereof in a laboratory, however large the size; chance or intelligent design?


    Last edited by mrJoshua; April 25th, 2012 at 04:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You have provided insufficient information to fully address your question.

    If you stipulate that the laboratory is one run by humans then the creation of those conditions is clearly a consequence of intelligent design. Naturally that does not mean that all Big Bang conditions need to be established by intelligent design.

    If you are implying that the universe could be the result of a process in some intelligent entity's laboratory then, of course, you could be correct, but where is the evidence to support such a view. It is certainly not our ability to mimic aspects of the Big Bang in our laboratory.

    If you meant something else, then your message is obscure.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Evidence?

    The doing the crime small time suggests it could have been done before big time. Usually has, if you watch enough TV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I clearly stated that such was possible, but that there is no evidence for it. Front up with the evidence or shut up. Your choice.
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    (John, the good news is you appear to have deciphered what mrJoshua is saying, in my case something was lost in translation and have no idea what it means)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Kudos to John for deciphering the initial cryptic comment. It is still not clear which of John's 3 options mrJoshua is talking about.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Creating big-bang conditions or part thereof in a laboratory, however large the size; chance or intelligent design?
    The idea of intelligent design, whilst entirly plausable, gives me a headache because if it responsible, then what created the inteligence in first place and what created that etc...
    Where does it all start and how?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Atheists were responsible for the new big bang: what then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Same headache, who designed the atheists.......... I still think only answer in a paradox. The past was designed from the future. It nicely solves the 'but what designed that?' question played out ad infinitium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Atheists were responsible for the new big bang: what then?
    Could you be more cryptic, please. I am in danger of understanding you.

    I heard somewhere that the philosopher John Searle once said, “If you can't express a thought clearly, then you've failed to have one".
    From: Writing To Reason: A Companion for Philosophy Students and Instructors, By Brian David Mogck
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    who's going to take responsibility of a new creation? a new "big-bang"?

    History?

    Someone new?

    You?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    who's going to take responsibility of a new creation? a new "big-bang"?

    History?

    Someone new?

    You?
    Do you realize that no one is completely clear on what you are saying - at least I'm not.

    As to your question - I will go ahead and take responsibility of a new creation. a new "big-bang".

    Your welcome!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Origin View Post
    As to your question - I will go ahead and take responsibility of a new creation. a new "big-bang".
    Good. I'm not accepting responsibility for it, just because I pressed the button.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Atheists were responsible for the new big bang: what then?
    Do you not understand that your very short posts are so short that their meaning is lost? It should be possible for you to understand that this is true since three people have commented on it so far.

    You state that atheists were responsible for the new big bang. What do you mean by the new big bang? I think you mean the Big Bang that most cosmologists propose initiated the present universe. You might mean the projected establishment in the LArge HAdron collider of conditions of temperature and pressure comparable with those during the very early stages of that Big Bang. You might mean something else entirely. Please be polite and tell us which of these meanings applies. If it is the last one then specify what it is. Any other action at this point will be rude and in violation of at least the spirit of the rules of the forum if not the actual rules.

    Until you make your meaning clear there is no way for us to answer your question "what then?".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    I thought I was stupid enough.

    Maybe I should ask a new question?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    I thought I was stupid enough.
    For what? A career in politics?

    Maybe I should ask a new question?
    Or just ask this one more clearly. No point asking another question if it is going to be equally cryptic.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Haldron?

    Chance or Intlligent Design?

    Result?

    Chance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your meaning is becoming a little clearer, not because of your efforts, but because of mine. I hope you realise that making your audience do most of the work is considered very impolite. Please stop it. If English is your second, third or fourth language please tell us and we will be more understanding. If you are only twelve years old, tell us and we will be more understanding.

    You appear to have some serious misunderstandings. The duplication of Big Bang conditions in the Large Hadron collider will not be an act of creation. It will not create another universe. Your mistake is to think that the popular explanations of the experiments being conducted there are accurate descriptions of reality. They are not. As well as being simplifications they are also deliberately dramatic. It is more interesting to read that scientists will recreate the conditions of the Big Bang than to be told that such and such a temperature and pressure will be applied to a miniscule quantity of material. Your questions, therefore, have no practical meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    I thought I was stupid enough.

    Maybe I should ask a new question?
    They kind of frown on people making new threads on the same topic.

    Your 'taking responsibility' point seems more theological than scientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    I thought I was stupid enough.

    Maybe I should ask a new question?
    Unacceptable response. I told you the only polite thing to do was to tell us which of the three options you meant. Please do so now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Haldron?

    Chance or Intlligent Design?

    Result?

    Chance?
    Do you want to try again when you are sober?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    I'm not the one barking, I'm not the one complaining, and I'm not your husband.

    I'll continue to keep things simple but to the point.

    For the those who want a refresh, "is creating the Big Bang in a Laboratory an intelligent design "itself" or a thing of "chance""?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    I'm not the one barking, I'm not the one complaining, and I'm not your husband.
    What?

    I'll continue to keep things simple but to the point.
    Short to the point of unintelligibility I gather.

    For the those who want a refresh, "is creating the Big Bang in a Laboratory an intelligent design "itself" or a thing of "chance""?
    We got that the first time. And John managed to extract enough meaning out of it to give you a very full answer in post #2.

    All you have done since then is make increasing bizarre and meaningless comments.

    Which of the possible interpretations of your cryptic comment that John suggested matches what is going on in your head?

    But feel free to reply, "the created cabbages smell of atheist peanut butter", if it makes you feel better.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Mira Loma. California
    Posts
    40
    Chance is always a matter of an underling order.

    Intelegent design is a human interpretation of the underling order. We think of ourselves as beng intelligent. And human design is a matter of making use of our human discovery of some of how the underling order works, and making use of it. With our believed intelligent use, we superimpose our concept of design to the order we think we understand.

    Existence.
    Order.
    Cause.
    Effect.

    Existence is not caused, it just is.
    Order is a matter of existence.
    Cause and effect is a matter of order.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    I think the answers here have been genuine.

    I think that emotional content has crept into the answers though, which demonstrates the sensitivity of the subject.

    That sensitivity revolves artound the ideas of creationism (intelligent design) and pure chance, and the paradox of atheists themselves inadvertantly potentially creating a new Universe through Big Bang research.

    Thank you for your answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    mrJoshua emotion has certainly crept into my answers. This has nothing to do with the subject, to which I am largely indifferent. It has everything to do with your obnoxious behaviour in this thread.

    You have chosen with sublime arrogance and a snide patronising attitude to wholly ignore requests to bring clarity to your questions. Your persistent refusal to do so is ignorant, rude, offensive and marks you as an unpleasant, and from my point of view, a most unwelcome character in this place. Either start behaving in an adult, responsible, polite manner, or fuck off.
    Strange and adelady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Define "intelligent design".

    The common defintion is "something of irreducible complexity".

    But science has done a remarkable job of explaining that the entire complexity of the universe is indeed reducible to some very basic and simple equations, i.e. fractal geometry, the 4 fundamental forces, elements, etc.

    We can duplicate (imitating a natural process) on a smaller scale in labs almost everything that happens on a universal scale. There is no irreducible complexity, except in sheer size.

    But then, consider some 14 billion years of trial and error of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (plus) particle interactions. ID, most unlikely.
    Last edited by Write4U; April 26th, 2012 at 02:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    I think the answers here have been genuine.

    I think that emotional content has crept into the answers though, which demonstrates the sensitivity of the subject.

    That sensitivity revolves artound the ideas of creationism (intelligent design) and pure chance
    I think any perceived "sensitivity" centers around your inability to express your ideas clearly. Now you seem to have more fully recovered gained the power of language, would you care to clarify what the question is that you are asking?

    the paradox of atheists themselves inadvertantly potentially creating a new Universe through Big Bang research.
    Could you elucidate what you see as the paradox there?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    the paradox of atheists themselves inadvertantly potentially creating a new Universe through Big Bang research.
    Could you elucidate what you see as the paradox there?
    This is, I think, quite clear and arises from master joshua's inability to distinguish between fact and journalistic hyperbole. Here is the concatentation of his thoughts that have lead to this bizarre experience for us all.

    1. There is a god, perhaps even a God.
    2. This god created the universe.
    3. I never eschew obfucation when the opportunity presents itself, so..
    4. Let's anonymise god by calling her Intelligent Design.
    5. Atheists say the universe was not created, but arose through the Big Bang, a wholly chance event.
    6. Atheists (sic) are about to recreate the Big Bang in the laboratory. (I am not sufficiently educated to realise this is not actually true. I am not suffciently attentive to listen when I am told it is not true.)
    7. Atheists have designed this experiment with their intelligence.
    8. The experiment may create another universe.
    9. Isn't it ironic that people who deny that the universe was created by intelligent design are about to create a universe by intelligent design.

    And for my own part:
    1. I seem to be able to understand this guy.
    2. Should I be worried?
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    This is, I think, quite clear and arises from master joshua's inability to distinguish between fact and journalistic hyperbole. Here is the concatentation of his thoughts that have lead to this bizarre experience for us all.

    1. There is a god, perhaps even a God.
    2. This god created the universe.
    3. I never eschew obfucation when the opportunity presents itself, so..
    4. Let's anonymise god by calling her Intelligent Design.
    5. Atheists say the universe was not created, but arose through the Big Bang, a wholly chance event.
    6. Atheists (sic) are about to recreate the Big Bang in the laboratory. (I am not sufficiently educated to realise this is not actually true. I am not suffciently attentive to listen when I am told it is not true.)
    7. Atheists have designed this experiment with their intelligence.
    8. The experiment may create another universe.
    9. Isn't it ironic that people who deny that the universe was created by intelligent design are about to create a universe by intelligent design.
    If that is right (and it seems plausible) I am mightily impressed by your ability to read between the lines. Or in this case, between the line.

    I wouldn't have got any of that. I am truly humbled.

    Oh, and there seem to be a few flaws in that argument ...

    And for my own part:
    1. I seem to be able to understand this guy.
    2. Should I be worried?
    This is your superpower. But remember - with great power comes great responsibility.
    Last edited by Strange; April 26th, 2012 at 09:59 AM. Reason: fixed tags
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    mrJoshua seems to me like the type that has only very recently discovered that we are not all answering robots designed by incapable programmers, and that most of us at least show some level of intelligence. I hate it that a question can't be clear, even after at least 4 trials of imput of data.

    Using sentences of 1 word does not make an imput. It can't describe a goal, a feeling, or anything. What you have succeeded in, is making us ask ourselves the question. Please type in your own language what you mean, and tell us in english which language it is, so we can "google translate" the crap out of it. As much as i like to answer questions, i like to get answers. So answer me with a question of some purpose.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Creating big-bang conditions or part thereof in a laboratory, however large the size; chance or intelligent design?
    If we go back to your original question we can try from there as it is at least understandable.
    Creating big-bang conditions or part thereof in a laboratory is actually no different than anything else humans do in terms of chance or itelligent design. This is because if we do create life in this process we would only be re-creating that which was already created when our universe was created either by chance or intelligent design.
    So our actual participation in the process has no relivance.

    We didn't design the laws of physics that would allow life or a big bang to come about or the chemistry or anything else, we can only mearly use or re-create that which all ready is so in essence our participation is completely moot.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Perhaps a real-world analogy to mrJoshua's question is the creation of new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding and genetic engineering.

    You could call that "intelligent design".

    But what does that tell us about evolution vs cretinism creationism? Nothing. Just because something can be done by an intelligence doesn't mean it always is, or can only be, done by an intelligence. So it doesn't prove anything and doesn't create any paradox.

    If it were hypothetically possible to create a new universe via a big bang (which would, incidentally, destroy this one) that doesn't tell us anything about the creation of the this universe. Sure it might have been created by an intelligence. It might have been created by God. It might have always existed. It might have come into existence by chance. We don't know.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    As always, the simplest way of thinking, the simplest way of explaining a problem, and the simplest answer, is usually the correct one.

    Tell me what is more simple.

    1. That a high incomprehensible being, formed out of a matter energy convergence we can not understand, that lives in every time at the same time, it's concious, capable of creation, but it can not be detected in any way, nor can we prove or disprove it's existence.

    2. That the observer in this situation is us, and in every possible way, us being here in the possibility as the observers was innevitable. As if we were not formed by random mixing of amino acids, we couldn't think about this problem.

    My money goes to 2.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Simulating a big bang or simulating an evolution in a computers just prove a point that there's intelligence in the universe... . Evolution for example is a form of general intelligence that can solve all sort of problem (artificial intelligence) and not just limited in natural world to make new species. The problem is that there's no proof of conciousness, so the univers is very unlike human...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Hey, I'm sorry to all who I was unable to respond to. I had a few engagements that made me away from this.

    If though, in not being too late, I can offer the "reference" of my "initial question", I am not about taking chances in forming opinions about people or things I do not know. There's no "about" that for me, in forming anything. It either is or it isn't. Hence a question of chance or intelligent design. If anyone else has a better dichomity, please spell that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    If though, in not being too late, I can offer the "reference" of my "initial question"
    As has been pointed out (repeatedly) your initial questions is not terribly clear. And your attempt to add detail merely muddy the waters.

    1. Are you talking about a hypothetical "big bang" event that might be created in a lab on Earth one day?

    2. Are you talking about a hypothetical "big bang" event that might have been created in a lab by some other intelligence at some time in the past?

    3. Are you trying to relate one or other of these to the currently accepted cosmological theory popularly known as the big bang?

    4. Or are you talking about something else completely?

    Is John's post #29 a good summary of what you are trying to say? Or has he missed completely?

    I am not about taking chances in forming opinions about people or things I do not know. There's no "about" that for me, in forming anything.
    I don't really understand this. Are you just saying that you will not prejudge people? (Perhaps we need John's translation service again)

    It either is or it isn't.
    What is "it" in this statement? Either is or isn't what?

    If anyone else has a better dichomity, please spell that out.
    Sense vs nonsense vs sense that isn't explained very clearly. (But maybe that is a trichotomy)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Maybe you should tell me what you want to say and assume I am a complete idiot?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Maybe you should tell me what you want to say and assume I am a complete idiot?
    I want to know: what is the question you are asking?

    Is that clear?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    mr joshua, you continue to frustrate me. Please address these points made much earlier in the thread.

    You state that atheists were responsible for the new big bang. What do you mean by the new big bang? I think you mean the Big Bang that most cosmologists propose initiated the present universe. You might mean the projected establishment in the LArge HAdron collider of conditions of temperature and pressure comparable with those during the very early stages of that Big Bang. You might mean something else entirely. Please be polite and tell us which of these meanings applies. If it is the last one then specify what it is. Any other action at this point will be rude and in violation of at least the spirit of the rules of the forum if not the actual rules.


    If you fail to address this directly i shall report your post and request that you be banned. I hope that is also clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    The present is ours to behold. Those who behold this present, without prejudice, are gifted.

    Much debate there is it seems consequential to certain questions about certain topics. Being banned for raising questions alone about certain topics seems infuriating to those who have answers they can speak but want others nonetheless to fall on that sword, that pre-meditated design.

    How am I going so far?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    How am I going so far?
    Terrible. Can't you write a simple declarative sentence? We don't want to have to decipher your riddles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Being banned for raising questions alone about certain topics seems infuriating to those who have answers they can speak but want others nonetheless to fall on that sword, that pre-meditated design.
    Are you claiming that you have been banned for raising "certain questions"? From here? From somewhere else? And what are these "certain questions"?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    All right, Harold.

    Intelligent design or chance.

    Is there any mix with those two statements.

    Maybe we should discuss that first?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Intelligent design or chance.

    Is there any mix with those two statements.
    Can we assume that English is not your native language?

    What does "mix with those two statements" mean?

    Intelligent design, as applied in the field of evolution, appears to be nothing but creationism in a frock. It has no scientific basis; it is purely a matter of faith. Worse, it contradicts the evidence. So we can reject that use of the term.

    But you were talking about the big bang. So I assume you are talking about the universe being created by some sort of "intelligent designer" (i.e. God). If so, again, it is not a scientific theory. But on the other hand we have no other theory of the creation of the universe. So, I guess you are pretty much free to choose between:

    a) God created the universe (if you are religious)
    b) We don't know (if you are scientific)
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    All right, Harold.

    Intelligent design or chance.

    Is there any mix with those two statements.

    Maybe we should discuss that first?
    You didn't make two statements. You didn't even make one statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Sorry. My bad.

    One statement: Chance.

    The other: Intelligent design.

    Apologies for not making that clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Sorry for the second post, but there are other matters I have to attend to. The meaning here is that there may be some time between your reply and my response, which could infuriate you in a manner inconsistent with the topic present. Please do not confuse that time between replies and my need to address issues outside the scope of this forum. I joined this forum because I thought it seemed right at the time, a way to converse ideas relevant to what I may have been thinking at the time. If though in the time till I am able to reply next you have decided to ban me, based on conditions you have preset for those posting questions in this forum, so be it. My aim was not to find anyone out, or disrupt your normal goings on. Thank you though. I look forward to any future chance I may have in posting a reply. God Bless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    One statement: Chance.

    The other: Intelligent design.
    What about them?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    If though in the time till I am able to reply next you have decided to ban me
    Why would anyone ban you? Just for being very unclear?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Strange, as I said, I have to attend to other matters right now. I would suggest you read carefully through the posts, in this section (that is), maybe even look for terms such as "ban". It's like "whistle blowing" at a tea-party. I wasn't sure this was that type of scenario.

    As I said, "chance" and "intelligent design" appear to be a "duality": walk into a casino, if you can, place a bet based on chance or "intelligent design". You will be thrown out of the casino for "intelligent design", I can guarnatee you that. It's called "counting cards".

    Au reviour.





    ....doing the math on this: if you're running a casino here, you won't like intelligent design.
    Last edited by mrJoshua; May 1st, 2012 at 10:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Sorry. My bad.

    One statement: Chance.

    The other: Intelligent design.

    Apologies for not making that clear.
    Here are two definitions of "statement":
    1. expression in words: the expression in spoken or written words of something such as a fact, intention, or policy, or an instance of this "a statement of intent"
    2. something said: something that somebody says that is not a question or an exclamation and that expresses an idea or facts in definite terms "We were unable to verify the truth of that statement."
    Your "statements" do not express a fact, intention or policy. Nor do they express an idea or fact in definite terms.

    I expect a statement to be in the form of a sentence. A sentence usually has a subject and a verb, possibly an object.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    Mmm.

    As I said to Strange, I have to attend to other matters, and am full aware of how piles of whatever gathers moss. Clearly the idea of chance and intelligent design is no rolling stone for you.

    I don't know what to say. Maybe, "it was a question without emphasising the idea of a preconveived idea"?

    You're a Moderator. Answer me this: does everyone in this forum have a pre-conceived answer for every question they ask?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I still don't know what question you are asking. Please ask it again in expanded form. This really is becoming ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    32
    only for you.....(and I really have to attend to other matters beyond this reply)........


    a guy walks into a bar.

    Two guys sitting at the bar he greets.

    One guy says to the other, "I bet I can flip a coin and prove that heads is top side up".

    The other guys says, "I don't believe you".

    So, he flips the coin, and it lands heads up.

    Guess what. The (other) guy says, "I don't believe you".

    The (one) guy says, "you had your chance".

    Go to bed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    That's it. I'm done with you. Your behaviour is demented, rude and wholly unacceptable. Please devote the rest of your life to other matters. I for one do not wish to see you here again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Strange, as I said, I have to attend to other matters right now. I would suggest you read carefully through the posts, in this section (that is), maybe even look for terms such as "ban".
    I did that. Your posts generally make little sense. If it weren't for the heroic efforts of John Galt, I wouldn't have a clue what you were trying to say. (You still haven't confirmed if we have guessed correctly.)

    You are the only person to bring up banning, as far as I can see. The first mention of banning is from you in post #48.

    You seem to think you will be banned for mentioning intelligent design. This is clearly false: you have mentioned it and you haven't been banned. Others have discussed it in tedious detail in many other threads without being banned (at least, not for that; some may have been banned for other reasons).

    Do you want to be banned as a some sort of "badge of honor"? So you can tell your friends, "I got banned from a science site because they were too narrow minded to listen to me!" But as you don't seem interested (or capable) of discussing it, it all a bit pointless.

    You have stimulated the rest of us to have some reasonably interesting discussion of the meaning and the pros and cons of intelligent design. (Hey! And we haven't been banned!) It is a shame you don't want to join in. It seems you would rather stand on the sidelines and yell, "Jello!", "Elephants!", "Pulchritude!" and other irrelevant comments (and then wander off saying, "I'm busy now"). Why start the thread if you are not interested in debating the subject?

    As I said, "chance" and "intelligent design" appear to be a "duality": walk into a casino, if you can, place a bet based on chance or "intelligent design". You will be thrown out of the casino for "intelligent design", I can guarnatee you that. It's called "counting cards".
    I don't really get the connection between intelligent design and counting cards.

    Except, I suppose, intelligent design is cheating in the sense it is an attempt to pretend that cretinsim is science (despite the lack of evidence, falsifiability, etc).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    a guy walks into a bar.
    Two guys sitting at the bar he greets.
    One guy says to the other, "I bet I can flip a coin and prove that heads is top side up".
    The other guys says, "I don't believe you".
    So, he flips the coin, and it lands heads up.
    Guess what. The (other) guy says, "I don't believe you".
    The (one) guy says, "you had your chance".
    So the coin represents chance? Or God? And one of the guys is an atheist? Or they are both atheists? Or one is a mormon?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    does everyone in this forum have a pre-conceived answer for every question they ask?
    No. But most people ask questions that make sense. And if they don't first time, they attempt to explain what they mean. Most people are interested in a dialog, in learning, in finding out other's points of view (even if they disagree with them).

    You don't seem to want to do any of these things. Why is that?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You don't seem to want to do any of these things. Why is that?
    You may have provided the answer earlier.

    So the coin represents chance? Or God? And one of the guys is an atheist? Or they are both atheists? Or one is a mormon?
    Oh, hang on a moment. You said mormon. I didn't see the second 'm'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    OK. Let's go back to the original post as MrJ has requested, and look at it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Creating big-bang conditions or part thereof in a laboratory, however large the size; chance or intelligent design?
    I think the answer to the question as asked is: it depends.

    If the intention was to create "big bang conditions or part thereof" (1) then it is another example of the brilliant combination science and engineering (2). On the other hand, if this happened as an unexpected side effect, then it would count as "chance".

    Does that answer the question?

    (1) Whatever that means

    (2) I don't think many engineers would object to their work being referred to as the products of "intelligent design". In fact, they would be offended if the intelligence or design in their work were denied.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So the coin represents chance? Or God? And one of the guys is an atheist? Or they are both atheists? Or one is a mormon?
    He didn't look at the coin trough a hat, didn't he. So no mormon.

    Joshua is probably pulling our leg.

    He simply wants us to discus the thing;

    - Eiter we believe in intelligent design.

    - Or we believe in the fact that total randomness created the universe.

    He wants us to discus that, not his riddles. As on a personal note, his riddles are quite easy. It's the state we want questions, or statements delivered in. Prechewed and Alcohol free. Oh well, i liked the one with the coin in the bar. It's not funny, but it makes his point clear. Do atheists chose, to not believe in god? Or do they simply not see the signs?

    Well, as not an atheist, or a believer in god (i believe there is no point in knowing the answer, as the question is to much fun) i actually want to believe, as all of the proof points to the fact that there was no deity needed in creating the universe, or mankind. Or a flat earth held up by a titan named Atlas. Or that the sun is just a mirror in the sky, where at the other side we reside in a parralel dimension. Or whatever someone has thought up with.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    God an atheist and a mormon?

    Sounds like the start of an offensive joke.

    Anyway, intelligent design or chance it still doesn't matter. Science is about understanding things and figureing them out. Which still applies either way. We and everything else exists regardless of chance or design and the more we discover the further each time the 'boundries' of everything get pushed back, further out of reach, in other words the more we learn the more we realise there is to learn. The complexity continues to increase along with our understanding.

    The relevance of any 'inteligence' behind an inteligent design again must be called into question as this inteligence had to start some where or did it just spring out of nowhere?, either way you end up back at chance.

    Chance seems to be the Alpha and the Omega.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    - Eiter we believe in intelligent design.
    - Or we believe in the fact that total randomness created the universe.
    Or neither of those. Why set up such an artificial dichotomy?

    Do atheists chose, to not believe in god? Or do they simply not see the signs?
    I see no "signs". I see no reason to think there are signs to be seen. But each to his own. After all, as Saussure said, signs are arbitrary.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Judging by the location of the IP MrJoshua is posting from and the incomprehensibility of his posts, along with other clues like the liberal use of "double apostrophes", I'd say we are dealing with yet another incarnation of TheQuestIsNotOver/StreamSystems. Makes sense, no?

    What do you have to say about that MrJoshua?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    But then, consider some 14 billion years of trial and error of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (plus) particle interactions. ID, most unlikely.
    I would have to say I agree.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    God an atheist and a mormon?
    Sounds like the start of an offensive joke.
    .
    GOD an athiest and a mormon walk into a bar
    GOD says "the first round is on me"
    the mormon says " I don't drink"
    and the athiest ignores god
    and, after drinking alone, GOD
    has left the building
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11
    If the goal was to create the conditions for the result then Intelligent Design, if not then it's Chance
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    GOD says "the first round is on me"
    and the athiest ignores god
    I wouldn't ignore God if he offered to buy me a drink.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    my favorite for intelligent design
    GAIA(our shared co-evolutionary biosphere) bred us to be the "Lords of Fire" because GAIA needed help with the glaciations of the ice age
    aka
    we are who we are doing what we do because that is exactly what our earth needs
    and because we have such a special purpose, the earth tolerates our less benign activities
    (we are as children, learning to play with our wonderous toy)
    ....
    and GOD, could you make mine a smooth aged single malt, straight up double, please
    (wow, sipping whiskey while chatting with god-----could it get any better than that?---soooooo many questions I'd like to ask)
    Last edited by sculptor; June 15th, 2012 at 08:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    Creating big-bang conditions or part thereof in a laboratory, however large the size; chance or intelligent design?
    The idea of intelligent design, whilst entirly plausable, gives me a headache because if it responsible, then what created the inteligence in first place and what created that etc...
    Where does it all start and how?
    Ha! Trying to get to the front of Infinity will always give you a headache. I think of Big Bang Theories the same way. What started the matter that caused the Big Bang, what started that, etc.

    Also- have you ever noticed how these strange and unintelligible posts get the most attention?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    also- have you ever noticed how these strange and unintelligible posts get the most attention?
    yes
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Do you want to be banned as a some sort of "badge of honor"? So you can tell your friends, "I got banned from a science site because they were too narrow minded to listen to me!" But as you don't seem interested (or capable) of discussing it, it all a bit pointless.
    I like to hope a person wouldn't be banned just for being cryptic. He's not attacking people or threatening them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrJoshua View Post
    All right, Harold.

    Intelligent design or chance.

    Is there any mix with those two statements.

    Maybe we should discuss that first?
    There's no need for a mix. Just other options. It's a false dichotomy.

    If a human being sneezes and thereby manages to accidentally create a universe with life in it, clearly the universe is "created by them", but also it is clearly not "intelligent design" since none of the person's intelligence was used.

    Technically the correct answer is "chance", I guess. However, the atheist version of "chance" would imply no intelligent being had a role.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I like to hope a person wouldn't be banned just for being cryptic.
    I wasn't suggesting he should be banned. But as he brought it up and seemed keen on the idea ...

    It does seem to be a common "debating" tactic among some people, once they find their ideas rejected, to deliberately act so badly that there is no choice but to ban them. There are frequent examples of them then popping up elsewhere and boasting about this as providing credibility for their ideas, "they couldn't handle the truth!".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as/re banned
    I had a friend who taught at harvard, and was denied tenure. His comment was, "That's ok, now i can always say 'I've been thrown out of better places than this' ".
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 517
    Last Post: October 21st, 2012, 06:07 AM
  2. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2011, 12:36 AM
  3. Intelligent design and the monkfish
    By Robbie in forum Biology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 09:25 AM
  4. Some QUESTIONS about Intelligent Design!
    By charles brough in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 08:16 PM
  5. Intelligent Design as a Pseudoscience
    By SkinWalker in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: January 13th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •