Notices
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 501 to 518 of 518
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Intelligent Design ????

  1. #501  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    [QUOTE=THoR;312964]
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    [Where it comes to explaining the nature of life, thought, consciousness and identity, the fusionist and superventionist camps of EP are, indeed, purveyors of magical thinking and I do not apologize for poking fun at them.
    However, it would be more in line with the function of the forum if you were to poke some contrary evidence at them - something you have so far seemed quite unable to do.

    At the heart of your difficulty seems to be the inability to consider two or more apparently contradictory elements at the same time. A person can be a son, a father, a husband, an employer, a fourm poster, a pain in the butt, a nuclear physicist and a cyclist, all at the same time. It is a matter of perspective. A bird can be an individual bird with individual bird thoughts, or it can be part of a flock whose flight patterns are governed by some very simple rules - the same rules followed by shoaling fishes. Duality in nature is nothing new. Waves - particles; matter - energy; - why so difficult for you?

    "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
    "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
    Alice in Wonderland.
    1=1
    2≠1
    I think those equations are pretty well accepted universally. What other logic would you apply, what other evidence do you need? AN existence is AN existence. A composite is a set of existences. Unless you are a practitioner of either the fusionist or superventionist magic you must logically consider that AN (1) existence can have only AN (1) identity and a composite will have as many identities as there are elements in the set.

    The roles you describe are functional not existential. 1 bird can no more be a flock than a flock can be 1 bird. Each has its own individual identity even when participating in a flock. Matter and energy are conditions which (according to Uncle Al) can be readily interchanged. In fact it is entirely likely both states exist within a single entity.
    So are you (1) identity plus a composite consisting of many identities?
    Rather (1) identity wearing a composite suit...lasts a long time and fits rather well, but unfortunately needs to be let out from time to time. All life forms build varying levels of shells. The body, clothing, houses, communities, states, nations...all functional shells. Unfortunately, the design we seem to have gravitated to dictates that the materials we use to build our corpses are most efficiently harvested from killing other life forms - else we'd all eat mud and have adobe bodies.
    There are so many different views of how individuals interpret the examples mentioned above by choosing which words they each use to describe it. The problem is deciding which one is the most correct answer by which that correct answer can be changed anytime in the future with new information discovered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #502  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    [QUOTE=Barbi;312972]
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    [Where it comes to explaining the nature of life, thought, consciousness and identity, the fusionist and superventionist camps of EP are, indeed, purveyors of magical thinking and I do not apologize for poking fun at them.
    However, it would be more in line with the function of the forum if you were to poke some contrary evidence at them - something you have so far seemed quite unable to do.

    At the heart of your difficulty seems to be the inability to consider two or more apparently contradictory elements at the same time. A person can be a son, a father, a husband, an employer, a fourm poster, a pain in the butt, a nuclear physicist and a cyclist, all at the same time. It is a matter of perspective. A bird can be an individual bird with individual bird thoughts, or it can be part of a flock whose flight patterns are governed by some very simple rules - the same rules followed by shoaling fishes. Duality in nature is nothing new. Waves - particles; matter - energy; - why so difficult for you?

    "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
    "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
    Alice in Wonderland.
    1=1
    2≠1
    I think those equations are pretty well accepted universally. What other logic would you apply, what other evidence do you need? AN existence is AN existence. A composite is a set of existences. Unless you are a practitioner of either the fusionist or superventionist magic you must logically consider that AN (1) existence can have only AN (1) identity and a composite will have as many identities as there are elements in the set.

    The roles you describe are functional not existential. 1 bird can no more be a flock than a flock can be 1 bird. Each has its own individual identity even when participating in a flock. Matter and energy are conditions which (according to Uncle Al) can be readily interchanged. In fact it is entirely likely both states exist within a single entity.
    So are you (1) identity plus a composite consisting of many identities?
    Rather (1) identity wearing a composite suit...lasts a long time and fits rather well, but unfortunately needs to be let out from time to time. All life forms build varying levels of shells. The body, clothing, houses, communities, states, nations...all functional shells. Unfortunately, the design we seem to have gravitated to dictates that the materials we use to build our corpses are most efficiently harvested from killing other life forms - else we'd all eat mud and have adobe bodies.
    There are so many different views of how individuals interpret the examples mentioned above by choosing which words they each use to describe it. The problem is deciding which one is the most correct answer by which that correct answer can be changed anytime in the future with new information discovered.
    Yes, semantics is CERTAINLY a problem. It is difficult to encode brain language into English or even mathematical symbols (which is basically just a shorthand form of language, itself...with very useful tools from basic axioms to transforms, etc) Actually that is why I post to this and other boards. I am refining a thesis that I developed in 1970 and presented online in 1992. By posting snippets of it in forums such as this, I have discovered and clarified many semantical stumbling blocks by responding to challenges which allow me to strengthen my argument. I have identified my own logical weaknesses and misunderstandings of the standard models of cosmology and particle physics (I only minored in physics - 40 years ago). That thesis is the website noted as my homepage in my profile if you are interested in looking at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #503  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    [QUOTE=THoR;312964]
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    [Where it comes to explaining the nature of life, thought, consciousness and identity, the fusionist and superventionist camps of EP are, indeed, purveyors of magical thinking and I do not apologize for poking fun at them.
    However, it would be more in line with the function of the forum if you were to poke some contrary evidence at them - something you have so far seemed quite unable to do.

    At the heart of your difficulty seems to be the inability to consider two or more apparently contradictory elements at the same time. A person can be a son, a father, a husband, an employer, a fourm poster, a pain in the butt, a nuclear physicist and a cyclist, all at the same time. It is a matter of perspective. A bird can be an individual bird with individual bird thoughts, or it can be part of a flock whose flight patterns are governed by some very simple rules - the same rules followed by shoaling fishes. Duality in nature is nothing new. Waves - particles; matter - energy; - why so difficult for you?

    "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
    "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
    Alice in Wonderland.
    1=1
    2≠1
    I think those equations are pretty well accepted universally. What other logic would you apply, what other evidence do you need? AN existence is AN existence. A composite is a set of existences. Unless you are a practitioner of either the fusionist or superventionist magic you must logically consider that AN (1) existence can have only AN (1) identity and a composite will have as many identities as there are elements in the set.

    The roles you describe are functional not existential. 1 bird can no more be a flock than a flock can be 1 bird. Each has its own individual identity even when participating in a flock. Matter and energy are conditions which (according to Uncle Al) can be readily interchanged. In fact it is entirely likely both states exist within a single entity.
    So are you (1) identity plus a composite consisting of many identities?
    Rather (1) identity wearing a composite suit...lasts a long time and fits rather well, but unfortunately needs to be let out from time to time. All life forms build varying levels of shells. The body, clothing, houses, communities, states, nations...all functional shells. Unfortunately, the design we seem to have gravitated to dictates that the materials we use to build our corpses are most efficiently harvested from killing other life forms - else we'd all eat mud and have adobe bodies.
    a race of golems, oy gevalt!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #504  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Guys, if you can, please don't quote and quote and quote material that's not really important to your point. Trim it down!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #505  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    [QUOTE=THoR;312979]
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    [Where it comes to explaining the nature of life, thought, consciousness and identity, the fusionist and superventionist camps of EP are, indeed, purveyors of magical thinking and I do not apologize for poking fun at them.
    However, it would be more in line with the function of the forum if you were to poke some contrary evidence at them - something you have so far seemed quite unable to do.

    At the heart of your difficulty seems to be the inability to consider two or more apparently contradictory elements at the same time. A person can be a son, a father, a husband, an employer, a fourm poster, a pain in the butt, a nuclear physicist and a cyclist, all at the same time. It is a matter of perspective. A bird can be an individual bird with individual bird thoughts, or it can be part of a flock whose flight patterns are governed by some very simple rules - the same rules followed by shoaling fishes. Duality in nature is nothing new. Waves - particles; matter - energy; - why so difficult for you?

    "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
    "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
    Alice in Wonderland.
    1=1
    2≠1
    I think those equations are pretty well accepted universally. What other logic would you apply, what other evidence do you need? AN existence is AN existence. A composite is a set of existences. Unless you are a practitioner of either the fusionist or superventionist magic you must logically consider that AN (1) existence can have only AN (1) identity and a composite will have as many identities as there are elements in the set.

    The roles you describe are functional not existential. 1 bird can no more be a flock than a flock can be 1 bird. Each has its own individual identity even when participating in a flock. Matter and energy are conditions which (according to Uncle Al) can be readily interchanged. In fact it is entirely likely both states exist within a single entity.
    So are you (1) identity plus a composite consisting of many identities?
    Rather (1) identity wearing a composite suit...lasts a long time and fits rather well, but unfortunately needs to be let out from time to time. All life forms build varying levels of shells. The body, clothing, houses, communities, states, nations...all functional shells. Unfortunately, the design we seem to have gravitated to dictates that the materials we use to build our corpses are most efficiently harvested from killing other life forms - else we'd all eat mud and have adobe bodies.
    There are so many different views of how individuals interpret the examples mentioned above by choosing which words they each use to describe it. The problem is deciding which one is the most correct answer by which that correct answer can be changed anytime in the future with new information discovered.
    Yes, semantics is CERTAINLY a problem. It is difficult to encode brain language into English or even mathematical symbols (which is basically just a shorthand form of language, itself...with very useful tools from basic axioms to transforms, etc) Actually that is why I post to this and other boards. I am refining a thesis that I developed in 1970 and presented online in 1992. By posting snippets of it in forums such as this, I have discovered and clarified many semantical stumbling blocks by responding to challenges which allow me to strengthen my argument. I have identified my own logical weaknesses and misunderstandings of the standard models of cosmology and particle physics (I only minored in physics - 40 years ago). That thesis is the website noted as my homepage in my profile if you are interested in looking at it.
    I went to your homepage and it was a very interesting article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #506  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    As Meteorwayne asked, please cool it with the million quotes within quotes please.
    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  
     

  7. #507  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    32
    Every single thing around us is about trial and error, and adaption...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #508  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Or for clarity...adaption than trail and error.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #509  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    The argument for "intelligent design" was a good subject until religion claims its their "God" that is the designer. Design in nature is not too hard to accept the idea especially since they have learned that epigenetics plays an active role in modifying the appearance of a species when a new diet becomes the norm. This doesn't take milions of years and it can happen after a few generations if the change in diet requires modification of its appearance to obtain this new diet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #510  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tszy View Post
    The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
    The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.
    I spit up my coffee reading that. I would have told the guy that an IDer would see to it that the Sun only burns on the side that the Earth is facing.
    Heh! That is a good point!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #511  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Or for clarity...adaption than trail and error.
    Hey is this a spelling error or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #512 FINALLY....Absolute PROOF of Intelligent Design 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    FINALLY....Absolute PROOF of Intelligent Design

    ipad.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #513  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,191
    There is no such thing as proof outside of mathmatics...
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #514  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    There is no such thing as proof outside of mathmatics...
    Nor within it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #515  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,191
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #516  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Solve for X:
    sqrt-1.gif
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #517  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Solve for X:
    sqrt-1.gif
    There is nothing to solve. You have given the value for x.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #518  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Well, mathematics are used in double entry bookkeeping. It is the mathematics which prove that the books are balanced or not.

    But Intelligent design is much like the concept of mathematics. Simple equations can yield extraordinary complex ideas and statements about the nature of the universe and the way things work.
    Fortunately there is a third concept, a geometric concept. The simple fractal. A fractal can yield structural formation of incredidible complexity, strenght, functionality, as well as facilitate self-duplication.

    Thus intelligent design is the combinations of certain universal constants with unlimited creative qualities. But the universe and its energetic change over billions of years is all founded on simple concepts. There is nothing in the universe that has irreducible complexity, every thing can be reduced to the simple statement that the BB created a state of chaos and by the functions of universal constants, gradually more and more complexicity is being created, or as science calls it "emergent qualities).

    A few lines, a few simple commands and below are scientific arguments as well as pictures of the world of fractals.

    Causal Dynamical Triangulation: Booting Up The Space-Time Continuum - YouTube
    Irreducible complexity cut down to size - YouTube
    Renate Loll on the Quantum Origins of Space and Time - YouTube

    and for a fractal gallery,
    fractals in nature - Bing Images

    God is a fractal (a trinity......)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Similar Threads

  1. The Intelligent Design people got to me! Help!
    By GreatBigBore in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2010, 04:06 AM
  2. Intelligent design and the monkfish
    By Robbie in forum Biology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 08:25 AM
  3. intelligent design hypothesis
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 04:29 PM
  4. intelligent design advert
    By marnixR in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 07:34 PM
  5. Some QUESTIONS about Intelligent Design!
    By charles brough in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 08:16 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
  •