Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 123
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Existence proves intelligent design

  1. #1 Existence proves intelligent design 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Whilst I'm not a big fan of many religious concepts of intelligent design for the simple reason that they are way too limited in their concept and scope I do think that the very nature of existence is a convergence for science and relgion, no one discipline can really explain it. Science is all about understanding how and why things work, but how can nayone hope to explain where everything came from or why? Likewise with religion, religion is mired with superstition and interpretations. The truth of everything can only really ever be found at the convergence point. Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.

    Also when did time start, forget about time within our universe, I'm talking about the idea that everything just spung out of nothing. How long did that nothing exist before everything magically started? The whole idea is again impossible.

    I just don't see how there could ever be a purely scientific explanation that could ever explain existence.


    Curtologic likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.
    Why?

    By 'impossible', you mean 'I can't understand'.


    Prudentibus likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Because whatever questions science can or ever could answer would lead to more questions, there simply is no way to answer the nature of existence. The whole idea of existence is impossible, how does something or indeed everything come from nothing?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If the net energy of the universe is zero, and it may well be, then everything could have begun as a quantum fluctuation which underwent inflation.

    Twenty-four hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Epicurus said "ex nihilo nihil fit". There's been a lot of progress in the interim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    The problem with what you are suggesting is you are looking at it from a purely scientific perspective that seeks to answer the immediate question, whilst you could be totally correct you are still using one 'thing' to as a starting point in a process to explain where everything has come from. When considering existence you have to consider that it has either always existed in which case how and why did it and does it exist, impossible to scientifically answer or it started from nothing at some point again impossible to answer why or how in purely scientific terms.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The problem with what you are suggesting is you are looking at it from a purely scientific perspective
    As I see it, the problem with your position is that you are looking at it from a nonscientific perspective.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The problem with what you are suggesting is you are looking at it from a purely scientific perspective
    As I see it, the problem with your position is that you are looking at it from a nonscientific perspective.
    That could well be right, that's why I'm putting out here on the science forum to see if someone can come up with a genuine scientifc explantion that show's I am in error. If this is so I can adjust my thinking and indeed my perseption. If not then there is no basis on which for me to change my perseption.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.
    Why?

    By 'impossible', you mean 'I can't understand'.
    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    Really? Does it has the same amount of research and evidence as the Theory of Evolution? If so, where is this research and evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    The only ones who think so are the creationists. (and any others who ignore science in favor of belief).
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    Really? Does it has the same amount of research and evidence as the Theory of Evolution? If so, where is this research and evidence?

    I am not aware of the amount of research being done in either area, however, and IMO, the amount of research being done on theories is an irrelevant measuring stick to use in order to determine or declare a greater viability, possibility or probability of a theory.

    Concerning the evidence, i always thought it was, and is basically, the same evidence, as well as the same lack of evidence, that has provided and provides the same base of support for most creation theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    The only ones who think so are the creationists. (and any others who ignore science in favor of belief).
    I am not sure creation is the problem.. I think most agree that creation happens and happened, right? The question is how and by what processes, correct?


    or
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    Really? Does it has the same amount of research and evidence as the Theory of Evolution? If so, where is this research and evidence?
    I am not aware of the amount of research being done in either area, however, and IMO, the amount of research being done on theories is an irrelevant measuring stick to use in order to determine or declare a greater viability, possibility or probability of a theory.

    Concerning the evidence, i always thought it was, and is basically, the same evidence, as well as the same lack of evidence, that has provided and provides the same base of support for most creation theories.
    What definition of theory are you using, the Scientific or the vernacular?
    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  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    The theory of intelligent design, to one degree or another, is just as good as any at this point in time though.
    Really? Does it has the same amount of research and evidence as the Theory of Evolution? If so, where is this research and evidence?
    I am not aware of the amount of research being done in either area, however, and IMO, the amount of research being done on theories is an irrelevant measuring stick to use in order to determine or declare a greater viability, possibility or probability of a theory.

    Concerning the evidence, i always thought it was, and is basically, the same evidence, as well as the same lack of evidence, that has provided and provides the same base of support for most creation theories.
    What definition of theory are you using, the Scientific or the vernacular?
    Scientific.

    The ideas and hypotheses attached to the theory of intelligent design are allowed to be wildly off, and as all theories, changes will occur concerning individual ideas/hypotheses but, the reality of intelligent design, as well as unintelligent design, is a fact. Now one can argue about the extend to which intelligent design has played a role to date but, why argue against the theory itself when we, humans, are already intelligently designing and altering things (for better or worse) within the small space we occupy?

    Are we the first and only intelligent thing to do this?
    How advanced and creative will mankind become in the future? How much more, and what else, will mankind create?

    I do not understand how anyone can watch intelligent design occur all around them yet argue against the theory of intelligent design. What makes it even worse for those who argue against the theory is that as the decades, centuries and millenniums pass, there will not be a single person, and perhaps even intelligent beings of our own creation, that will argue against the theory of intelligent design.

    It is smart to argue, debate and/or discuss the details but, it seems silly to me to argue against the theory itself. The theory itself is sound even though some, or many, of the ideas/hypothesis attached to it might not be.
    NMSquirrel likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Science is all about understanding how and why things work, but how can anyone hope to explain where everything came from or why?
    Science is a process. When that process succeeds we finish up with a theory with consistent explanatory and descriptive power.

    Science starts with a hypothesis - which has to be framed as testable. Testable means that you must be able to distinguish from your testing what can and can't be falsified. If there's no possibility of confirming or disconfirming either positive or negative results - you haven't even got a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

    The truth of everything can only really ever be found at the convergence point.
    Regardless of how you express such an idea, it has to be frameable as a testable hypothesis.

    No hypothesis?
    No test?
    You can't even get started.

    the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.
    This is generally known as an argument from incredulity. Not being able to comprehend something beyond comprehension - whether it's just your own or everyone's - is not an argument against or in favour of anything.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The ideas and hypotheses attached to the theory of intelligent design are allowed to be wildly off, and as all theories, changes will occur concerning individual ideas/hypotheses but
    ID is not even a valid hypothesis--completely untestable in current form and not worth of any more then idle conversation.

    why argue against the theory itself when we, humans, are already intelligently designing and altering things (for better or worse) within the small space we occupy?
    Arguments by analogy are rather common in philosophy but carry little weight as scientific evidence or reasoning.

    It is smart to argue, debate and/or discuss the details but
    There is no "but" because there are no details to ID.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The ideas and hypotheses attached to the theory of intelligent design are allowed to be wildly off, and as all theories, changes will occur concerning individual ideas/hypotheses but
    ID is not even a valid hypothesis--completely untestable in current form and not worth of any more then idle conversation.

    why argue against the theory itself when we, humans, are already intelligently designing and altering things (for better or worse) within the small space we occupy?
    Arguments by analogy are rather common in philosophy but carry little weight as scientific evidence or reasoning.

    It is smart to argue, debate and/or discuss the details but
    There is no "but" because there are no details to ID.
    ID is not a hypotheses, it is a theory. Intelligent design is a reality. That cannot be denied, it is a fact. Now what is or is not intelligently designed would be or could be presented as a hypothesis then tested scientifically to see if it can be discovered if it was designed intelligently or not.

    Like it or not, my home was intelligently designed and built, and I can prove that. You see how that works? ID is a fact... One can argue, debate, discuss or study any hypotheses they have concerning what is or is not intelligently designed but, they cannot honestly or sanely deny that ID is a reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,249
    If it is a theory, show us the links to the peer reviewed papers that detail scientific experiments outlining and verifying the ID concepts.
    pyoko likes this.
    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  
     

  20. #19  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Would it be acceptable to Science minded people if they were left out of this debate? As I see it, the Scientific Mind is debating an issue that involves Astral Projection and Reception of thoughts and ideas taken up by earlier Groups of Humans over 100.000 years or thereabouts. Science, as we know it today, was never allowed to interfere with a Spiritual concept of the beginning of time. The Rituals, some still with us, did not call upon Science for support. They were acceptable beliefs by unquestioning minds. It sustained them for most of the time up to where we are now. Who called the Scientist into this debate or belief System? And has Science taken over the Debate? westwind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    It would be acceptable to Science minded people if this wasn't being debated at all. ID crap is a blatent attempt to set religion on the same footing as science.
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    If it is a theory, show us the links to the peer reviewed papers that detail scientific experiments outlining and verifying the ID concepts.
    I can sit here and supply paper after paper showing that mankind has created, developed and altered many things through intelligent design. Would you like links to videos were you can actually watch people make, create and alter things intelligently?

    How about proof of a plant, or a thousand plants if you want, that have been genetically developed/altered, not by nature but, by intelligent design?

    How about entire genomes created, not by nature at all, but instead, by intelligent design? Would you like those links?

    perhaps you would like to see papers, peer reviewed and all, describing objects in space that are not there due to nature but, rather, created and put there by intelligent design?

    Again, intelligent design is a reality. Like it or not, intelligent design is a verifiable and proven fact found within the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It would be acceptable to Science minded people if this wasn't being debated at all. ID crap is a blatent attempt to set religion on the same footing as science.
    It would be quite funny to witness a genetic scientist alter dna, develop his own strain, then sit down with a friend only to talk about how natural processes create and created everything and intelligent design is pure fictitious crap..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Guys what I'm trying to suggest here is an iteligent design theory that isn't based on religious dogma or superstition. I'm proposing an inteligence that is at the end of the road science takes us down, not some thing that precludes science at all, far from it. I am quite happy with the idea of evolution and our understanding of the things around us. What I am suggesting is that at the very beginning of everything before the universe was formed that there was inteligence at work in its design.

    I merely put forth this idea because it seems logical. The idea that everything just sprung out of nothing seems to me most unscientific. Also the laws on which our understanding of science are based have to have come from somewhere. Just imagine if you will any object you can think of, then imagine magnifying it and looking at what it's made of, if magnify it enough you can even see the individual atoms. But just how far down can science take us? I mean when we get to the very smallest unit imagineable it has to have come from somewhere. Science teaches us that everything we see around us is just the result of a process of change, but who made, invented or created that very first stuff that everything else has resulted from? Science teaches that things can't just come out of nothing without a reason, so who came up the reason.

    I'm saying that science can take us so far in our understanding but it can't take us all the way, for that we need something else. I think though to just dismiss the idea of an inteligence that has created everything is not really scientifc, in fact I would say it's more of a religious approach, to just dismiss what you don't agree with. I think a scientific approach would be to examine the evidence and look to see if there is a way that science would fit within an inteligence theory.

    I just propose a theory that recognises and understands that science is our way of understanding what has been created and how it works, but also encompasses the idea of inteligence played it's part in the creation of existence as we know it.
    Last edited by Ascended; July 2nd, 2012 at 08:12 AM. Reason: typo
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Guys what I'm trying to suggest here is an iteligent design theory that isn't based on religious dogma or superstition. I'm proposing an inteligence that is at the end of the road science takes us down, not some thing that precludes science at all, far from it. I am quite happy with the idea of evolution and our understanding of the things around us. What I am suggesting is that at the very beginning of everything before the universe was formed that there was inteligence at work in its design.

    I merely put forth this idea because it seems logical. The idea that everything just sprung out of nothing seems to me most unscientific. Also the laws on which our understanding of science are based have to have come from somewhere.
    An important thing to realize is that we don't know what happened at the beginning. Current theory simply does not go that far back. In other words, the big bang theory does not say everything came from nothing.

    So at best, our answer of where everything came from, is we don't know. What you are suggesting, i.e. that some infinite being have existed for ever and created our universe, is way more extreme and much less logical than the we don't know answer.

    On the other hand; is it possible that some alien civilisation or alien singular had acquired the ability to create universes? I'd have to say yes. Thing is, that alien still had to come from somewhere, which really only pushes the question further back.

    So, we simply don't know what happened. For all we know an alien did create our universe, an alien that perhaps evolved in a universe with different rules, or non at all. Perhaps the universe itself is infinite, both in time and space and our little bubble is only one in an infinite bouquet. These possibilities make more sense to me than an entity without limits that has always existed. The anthropic principle gives significance to the fact that a universe such as ours needs to be as it is for us to exist in the first place in order to speculate about it. For all we know there have been countless iteration before this one, with many more to come.

    Point though, that anything more definite than "we don't know" before a certain time is not really a scientific course to take at this point, and can only be pure speculation.
    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  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It would be acceptable to Science minded people if this wasn't being debated at all. ID crap is a blatent attempt to set religion on the same footing as science.
    It would be quite funny to witness a genetic scientist alter dna, develop his own strain, then sit down with a friend only to talk about how natural processes create and created everything and intelligent design is pure fictitious crap..
    You miss the whole problem with the ID idea. The problem is that at some point life and intelligence either did not exist at all, or it always existed. The ID movement as it stands now rallies for a position that an intelligence specifically existed before life did and created it. That is fine on the face of it, but there are problems. One is that there is no unambiguous evidence for such an influence and quite a bit against it in the form of very strong evidence for evolution. Another is that the ID movement explicitly evolved out of creationism and is in fact a branch of creationism in disguise.

    In that way technology is not evidence for ID as it stands at the moment, because we still had to get here from somewhere. All ID does is move the goal posts to a point before the origin of life on this planet for the emergence of the intelligence that supposedly created it. It is a bit like panspermia in that way, though it's investigations are nowhere near as scientific as panspermia. The ID movement in fact has produced very little actual science. It argues in favour of a non-scientific presumption, instead of following available evidence towards a conclusion.
    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  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It would be acceptable to Science minded people if this wasn't being debated at all. ID crap is a blatent attempt to set religion on the same footing as science.
    It would be quite funny to witness a genetic scientist alter dna, develop his own strain, then sit down with a friend only to talk about how natural processes create and created everything and intelligent design is pure fictitious crap..
    You miss the whole problem with the ID idea. The problem is that at some point life and intelligence either did not exist at all, or it always existed. The ID movement as it stands now rallies for a position that an intelligence specifically existed before life did and created it. That is fine on the face of it, but there are problems. One is that there is no unambiguous evidence for such an influence and quite a bit against it in the form of very strong evidence for evolution. Another is that the ID movement explicitly evolved out of creationism and is in fact a branch of creationism in disguise.

    In that way technology is not evidence for ID as it stands at the moment, because we still had to get here from somewhere. All ID does is move the goal posts to a point before the origin of life on this planet for the emergence of the intelligence that supposedly created it. It is a bit like panspermia in that way, though it's investigations are nowhere near as scientific as panspermia. The ID movement in fact has produced very little actual science. It argues in favour of a non-scientific presumption, instead of following available evidence towards a conclusion.
    There is no doubt that any hypotheses attached to intelligent design that states that the universe itself was created by intelligent design carries the burden of producing the evidence needed to at least show that intelligent design played at least some role in the birth of the universe.

    What is or has not been created by intelligent design is for scientific research to sort out though. Wild or far fetched hypothesis, ideas and beliefs put forward concerning what someone thinks or believes was created by intelligent design does not, and never will, disprove the reality of intelligent design. Intelligent design in our universe is a reality, it is a fact, it occurs, and it is up to science, whenever it can, to distinguish/discover what is or has been created/developed/altered by way of intelligent design or nature/natural occurrence.
    Last edited by gonzales56; July 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post

    On the other hand; is it possible that some alien civilisation or alien singular had acquired the ability to create universes? I'd have to say yes. Thing is, that alien still had to come from somewhere, which really only pushes the question further back.

    That's it though kal, that's it in a nutshell, the more we seem to learn and understand the more layers there are to unpeal. It like a game of russian dolls with us in the middle. The thing is what happens when we find our way out of the last one. Ok I know the idea of some ever living God like figure that supposedely created everything is far fetched but so is the idea that everything spontaniously spang out of nothing. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between I also think it will involve a whole new concept of time for existence to even be possible.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Well then it is doing that already. If something is discovered that unambiguously points towards an intelligence having had a hand in it, then so it will be. There is no real point, though, in searching for it explicitly. The real problem for an ID interpretation as it exists now, is that everything we have found to date has been a product of life on this planet. One could argue intelligent design for all manner of structures, like beaver dams and such, but that is not what is meant by the ID movement. In that way there is no evidence of ID as is meant by the movement. Even if evidence of a designing hand was found somewhere in nature, it would still not imply a designer as the movement suggests it.

    In short:
    The ID movement stands in opposition to evolution and abiogenesis specifically, i.e. in favour of a pre-existing intelligence that did not itself evolve from non-life origins. As far as that is concerned, it has provided no value so far. As for perhaps an alien intelligence having had a hand somewhere, that would be something that would be discovered in due time if such evidence exists. There is no real indication of it at the moment though and there is little value (probably would hamper current research) in searching for it explicitly.
    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  
     

  30. #29  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    The way I figure it is this the only way for existence to be possible is it having come from somewhere, the logic is, everything comes from something. Problem with that is there is no starting point, so you've got infinity a concept I really don't like at all. However if we remove infinity from the equation we have to look for another understanding of time. Since we live in and are governed by the laws of a linear time frame anything that relates to us is not the answer is it has a starting and finishing point, we are looking for a way in which no starting point is required to explain how existence came into being. Thus we need to consider an inteligence or something that is beyond or is not restricted to our understanding of time. Like, if you will we are looking for a 2 dimension creature, because it has no 3rd dimension to be restriced by. So there must be something out there that started existence as we understand it that is 'beyond time'. We can't just consider our universe just sprang from nowhere or has always been here. It is illogical it sprang from nowhere and it can't have always been here because it is as restricted as we are to the concept of time, thus it has to have had a starting point.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it


    The problem here is that for intelligence to be possible there has to be some existence behind it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The whole idea of existence is impossible, how does something or indeed everything come from nothing?
    The answer is that it didnt! There never was, there is not and there will never be a nothing that something could come from.
    slush33 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it


    The problem here is that for intelligence to be possible there has to be some existence behind it

    Yes that is what I was saying and postulating how the existence could have come first in the form of an inteligence that doesn't exist in or is beyond our understanding of time and as such might not need a starting point.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    If it is a theory, show us the links to the peer reviewed papers that detail scientific experiments outlining and verifying the ID concepts.
    I can sit here and supply paper after paper showing that mankind has created, developed and altered many things through intelligent design. Would you like links to videos were you can actually watch people make, create and alter things intelligently?

    How about proof of a plant, or a thousand plants if you want, that have been genetically developed/altered, not by nature but, by intelligent design?

    How about entire genomes created, not by nature at all, but instead, by intelligent design? Would you like those links?

    perhaps you would like to see papers, peer reviewed and all, describing objects in space that are not there due to nature but, rather, created and put there by intelligent design?

    Again, intelligent design is a reality. Like it or not, intelligent design is a verifiable and proven fact found within the universe.
    Yes there is intelligence in our universe...in our Reality... Its not news, its been known for a long time by now. You dont have to repeat it. I get the point: So what comes next in your "theory" of intelligent design? What more can you prove? Besides proving the existence of intelligence artifacts like comic books... Can you prove intelligence itself was designed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The whole idea of existence is impossible, how does something or indeed everything come from nothing?
    The answer is that it didnt! There never was, there is not and there will never be a nothing that something could come from.
    This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated. It is a consequence of too restrictive thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it


    The problem here is that for intelligence to be possible there has to be some existence behind it

    Yes that is what I was saying and postulating how the existence could have come first in the form of an inteligence that doesn't exist in or is beyond our understanding of time and as such might not need a starting point.
    Take a good look around zero! There is no number closest to it. You think something came first (in general) , but that is only one of the possibilities. There is no way you can exclude the possibility that there was not something that came first!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    No what I was actually doing was speculating on the possibility that our universe was created by an inteligence that is beyond our restriction to time, from our perspective it might appear as if it had always existed and in reality it might not have even been created or it might have always existed, anyone of the options are irrelevant though, what is relevant is the inteligence and existence occur at the same time from our perspective, because it has no need for a starting point.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The whole idea of existence is impossible, how does something or indeed everything come from nothing?
    The answer is that it didnt! There never was, there is not and there will never be a nothing that something could come from.
    This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated. It is a consequence of too restrictive thinking.
    Im not sure what you mean by this or how you warrant it:This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated.

    Well then... a strict proof needs
    (among other things)
    generalizing the following simple argument:

    Suppose nothing is
    then that IS the case!
    Since something is the case
    then nothing isnt. QED
    Last edited by sigurdW; July 2nd, 2012 at 11:32 AM. Reason: simplifying
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The whole idea of existence is impossible, how does something or indeed everything come from nothing?
    The answer is that it didnt! There never was, there is not and there will never be a nothing that something could come from.
    This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated. It is a consequence of too restrictive thinking.
    Im not sure what you mean by this or how you warrant it:This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated.

    Well then... a strict proof needs
    (among other things)
    generalizing the following simple argument:

    Suppose there is nothing
    then that IS the case!
    Since something is the case
    then nothing isnt. QED

    Err what???
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    No idea!
    Ascended likes this.
    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  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    The whole idea of existence is impossible, how does something or indeed everything come from nothing?
    The answer is that it didnt! There never was, there is not and there will never be a nothing that something could come from.
    This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated. It is a consequence of too restrictive thinking.
    Im not sure what you mean by this or how you warrant it:This is an unwarranted statement, that can not be proven or demonstrated.

    Well then... a strict proof needs
    (among other things)
    generalizing the following simple argument:

    Suppose there is nothing
    then that IS the case!
    Since something is the case
    then nothing isnt. QED

    Err what???
    Well...the long story begins with the philosopher Parmenides
    who approximately three thousand years ago was the first to claim there is no such thing as nothing...See:
    Parmenides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    To cut it short: It is self contradictory to state that nothing exists
    or that nothing existed
    or that nothing will exist.
    And I gave a basic old argument for it to be so. Dont you understand the argument?
    Last edited by sigurdW; July 2nd, 2012 at 11:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    OOPs just noticed you guys already debated this to 500 + posts not that long ago, so apologies for bringing this idea up again.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17
    What if we have it backwards. Insted of reality being designed by a intelligent designer, reality where the process of designing a omniscience energy. This would still produce a "God". A God that could be interactive, but not consistant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Sorry, your second sentence is not grammatical and so I am unable to extract your intended meaning. Could you please rephrase it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17
    reality (would be) ,insted of (where)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    If I may put in in my own words: you are suggesting that God did not create the universe, but that the universe, or some sub-set of it, may eventually create God. Is that correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Well then it is doing that already. If something is discovered that unambiguously points towards an intelligence having had a hand in it, then so it will be. There is no real point, though, in searching for it explicitly. The real problem for an ID interpretation as it exists now, is that everything we have found to date has been a product of life on this planet. One could argue intelligent design for all manner of structures, like beaver dams and such, but that is not what is meant by the ID movement. In that way there is no evidence of ID as is meant by the movement. Even if evidence of a designing hand was found somewhere in nature, it would still not imply a designer as the movement suggests it.

    In short:
    The ID movement stands in opposition to evolution and abiogenesis specifically, i.e. in favour of a pre-existing intelligence that did not itself evolve from non-life origins. As far as that is concerned, it has provided no value so far. As for perhaps an alien intelligence having had a hand somewhere, that would be something that would be discovered in due time if such evidence exists. There is no real indication of it at the moment though and there is little value (probably would hamper current research) in searching for it explicitly.
    I disagree with the definition/parameter/propaganda that you posted concerning what ID is and isn't.

    Evolution and ID are both found within the universe and the relationship between the two is not one of opposition, but rather one of cooperation and kinship.

    Evolution is not a movement, ID is not a movement, and time spent on either, IMO, is not a waste of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    If it is a theory, show us the links to the peer reviewed papers that detail scientific experiments outlining and verifying the ID concepts.
    I can sit here and supply paper after paper showing that mankind has created, developed and altered many things through intelligent design. Would you like links to videos were you can actually watch people make, create and alter things intelligently?

    How about proof of a plant, or a thousand plants if you want, that have been genetically developed/altered, not by nature but, by intelligent design?

    How about entire genomes created, not by nature at all, but instead, by intelligent design? Would you like those links?

    perhaps you would like to see papers, peer reviewed and all, describing objects in space that are not there due to nature but, rather, created and put there by intelligent design?

    Again, intelligent design is a reality. Like it or not, intelligent design is a verifiable and proven fact found within the universe.
    Yes there is intelligence in our universe...in our Reality... Its not news, its been known for a long time by now. You dont have to repeat it. I get the point: So what comes next in your "theory" of intelligent design? What more can you prove? Besides proving the existence of intelligence artifacts like comic books... Can you prove intelligence itself was designed?
    I hate guessing but, if I had to, based on my limited understanding and knowledge at this very moment, I would guess that the very first intelligence came to be by way of unintelligent means/processes/design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    It is NOT propaganda. ID generally refers not to exhibitions of technology by intelligent creatures such as humans (which is itself a rather arbitrary definition), but specifically to the ID movement that stands in opposition to abiogenesis and evolution. ID has also been proven in a court of law to be creationism in disguise, specifically promulgated by the Discovery Institute. That they claim it not to be a derivative of creationism is propaganda on their part. The whole argument still implies a creator, as (again, like I said) it merely removes the origin of life and diversity further back and thereby does start with an a priori assumption of the existence of intelligence that did not itself come about by intelligent means.

    If you choose to include the possibility of extraterrestrial technology in the definition of ID, that is your choice, but will only create confusion as, like I said, that is not the usual definition. Your insistence on this smacks of deliberate obfuscation and an underlying agenda, that possibly ties in with your non-standard take on the origin of modern humans. Are you an advocate for the Discovery Institute?
    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  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It is NOT propaganda. ID generally refers not to exhibitions of technology by intelligent creatures such as humans (which is itself a rather arbitrary definition), but specifically to the ID movement that stands in opposition to abiogenesis and evolution. ID has also been proven in a court of law to be creationism in disguise, specifically promulgated by the Discovery Institute. That they claim it not to be a derivative of creationism is propaganda on their part. The whole argument still implies a creator, as (again, like I said) it merely removes the origin of life and diversity further back and thereby does start with an a priori assumption of the existence of intelligence that did not itself come about by intelligent means.

    If you choose to include the possibility of extraterrestrial technology in the definition of ID, that is your choice, but will only create confusion as, like I said, that is not the usual definition. Your insistence on this smacks of deliberate obfuscation and an underlying agenda, that possibly ties in with your non-standard take on the origin of modern humans. Are you an advocate for the Discovery Institute?
    Attempting to exclude intelligent design by life on earth as scientific proof/evidence for the existence of intelligent design would be, and is kin to, attempting to exclude the evolution of life on earth as scientific proof/evidence for the existence of Evolution.

    Personally I do not care to concern myself with the wild and/or outrageous hypotheses/ideas and beliefs which are attached to intelligent design. You are more than welcomed to focus on them but, I do not want to and I hope that is OK with you. I just do not care.
    Last edited by gonzales56; July 4th, 2012 at 06:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Attempting to exclude intelligent design by life on earth as scientific proof/evidence for the existence of intelligent design would be, and is kin to, attempting to exclude the evolution of life on earth as scientific proof/evidence for the existence of Evolution.
    How many different ways do I need to explain this to you? I am not denying the existence of human technology, nor the possibility that an alien intelligence had a hand in our development, nor that alien technology might exist elsewhere in the universe. What I AM saying is that the use of the term "Intelligent Design" or "ID" is generally taken to mean the campaign by the Discovery Institute that is a form of creationism in disguise. This is also the way the US federal court defines it.

    Personally I do not care to concern myself with the wild and/or outrageous hypotheses/ideas and beliefs which are attached to intelligent design. You are more than welcomed to focus on them but, I do not want to and I hope that is OK with you.
    Then, quite simply, don't argue for the term intelligent design in exactly the way the Discovery Institute does!
    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  
     

  52. #51  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It is NOT propaganda. ID generally refers not to exhibitions of technology by intelligent creatures such as humans (which is itself a rather arbitrary definition), but specifically to the ID movement that stands in opposition to abiogenesis and evolution. ID has also been proven in a court of law to be creationism in disguise, specifically promulgated by the Discovery Institute. That they claim it not to be a derivative of creationism is propaganda on their part. The whole argument still implies a creator, as (again, like I said) it merely removes the origin of life and diversity further back and thereby does start with an a priori assumption of the existence of intelligence that did not itself come about by intelligent means.

    If you choose to include the possibility of extraterrestrial technology in the definition of ID, that is your choice, but will only create confusion as, like I said, that is not the usual definition. Your insistence on this smacks of deliberate obfuscation and an underlying agenda, that possibly ties in with your non-standard take on the origin of modern humans. Are you an advocate for the Discovery Institute?

    I do generally tend to agree that when people talk about ID it does conjure up the image of a bunch of loons denying evolution and half the other scientific discoveries and break throughs of mankind in favour of some wildly unsubstantiated theory that an Omnipresent being just magicced up the world a few thousand years ago. Which lets be honest is just basically a load of twaddle.

    I would however like to look at the evidence theorectical and otherwise for the cases of the universe existing without the possibility of inteligence behind it and also the case that the universe did have some inteligence that sparked it all off.

    I think this will be useful and interesting for those of us who haven't entirely made their minds up in what they believe.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Attempting to exclude intelligent design by life on earth as scientific proof/evidence for the existence of intelligent design would be, and is kin to, attempting to exclude the evolution of life on earth as scientific proof/evidence for the existence of Evolution.
    How many different ways do I need to explain this to you? I am not denying the existence of human technology, nor the possibility that an alien intelligence had a hand in our development, nor that alien technology might exist elsewhere in the universe. What I AM saying is that the use of the term "Intelligent Design" or "ID" is generally taken to mean the campaign by the Discovery Institute that is a form of creationism in disguise. This is also the way the US federal court defines it.

    Personally I do not care to concern myself with the wild and/or outrageous hypotheses/ideas and beliefs which are attached to intelligent design. You are more than welcomed to focus on them but, I do not want to and I hope that is OK with you.
    Then, quite simply, don't argue for the term intelligent design in exactly the way the Discovery Institute does!
    I have no problem with the idea of intelligent beings creating things. That process, as well as evolution, is a fact. I think your problem is with the ideas and beliefs, mainly, that Christians, Jews and Muslims have in a single, all powerful, creator of all... Right? Well, I am none of the above, I have no interest in their fairy tales and I have no interest in discussing their beliefs. I will however, discuss the science of intelligent design or the scientifically theoretical possibilities surrounding/involving intelligent design.

    I am also not aware of the discovery institute but, it sounds like, at least according to you, that they understand the issues/science/reality surrounding ID. Unfortunately, I think I might have stepped into a squabble/debate on this thread between religious and darwinian soldiers, and for that, I apologize to myself..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    It is NOT propaganda. ID generally refers not to exhibitions of technology by intelligent creatures such as humans (which is itself a rather arbitrary definition), but specifically to the ID movement that stands in opposition to abiogenesis and evolution. ID has also been proven in a court of law to be creationism in disguise, specifically promulgated by the Discovery Institute. That they claim it not to be a derivative of creationism is propaganda on their part. The whole argument still implies a creator, as (again, like I said) it merely removes the origin of life and diversity further back and thereby does start with an a priori assumption of the existence of intelligence that did not itself come about by intelligent means.

    If you choose to include the possibility of extraterrestrial technology in the definition of ID, that is your choice, but will only create confusion as, like I said, that is not the usual definition. Your insistence on this smacks of deliberate obfuscation and an underlying agenda, that possibly ties in with your non-standard take on the origin of modern humans. Are you an advocate for the Discovery Institute?

    I do generally tend to agree that when people talk about ID it does conjure up the image of a bunch of loons denying evolution and half the other scientific discoveries and break throughs of mankind in favour of some wildly unsubstantiated theory that an Omnipresent being just magicced up the world a few thousand years ago. Which lets be honest is just basically a load of twaddle.

    I would however like to look at the evidence theorectical and otherwise for the cases of the universe existing without the possibility of inteligence behind it and also the case that the universe did have some inteligence that sparked it all off.

    I think this will be useful and interesting for those of us who haven't entirely made their minds up in what they believe.

    The question for some is kind of kin to the chicken before the egg or the egg before the chicken, right? I have to go with, at this time, unintelligent creation of universe then unintelligent creation of intelligence, then intelligent design/creation of things (somethings, not all things ), followed by the possibility for the intelligence/entelligent within the universe to evolve and create/make/alter/advance just about all things that are possible.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I have no problem with the idea of intelligent beings creating things. That process, as well as evolution, is a fact. I think your problem is with the ideas and beliefs, mainly, that Christians, Jews and Muslims have in a single, all powerful, creator of all... Right? Well, I am none of the above, I have no interest in their fairy tales and I have no interest in discussing their beliefs. I will however, discuss the science of intelligent design or the scientifically theoretical possibilities surrounding/involving intelligent design
    Yes. And you are of course free to discuss instances of technology, but like I have said, avoid the term Intelligent Design if you want to avoid being confused with a creationist right off the bat. Like I said, this is because the term Intelligent Design is defined as the campaign they run that is creationism in disguise.

    I am also not aware of the discovery institute but, it sounds like, at least according to you, that they understand the issues/science/reality surrounding ID
    Not according to me! They use the superficial definition of ID as you see it in order to try and not sound on the surface as non-scientific as their campaign is in reality. They are indeed very unscientific, anti-evolution and anti-abiogenesis.

    Unfortunately, I think I might have stepped into a squabble/debate on this thread between religious and darwinian soldiers, and for that, I apologize to myself..
    Almost incredibly, you seem to have been unaware of the usual usage of the term "Intelligent Design" and ID and have been met with strong opposition from the first moment you mentioned the word. In reality your stance is pretty much in line with my own and every other reasonable person, i.e. that technology exists (though that is self evident). The only real problem I have with that is that it is not as clearly defined and one could argue that a variety of structures qualify as technology as well.

    I suggest then that you avoid the term Intelligent Design and ID from now on, except if you want to go through all of this again. I'll even suggest that you explicitly, from the outset, explain that you are not talking about ID/creationism.
    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  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Whilst I'm not a big fan of many religious concepts of intelligent design for the simple reason that they are way too limited in their concept and scope I do think that the very nature of existence is a convergence for science and relgion, no one discipline can really explain it. Science is all about understanding how and why things work, but how can nayone hope to explain where everything came from or why? Likewise with religion, religion is mired with superstition and interpretations. The truth of everything can only really ever be found at the convergence point. Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.Also when did time start, forget about time within our universe, I'm talking about the idea that everything just spung out of nothing. How long did that nothing exist before everything magically started? The whole idea is again impossible.I just don't see how there could ever be a purely scientific explanation that could ever explain existence.
    If existence requires intelligent design, then the intelligent designer, being something that exists, also had to be designed by an intelligent designer. Ad infinitum.You're just pushing the incomprehensibility of the fact that exist backward by one step.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Philovitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Whilst I'm not a big fan of many religious concepts of intelligent design for the simple reason that they are way too limited in their concept and scope I do think that the very nature of existence is a convergence for science and relgion, no one discipline can really explain it. Science is all about understanding how and why things work, but how can nayone hope to explain where everything came from or why? Likewise with religion, religion is mired with superstition and interpretations. The truth of everything can only really ever be found at the convergence point. Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.Also when did time start, forget about time within our universe, I'm talking about the idea that everything just spung out of nothing. How long did that nothing exist before everything magically started? The whole idea is again impossible.I just don't see how there could ever be a purely scientific explanation that could ever explain existence.
    If existence requires intelligent design, then the intelligent designer, being something that exists, also had to be designed by an intelligent designer. Ad infinitum.You're just pushing the incomprehensibility of the fact that exist backward by one step.
    Nice reasoning Philo... Reality is just another word for Existence!
    And Chris doesnt realise that for intelligence to be possible there has to be some existence behind it.
    To sum up: there never was, there isnt ,and there will never be a nothing that someting can come from.
    Science does not declare that something comes from nothing...Its just a common misinterpretation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    And Chris doesnt realise that for intelligence to be possible there has to be some existence behind it.
    Ok, fine so are you are making that claim as a statement of fact and then claiming I don't understand it.
    I don't think that it's unfair to ask you to offer some proof of either claim.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    And Chris doesnt realise that for intelligence to be possible there has to be some existence behind it.
    Ok, fine so are you are making that claim as a statement of fact and then claiming I don't understand it.
    I don't think that it's unfair to ask you to offer some proof of either claim.
    Ok Lets agree that neither your statement nor my statement is proven.
    My intention only was to give a counter argument against your claim that intelligence is prior to existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it
    But isnt it likely that for anything to be possible existence need to exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17
    John Galt, from our linier perspective, I supose that's how it must appear. However I believe all reality, past, present and future to infinitety, came into existance as one event. Deversity of thought and understanding must be a necessity in this manifestation because it is impossible for two life forms to few and record and understand just a like. In memory the deversity gets even greater. Maybe we believe as reality needs us to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ewynn View Post
    it is impossible for two life forms to few and record and understand just a like. .
    Have you considered the benefits of proof reading?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ewynn View Post
    it is impossible for two life forms to few and record and understand just a like. .
    Have you considered the benefits of proof reading?
    Perhaps he is just hiding some hilariously funny points? But I agree with you that statements should be proof read and clear at basic intension level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    possibility 2.) the universe was created by some form of intelligence - Problem being what created the intelligence, did that spring up out of nothing equally unlikely.

    So even if we state the intelligence was pre-existing or not restricted to needing a starting point, it still doesn't help us identify which is the more likely explanation. Back to the drawing board.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    possibility 2.) the universe was created by some form of intelligence - Problem being what created the intelligence, did that spring up out of nothing equally unlikely.

    So even if we state the intelligence was pre-existing or not restricted to needing a starting point, it still doesn't help us identify which is the more likely explanation. Back to the drawing board.
    I dont think your job of analyzing the space of logical possibilities is convincing. But it is in line with "common thought" so at the moment Ill not oppose but for the remark that there is no possibility that the universe sprung out of nothing. Btw what did you think of the cantorian concept of Absolute Infinity?
    Georg Cantor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    Everything we understand tells us that might happen. The stuff we don't understand may tell us it will probably happen. The stuff we don't even know we don't know may well make certain it will happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    Everything we understand tells us that might happen. The stuff we don't understand may tell us it will probably happen. The stuff we don't even know we don't know may well make certain it will happen.
    What have we learned that teaches us something can spring up out of nothing? You ask any scientist to explain where something came from, anything for that matter, and they'll find it impossible without reference to something else.

    So again I ask where is the logic that something came from nothing?, just a simple explanation would suffice so that I can understand the logic.
    Curtologic likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What have we learned that teaches us something can spring up out of nothing?
    I am not a scientist, so perhaps someone else can explain this better:

    I recall an episode on the Science channel where they were discussing observations of virtual particles which seems to come into/out of existence. There were a few scientists discussing how it was a quantum fluctuation which could violate the law of conservation of energy.


    Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?: Scientific American
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Perhaps what is meant by someting coming out of nothing is the theory that the universe started as a quantum fluctuation in vacuum...But that vacuum is/was not "a nothing" its definitely a something but...Its commonly spoken of as the theory that the universe was created out of nothing. Theres no logic behind the idea that something could come out of a "real" nothing...The idea is self contradictive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    There were a few scientists discussing how it was a quantum fluctuation which could violate the law of conservation of energy.
    Quantum fluctuations only violate energy conservation for a very short period of time (as governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). Energy, on average, is conserved.

    On the topic of something-from-nothing, it is worth mentioning two points.
    Firstly, it is believed that the total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore there is no energy to explain away.
    Secondly, in either case, energy conservation would not necessarily pose a problem since it is a consequence of time invariance (cf. Noether's theorem). And since time is believed to have come into existence at the big bang then I see no reason to assume that energy conservation need apply to the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    But that vacuum is/was not "a nothing" its definitely a something but...
    In Hawking's The Grand Design he says that all that is required in order to spawn a universe is gravity (GR) and the quantum field; he goes on to say that these two things are laws that simply must hold, just like 1+1=2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    The topic is Ancient! A fellow named Parmenides
    gave around three thousand years ago
    a satisfactory treatment of the problem.

    He claimed that the statement:" Nothing is." is self contradictory and therefore not true!
    Not much of his texts have survived only the claim but not the proof so lets try ourselves:

    We begin by firmly claiming that: Nothing is!
    Eh... we are saying that it indeed is so that nothing is!
    Oh! Arent we saying that it IS so that it is SO that nothing is?
    We are actually saying that something IS when we are saying that nothing is!
    But if something is... then nothing is not...
    So it is really so that we have proved that something is and nothing is not.

    If we change the tense used in the proof
    we can likewise prove that nothing was not
    and that nothing will never be.

    This is Logic as Ancient as we can trace it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne Australia.
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Whilst I'm not a big fan of many religious concepts of intelligent design for the simple reason that they are way too limited in their concept and scope I do think that the very nature of existence is a convergence for science and relgion, no one discipline can really explain it. Science is all about understanding how and why things work, but how can nayone hope to explain where everything came from or why? Likewise with religion, religion is mired with superstition and interpretations. The truth of everything can only really ever be found at the convergence point. Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.

    Also when did time start, forget about time within our universe, I'm talking about the idea that everything just spung out of nothing. How long did that nothing exist before everything magically started? The whole idea is again impossible.

    I just don't see how there could ever be a purely scientific explanation that could ever explain existence.
    They just don't get it do they!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    The problem is when science cannot answer the questions people turn to religion, when they realise religion is bunk where does that leave them?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The problem is when science cannot answer the questions people turn to religion, when they realise religion is bunk where does that leave them?
    Get a new science teacher? Seriously emergent properties, and highly ordered characteristics, are trivially easy to show examples of, even to grade school kids; examples are everywhere through nature.

    Of course that doesn't explain the non-real questions theologies often plant in peoples minds as form of entrapment--such as guilt for masturbation or "purpose" for everything, thus offering pretend answers tailored to answer make-believe questions. "Why is the big mountain 'angry?' "Because Mary Luau was lifting grass skirt and passing out too many free lollipops" (or modern equivalents to explain Katrina, Sandy etc)
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 1st, 2013 at 11:11 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Well I think perhaps somethings you have to work out for yourself, if not then you're probarbly well on your way to becoming the next member of one cult or another pretending to have all the answers.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    possibility 2.) the universe was created by some form of intelligence - Problem being what created the intelligence, did that spring up out of nothing equally unlikely.
    or 3.) the universe sprung out of something - as a natural cause and effect; no intelligence needed.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The problem is when science cannot answer the questions people turn to religion, when they realise religion is bunk where does that leave them?
    It is the other way around: People use religion to explain things they don't understand. When science help them understand they eventually discard religion explanation on the things that have been explained by science, but still apply (and adapt) religion to the things that has not been explained by science -yet-. And the amount of un-explainable things keep shrinking, leaving the job for the creator smaller and smaller. Now you realized that there is no need for any creator after all, it is just a continuous chain of natural events.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The problem is when science cannot answer the questions people turn to religion, when they realise religion is bunk where does that leave them?
    The problem is that people want proof. Scientific examination does not always strive to prove something.
    adelady and MrMojo1 like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    possibility 2.) the universe was created by some form of intelligence - Problem being what created the intelligence, did that spring up out of nothing equally unlikely.
    or 3.) the universe sprung out of something - as a natural cause and effect; no intelligence needed.

    or 4) the universe has always existed; no intelligence needed.
    MrMojo1, Ascended and Ascended like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    possibility 2.) the universe was created by some form of intelligence - Problem being what created the intelligence, did that spring up out of nothing equally unlikely.
    or 3.) the universe sprung out of something - as a natural cause and effect; no intelligence needed.

    or 4) the universe has always existed; no intelligence needed.
    There can be no argument, right, that at least part of the universe is itself intelligent/intelligence, correct? We as humans are not separate from the universe around us, we are part, we are a part, of the universe. Right?

    The idea that humans or all life on earth exists solely due to unintelligent, random states of matter moving and mingling, is not a proven fact, and it should not be taken as such either, regardless of what someone believes to be likely or true.

    Does the math, can science show, that it is possible, just possible, that intelligent life could have contributed in some way to life on earth, or to humans, directly or indirectly? Is the intelligence in the universe capable of doing so?
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 5th, 2013 at 04:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Does the math, can science show, that it is possible, just possible, that intelligent life could have contributed in some way to life on earth, or to humans, directly or indirectly?
    Now that is an example of a largely meaningless question.
    What do you mean by "directly or indirectly"?
    Science has no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that "intelligent life" has contributed to life on Earth. There is nothing to indicate this.
    When you say "is it possible, just possible" then the answer must be "yes" - simply because we can't rule it out. Which is NOT the same thing (or even close to being the same thing) as "Yes, intelligent life contributed". It's also possible that the entire universe sprang into existence last Tuesday, with a fake history, but it's unlikely.

    Is the intelligence in the universe capable of doing so?
    This appears to pre-suppose that there is other intelligent life than us. While I agree it's possible, maybe even likely, there is currently no evidence that this is so. Ergo this question is also meaningless.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Does the math, can science show, that it is possible, just possible, that intelligent life could have contributed in some way to life on earth, or to humans, directly or indirectly?
    Now that is an example of a largely meaningless question.
    What do you mean by "directly or indirectly"?
    Science has no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that "intelligent life" has contributed to life on Earth. There is nothing to indicate this.
    When you say "is it possible, just possible" then the answer must be "yes" - simply because we can't rule it out. Which is NOT the same thing (or even close to being the same thing) as "Yes, intelligent life contributed". It's also possible that the entire universe sprang into existence last Tuesday, with a fake history, but it's unlikely.

    Is the intelligence in the universe capable of doing so?
    This appears to pre-suppose that there is other intelligent life than us. While I agree it's possible, maybe even likely, there is currently no evidence that this is so. Ergo this question is also meaningless.
    You do not get to separate humans from the evidence. We are part of the universe, so what we can do is proof of what intelligence in the universe is capable of doing and can do. We are a part of, and proof of, the intelligence in the universe. We are just as much a part of the universe as stars, planets and everything else.

    Like it or not, intelligent life does alter life, dna, creates new strains, etc... This does not answer the question if other intelligence has done so but, it does prove that intelligence in the universe does do it, has done it and will continue to do it. That is evidence, that has to be figured into the equation and it has to be part of the serious conversation concerning the solution/answer.

    We send probes, missiles, satellites and life (both normal and altered) into space all the time. We alter life, change dna, create new things, etc.... To declare that it is impossible, wrong or there is no proof for intelligence being able to do these things, when we are that proof, is wrong.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 5th, 2013 at 05:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You do not get to separate humans from the evidence. We are part of the universe, so what we can do is proof of what intelligence in the universe is capable of doing and can do. We are a part of, and proof of, the intelligence in the universe. We are just as much a part of the universe as stars, planets and everything else.
    Yeah, blah blah blah. I haven't "separated humans from evidence".

    Like it or not, intelligent life does alter life, dna, creates new strains, etc... This does not answer the question if other intelligence has done so but, it does prove that intelligence in the universe does do it, has done it and will continue to do it. That is evidence, that has to be figured into the equation and it has to be part of the serious conversation concerning the solution/answer.
    False again.
    The fact that we have altered (some types of) life to suit us does not, in any way whatsoever, indicate that "other intelligent life" has any input towards us.

    To declare that it is impossible, wrong or there is no proof for intelligence being able to do these things, when we are that proof, is wrong.
    In other words your question was moot (and ridiculous) since you have now declared that we are the intelligent that's done something. What was your point again?

    Perhaps you could try to be clearer when you use the term "intelligent life". Do you mean us? (In which case your question was, as stated, nonsensical in the extreme). Or did you mean "intelligent life" other than us? (In which case all my comments stand).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    We alter life, change dna, create new things, etc....
    Evidence that something is possible is not the same as evidence that it has happened.

    To declare that it is impossible, wrong or there is no proof for intelligence being able to do these things, when we are that proof, is wrong.
    No one has said it is impossible. (Have they?)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Science has no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that "intelligent life" has contributed to life on Earth. There is nothing to indicate this.
    This turns out to be incorrect. The apparently rapid appearance of life on Earth is evidence for one of three possibilities:
    1) Life originates easily in clement conditions.
    2) Life can originate by blind chance.
    3) Life is transfered from planet to planet by chance events. (pan spermia)
    4) Life was deliberately seeded on the planet.

    There is no reason to select one option over another on the basis of currently available information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,758
    If there are 4 possibilities then each could be equally likely. (Although in this case they probably aren't equally likely).
    Without any evidence pointing one way or the other we have no reason to believe that any given option is the correct one.
    I.e we don't believe that "intelligent life" has contributed to life on Earth, only that it's possible that it could have.

    Picky I know, but that's what I meant.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Define: "Apparently rapid."

    By what standard is this measured against? How long of a time period is "rapid?"
    Were the conditions right for it at the time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    We alter life, change dna, create new things, etc....
    Evidence that something is possible is not the same as evidence that it has happened.
    It is not just possible, intelligent life has already done it. Proof, Humans.

    Science can no more prove that all life and life forms on earth is due to unintelligent design than it can prove that all life and life forms are due to intelligent design. It is possible that random and unintelligent influences kick started life on earth, just as it is possible that some intelligent beings introduced life to this planet or influence/altered human evolution in some way.

    I am not an advocate one way or another but, it is a fact that there are intelligent beings in the universe. Knowing that intelligence exist, that it is in fact a part of the universe, possibilities concerning a possible influence by intelligent beings cannot be rejected or kept out of the conversation until science answers the question.

    They both deserve footing IMO.

    Is there proof that intelligent beings outside of humans are capable of doing such things? No... But is there proof that intelligent beings exist in the universe and that those intelligent beings can do it? Yes, we are that proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    It cannot be 'proven,' however there is an apparent severe lack of intelligent design. Believers in I.D. do everything they can to avoid the problem of genetic diversoty and change being trial and error rather than design.

    If you move the argument as far back as origin, you're only moving the goal posts to avoid that problem which is suggestive in any event as even IF the origin of life on Earth was intelligently performed, that lack of intelligent involvement after it still a problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you move the argument as far back as origin, you're only moving the goal posts
    As many things as there are to dislike about ID, this is my biggest problem with it. It's just a way of shifting creationism around a little. It provides no more evidence or any additional hypothesis about development than creationism. It just says, "Well, we still believe all of the same stuff, but it happened billions of years ago instead of 6000".

    So, if we discover life on another planet that is 5 billion years old instead of 4, will ID folks just push their bogus idea back another billion years and claim that's still the way it happened?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Define: "Apparently rapid."
    Between fifty and five hundred million years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    By what standard is this measured against?
    We have no standard. That is the entire point. We know that it took several hundred million years for eukaryotes to develop; around one billion years for multi-cellular life forms to evolve. Comparison of these steps suggests the initial origin of life would be as or more difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    How long of a time period is "rapid?"
    We do not know, but it is therefore wholly illogical to choose from the available options on ill-defined grounds seemingly based on circular reasoning. Note that I have defined above, not rapid, but apparently rapid, as I have no intention of selection between these options until we have sufficient data.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Were the conditions right for it at the time?
    Possibly, but we cannot conclude that they were since alternative explanations exist which are as well supported, or rather unsupported.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is Occams razor illogical?

    It seems to me that you have a point about favoring how life developed due to desire is not logical. However, dismissing occams razor is also not logical. It is far more logical to accept the notion that life developed under the conditions that were conducive to it and emergence than the notion that aliens, for whatever reason, seeded the planet and then vanished.
    Granted- it is unknown. Granted, it is unproven.
    But there is evidence for emergence and no evidence of alien seeders.

    The "options" are not equal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Occams razor is an entirely logical premise.

    Unfortunately, we often frame these discussions as life versus non-life even with all the examples on Earth that it's not that simple. Here's a fascinating vid exploring this question, where Hanczyc explains that there exists a continuum between living and non-living systems, not the life versus non-life dichotomy; he shows some simple chemical experiments of artificial protocell like systems:
    Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life | Video on TED.com

    Religion really doesn't have the tools and is woefully unqualified to explore that continuum of non-life to life.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 6th, 2013 at 06:03 PM.
    adelady, MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Also when did time start, forget about time within our universe, I'm talking about the idea that everything just spung out of nothing. How long did that nothing exist before everything magically started? The whole idea is again impossible.

    I just don't see how there could ever be a purely scientific explanation that could ever explain existence.
    Science has only recently been investigating where we came from and how everything started. Until recently religions have held science back claiming they knew everything there was that needed to be known and no one could ask questions about their dictatorial powers over everyone without fear of being punished or killed.

    Science is finally beginning to unlock the secrets of the universe and have found startling things so far. Science doesn't have all the answers but is trying to theorize at first then prove what is factual about how everything, including humans began. Science knows allot about when humans first appeared through fossils and things they left behind when they lived. But science is still seeking more information in order to understand even greater knowledge about time, the universe and other important questions.

    Religions just accept what they were told to accept without asking abouyt facts to back up what they say. They want you to "believe" what they tell you while science asks for you to wait until they can prove what they find with actual facts, not beliefs.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,963
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not just possible, intelligent life has already done it. Proof, Humans.
    <sigh> The OP was about existence. The fact that humans can and do intelligently design things, says nothing about whether the universe, or humanity, was intelligently designed.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,976
    Even an intelligent designer would have an origin. I'd like to think he/she/it got started right here.
    Neverfly likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    So, if we discover life on another planet that is 5 billion years old instead of 4, will ID folks just push their bogus idea back another billion years and claim that's still the way it happened?
    I think the idea that intelligent life could have or can contribute to life on other planets is a interesting one. Is it possible for us to seed Mars or other moons with genetically altered/designed life? Is that something we will do?

    A 100 million years from now will there be intelligent life on mars, thanks to humans / intelligent design, that claim they owe their existence on mars not to intelligent beings/design but, solely to random unintelligent clumps of matter and energy being stirred up on mars...?

    I find the whole thing interesting.. I think intelligence in the universe is far more capable of things than some people give themselves credit for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Intelligent design of one species does not denote intelligent design of the designer. Yes, we could create our own new life on Mars some day. WE still came about via evolution.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Ok, possibility 1.) the universe sprung out of nothing - possible but unlikely as everything we understand tells us that couldn't happen.
    possibility 2.) the universe was created by some form of intelligence - Problem being what created the intelligence, did that spring up out of nothing equally unlikely.
    or 3.) the universe sprung out of something - as a natural cause and effect; no intelligence needed.

    or 4) the universe has always existed; no intelligence needed.
    There can be no argument, right, that at least part of the universe is itself intelligent/intelligence, correct? We as humans are not separate from the universe around us, we are part, we are a part, of the universe. Right?

    The idea that humans or all life on earth exists solely due to unintelligent, random states of matter moving and mingling, is not a proven fact, and it should not be taken as such either, regardless of what someone believes to be likely or true.

    Does the math, can science show, that it is possible, just possible, that intelligent life could have contributed in some way to life on earth, or to humans, directly or indirectly? Is the intelligence in the universe capable of doing so?
    Not bad "out of the box" thinking!

    Life MIGHT be the sexual apparatus of a fertile universe.
    Being fertile is not necessarily having intelligence
    But it WOULD result in new universes.

    Post Scriptum:

    Science and Religion both are sets of ordered interpretations of facts.
    Their most important difference resides in THE ATTITUDE towards interpretation:
    The Religious attitude is a Psychosocial Disease!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Intelligent design of one species does not denote intelligent design of the designer. Yes, we could create our own new life on Mars some day. WE still came about via evolution.
    But it depend on your idea of what has or has not influence or driven the evolution of man. Creating fires, harboring fire, tools, etc., all controlled products, production and tools of intelligent humans that surely selected and radically effected the course of human evolution. Regardless of how the intelligence in the universe came about, the evidence shows that once that intelligence is present, it drives evolution, it alters life, both on its course and genetically, it changes and reshapes planets, it explores space, it reaches out to alter and leave its intelligent footprint, etc.

    Give Us a few more million years and I would be willing to bet that we will be able to do what the gods in any book today can do, and I will bet we will be doing it too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Whilst I'm not a big fan of many religious concepts of intelligent design for the simple reason that they are way too limited in their concept and scope I do think that the very nature of existence is a convergence for science and relgion, no one discipline can really explain it. Science is all about understanding how and why things work, but how can nayone hope to explain where everything came from or why? Likewise with religion, religion is mired with superstition and interpretations. The truth of everything can only really ever be found at the convergence point. Also for existence to be possible there has to be some intelligence behind it, the idea that the rules that define physics, chemistry or cosmology just sprang out of nothing is just impossible.

    Also when did time start, forget about time within our universe, I'm talking about the idea that everything just spung out of nothing. How long did that nothing exist before everything magically started? The whole idea is again impossible.

    I just don't see how there could ever be a purely scientific explanation that could ever explain existence.
    Neither do I! It seems as if there must be something infinite. And ... can we ever understand infinity?
    But suppose there is an infinite amount of energy somewhere, then we can understand how time can go on
    and perhaps has been going on forever. Universes can produce offspring forever. Theres just details to fill in...or?

    Will we still think it all needs an explanation? Will we think of a time axis in ninety degrees to ours? So that at time zero on that axis everything happens at once in the first time axis? then what happens at the next moment on the second axis and what happened before?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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. Proof-existence of an intelligent Creator+His Purpose
    By andersbranderud in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 4th, 2009, 02:29 PM
  4. How Evolution Proves the Existence of God
    By williampinn in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 03:01 PM
  5. intelligent design hypothesis
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 05:29 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
  •