Notices
Results 1 to 77 of 77
Like Tree33Likes
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 5 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By beefpatty
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By NMSquirrel
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 3 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 3 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 3 Post By Neverfly

Thread: Intelligent Design

  1. #1 Intelligent Design 
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Having recently picked up yet another book on intelligent design and how the scientists are wrong to promote evolution by natural selection, I was wondering if anyone would care to comment on the validity of ID. My understanding is that there are at least 3 possible scenarios to explain life.

    * Life on earth is all down to ID and there is no truth in NS.
    * Evolution by NS is the only mechanism to explain life on earth.
    * There is some sort of mix between ID and NS. Both have validity.

    Where ID is concerned that requires further qualification.
    * ID from an entity called God, or
    * ID from a mathematical universe, or
    * ID from panspermia or some other alien interference.
    ID is not a theory. It is an assertion by monotheists in support of their holy scripture. It was instantaneous from about 6000 years ago. This would explain why evolution could not have happened in such a short period. It would take longer than the age of the earth for DNA to be sequenced for advanced life forms.

    The Vatican in an attempt to deflect criticism and to avoid any further confrontation with science have stated that there might be some truth in evolution, but they are unwilling to comment on issues like the extinction of species which runs at something over 99% since life on earth began. But they regard God as perfect and God's creation of life as imperfect, which sort of matches evolution's idea that life is advanced by gene mutations.

    If a window could be opened slightly on the veracity of ID, I can only think that while science and philosophy can address the problem of First Cause (what created the creator?) it is confused when addressing the problem of Final Cause (why does the universe bother to exist and where lies its destiny).
    Or should we simply accept Darwinian evolution as the final word and go home?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Just small correction: Natural selection is but one mechanism of biological evolution.


    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  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Short answer: there is no validity to ID.
    Longer answer: it might, just possibly, be worth reading those books to see what "argument" they put forward - but that's about it.

    Or should we simply accept Darwinian evolution as the final word and go home?
    Science, and scientists, never accept anything as "the final word" - there's always effort to refine and confirm/ deny what we know. (Assuming you're using "Darwinian evolution" as a catch-all term - Darwin has been updated considerably since the original proposal).
    What we have is the best answer so far - not, ever, the final word.

    it is confused when addressing the problem of Final Cause (why does the universe bother to exist and where lies its destiny).
    That's assuming there is a "reason" and a "destiny".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    the problem of Final Cause (why does the universe bother to exist and where lies its destiny).
    This is not a problem of science, this is a problem of humanity. Rocks do not ask from whence they came, nor do clouds, or oceans, or ants.

    The problem of purpose only came into being because humans developed the ability to ask it.

    It's like biological nomenclature. We get confused when groups don't fit neatly into our naming system, but again, that's a problem WE created not nature.
    MrMojo1 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  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    The Vatican in an attempt to deflect criticism and to avoid any further confrontation with science have stated that there might be some truth in evolution, but they are unwilling to comment on issues like the extinction of species which runs at something over 99% since life on earth began
    You can't open a window without letting all the flies in!
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The Vatican in an attempt to deflect criticism and to avoid any further confrontation with science have stated that there might be some truth in evolution, but they are unwilling to comment on issues like the extinction of species which runs at something over 99% since life on earth began
    You can't open a window without letting all the flies in!
    This is why you get yourself a Sill Frog. Better than a screen.
    Environmentally friendly.
    cosmictraveler likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    the problem of Final Cause (why does the universe bother to exist and where lies its destiny).
    This is not a problem of science, this is a problem of humanity. Rocks do not ask from whence they came, nor do clouds, or oceans, or ants.

    The problem of purpose only came into being because humans developed the ability to ask it.

    It's like biological nomenclature. We get confused when groups don't fit neatly into our naming system, but again, that's a problem WE created not nature.
    I don't really understand the term "Final Cause". Do you mean "purpose?"
    I don't necessarily believe the Universe has a purpose but I do believe it is legitimate to ask this altho' presumably it does not come under the heading of a proper scientific question. On the other hand research about how the Universe began is a question for science and if an answer is ever found this could provide some insight into whether the "why" question has any meaning.
    Lastly, Flick Montana, I don't suppose it's of real importance but when you say "that's a problem WE created not nature" surely we were created by nature so one could argue the problem arose because of "nature".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    * ID from a mathematical universe
    That's something new to me, please explain.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    * ID from a mathematical universe
    That's something new to me, please explain.
    Review There is a God by Antony Flew
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Or should we simply accept Darwinian evolution as the final word and go home?
    there is no final word, all the evidence points to natural evolution, there is no evidence for ID, and there is no ID, its just a fancy word for creationism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    ... there is no evidence for ID, and there is no ID, its just a fancy word for creationism
    Exactly. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, ID's "golden boy," Michael Behe (proving that having a PhD is no guarantee of quality), was forced to admit under oath that describing ID as "scientific" required distorting the meaning of the word so much that astrology would also qualify as "scientific."

    It is an embarrassment that "ID" is ever discussed as a viable scientific theory. It is not viable; it's not scientific; and it sure as hell is not a theory.
    Last edited by tk421; January 24th, 2013 at 02:32 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    there is no final word, all the evidence points to natural evolution, there is no evidence for ID, and there is no ID, its just a fancy word for creationism
    How do explain how the universe first got going and then how life first got going? I don't believe in the God of the Gaps but when there is something so obvious like this, then ought we not to keep at least an open mind. The evidence might even be in front of our eyes right now. Life has evolved from single cells to humans engaging with one another on The Science Forum, and it only took 3 billion years. You would have to debunk far too much, and not just religion. If we are to believe the evolutionists literally then life is basically a product of trial and error in the genome. That sounds only vaguely true to most people. You would also have to debunk determinism and I'm not sure if that's possible.
    Quote from Fred Hoyle:
    A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Lastly, Flick Montana, I don't suppose it's of real importance but when you say "that's a problem WE created not nature" surely we were created by nature so one could argue the problem arose because of "nature".
    I shouldn't use the word nature. It's too broad.

    What I mean is that we are not a product of anything so much as a part of it. We're just a rearrangement of things that already existed in the universe before we were 'alive'. Our fingers, for instance, are not created by our body, they are a part of our body.

    This particular lump of chemicals and minerals we call a human has the ability to ask, "Why am I here?" That doesn't oblige the system to have an answer. You are because you came to be.

    I believe it is mankind's greatest virtue that we can ask, "Why do I exist?" and our greatest limitation that we cannot answer that question.

    And I think that makes us quite a fascinating animal.
    RedPanda and Neverfly 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  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    there is no final word, all the evidence points to natural evolution, there is no evidence for ID, and there is no ID, its just a fancy word for creationism
    How do explain how the universe first got going and then how life first got going? I don't believe in the God of the Gaps but when there is something so obvious like this, then ought we not to keep at least an open mind. The evidence might even be in front of our eyes right now. Life has evolved from single cells to humans engaging with one another on The Science Forum, and it only took 3 billion years. You would have to debunk far too much, and not just religion. If we are to believe the evolutionists literally then life is basically a product of trial and error in the genome. That sounds only vaguely true to most people. You would also have to debunk determinism and I'm not sure if that's possible.
    Quote from Fred Hoyle:
    A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.
    its not 3 billion, its 3.8 billion, religion does not need debunking, when you get to the talking snakes its already debunked.
    Science does not care what sounds true to most people, its what the evidence is showing us, all evidence points to a completely natural process, there is no evidence for any kind of supernatural intelligence
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    How do explain how the universe first got going and then how life first got going? I don't believe in the God of the Gaps but when there is something so obvious like this, then ought we not to keep at least an open mind. The evidence might even be in front of our eyes right now. Life has evolved from single cells to humans engaging with one another on The Science Forum, and it only took 3 billion years. You would have to debunk far too much, and not just religion. If we are to believe the evolutionists literally then life is basically a product of trial and error in the genome. That sounds only vaguely true to most people. You would also have to debunk determinism and I'm not sure if that's possible.
    Emergence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    . If we are to believe the evolutionists ...
    wait, you dont accept evolution ?
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laza View Post
    . If we are to believe the evolutionists ...
    wait, you dont accept evolution ?
    It was me that said that and I followed it with the word 'literally'. I don't believe that there is any absolute truth out there in the universe and that applies to evolution, and there is no single history from any point of reference in the universe and that applies to evolution. We are led to believe that Charles Darwin did not make a mistake, and yet he implied survival of the fittest which was a mistake. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin also proposed that acquired traits are inherited, and this later became known as Lamarckism, which was a mistake. Today we are fed on a diet of selfish genes of the Dawkins variety, even though genes are not selfish and his was not the original idea.
    The possible number of DNA sequences is about 10^600 while the number of atoms in the universe is only 10^80. Quite a difference. It should have taken much longer for life to have evolved than it did - longer than the age of the universe. It could have got lucky, but we need to consider other options.

    I'm not sure what Neverfly means by 'Emergence' but if he implies that the universe came out of nothing because you get something for nothing in the quantum world then you have to ask 'why do you get something for nothing'? If it was life that just emerged out of the primordial soup then why can't scientists grow life from basic ingredients and then get them to evolve? There are also gaps in the fossil record and questions about speciation. So evolution is not all cut and dried and we need to probe a lot deeper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    What do you mean by sayin that genes are not selfish ?
    so you want us to put unproved , unexplainable hypothesis because its hard to believe that on one of billions and billions of planets life could evolve without any "outside" help. And what do you mean by "gaps " in the fossil record ?
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The possible number of DNA sequences is about 10^600 while the number of atoms in the universe is only 10^80. Quite a difference. It should have taken much longer for life to have evolved than it did - longer than the age of the universe.
    Why "should it" have taken longer than the age of the universe?
    You appear to be operating under a misunderstanding here.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The possible number of DNA sequences is about 10^600 while the number of atoms in the universe is only 10^80. Quite a difference. It should have taken much longer for life to have evolved than it did - longer than the age of the universe. It could have got lucky, but we need to consider other options.
    Where did that number come from? Regardless, comparing possible combinations, or sequences, of a number of items to just a number of items doesn't really make sense. For instance, you could say that if we simply rearrange the atoms in the universe, there are (that's factorial), or approximately arrangements, but so what? That has no metric on how long the universe took to form. And that's assuming that early forms of DNA were just as complex as current forms of DNA and could have an equal number of combinations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    We are led to believe that Charles Darwin did not make a mistake
    No we aren't. Where do you get that from? His explanation was (obviously) incomplete. And wrong in some details.

    , and yet he implied survival of the fittest which was a mistake.
    Well, "survival of the fittest" is a very misleading phrase made up by someone other than Darwin. Basically, it is correct but we now know that there are many more complex factors in both survival and inheritance than Darwin was aware of. You could say that "fittest" has acquired a much broader meaning.

    His grandfather Erasmus Darwin also proposed that acquired traits are inherited, and this later became known as Lamarckism, which was a mistake.
    True. But I am not aware that C Darwin supported that idea. But even if he did, so what? We now know it is wrong. (Although epigenetics bring some subtle effects back into the mainstream.)

    Today we are fed on a diet of selfish genes of the Dawkins variety, even though genes are not selfish and his was not the original idea.
    "Selfish" is a metaphor and quite a good one. What does it matter if it was not his idea?

    The possible number of DNA sequences is about 10^600 while the number of atoms in the universe is only 10^80. Quite a difference. It should have taken much longer for life to have evolved than it did - longer than the age of the universe.
    Good job it didn't depend on random chance then.

    Maybe you should read Dawkin's other metaphor, The Blind Watchmaker.

    So evolution is not all cut and dried and we need to probe a lot deeper.
    I think we can all agree with that. That is the nature of science (as opposed to, say, dogma).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    I'm not sure what Neverfly means by 'Emergence' but if he implies that the universe came out of nothing because you get something for nothing in the quantum world then you have to ask 'why do you get something for nothing'? If it was life that just emerged out of the primordial soup then why can't scientists grow life from basic ingredients and then get them to evolve? There are also gaps in the fossil record and questions about speciation. So evolution is not all cut and dried and we need to probe a lot deeper.
    Emergence is the temporary condition of order from disorder.
    It is not, "Something from nothing."

    If you take disorder, (water) and put it in the freezer, you will see an example of emergence. The chaos is temporarily ordered into Ice.

    There are gaps in the fossil record. This is true simply because it was not layed out for us to find. But if you have three fossils and then a gap and then three more fossils after, that gap does not somehow prove MAGIC HAPPENED! anymore than that we haven't found the seventh fossil in the middle.

    Why scientists cannot build the basics of life:
    Actually they have and can build the basic building blocks and have done so for 40 years or so. What they've not done is make "life happen" in the lab. The reason we cannot do that is because we cannot accelerate time and molecular encounters. This comment is a bit like dismissing star formation theory because we haven't birthed a star in a lab. The demand is unreasonable and is not based on what's possible so much as it removes the understanding that factors involved, such as extremely long time scales- maybe thousands of years, (maybe a lot more) would be needed to let the process run through. It's like throwing dice and claiming that statistics theory should be scrapped because the dice throwing scientists are not getting Snake Eyes often enough to satisfy you.

    The study of genetics does probe deeper. And the studies will continue to probe, in spite of ignorant people putting political pressure to undermine education in favor of creation myths.
    KALSTER, pavlos, John Galt and 2 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Where ID is concerned that requires further qualification.
    * ID from an entity called God, or
    * ID from a mathematical universe, or
    * ID from panspermia or some other alien interference.

    considering all that is 'known' about God..
    either of the two remaining bits would also qualify as 'God'.
    how would one distinguish one from the other?
    (alien presence would be pretty obvious..)
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    There's simply no evidence for ID or creationism---it pins its hopes on convincing people not versed in science or critical thinking with pseudo-scientific gibberish. It also philosophically fails because it just side steps the question of where the supposed intelligence came from.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 26th, 2013 at 05:54 PM.
    adelady and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    and one more thing, ID has been given a chance in court to show it self as a reliable scientific field, and it failed miserably, so its not like its never been tested
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Maybe you should read Dawkin's other metaphor, The Blind Watchmaker.
    Yeah, I did read The Blind Watchamker, and when it comes to the Paley-ontologist (William Paley) vs. the paleontologists view of evolution then I'm on the side of the latter.
    However, I'm thinking more in terms of this quote from the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson:
    The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some way must have known we were coming. There are striking examples in the laws of nuclear physics of numerical accidents that seem to conspire to make the universe habitable.
    Dawkins steers well clear of mathematics, cosmology and physics, unless he can find support for his arguments. When it comes to making money from flaming metaphors and plagiarizing the work of others he has few peers. On the subject of how life actually got started and the significant gaps in the fossil record he is fairly quiet. He provides little evidence for his own theory of memes especially when it comes down to what might be the unit of a meme. By suggesting that the unit of natural selection is the gene he actually discredits his own hero, Charles Darwin. He is good at debunking the God of Abraham, but makes no reference to the God of Spinoza or the God of Aristotle or the God of Anthony Flew.
    Renaissance science gained inspiration from the ancient hermeticists. These guys felt for an intelligent universe. You would have to argue that the universe is itself a mistake or that its wonders are pure chance with no meaning and that evolution has no direction. It has been pointed out that the human brain is capable of holding far too much information for the needs of blind evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    57
    Who's to say that with other laws of physics other forms of life could not exist? It's hard to make statistical statements like "the universe's wonders are pure chance" when we only have one instance to compare with. "Meaning", as far as I can tell, is just a construct of the human mind. There's no reason the universe should have some objective meaning. You can assign whatever meaning you want.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by beefpatty View Post
    Who's to say that with other laws of physics other forms of life could not exist? It's hard to make statistical statements like "the universe's wonders are pure chance" when we only have one instance to compare with. "Meaning", as far as I can tell, is just a construct of the human mind. There's no reason the universe should have some objective meaning. You can assign whatever meaning you want.
    Still, we are reasonably sure that there aren't many ways to make us.
    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  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by beefpatty View Post
    Who's to say that with other laws of physics other forms of life could not exist? It's hard to make statistical statements like "the universe's wonders are pure chance" when we only have one instance to compare with. "Meaning", as far as I can tell, is just a construct of the human mind. There's no reason the universe should have some objective meaning. You can assign whatever meaning you want.
    Still, we are reasonably sure that there aren't many ways to make us.
    Irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by beefpatty View Post
    Who's to say that with other laws of physics other forms of life could not exist? It's hard to make statistical statements like "the universe's wonders are pure chance" when we only have one instance to compare with. "Meaning", as far as I can tell, is just a construct of the human mind. There's no reason the universe should have some objective meaning. You can assign whatever meaning you want.
    Still, we are reasonably sure that there aren't many ways to make us.
    Irrelevant.
    Agreed.
    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  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    However, I'm thinking more in terms of this quote from the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson
    Yes, the universe is remarkably well-tuned for our existence. In the same way a hole in the road is precisely shaped to match the puddle in it.

    Dawkins steers well clear of mathematics, cosmology and physics
    Well, he is a biologist. I doubt he steers clear of mathematics in his work. But it is generally said of popular science writing, that one equation will halve your sales.

    , unless he can find support for his arguments.
    No? Really? Fancy that from a scientist.

    When it comes to making money from flaming metaphors and plagiarizing the work of others he has few peers.
    He is a writer of popular books. What do you expect? Do you mean people shouldn't write sciencde books for a general audience? Or if they do, they shouldn't use striking imagery or make money from it?

    On the subject of how life actually got started and the significant gaps in the fossil record he is fairly quiet.
    Well, we don't have an awful lot of information about abiogenesis. It is a huge area of research and I wouldn't look to an evolutionary biologist for a good description. I would look for an expert in the area. As for gaps in the fossil record I am quite sure he has pointed out incredibly unlikely fossilization is and that we are lucky to have the record we do. You say "gaps" as if there were some great unsolved mystery there.

    He provides little evidence for his own theory of memes especially when it comes down to what might be the unit of a meme.
    I think the idea of memes is either trivially obvious or just a really bad metaphor, I can't decide. But it has nothing to do with evolution, biology or even science, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

    By suggesting that the unit of natural selection is the gene he actually discredits his own hero, Charles Darwin.
    In what way are genes not the units of inheritance (does he say, "unit of natural selection"? that sounds a bit weird). And what does that have to do with Darwin who didn't even know about genes?

    He is good at debunking the God ...
    He is a biologist. Why anyone cares what he thinks about religion is beyond me.

    You would have to argue that the universe is itself a mistake or that its wonders are pure chance with no meaning and that evolution has no direction.
    No you wouldn't.

    It has been pointed out that the human brain is capable of holding far too much information for the needs of blind evolution.
    By whom? And how do they know how much information the brain needs for evolution? Why does the brain need any information for evolution? That makes no sense at all.
    adelady, MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    * ID from a mathematical universe
    That's something new to me, please explain.
    Review There is a God by Antony Flew
    Can't even find the term "mathematical universe" on that page... So not sure how that helps.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Review There is a God by Antony Flew
    Can't even find the term "mathematical universe" on that page... So not sure how that helps.
    Get hold of the book then. The point that he and many others have made is that the constants and beautiful equations which govern the universe cannot be down to pure chance.
    There is a world of difference between the monotheists and the scientists. The monotheists go down on their knees to worship or submit to their vindictive god who demands obedience, while the scientists want to get inside the mind of god. That is what Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Hawking and others were trying to do, and to do so they had to reject mainstream religion.
    This is what Dawkins tries to avoid. He's debating with Rowan Williams this week at the Cambridge Union. Might be interesting, but I doubt it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Get hold of the book then. The point that he and many others have made is that the constants and beautiful equations which govern the universe cannot be down to pure chance.
    That's called the Anthropic principle. And no, he isn't making the "point" he's making a claim. There's a difference.

    That is what Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Hawking and others were trying to do, and to do so they had to reject mainstream religion.
    You have something seriously messed up here. Scientists tend to be led to a rejection of religion because of what they learn, they don't reject it in order to work.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The point that he and many others have made is that the constants and beautiful equations which govern the universe cannot be down to pure chance.
    I guess it's like alphabet, we can read the sentances, understand many of the words, see how they follow on and fit together, even see how some of the words are made of letters and how they form words, but will anyone of this tell us who came up with the alphabet?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The point that he and many others have made is that the constants and beautiful equations which govern the universe cannot be down to pure chance.
    I guess it's like alphabet, we can read the sentances, understand many of the words, see how they follow on and fit together, even see how some of the words are made of letters and how they form words, but will anyone of this tell us who came up with the alphabet?
    eevn if the wrods dnot mkae snesne, it is pssoilbe to udrnetsnad gbbireseh.
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post

    eevn if the wrods dnot mkae snesne, it is pssoilbe to udrnetsnad gbbireseh.
    That is like a very easy anagram game.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post

    eevn if the wrods dnot mkae snesne, it is pssoilbe to udrnetsnad gbbireseh.
    That is like a very easy anagram game.
    its not an anagram..

    first and last letter remain the same, the rest can be in any order, it is a scientific fact, that when we read we do not read all the letters, we just look at the first and last letter and apply pattern recognition that fills in the blanks..

    which is where focusing too much on the details, means you miss the bigger picture..
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by NMSquirrel View Post
    first and last letter remain the same, the rest can be in any order, it is a scientific fact, that when we read we do not read all the letters, we just look at the first and last letter and apply pattern recognition that fills in the blanks.
    When claiming something is a "scientific fact" you should always double check it.
    snopes.com: Letter Order Unimportant

    Don't just readily believe the spam you read in your email inbox.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    some ppl are just too quick to dismiss an idea..
    Neverfly likes this.
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Yes, it's called being a skeptic.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Judging by the debate between Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams (the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury) and others at the Cambridge Union this week, it appears that Dawkins does indeed believe in God the Physicist. Of course he does not believe in religion which he describes as childish nonsense and a pernicious charlatan which hinders science by peddling false explanations.
    Williams countered by saying that religion is a matter of community building by compassion and inclusion.
    Dawkins caused a stir by declaring God to be an immortal knob twiddler and that God is a physicist and master architect.
    Williams challenged the idea that morality has its foundation in our biology rather than in religious doctrine and human rights had profound religious roots.
    The debate as to whether religion has a place in the 21st century was unsurprisingly won by Williams.

    But now the question about God the physicist. Is Dawkins waking up to fact that physics does determine biology? The laws of the universe were there long before the creation of life. Aren't we more physical than biological? As we walk around the electrons in our bodies are resisting those in the floor, otherwise we would fall straight through the earth. We owe more to the power of electrons than anything else. Electrons obey their own complex mathematical laws which cannot be put down to chance. Dawkins goes down to the level of the gene but that's all. Doesn't he base his arguments on the chicken and egg theory anyway? A chicken is just an egg's way of producing another egg. Sounds like the selfish gene theory to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The debate as to whether religion has a place in the 21st century was unsurprisingly won by Williams.
    Interesting choice of words: whether religion has a place in the 21st century. Prison, Army, Oil, Gambling, etc. also have a place in the 21st century.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1
    This is a really interesting discussion. Personally, I don’t think it’s possible for me to comment on the validity of Intelligent Design with much certainty. Mostly because, as others have pointed out, there’s really no definitive evidence supporting it. But there’s also no definitive evidence disproving it; there’s no evidence, period. ID is founded on ideas and theories of thought, and not necessarily science. There is evidence for natural selection and other means of evolution. Whether people choose to refute this evidence or to integrate their religious views into it is a personal choice.

    Much like a person’s favorite color. If a branch of science was to say that the BEST color is blue, we would immediately ask how they went about such a study. How is it proven that blue is the best color ever? Subsequently, how is it proven that the other colors are inferior to blue? Answers to such questions would likely prove nearly impossible to answer, because a person’s favorite color is a preference; while it is a fact about them, it is not a fact about life, or a fact about any of the other colors.

    ID is much the same way, in my opinion. The ID explanation for life and any variations of it are like colors that you can’t prove or disprove are the best. Until evidence can be found to replace the lack of evidence that currently exists, arguing this issue currently will continue to feel like arguing over what color is the best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiap View Post
    This is a really interesting discussion. Personally, I don’t think it’s possible for me to comment on the validity of Intelligent Design with much certainty. Mostly because, as others have pointed out, there’s really no definitive evidence supporting it. But there’s also no definitive evidence disproving it; there’s no evidence, period. ID is founded on ideas and theories of thought, and not necessarily science. There is evidence for natural selection and other means of evolution. Whether people choose to refute this evidence or to integrate their religious views into it is a personal choice.

    Much like a person’s favorite color. If a branch of science was to say that the BEST color is blue, we would immediately ask how they went about such a study. How is it proven that blue is the best color ever? Subsequently, how is it proven that the other colors are inferior to blue? Answers to such questions would likely prove nearly impossible to answer, because a person’s favorite color is a preference; while it is a fact about them, it is not a fact about life, or a fact about any of the other colors.

    ID is much the same way, in my opinion. The ID explanation for life and any variations of it are like colors that you can’t prove or disprove are the best. Until evidence can be found to replace the lack of evidence that currently exists, arguing this issue currently will continue to feel like arguing over what color is the best.
    I completely disagree with most everything you said.

    Mainly because of the straw man about a hypothetical scientific study declaring blue as the best color, ever.
    It simply would not happen.
    For much of the same reasons you outlined- yet, I.D. does not need to be disproven- only shown to be well supported by evidence. Which it is not. I.D. is not scientific, in any way. Dishonest people formulated it as a means of presenting the illusion of a scientific approach even though in actuality, it lacks it.

    Science does not work by going about disproving things.

    And preference and personal beliefs have no place in science.

    So, if a person chooses to want to believe in an intelligent designer, as a personal choice they are free to do that. But that's as far as it goes. That's just belief and it remains belief- not "scientific belief." It's still nonsensical and incorporating desired beliefs into a scientific theory is a path to failure.

    So while a man may have a personal life choice to shove gobs of cocaine up his nose, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable or acceptable to everyone else to shove gobs of cocaine up the nose. It only makes that man a fool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiap View Post
    ID is founded on ideas and theories of thought
    No. ID is based, solely, on the belief in god and the desire to "prove" his existence. It's an attempt a justifying an unsupported belief - working from a conclusion, cherry-picking (or inventing) "evidence" to sustain a pre-formed conclusion.

    ID is much the same way, in my opinion. The ID explanation for life and any variations of it are like colors that you can’t prove or disprove are the best. Until evidence can be found to replace the lack of evidence that currently exists, arguing this issue currently will continue to feel like arguing over what color is the best.
    Again, no. ID is a specious and spurious falsehood promulgated in order to justify a conclusion. A conclusion that, despite 2,000 years of attempts, has no evidence whatsoever to support it.
    pavlos, tk421 and MrMojo1 like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I.D. does not need to be disproven
    This.

    Like many fallacies, intelligent design does not need to be actively disproved. Such will occur naturally in the exploration of theories with merit.
    "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  
     

  49. #48  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiap View Post
    This is a really interesting discussion. Personally, I don’t think it’s possible for me to comment on the validity of Intelligent Design with much certainty. Mostly because, as others have pointed out, there’s really no definitive evidence supporting it. But there’s also no definitive evidence disproving it; there’s no evidence, period. ID is founded on ideas and theories of thought, and not necessarily science. There is evidence for natural selection and other means of evolution. Whether people choose to refute this evidence or to integrate their religious views into it is a personal choice.
    There is also no evidence to support the existence of a multiverse. There is no evidence for causality. There is no evidence for how life got started.
    We need to separate the idea of ID purely to support theistic creationism from the idea of ID to explain how the universe is so finely tuned that gravity is not too strong or too weak, or that the electron does not spiral into the nucleus. A tiny change to these values and there would be no universe. Then this becomes Deism with ID. In this case ID does not dismiss evolution, but rather it is a prime cause.
    Complexity arises because of natural selection, but we see an overcomplexity in nature. And some scientists are being converted to this. Life itself is more complex than the physical universe. There is nanotechnology inside living cells; flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000 rpm and DNA functions like a software program. All of this does not mean there is an intelligent source, but like Antony Flew suggested: "the most impressive arguments for God's existence are supported by recent scientific discoveries."
    Man will never see God through a telescope or even by religion, but paradoxically he might find God through science.

    Welcome to the Science Forum, Tiap.
    Last edited by ox; February 22nd, 2013 at 12:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Like many fallacies, intelligent design does not need to be actively disproved. Such will occur naturally in the exploration of theories with merit.
    ID doesn't need to be disproved (since there's nothing there to be disproved), but it does need to be pointed out as the inane fallacy that it actually is at every opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    There is no evidence for causality.
    Apart from everyday life you mean? And all of physics...

    There is no evidence for how life got started.
    But there is evidence that it did get started.

    We need to separate the idea of ID purely to support theistic creationism from the idea of ID to explain how the universe is so finely tuned that gravity is not too strong or too weak, or that the electron does not spiral into the nucleus.
    There is no separation.
    ID is/ may not be required to explain the fine tuning - it may well turn out that the physical constants couldn't be any other way, ergo no "design" and no "intelligence" required.
    I am intrigued however by your idea of "separating" theism from fine tuning - WHO, or WHAT, did this fine tuning (since you say say it's designed intelligently) and how does this "person" differ from (a) god?

    but we see an overcomplexity in nature.
    Really? Where?

    There is nanotechnology inside living cells
    No there isn't.

    Man will never see God through a telescope or even by religion, but paradoxically he might find God through science.
    Er, isn't a telescope science?
    And you are, of course, assuming (that there's a god to see).
    tk421, MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    There is no evidence for how life got started.
    It should be pointed out that some hypotheses offer testable methods, though. This is how theories are born. One cannot test the hand of God. Suggesting basic compounds becoming more complex amino acids through an energetic process can be demonstrated in a simulated environment in a lab. These results can then be compared with what is observed and correlations can be found. That is why it is accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    ID doesn't need to be disproved (since there's nothing there to be disproved), but it does need to be pointed out as the inane fallacy that it actually is at every opportunity.
    Go for it. I tend not to waste my breath on it though. Well, maybe to chuckle a little.
    Dywyddyr 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  
     

  52. #51  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    I am intrigued however by your idea of "separating" theism from fine tuning - WHO, or WHAT, did this fine tuning (since you say say it's designed intelligently) and how does this "person" differ from (a) god?
    Cosmicduckegg (if my Welsh translation is correct ): I am talking about deism (as good a word as any) to describe who or what does the fine tuning. If you can calculate the chances of the universe existing at all and then allowing the evolution of a life form which then evolves consciousness to be capable of understanding how it got there, but not necessarily why it got there, with a mind more capable of irrationality than rationality, then please proceed. The only other explanation is that it all came about by pure luck (the unintentional universe).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    I am talking about deism (as good a word as any) to describe who or what does the fine tuning.
    But deism says there is a god.
    Deism:
    Critical elements of deist thought included:


    • Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
    • Rejection of all religious dogma and demagogy.
    • Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

    Constructive elements of deist thought included:


    • God exists, created and governs the universe.
    • God gave humans the ability to reason.

    E.g. deism is just another form (sub-set if you will) of theism.
    I don't understand your claimed position at all.

    If you can calculate the chances of the universe existing at all
    Two out of three.
    tk421 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Thrylix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    16
    The basis of intelligent design is illogical. It is no different than asking why the world wasn't created by leprechauns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylix View Post
    The basis of intelligent design is illogical. It is no different than asking why the world wasn't created by leprechauns.
    I have asked that very question. Answers so far have been disappointing. They're magically delicious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    940
    Some of you guys seem have a narrow minded of view of Deism which implies what we now call intelligent design. Many scientists have been Deists or have implied it. These include Newton, Planck, Heisenberg, Pauli and Boltzmann. Philosophers include Aristotle, Leibniz, Locke and Paine.
    From Wiki: Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.
    You've had me reaching for a copy of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, perhaps the best known deist of the Age of Enlightenment. Here are a few quotes and paraphrases:

    * As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than a god. It is as near to atheism as twilight is to darkness (Manism with but little Deism).
    * It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body which it calls a redeemer; as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an irreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.
    * Science is the study of the works of God and is the true theology. The Christian system has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology to make room for the hag of superstition. From the ancient Greeks to the time of Galileo there was Christian persecution of science.
    * The 19th Psalm is at least a deistical composition. 'The hand that made us is divine.'
    * Monotheism is a human invention set up to terrify and enslave mankind in order to monopolise power and profit.
    * Revelation was nothing after the first person. The rest is just hearsay upon hearsay.
    * The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists. It remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the fraud.
    * Do we not see a fair creation the instant we are born - a world furnished to our hands that cost us nothing? Whether we sleep or wake the vast machinery of the universe still goes on.
    * Adam, if there was such a man, was created a Deist.

    While we can't prove Deism, we have insufficient knowledge either to explain why the universe, if there are other universes or other dimensions, or what makes the 4 known forces of nature so perfect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    And largely irrelevant.
    You said deism was "to describe who or what does the fine tuning".
    That still leaves god in the argument.
    Ergo it's NOT (as you tried to make out) a separation of theism from fine tuning.
    (Since deism is a [weak] form of theism).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    While we can't prove Deism, we have insufficient knowledge either to explain why the universe, if there are other universes or other dimensions, or what makes the 4 known forces of nature so perfect.
    So a lack of knowledge is driving the conclusion of Deism? How does that work?

    Secondly, define perfect in relation to the fundamental forces. The fact that they work? If they didn't, we wouldn't be here to complain.
    pavlos 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  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    While we can't prove Deism
    Of course not. It is just a matter of faith wrapped in the fallacy of begging the question.

    we have insufficient knowledge either to explain why the universe, if there are other universes or other dimensions, or what makes the 4 known forces of nature so perfect.
    How is that relevant? And what do you mean by the 4 forces of nature being "perfect"? I'm sure they could improved on.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How is that relevant? And what do you mean by the 4 forces of nature being "perfect"? I'm sure they could improved on.
    Frankly, when it's icy outside, I find gravity to be far less than perfect. Painful even.
    "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  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    There are many Christians in this discussion. Being a Hindu I think I assume that The Creator always exists. The Creator is eternal but not his Creation. I think that the Creation is the culmination of a process. I think every Initiation has a Termination. I am sure mere existence of The Creator does not guarantee Creation. The Universe as it exists is incapable of any Creation of any intelligent species like humans or even primitive creations like the bacteria. The Creator(GOD as we call HIM) plays a crucial role in creating mankind and other species. I am not sure whether GOD created the Universe. I know GOD manipulated the universe to create humans and other species and initiate life in them.
    The other view however is that GOD created the Universe and as something that has a beginning should come to an end the human species too shall perish(Call it JUDGEMENT DAY) if you like.THERE IS ONE RULE THOUGH IT SEEMS THAT EVEN GOD CANNOT OVERRIDE AND THAT IS:EVERYTHING THAT HAS A BEGINNING HAS AN END.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    The Universe as it exists is incapable of any Creation of any intelligent species like humans or even primitive creations like the bacteria.
    It appears you are wrong about that. The universe has done exactly that.

    I know GOD manipulated the universe to create humans and other species and initiate life in them.
    How do you know that?

    THERE IS ONE RULE THOUGH IT SEEMS THAT EVEN GOD CANNOT OVERRIDE AND THAT IS:EVERYTHING THAT HAS A BEGINNING HAS AN END.
    How do you know that?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    The Universe as it exists is incapable of any Creation of any intelligent species like humans or even primitive creations like the bacteria.
    Supposition.

    The Creator(GOD as we call HIM) plays a crucial role in creating mankind and other species.
    Another supposition.

    I know GOD manipulated the universe to create humans and other species and initiate life in them.
    No, you don't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    The Universe as it exists is incapable of any Creation of any intelligent species like humans or even primitive creations like the bacteria
    Support for this statement?

    Also, what kind of mindset allows you to be so sure that natural processes which have been shown to develop the building blocks of life under certain conditions cannot create life, but something ultimately inexplicable and unknowable so obviously did?
    "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  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    At the very beginning though GOD was not alone something besides HIM existed out of which GOD created this Universe. I do not believe GOD craeted this Universe out of Himself.
    Without Suppositions we cannot argue. We have to Suppose that something exists despite destruction of the Universe. We also have to suppose that mere existence is a dormant state. Something else is required to initiate the BIg Bang. Some scientist think the Universe started with a Big Bang but there is evidence that the known universe is older than that. The only question which lingers in my mind is : IS GOD PART OF THE UNIVERSE OR IS HE DIFFERENT FROM IT? God is not an inexplicable entity. HE is as true as the universe. GOD exists without any reason as HE is beyond Reason and does not have to prove HIS existence. There are times in our life when we dont use the faculty of reason we just know. GOD is that KNOW.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    We also have to suppose that mere existence is a dormant state.
    No we don't. I see no reason to suppose that at all.

    but there is evidence that the known universe is older than that.
    No there isn't.

    The only question which lingers in my mind is : IS GOD PART OF THE UNIVERSE OR IS HE DIFFERENT FROM IT?
    The question I have is: can you show that god exists before trying to decide that question? If you can't then the question you have is meaningless.

    HE is as true as the universe.
    Blatantly false.

    There are times in our life when we dont use the faculty of reason we just know. GOD is that KNOW.
    Wrong again. No one knows that/ whether god exists.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    If there is no GOD we will have to discover another discipline-----------AUTOSCIENCE
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    If there is no GOD we will have to discover another discipline-----------AUTOSCIENCE
    Or maybe just science. Oh, that's handy; we already have.


    (What is "autoscience"?)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Science that does itself. Make sure you PMCS your science before taking it out on the road.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    If there is no GOD we will have to discover another discipline-----------AUTOSCIENCE
    We can't develop "autoscience" - the Gruffalo will get angry.

    PS. Drugs are bad for you. Give them up.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    If there is no GOD we will have to discover another discipline-----------AUTOSCIENCE
    The study of cars??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Considering, that if the goal was to create an environment suitable for the existence of life, and almost all of space is devoid of conscious life, perhaps Unintelligent design is a more suitable term?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Considering, that if the goal was to create an environment suitable for the existence of life, and almost all of space is devoid of conscious life, perhaps Unintelligent design is a more suitable term?
    We're land-dwelling oxygen-breathers on a planet that's mostly water and surrounded by a vacuum. Nice job, God.
    RedPanda 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  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    Darwins evoloutionary theory is wrong as no evidence in the form of fossils has been found showing features of say amphibian and a reptile. What scientists usually talk of is adaptation and not evolution
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Darwins evoloutionary theory is wrong as no evidence in the form of fossils has been found showing features of say amphibian and a reptile. What scientists usually talk of is adaptation and not evolution
    It's not Darwin's anymore - we've improved on it.
    As for the rest of your claim - completely and utterly wrong headed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Darwins evoloutionary theory is wrong as no evidence in the form of fossils has been found showing features of say amphibian and a reptile. What scientists usually talk of is adaptation and not evolution
    It appears you've done no research whatsoever before making claims.

    Just a word of advice... you might try doing that before you put your foot in your mouth.
    Microbrachis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Tetrapodomorpha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Ichthyostega - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hynerpeton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Tulerpeton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Crassigyrinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Diadectes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Next time, do your homework...
    pavlos, tk421 and Dywyddyr like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Darwins evoloutionary theory is wrong as no evidence in the form of fossils has been found showing features of say amphibian and a reptile. What scientists usually talk of is adaptation and not evolution
    Who put the idea out there that Darwin is the foremost authority on evolution? I'm also curious where this idea that there are no transition fossils on record came from. The amount of misinformation out there is staggering.
    "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  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    Darwins evoloutionary theory is wrong as no evidence in the form of fossils has been found showing features of say amphibian and a reptile. What scientists usually talk of is adaptation and not evolution
    Who put the idea out there that Darwin is the foremost authority on evolution? I'm also curious where this idea that there are no transition fossils on record came from. The amount of misinformation out there is staggering.
    Certain organisations have made it their mission to misinform. Some of these are depressingly well funded. The Discovery Institute, for one, is dedicated to getting ID taught as a scientific theory. It is disgraceful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 517
    Last Post: October 21st, 2012, 07:07 AM
  2. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2011, 12:36 AM
  3. intelligent design hypothesis
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 05:29 PM
  4. intelligent design advert
    By marnixR in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 11th, 2008, 08:34 PM
  5. Some QUESTIONS about Intelligent Design!
    By charles brough in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 09:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •