TheEvilDetector
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,716
What do you mean by generate?
We have digressed I think from the original point somewhat.
Last edited:
What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?
- Thread starter Pianist4Freedom
- Start date
What do you mean by generate?
We have digressed I think from the original point somewhat.
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
So asks the 7th century monk who has just awakened from a comma for a thousand years, clutching yellowed church doctrine papers and with bad desert sinus.
Pray tell, benedict, why you think it operates by randomness?
Damn, I was going to quote that.
It’s DYLAN by the way.
John Lennon’s reply: “Serve Yourself”:
You realize that when the brain thinks it is still an operation of matter and energy in the chemical make-up of the brain, right? It’s the same with memory; the brain has the ability to register images—it does not mean they do not come about without exception by material circumstances and operations.
You should probably read up on that, you sound like a befuddled caveman.
Not really. Now we're asking "What does generate even mean?" I think that's well in line with this thread.
But I mean generate like in: This set of differential equations generates this solution with these initial conditions given.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
Nature uses arithmetic, people use calculus ( and still get it wrong ).
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
Nope, how about Hawking?
http://www.amazon.com/God-Created-Integers-Mathematical-Breakthroughs/dp/0762419229
Math is a tool too.
Last edited:
Mitt Romneys sideburns
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,718
Why does it matter what Stephen Hawking thinks about God?
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
DUH!!! He's BAAACK!
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
AGREED! I tend to think that mathematics is metaphysical. We just tap into it.
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
Short Rebuttal
It would depend on what organs you're referring to as not having a purpose in the structure of the human anatomy. In passing, I would remind you that just because we may not understand the purpose or function of a particular organ at this point in natural science does not prove the entire organism had no Designer not does it assume that the organism had an evolutionary ancestor. For instance, I may not understand the purpose or function of leather seats in a car, but that would not prove the car evolved from a living room over the span of millions of years. And so it is with you evolutionary assumptions of vestigial organs which preclude the possibility of intelligent design.
You would be wrong, too. Are you absolutely certain God didn't do any of those things? How do you know for sure?
God exists from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God's existence, no one can make sense of reality, knowledge, morality, logic, or anything else in an absolute, objective, and universal way.
How do you scientifically prove "scientific skepticism?"
These are your claims, which are not proven by empirical observation. God does not exist solely on my imagination. God would exist even if I didn't believe in Him. Also, my faith in God is not based on "blind faith." It is based on God's on revelation of Himself and the evidence He provides of His existence through His creation.
Those "vestigial organs" are just your own interpretation of what those organs look like, based on the assumed and unproven notion that they evolved from an evolutionary ancestor.
Start here.
It's not the evidence I disagree with. It's your interpretation of what the evidence suggests that I disagree with, just as you disagree with my interpretation that those organs were created by God with a purpose in mind.
Click here.
It would depend on what organs you're referring to as not having a purpose in the structure of the human anatomy. In passing, I would remind you that just because we may not understand the purpose or function of a particular organ at this point in natural science does not prove the entire organism had no Designer not does it assume that the organism had an evolutionary ancestor. For instance, I may not understand the purpose or function of leather seats in a car, but that would not prove the car evolved from a living room over the span of millions of years. And so it is with you evolutionary assumptions of vestigial organs which preclude the possibility of intelligent design.
You would be wrong, too. Are you absolutely certain God didn't do any of those things? How do you know for sure?
God exists from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God's existence, no one can make sense of reality, knowledge, morality, logic, or anything else in an absolute, objective, and universal way.
How do you scientifically prove "scientific skepticism?"
These are your claims, which are not proven by empirical observation. God does not exist solely on my imagination. God would exist even if I didn't believe in Him. Also, my faith in God is not based on "blind faith." It is based on God's on revelation of Himself and the evidence He provides of His existence through His creation.
Those "vestigial organs" are just your own interpretation of what those organs look like, based on the assumed and unproven notion that they evolved from an evolutionary ancestor.
Start here.
It's not the evidence I disagree with. It's your interpretation of what the evidence suggests that I disagree with, just as you disagree with my interpretation that those organs were created by God with a purpose in mind.
Click here.
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance.
Yes this is absolutely scientific.
http://illuminati-news.com/videos/secret_beyond_matter_full.mpeg
I would like everyone to watch this video and tell me what they think of it.
I would like everyone to watch this video and tell me what they think of it.
Mitt Romneys sideburns
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,718
There is a magic elf who sits on top of my head. He is responsible for the rain.
You see it rain all the time dont you? Thats my magic elf doing it. If you want proof of the magic elf, just look at the rain.
You see it rain all the time dont you? Thats my magic elf doing it. If you want proof of the magic elf, just look at the rain.
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
What’s with you and convoluted car analogies?
Why?
Let’s have this debate again. I want to know why these things require external, “transcendental” origins.
More
imaginative
fictions
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
But God made the elf. The Devil is simply manipulating you and leading you astray.
Come back on the path, good sheep, and let our Shepard guide you into the Holy Light so that your life may be full.
Mitt Romneys sideburns
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,718
No, the magic elf made God. The magic elf has always been, and always will be. He is eternal. He made God out of a potato. God is just another creation of the almighty magic elf.
sophocles07
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,226
TheEvilDetector
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,716
You know precisely which ones I am referring to, because they are listed in my previous posts.
It does not disprove that Earth was built by pink elephants either...
This is negative proof fallacy you are venturing into.
Analogy is flawed for several reasons:
First, we are talking about biological organisms that can reproduce.
Can the car in your example reproduce? Can the living room?
Secondly, do you have evidence of living rooms composed of same
materials as the car seats existing millions of years ago?
Do you have evidence, that living rooms of millions of years ago
and car had intermediaries?
You don't.
Evolutionary biologists when dealing with biological organisms past and present do.
Apples and Oranges.
Intelligent Design is possible. So is a blue/green blob on planet Godzooka who makes rain by thinking about it. You can't tell me that isn't possible either, can you?
Negative Proof fallacy.
Let's talk about something related called Russell's Teapot.
"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?",[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
In his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[2] and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
What about the teapot?
Do we need the teapot?
Follow these steps:
http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm
It's an in depth article into the scientific method and I will post an extract here which lists the steps of the
scientific method. Pay close attention to part 4:
" 1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth."
Let me pre-empt you by pointing out what the bottom of the article said:
"Limitations of the Scientific Method
The scientific method is limited to those phenomena which can be observed or measured. For example, what existed prior to the Big Bang and the known universe is outside of the realm of science to investigate.
Science is good at explaining "how things work" but not necessarily for explaining "why do such things exist" or "for what purpose." (Science does not really explain why the Universe exists.) "
Notice, that theories that talk about what is outside the observable or measureable are no longer scientific theories, they are pseudo science at best.
Certainly, you can run your imagination wild, speculating as to what was going on before the big bang and what the purpose is, but rememeber,
by definition, this has nothing to do with science. It is quite intellectually dishonest of you and the other creationists to blur the lines between science
(and the associated theory of evolution in the context of our discussion) and creationism/intelligent design.
Empirical observation is all I've been talking about, while you are dodging it.
Further, these observations are consistent with the theory of evolution, while
inconsistent with the theory of ID (which by the way, strictly speaking, cannot be
a theory because it is not based on a hypothesis that withstands the empirical test,
more to the point, it is not testable at all in fact, because it defaults to "God did it").
All you can offer is:
"God did it, because he did it."
Negative Fallacy, plus you are going back to the point I raised earlier.
Evidence of existence of creator by pointing to creations is insufficient,
when there are competing theories for the existence of creations, which
are consistent with empirical data. You need to prove directly the existence
of the creator.
For example, if you can make God say hello, so everyone on earth can
hear it at the same time, I will never doubt you again, and start believing.
Although even this, could be achieved in the distant future through technology
and implanted brain chips.
Further, your bible (the revelation you referred to I presume) has so many contradictions.
For starters:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
You would think an all powerful being would compel the bible to be consistent.
Then there are the logistics of Noah's Ark.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
(many other sites similar to this one)
Then there is one story that stood out (from another thread):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1481824&postcount=61
Here it is:
(post by Hiki)
"
All-Wise?
First God sets Saul as the King of the Israelites and promises that he will free them from the Philistines.
"1 Samuel 9:15 Now the day before Saul arrived, the Lord had told Samuel: 9:16 “At this time tomorrow I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin. You must consecrate him as a leader over my people Israel. He will save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have looked with favor on my people. Their cry has reached me!”
9:17 When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said, “Here is the man that I told you about! He will rule over my people.”"
Then God regrets what he had done
"1 Samuel 15:35 Until the day he died Samuel did not see Saul again. Samuel did, however, mourn for Saul, but the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel."
Then the Philistines come and occupy the city while Saul kills himself
"1 Samuel 31:4 Saul said to his armor bearer, “Draw your sword and stab me with it! Otherwise these uncircumcised people will come, stab me, and torture me.” But his armor bearer refused to do it, because he was very afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it. 31:5 When his armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his own sword and died with him. 31:6 So Saul, his three sons, his armor bearer, and all his men died together that day.
31:7 When the men of Israel who were in the valley and across the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned the cities and fled. The Philistines came and occupied them."
A job well-fucking-done Yahweh.
"
Let us carry out an exercise in basic logic now:
I assume that you believe:
1. Bible is wholly Word of God
2. God tells the truth to his followers.
now, due to:
1. Bible having contradictions (see a link about contradictions above)
2. Contradictions by definition cannot all be true at the same time
it follows that:
1. Bible is telling lies
leading to the conclusion:
1. Bible is word of god but God is lying which means Assumption 1 is false and Assumption 2 is true
or
2. Bible is not wholly the word of God which means Assumption 2 is false and Assumption 1 may or may not be true
Wouldn't you consider the proof that either and the implication that possibly both of those assumptions are false to be troubling for your chosen belief system?
This is not "my" interpretation, this is an interpretation by scientists, who study the matter.
I read the whole document carefully.
The author did not show by functional enumeration that any vestigial organs that I presented
in earlier posts had function except for appendix.
However this is a point with which I have no problem, at this time I believe appendix is useful to humans.
The author referred to "Bergman, J. and Howe, G., Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS
Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990." for proof that all vestigial organs have function.
This is the material I will try to look into if I can find it.
Will let you know my findings if I find it.
Now, without invalidating the simple point that organs without function validate evolution and invalidate
ID, here is another subtle point you should be aware of:
http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004_06_20_archive.html
"
Vestigial Organs Colson's oversimplification in describing junk DNA as meaningless reminds me of another common creationists error: describing vestigial organs as having no function. That is why creationists sometimes write books with titles like Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional.
Scientists often point to vestigial structures such as the eyes of cave-dwelling rodents or the pelvic bones of snakes as being strong evidence for common descent. If snakes evolved from reptiles that had legs, then it makes sense that we would still find pelvic bones in their skeleton. But if they never had legs, it is not clear why they have these bones. But that does not mean the pelvic bones perform no function at all. They do, for example, connect the upper part of their skeleton to their lower part.
The point is not that vestigial organs have no function whatsoever. It is that they no longer perform the function we expect them to perform when we see similar structures in other animals. Or they perform a function out of all proportion to their complexity. For creationists to find some function for a particular vestigial structure and pretend that such structures do not augur well for evolution misses the point.
For more than you ever wanted to know about vesitgial strucutres, have a look at this article by biologist Douglas Theobald. He provides the following useful example:
For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings. "
However, once again let me remind you that the above does not mean that I am giving up on my claim
that there are organs without any useful function.
Why do we have muscles in the ear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auriculares_muscles
Look at the small ones in the ear also.
Why did the intelligent designer put muscles that do not move (and thus have no purpose) onto ear cartilage?
Let me provide a brief refresher of what muscles are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle
"Muscle (from Latin musculus, diminutive of mus "mouse"[1]) is contractile tissue of the body and is derived from the mesodermal layer of embryonic germ cells. Muscle cells contain contractile filaments that move past each other and change the size of the cell. They are classified as skeletal, cardiac, or smooth muscles. Their function is to produce force and cause motion. Muscles can cause either locomotion of the organism itself or movement of internal organs. Cardiac and smooth muscle contraction occurs without conscious thought and is necessary for survival. Examples are the contraction of the heart and peristalsis which pushes food through the digestive system. Voluntary contraction of the skeletal muscles is used to move the body and can be finely controlled. Examples are movements of the eye, or gross movements like the quadriceps muscle of the thigh. There are two broad types of voluntary muscle fibers: slow twitch and fast twitch. Slow twitch fibers contract for long periods of time but with little force while fast twitch fibers contract quickly and powerfully but fatigue very rapidly."
Look at the muscles of the whole head shown on the side to see the big picture.
Your interpretation unlike mine is based on your blind belief in some book filled with contradictory and mystical information,
seemingly without use of the scientific method. A book into which most people are indoctrinated at a young age before the
critical thinking faculty of their brain fully develops. A system of belief where any difficult question is met with
"God did/said this, God did/said that and that's the end of it." and "do/believe as you're told or you go to hell" type of rhetoric.
That is the type of thing you may tell your kids, if you want them to do their homework or clean their room, but adults?
I don't know.
On the other hand, I subscribe to the scientific method.
I have looked at the entire video very carefully.
The man talked at length about lies in textbooks but not once did he set out to prove these were lies (2 exceptions below)*.
The whole video was a big whinge if you ask what the impression I got was.
* Two exceptions: In the articles he put forth before the audience, whoever wrote that evolution is a fact,
should have written it is a theory and whoever wrote "creation science" should not have put those two
words together, the same goes for the speaker who says "creation science" which is a conflict in terms.
Further, the speaker said words to the effect that all species were created at the time of Adam and Eve
about 6000 years ago and any variations we see today are variations from those original species.
Well, that is evolution in itself is it not? Did the speaker not admit to evolution taking place with that statement alone?
The following are his exact words:
"By the way stop right there, that is not what creation science teaches.
Creation science teaches that all the kinds of animals were created roughly 10000 years ago
and the only evolution has been variations in those kinds. "
JACKPOT!
Do you not see how tragically flawed and precarious your position has become?
The man you have been referring to for a lot of your refutations, did not hesitate to link
evolution to variations in species, while in the same breath trying to demonstrate that
evolution theory is not supported by any facts.
You cannot have it both ways my friend.
If you are to admit that evolution of species can occur, then you have no basis by which to put a starting point
on that evolution other than to claim the earth is so many years old.
However, getting back to the age of the earth argument, creationists cherry pick geological evidence to support
young earth, while the data overwhelmingly (and not limited to earth based materials, meteorite data is
also supportive) shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Given that the age of earth is 4.5 billion years old, why is it hard for you to come to terms with the idea
that such a gigantic span of time is more than long enough for the various species of today to arrive
at their present form through the processes of evolution, starting at the point of basic raw materials?
Why?
I suppose you also argue that the earth could not have 'solidified' from spinning gaseous matter such
as it did many billions of years ago?
Why does everything have to be microwave instant noodles with you?
Just add God?
PS. I never can understand why religious people talk about evolution being a religion in a condescending manner?
Do they not see they are talking themselves down by doing so?
(It is obviously not a religion by the way)
Last edited:
TheEvilDetector
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,716
bump for Theocrat
