|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Intellen, welcome to EvC!
It would help a great deal if you would make your arguments from scratch here in messages and just use links to webpages and videos as supporting references. You definitely do not want to leave the key parts of your arguments out of your messages. I at first thought your message made no sense because you began your arguments at item 8 and left out what came before, causing the two items by themselves to read like nonsense. But after viewing your video I see that all you did was copy the text of slide 8 and slide 9 into your message. Some comments about your video:
About Video 6 which you say should be watched first, it appears to be a collection of unrelated and unsupported assertions that do not make much sense. For example, you say that your experiment with the egg and tissue paper (which is described in neither slide presentation) shows that the one object destroys and the other object supports, and that this means a natural process has no opposing sides, just one side. You need to explain yourself a bit more, because what you say in the slide presentation makes no sense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
intellen writes: 2. Actually, that was my manuscript when I submit to NATURE PRECEDINGS. I've just broken them piece by piece so that they could be understood. I don't think you're making yourself understood very well. There's general agreement that you're not making much sense, and it may be because you're trying to start in the middle instead of at the beginning. Instead of starting with a presentation of the material from one of your later slide presentations you should start at the beginning. It would be best if you could bring your evidence and arguments into this thread. Use links to your slide presentations as supporting references.
3. My discoveries pinpoint Jesus Christ as the Intelligent Designer. So the background music is consistent with that presentation. If Jesus Christ is the Intelligent Designer of everything and everyone, including Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, etc., then shouldn't the music be non-denominational? Or, even better for a presentation that claims to be science, no music at all?
6. I described it in video 3, 5, 22. To make it simple, I'll write it here: intellen = problem/solution + solution + solutionnaturen = event So you're defining intelligence as the ability to solve problems. When bacteria are deprived of their primary nutrient, thereby being presented the problem of how to survive, and then they evolve the ability to metabolize other nutrients in their environment, is that intelligence?
or let us make it clear intellen = life + defense mechanism + sensory systemnaturen = life + NO defense mechanism + NO sensory system Could you provide a few examples of "naturen"?
7. OK, in context of my discovery, the definition for the principle of intelligence is the principle of how an object or event or phenomenon is being made. So if a rock's shape is sculpted and made by wave action, that's an example of the principle of intelligence?
8. OK, thank you. But that is what I've found. Since intelligence follows opposite phenomena, then, I think that is the best explanation to describe natural phenomenon. What is the best phrase? Can you tell me? I was just pointing out a grammatical error: "is also must be real". What you probably meant to say was, "The 'non-existence of matter' must also be real".
a symmetry. But we know that a symmetry is an opposites, two sides. My experiment also tells me that intellen (with importance) is an asymmetry. It will look like this: problem/solution+solution+solution+... (more solutions than problem} Sometimes you have more problems than solutions, sometimes more solutions than problems.
So, we can easily conclude that naturen is not symmetry nor asymmetry. That means, nature has only one side. This is true. For example, if an earthquake occurs, then, it has no problem nor solution, for nature has no problem, nor solution. We define nature as neutral. First you say "naturen" is "life + no defenses + no senses", then you say "naturen" is an event that is neither symmetric nor asymmetric, and then you say nature is neutral. You've got two different and unrelated definitions of "naturen", and I'm guessing it's somehow related to nature, but you don't explain how. You haven't provided any justification for the invented terms "intellen" and "naturen". I'm afraid I can't see much sense in what you say, nor can I see any connection to an Intelligent Designer, and certainly not to Jesus Christ. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Getting a useable definition of intelligence is more of a problem for IDologists than for scientiests. I'm aware of several definitions in science, such as Shannon's definition: Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". Parts 1 and 2, Bell System Technology Journal, July 1948, 379-390; October 1948, 623-637. Claude Shannon is the father of information theory. Information, not intelligence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Intellen,
How did it come about that each of your quote boxes contains both an empty intellen quote box and my signature? I am not so vain that I sign my name beneath each paragraph. It's a bit redundant for a quote box to begin "Percy writes:" and conclude with "--Percy". The empty quote boxes along with all the "--Percy" signatures makes your post unnecessarily long and not all fit on the screen, so took I advantage of my admin status and removed them. Anyway, my reply is brief. I can see little sense in anything you say, certain no coherent chain of logic or argument, and you don't appear interested in composing comprehensible answers for those asking questions, so I'll just let this be. I understand you believe that Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer, and if at some point you say something I can make sense of I'll rejoin the discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi SavageD,
First let's get the off-topic stuff out of the way. I was going to send you a PM, but since I find myself responding to one of your messages I'll tell you here: My Admin alter ego merged your 1SavageD1 account with your SavageD account. All your SavageD account information was maintained except for the email address and password, which came from the newer 1SavageD1 account.
SavageD writes: Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'. Theories about multiple universes come from science, not atheism. Some scientists are atheists, some aren't. There are a number of flavors of theories (hypotheses is a more appropriate term, but it has become common practice to refer to them as theories) of multiple universes, but none have experimental verification and so none are yet accepted within science. But probably most cosmologists believe that something at least somewhat along the lines of one of them must be correct.
If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, what is your stance? I think most people of a scientific nature would echo Witgenstein's sentiments: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." In other words, the evidence we currently have in hand doesn't tell us which of the many theories of cosmological origins is correct. Or with more brevity, we don't know how the universe came to be. How does the question of cosmological origins bear on the question of the origins of the intelligent designer? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Bolder-dash writes: Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life. What of the specified complexity of Dembski? The possession of specified complexity drives his conclusion that life is the product of an intelligent designer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Portillo writes: This is the reason why God is eternal Straggler and Coragyps asked how you know this, and I'm going to ask the same question, but in another way. Cosmologists studying the universe have not yet gathered enough evidence to know whether the universe is eternal or not. Since you appear to know that God is eternal, you must have gathered sufficient evidence to reach this conclusion. What is that evidence? One other thing. Should your statements about God be construed as a belief that the ID designer is God? If so, do you have any evidence supporting this view? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Portillo,
I think you're in the wrong thread. You're even in the wrong section of the website. Faith-based arguments belong in the Religious Forums. It works like this. When you have evidence for what you believe, you take it to the Science Forums. When have expressions of faith for what you believe you take them to the Religious Forums. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Nuggin,
I was hoping to participate in this thread rather than moderate, so as a participate I'll just briefly say that I think you're a bit over the top regarding rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Chuck,
You can report any problems you encounter during discussion to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. In this case there's no need to do that, moderators are already aware, and there's no need to take moderation into your own hands. As long as I'm replying to you I'll spill my own 2 cents, but it just echos what others have already said. If you accept ID as a matter of faith, and if you don't think it should be taught in science class, then I don't think many would have any problem with that. But if you not only accept ID as a matter of faith but also think it is science deserving of attention in public school science classrooms, as Dover, Pennsylvania, did back in 2004, then all science minded folk would have a big problem with this, and would push you to describe ID's qualifications as science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Nuggin writes: If his response to you was this:
You seem like a real D**K to attack me like that. You get off on it? Good point, sorry, I didn't notice that. I just didn't want to see the thread spiral out of control. Maybe people use the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread so little because it feels like tattling, but I wish they'd use it more. Or PM a moderator or moderators. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024