|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In what way are these "reinforcements" specifc to Intelligent Design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4377 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
I've already said here that WE CANNOT say any object or system or event or phenomenon complex or not IF we don't have that boundary line. ToE did not have it. Old ID did not have it. Only the new Intelligent Design had that boundary line, can prove it and can show it. I don't think you get it. Calling life complex is like calling the universe kind of big. Yea its kind of big, but does that really adequately convey its size? Edited by intellen, : No reason given. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4377 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Straggler writes: In what way are these "reinforcements" specifc to Intelligent Design? Simple, intelligent beings, as we humans categorize them, will surely make things to become successful. This means, they need reinforcement to their works,. For example, an engineer can build structure. But an intelligent engineer will surely reinforcement his structure to deal with nature. Don't build ur house in the sand, build it on the rock. That is simple and yet profound truth in building a house. I mean, the rock is already a reinforcement for the foundation (IF we would like to be called intelligent). Edited by intellen, : No reason given. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4377 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Straggler writes: So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally? NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
intellen writes: Straggler writes: So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally? NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too. Why can't nature make reinforcement? Do you have any understanding of what Natural Selection is? If those things that work get selected for doesn't that reinforce the trait? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You talk about "mere chance". But if complexity is not that which you identify as unable to come about by what you describe as "mere chance" then what is it you identify as requiring Intelligent Design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Intellen writes: Straggler writes: So how do we recognise these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally? NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. I am glad it is easy to tell but I am still confused as to what exactly constitutes "reinforcement". Can you be more explicit about what "reinforcement" is exactly?
Intellen writes: Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So how exactly do you decide when to invoke intelligent design? Is everything designed? Or do you think some things aren't intelligently designed?
Intellen writes: So, it is very easy too. Then differentiating between that which has been designed and that which hasn't should be a simple task. I assume you will be able to tell us how to definitively make this distinction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4377 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
jar writes: intellen writes: Straggler writes: So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally? NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too. Why can't nature make reinforcement? Do you have any understanding of what Natural Selection is? If those things that work get selected for doesn't that reinforce the trait? Because NATURE cannot think, like thinking humans do. There is no natural reinforcement, there maybe natural selection. Of course, nat selec is also a fairy tale. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
intellen writes: jar writes: intellen writes: Straggler writes: So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally? NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too. Why can't nature make reinforcement? Do you have any understanding of what Natural Selection is? If those things that work get selected for doesn't that reinforce the trait? Because NATURE cannot think, like thinking humans do. There is no natural reinforcement, there maybe natural selection. Of course, nat selec is also a fairy tale. Do some critters succeed in reproducing while others do not? Do those critters that are more suited to a given environment have a greater chance of living long enough to reproduce? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hard to see why you would regard the phrase "before time" as meaningless since it's always mentioned when considering the formation of the universe. Time had to have a starting point, so there is a period before & after time. No, look, "before" and "after" and "during" and similar words are all about relations between times. If something was "before time", that would have to be a time before time, which makes no sense. It's like saying "downwards from the center of the Earth", or "north from the North Pole"; it's syntactically well-formed but semantically vacuous.
You lost me here, are you saying that matter can refer to nothing? No, I'm suggesting that perhaps something can be not matter and still be something rather than nothing. For example, God is traditionally conceived to be an example of such a thing, as is the soul. Or in physics under some definitions gauge bosons don't count as matter, though they definitely exist.
Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'. But I can't help but wonder, which theory do you accept regarding the existence of this universe? I don't. That is, I accept the Big Bang theory and would wager a small sum on the Inflationary Hypothesis, but for more ultimate questions than that I don't believe that we are in a position to supply answers.
lol, I wasn't asking you how gravity functioned...On the other hand, are you saying that gravity is here simply because it was necessary? I say it might be. If we knew how the Universe came into being, we might find that there was no option but that gravity should exist and work the way that it does. By analogy, since we know how snowflakes form, we know why they must have sixfold and not fivefold symmetry; we need attribute this neither to chance nor to the preferences of Jack Frost. If we knew how universes form, we might be able to see with the same clarity why gravity must exist and work the way it does, but we don't so we don't. On the other hand, we might find that it could have been some other way, and is the way it is due to the fall of some cosmic dice (so to speak).
Why don't you just admit it, your taking the position that everything in this universe is here by chance. I do not "admit" to taking the position that you ascribe to me because I have not in fact taken that position, as you can see from my posts, in which I question that position. It is abundantly clear that things which do not happen with intelligent direction do not necessarily happen by chance as the only other option. Some things happen because there's nothing else that could happen. (Indeed, some people would question whether anything truly happens by chance, and would assert that chance is simply the name we give to events whose causes are too complicated for us to predict the effects of. But I am now straying from the topic.)
Of course I chose to, was I Claiming otherwise? You said that you were "forced" to. But you are really under no such necessity.
... as for your last point, I'm not certain where your getting at. My position is simply that this universe was created, what does personality have to do with it? In order for the cause of the universe to be a designer, it would have to be something like a person, would it not? If the universe was created by a set of unthinking physical laws, we wouldn't call that a designer, would we? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes. I don't run since I can show it. Will u run? But you're not showing anything... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : your -- > you're
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3773 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined:
|
Percy writes: 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. yep, something seriously went wrong man, first my password had stopped working and message boxes were extremely small so i couldn't respond. none the less i got past those problems...
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. I agree. I just worded my sentence in that fashion to play with peoples heads, as some people truly believe that "all" theories should be held as absolute fact....
I think most people of a scientific nature would echo Witgenstein's sentiments: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Never heard of it but, they are indeed words of wisdom.
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. I agree here also. It is possible that one of the cosmological models may be correct.
How does the question of cosmological origins bear on the question of the origins of the intelligent designer? In a nutshell: From my point the universe appears to be ordered & because it appears ordered I deduce that a creator must be behind this order. There are galaxies (planets, the moons, gas giants, the suns), planetary seasons, and there is of course the various laws of physics which govern the universe (Gravity for example) and holds everything in place. etc Not only do I deduce a creator because of ordered universe, but also because there seems to be an underlying system in which things are governed to function (eg. the way planets orbit each other) whether it be on the atomic level or physically observable levels. There are number of other reasons, but they are way too lengthy & I'm way too lazy & busy. I may be right I maybe wrong, who knows, though it's still fun to argue about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Because NATURE cannot think, like thinking humans do. Why is thinking necessary for the production of reinforcements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Of course, nat selec is also a fairy tale. Please, show me the evidence of this. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024