What is the I in ID?

I kinda hear you, kind of dangerous to be a weight lifter these days, though you might check out alternative medicine, Medical doctors healing the ligaments, that are not muscles, to strenthen the lower back, heard someone that was double jointed was helped by this type of treatment, now thats quite awesome, if true???
http://www.kalindra.com/prolo_faber.htmP.S. Your a scientist, might be something else to check, I mean if your a vegetarian, it might be a match made in heaven, they like that sort of thing, I used to watch an holistic alternative medicine show on TBN, Dr. Donald Whitiker (Christian Doctor), gave his thumbs up to this treatment, though I would check it out, cause like you said, I'm not a medical doctor like DR. Whitaker is, but its all quite interesting, and quite scary, cause its not normal, cause its about the body healing itself, with a little help. I actually talked to someone that had this type of treatment(a chance meeting at a rummage sale), like you plagued by his back his entire life, and while he said he was still not perfect, he said it made a difference. In fact believe it or not he was preaching this treatment too me(confirmation?), and to top it off sold me a tape collection of the old testament, must of seen me coming, cause I even bought his metal bedside contraption you grip when getting up in the morning to get out of bed, and that seems to make a difference, cause I'm not straining my lower back when getting up in the morning, don't have to roll out anymore, just pull myself up, etc...Personally, I don't like the idea of injecting needles 5 inches into sacrum joints injecting a solution to bring about healing but some people want to heal rotator tears, stabilize sacrum joints, and ligaments in the lower back, etc...I guess the pain overcomes their fears, Its not covered by insurance, so it must be good, though hear the FDA can't regulate the substance, cause its not a drug, so its not too expensive, but still more than I can afford, etc...I kind of like these kinds of things(medical conspiracy theories, (fact/fiction?), makes life interesting, but then that just me, but just don't like needles, so guess acupuncture is out too, though some feel it too helps the pain, etc... If your pain threshold is greater than mine, you might give it a try.I'm going to take a break off this thread, I still believe the different kinds came from God, and the sub species common ancestors are these different kinds created by their common creator.Its like in the bible it says Adams father was God, bringing us back to it all being about the common creator, the common ancestor's only goes back to the created kinds but the kinds all go back to our common creator being God.Raz, I suppose to an atheist the intelligence to the different kinds genetic designs would have to be caused by an alien intelligence, and that is kind of interesting, how easily they can believe in aliens, and not in God. The bible talks how life exibits design, like how Solomon in all his glory wasn't arrayed like one of the lilies.kjv Luk 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'" (Isaac Asimov)

I am just telling you where you are mistaken about ID and what it really means. If you think I am an atheist you either haven't been paying attention or you use an incorrect definition of the word.Now, in the interest of some real independant information on the subject of ID, please see what Wikipedia.com says about ID:
(Intelligent design - Wikipedia) (bold in the original, original hyperlinks not copied).That some creationists do not have a conflict between their belief and ID means they just have not considered the full ramifications of the differences: multiple non-divine aliens responsible for all the elements of earthly life? If that is not a contradiction of creationism I do not know what would qualify.Now for a little further corrective education. I can claim that my personal beliefs have more to do with the founding of the USof(N)A than christianity, and while that may seem grandiose to some it is more accurate than the claim of christians in that regard. Please see the Wikipedia.com article on Deism (Deism - Wikipedia): (bold in the original, original hyperlinks not copied).Note further that Deism is definitely a religion, and that it requires even less action than ID asks of its "designer" -- thus ID is also a religion and it will not pass the 'separation test' for admission to public school science class regardless of the misguided hopes and dreams of some people who are intentionally trying to misrepresent their beliefs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

pink sasquatch jar I enjoy the thought and effort that has gone into the discussion so far and not just by jar and pink sasquatch.However the prime paradox kind of rears its head in the above quotes.If we take the stance that there is or may be intelligence behind it all we are left with the necessity of understanding how that intelligence {for the lack of a clearer word} imprints that intelligence upon its design.I mean if we are back to square one and say its is due to magic of some sort then why would we even argue against any stance taken by people since,if we do allow "magic" into the discussion, any scenario is possible.I still do not believe we have resolved this aspect but merely wave it off to a deeper layer of reality's onion.
If we have up to the point of strings or membranes been content to employ a natural stance that this happened without any means of intervention then why do we not consider this the pattern that is present in Nature.Nature is at heart its own reason for existance.

Yes that is a great question. And the answer so far is, "Don't know".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hey sidelined-I'm aware of the paradox, and find it quite enjoyable for some reason. Perhaps the point at which people are willing to consider a designer has to do with imagination - I don't find it hard to imagine biological and geological evolution or atomic and subatomic interactions, but at the level of branes and strings it starts to get a little more mind-blowing, as if I'm not fully comprehending all of their behavior and the implications. There are those that argue that the human eye is too complex to not have been designed - what about atomic/subatomic/string behavior? I'm sure if those same people (or anyone for that matter) could grasp the complexity in that behavior, "irreducible complexity" would take on a new meaning...For me to try to imagine what is beyond strings is an arduous task, perhaps that is when a little "magic" is allowed to seep in to my thoughts. When you can't imagine how something was created or functions, it seems to just "exist" - but where did it come from? When imagination fails, "something/one put it there" is the most immediately comprehendable option based on daily human life.For others perhaps this barrier of imagination is at a much more shallow layer of the onion - if one can't fully imagine or comprehend biological evolution, then species must just be as they are now, and if they just suddenly came about, something must have created them...Maybe individuals find design in what they can't understand or imagine? Maybe for some this comes at a level of complexity, for others simplicity (unknown complexity)?The truth is, I do believe that Nature is the pattern, and the pattern is Nature. It's just that when I try to go beyond the most basic proposed elements of the universe, I'm met with this 0.1% of my logic, kind of nagging me in the back of mind, saying, "Maybe somebody just designed it that way."It's a backdoor or easy-way-out that I'm sure some would call God...

jar writes:

quote:

---

I do believe that there is an I in Intelligent Design and that the I is GOD.

​

But the issue is, where is the evidence of that design?

​

IMHO, that evidence is seen at the basic rules level. Where that level is changes as we learn more. A hundred years fifty years ago I would have placed that at the molecular and gene level. As we learned more, it moved to the atomic level, to the four forces. Later, as we learned more it appeared the design was at the sub-atomic level. Now it might be at the string or brane level but I’m willing to bet, as we learn more we will find the design racing away to just beyond the very limits of our knowledge.

---

Could you possibly get any more reductionist in your urge to find purpose and intelligence in the universe? I'm no believer, but it seems to me your God is shrinking away to nothingness.Certain people use the beauty of Nature, say, as support for their hypothesis of a guiding intelligence behind our universe. As flawed and selective as this reasoning is, it at least gives the designer credit for something worthwhile. Am I the only one who wonders why the bacterial flagellum represents for intelligent-design creationists the high-water mark of their Creator's activity? You've gone them one better, though: what's so impressive about the basic laws of physics or sub-sub-atomic reality that we need to give credit to a purposeful designer for them?If I were a believer, I'd be inclined to think that Nature has to relect the wisdom of its Creator on every level. If the only evidence of God is at the smallest level imaginable, pardon me for missing it.regards,
Esteban Hambre

But you're suggesting that God couldn't forsee that wonderous things could come from just the right set of carefully chosen rules.If I was in His unfortunate position I'd rather set a game of super life going and watch surprising (to Me, God) results appear than know everything that was going to happend for all time. But I'd have to devise a very, very good set of rules to get interesting results. Would I want to know the details of what would unfold? Not Me! B o r i n g !This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-25-2004 11:38 AM

Ned states:

quote:

---

But you're suggesting that God couldn't forsee that wonderous things could come from just the right set of carefully chosen rules.

---

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm asking why the fact that 'rules' exist that make some sort of bioreplication an eventual possibility constitutes evidence for the existence of God. That is, how can anyone tell that these conditions were set intentionally and aren't just (literally) cosmic accidents? What would a universe look like if no purposeful creator programmed these conditions?regards,
Esteban Hambre

MrHambre In the posting of this thread I was hoping to se if there were any mechanisms by which IDer's could show us {bhow design is implemanted[/b]. If I were the intelligence behind the ID then by what means do I even engage the rules in order for the universe to follow them? It is not like me taking a watch and winding it to allow a timepiece to operate.Again without accepting magic into the picture I fail to see how this can be done.Methinks that a great deal of the problem is that some imagine that intelligence is akin to an immaterial entity capable of acting upon the physical stuff of the universe just by thinking,which is obviously ludicrous.

I think that the difference might be that not all of us find obviously ludicrous. Why couldn't a GOD act, influence, manipulate, modify, create or destroy physical stuff? That's the kind of things that GODs do.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know that many people use complexity as an indication of design. So far, I have not seen any convincing evidence that such design is actually there. It there is design at that level, then it is on the level of a 6th Grade Science Project to "show the ways that critters could see".But you mention the beauty in nature. And if you will go back and look at my post, one of the basic rules or factors that I included was art.By that I meant aesthetics, beauty, the appreciation and possibilitiy that there might be color and symmetry, and form and sounds that harmonize.You see, the potential for all of these things in the basic, underlying rules. Music is no more than math. But a symphony is something more.Just as GOD was thrilled when the results of his basic rules, when passed through a Beethoven filter produced the 5th Symphony. I bet he was equally surprised when a long line of living things when passed through his Natural Selection Filter gave us Beethoven in the first place.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar A God still needs a means by which he does things. In order to create a universe that is material requires the ability to do so.The onus is upon people who claim that this is the case to specify the means by which they can state that such is even possible

Let there be light.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why? Perhaps the definition of a "god" should be "an entity who does things without a means to do so".Why would an omnipotent god be bound by material laws? is a god itself material?