Intelligent Design == Human Design?

Could we not equally assume that a race of extinct humans did indeed have the ability to do such a task but then lost it in an ancient cataclysm?

Hi, Dennis.Welcome to EvC!If you click on the "peek" button at the bottom of this message, you can see how I use codes to create text boxes and formatting.----- Dennis, your premise is invalidated by the simple observation that we know a great deal about anerobic organisms.Perhaps you meant that human capability is limited by human imagination? Or, by the ability of humans to come up with ideas beyond their personal experience?Google "silicon-based life form," and you'll see that direct personal experience has no bearing on what a human can or cannot come up with.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

Word salad. You need to explain your terms! 'Singular energy'?

---

C'mon larni. You have high enough reading comprehension to understand what is being said. T-0 is an inevitable point in spacetime. its the point scientists do not want to talk about because there is no two points to measure from for mathmatical evaluation. It is simply a singularity in which all that is, exists as a singular energy.

quote:

---

Again, this is gibberish. What are you trying to say?

---

If you really do not understand, It would be futile for me to try to further explain it to you.Edited by tesla, : added a comma so the reader will not be confused.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

You are welcome to your "ID science" type stuff all you want. You do, however, need SOME evidence.

---

Are you any better ? to teach God is not? show me the proof there is no God.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Why do you say this? What makes you think scientists do not want to talk about it? Ah yes. So simple. You seem to have it figured out perfectly. Mind explaining it in a bit more detail?

---

Surely you jest. Why is it up to me to prove YOUR brand of god does NOT exist, in light of all of the other sky fairies out there? How about YOU prove my god, The FSM does not exist. You are an atheist aren't you? You don't believe in His Noodly Holiness. Looks like it's stale beer and diseased strippers for you.

---

That is an apt and excellent insight, tesla! I'm glad to see that you understand and accept this kind of logic. Now, follow through a little more thoroughly and carefully, to see where this insight will lead. It is certainly taking you in the right direction.Actually, consider the following: the difference between a theist and an atheist is that when they encounter and think about the things they do not understand, the theist attributes these things to the will of a supernatural entity (a deity), while the atheist tries to determine what additional knowledge would be needed in order to understand these things.If the things in question happen to pose some sort of threat to well-being or survival, the theist, seeking to react in a manner that he believes will be deemed appropriate by the deity, might try any number of actions that are largely or completely unrelated to the problem at hand (pray, make offerings of food or animal sacrifices, give up alcoholic beverages or dancing or sex, etc). Meanwhile, the atheist will focus attention on making additional observations regarding the threat, and conduct experiments that directly address its apparent causes and consequences.The risk in the atheist's approach is that the actions he decides to take, being often based on incomplete information, might not have the desired effect, or might achieve an immediate goal while leading to some other unforeseen problem (e.g. the pesticide DDT improved crop yield, at the potential cost of driving many avian species to extinction).The risk that the theist takes is that his beliefs are likely to bear no relation at all to the problem at hand, and he will be wasting time on irrelevant activities that can't possibly improve the situation.There's also this important point: coming to understand something (so that it becomes "natural") can be accomplished more quickly and easily if you do not begin with an assumption of supernatural causation. Your statement, which I quoted above, can (and should) be interpreted to mean that a natural understanding should always be preferred over an assumption of something supernatural.When we don't understand something, we should just acknowledge that we don't understand, and try to work out what we need in order to understand it. Making up assertions about anything supernatural being involved simply doesn't get us anywhere.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

Surely you jest. Why is it up to me to prove YOUR brand of god does NOT exist, in light of all of the other sky fairies out there? How about YOU prove my god, The FSM does not exist. You are an atheist aren't you? You don't believe in His Noodly Holiness. Looks like it's stale beer and diseased strippers for you.

---

Your confusing religeon with God.Intelligent Design does not choose one's interpretation of their Idea of God. Intelligent design admits the potential of God.a scientific definition of God needs to be found first. The definition can only be based on scientific data. True hard science. I get that. But im ticked off at science because a definitioon based on scientific true observations IS available, and is being ignored.Now, since i already KNOW your going to ask for it, i'll give it to you now:law: second law of thermodynamics.truth: T-0 is inevitable, and the math used to find this point is the most relied on and trusted math in physics.truth: we exist, have actuality and being. definatly.at T-0 there is only a singular timeless energy. This energy changed/ evolved with zero environment. zero available interactions. any change would have to be self directed.how did it exist at all? it was the only thing that existed. anything else that exists can only be INSIDE that energy, based on that energy, and a part of that energy.i KNOW that somthing can NOT come from nothing. there is no area absent of energy.This would place the scientific definition of God as:God= Existance: The energy that was first before all things. that was intelligent, and decided to evolve. and created everything that is based on Faith that it was.End of explanation.Now since i KNOW your going to NOT get any of that; If you really care to further assess it: Look up the info from scientists concerning what i have said. The LAWS of science. You'll see what the laws say...define it yourself. Anyone can ask somone else to interpret the data. But whats YOUR opinion after learning the data and deciding what it signifies? Cause i already know what i say wont matter.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

Actually, consider the following: the difference between a theist and an atheist is that when they encounter and think about the things they do not understand, the theist attributes these things to the will of a supernatural entity (a deity), while the atheist tries to determine what additional knowledge would be needed in order to understand these things.

---

The athiest chooses to ignore a potential. Accepting your digging through somthing designed by somthing intelligent means you look alot deeper than if you believe the forces are random and were not directed and designed to operate with the properties it has for a purpose. Key word: purpose. If you explore all of an items properties, Yet dont ask Why would it exist, and for what "purpose"; Then you can miss a ton of stuff you might actually find IF you asked the question. But there is no reason to ask the question if you are an athiest and believe God an impossability.That makes the thiest a better scientist. He finds more because he isnt looking for somthing random, he's looking for its defined created purpose.As far as the rest of your post:
No Two individuals carry the same exact belief system. You are choosing a horrible definition of the behaviors of thiest, while chooseing a beutiful description of an athiest. There are good and bad in both.i could describe athiests who kill/ rape/steal and live by the laws of anarchy. But the point being made, why discuss that further?You have a great mind. I dont want you to limit that. Even if you remain athiestic, at LEAST start examining your science (If you are a scientist): And add " For what purpose" to your scientific method. And see what you find.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Just read The two posts before this one. It says all i can really say.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Perhaps you should let scientists determine for what purpose they are doing science, and leave your particular approach--which is the antithesis of science--where it belongs, in the realm of theology, scripture, "divine" revelation and other squishy subjects.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should let scientists determine for what purpose they are doing science, and leave your particular approach--which is the antithesis of science--where it belongs, in the realm of theology, scripture, "divine" revelation and other squishy subjects.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I certainly hope your not a scientist. Or that if you are, your a mathmatician. It would explain why you didn't understand a word i said. let others read and decide. Possition, or truth. Your life. Your science. As you wish.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I am a scientist, and (thankfully) not a mathematician.I don't appreciate those who wish only to see science destroyed because it doesn't confirm their "divine" revelations and scriptures.That is what I see in your posts.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

To me, they are one in the same. There has yet to be a secular explanation for any sky fairies, let alone a supposed "intelligent" one. Intelligent Design does nothing more than make wild ass unsupported claims, just like you are doing now. "I don't understand it, so it must be designed." Isn't that something ID should be doing? I mean, you guys are scientists, right? Scientists trying to explain god? I would venture to guess you have a definition of the thing you are looking for..... Something you might want to consider learning about and subsequently applying to your religio-science. Oh, do tell. Oh, right. "A Designer that designed the stuff I don't understand". Yep, that explains it. Yep. It's a law. What of it? Correct again. Current maths and physics models break down at t=0. however, very smart men are working on this. Hell, even some women. What they are NOT doing, though, is throwing their hands in the air and proclaiming "well, current models don't explain it, it MUST be a magical sky fairy that has no name and we won't admit it is the christian god even though everyone with half a brain knows we are referring to YHWH"Savvy? Yes, we do exist. I won't argue that. I can't say I agree with the "actuallity" or "being" because I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I'm not into philosophy. Hmm. maybe Son Goku or cavediver can ream you on this one because something seems off but I can't place a finger on it. I have just-slightly-above-laymens understanding about cosmology. That is a good question. How DID it exist? Again, very smart individuals are working on this issue as we speak. What they aren't doing, though, is throwing their hands in the air and proclaiming "well, current models don't explain it, it MUST be a magical sky fairy that has no name and we won't admit it is the christian god even though everyone with half a brain knows we are referring to YHWH" Sounds good to me. What's your point? I sure never said something came from nothing. The only people that say that are...........(care to guess???).....yep, you got it! CREATIONISTS and IDists!Now, explain how 2LoT has anything to do with what you just said.I would also add that, once again, (or maybe I said it to that other guy dennis something): your abundant usage of the term "truth" is a dead giveaway for you religio-types. Science deals with evidence and facts.

---

Explain this please. Should we also factor in pixies and tiddly-winks and goblins? Gnomes? I know whenever I go investigating in the world, i factor in The One True God, His Noodley Holiness of Holy: The Mighty FSM. Who's the atheist now? Ah, my dear boy, but that is precisely what makes you chaps BAD scientists. You have a priori. You don't follow the evidence where it takes you. You set out looking for somethng to fit your beliefs.

---