|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
Agree? Not at all. I merely present the info, and let people decide for themselves. Its mundane, unoriginal, political thinking that leads one to conclude that if there is a designer, it MUST be the Christian God.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 05:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KKawohl Inactive Member |
I agree that due to the Indian scientists articles' seemingly metaphysical implications, it would be dismissed out of hand by our ever objective, scientific community....but I wouldn't consider our scientific community to be completely open-minded....metaphysical is based on abstract reasoning as is the theory of evolution.
In the theory of relativity, the intuitive notion of time as an independent entity is replaced by the concept that space and time are intertwined and inseparable aspects of a four-dimensional universe, which is given the name space-time. Einstein sought unsuccessfully for many years to incorporate the theory into a unified field theory valid also for subatomic and electromagnetic phenomena. In recent years, we have learned that up to 95% of the Universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the Universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics. If modern physics is stumped, can we completely dismiss everything that is considered metaphysical? Any and all of our scientific facts known presently are applicable only to this physical third dimension. The existence of a fourth dimension its still being vastly debated. If we represent thought and emotion which is not physical, as being spiritual, we must then accept the existence of another, a fourth dimension where these processes thrive. Our mind, thought, truth, intuition, intelligence, appreciation and awareness are all aspects of a spiritual fourth dimension. With the evolution from life forms in the third dimension we can then deduce the possibility of a cumulative spiritual existence, an ID that came about through life in the third dimension. Sure, it's a theory but so is evolution...but can we completely dismiss all testimony of man's spiritual interaction? KurtP.S. I agree that if I had read about someone's spiritual interaction I myself would be extremely skeptical, but humor me and see transcendentalists.org This message has been edited by KKawohl, 05-16-2005 06:06 PM "I Am A Transcendentalist". Transcendentalism Today = Balancing Science and Religion http://transcendentalism.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KKawohl Inactive Member |
I agree that it's mundane, unoriginal, political thinking that leads one to conclude that if there is a designer, it MUST be the Christian God or a God of any one religion exclusively. Religions have become the culmination of their own politics and dogma and are often something other than spirituality.
"I Am A Transcendentalist". Transcendentalism Today = Balancing Science and Religion http://transcendentalism.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I like to think of spirit in opposition to entrophy, a conservation of physical and spiritual energy
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
so you admit to posting essentially a bare link with no personal commentary, right? and you don't care what it says?
interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KKawohl Inactive Member |
What exactly is entrophy? Entropy is measure of disorder or unavailable energy in a system (thermodynamics). Eutrophy is proper development.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Limbo Inactive Member |
Why shouldnt I? I believe in freedom of information, I hide nothing. People should be presented with all the information from BOTH sides so they can decide for themselves what they want to believe, unlike Darwinists who seems to think its their job is to manipulate information and opinion to suit their agenda.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 07:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4723 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Razd or anyone interested in responding, please pardon my confusion/ignorance. If you’d prefer I don’t insult your ‘intelligence’ or ‘schema’ of evolution, please so state To me, some measure of STRAWMAN fallacy, seems to occur betimes by many EvC forum members, even you and I.
That design itself must be invoked by a form of faith-deduction, as ID-Man accurately stated, may indeed be STRAWMAN to your argument, that is, your homemade definition of religious faith. Well your definition, my definition, Websters, or any other definition of your religious faith (or lack thereof), seems fatally oversimplified. Because you (and I) don’t really have a full handle on what faith is (by your lack of definition(s)) I declare your logical construction as philosophical chicanery. And to sub-classify ID as a form of faith (vs. object of faith) seems a grammatically incorrect. Are not Intelligent Design and Redemptive ID objects of religious faith, and not a substance of faith. Would you classify ‘the Christ’ as a faith or an object? What about you, Philip, or AdminNozy? Are they (or the metaphysical portion of their beings) me objects of religious faith? What about when they intelligently design computer applications and such? Something eludes me here and may be insulting. Why bother to even declare ID as a form of faith or the object of faith, anyway? My STRAWMAN can just as easily state: Was faith ‘invented’ by evolution according to your design schema of evolution? Now, see how I just invoked arbitrary points to advertise my ID agenda? Or, tell me what you and/or AdminNozy really believe faith is. Is it a faith as defined by Websters? If that's the case, have you or AdminNozy really experienced the Webster's definition of religious faith? What about love, light, matter, energy, and so forth? How much have you really experienced any of those lately? ...Are (any of) you seriously trying to purport that ID, though so conceptual and metaphysical is merely an object or form of baneful beliefs, biases, set(s) of values, paradigms, and/or agendas, etc. so that you might dismiss ID? Now the rest of this (below) may be steering off-topic: I hope you’re not playing anti-Christ by refuting redemptive-ID as (merely) a form of 'Christian Faith' (i.e., the faith that states Christ entered into death to redeem our sins)? That same Christ is written as Alpha and Omega, The Beginning of the Creation of God, etc. Genesis 1.1-3 also declares EX NIHILO creation, not Do-loops Your first post harps on ‘do loops’ as a fallacy of ID (which I agree). Yet my ID-faith cries out that: for-endfor, scan-endscan, do-while and/or do-enddo statements (in FoxPro terminology) must precede any and all do-loops (as per the Gen 1.1-3 EX NIHILO faith-agenda). I also remind you ID is very actively employed by ‘scientific’ programmers and their languages. Does that make their faith void? Why, programmers even use Create as a command for making tables, databases, projects, reports, libraries, classes, forms, and SQL queries, to mention a few. Should we take ‘Create’ or other ID terms out of our computer language(s)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
limbo, msg 55 writes: According to Darwinism, the universe as now known is an accident, life is an accident, and man is an accident. Nope. For starters both the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on this planet are outside the scope of evolution. This means that what you are using as a definition of "darwinism" -- is this used to mean "all science that I personally disagree with" -- is wrong. The basis of your argument is false. According to the dictionary "darwinism" means evolution:
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. However in common usage it seems to mean something else. Let's use evolution to mean evolution, okay? For man to be an accident would also mean that no selection mechanism was involved, and this too is false. This also blatantly assumes that man is a desired goal of evolution when the process could just be selecting for intelligent life. Any process that selects for more intelligent life to survive compared to less intelligent life will accomplish that goal regardless of what species is involved.
Implication 1: By stressing the accidental nature of origins, Darwinism can find no basis for meaning in the cosmos nor in man's very existence, other than what man might, on the basis of chance, be able to find for himself. and SCIENCE makes no claim to find "meaning in the cosmos nor in man's very existence" so blaming one science for this and not any of the others is a logical fallacy of the first order. tell me how math gives meaning to the cosmos or man's existence.
Implication 2: If living organisms survived only on the basis of mindless natural selection, then it inescapably followed that human reason was also the product of natural selection. As such, the conclusions of human reason could never be known to be true, but only valuable in accord with their contribution to the survival of the human species. So truth could only be defined as what works, and not necessarily as what is true. Why? What blocks conclusions from being true? True is what is. Truth is discovered through reason regardless of the species doing the reasoning. Again, you a priori assume something which you assert to be true but for which you have absolutely no substantiation. If this is the basis for a philosophical discussion, then we might as well be arguing about shadows in a cave.
Implication 3: If Mankind is nothing more than the product of a natural universe consisting only of matter and energy, a universe in which all things are produced by chance, then human dignity, any meaningful concept of ethics, and free will die as well. False. Again, you a priori assume a special status for human beings. There is no reason to assume this, nor that the end of evolution has been reached. Human dignity is the same dignity as that of any individual of any species. Ethics is based on reason in it's more evolved state, on emotion in it's more primitive. This does not change based on what species is involved (although some of the conclusions may). This is the same false argument as that atheists have no morality, a demonstrated falsehood. Free will is a meaningless concept from the beginning. It's loss could actually result in some improvements. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Modulus, msg 53 writes: We are going to have to define 'nature' I'm comfortable using the standard definitions, particularly these ones:
nature n. 1. The material world and its phenomena. 2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature. and letting anything outside that purview be regarded as supernatural:
supernatural adj. 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. which includes everything outside the 'sphere' of our {whatever} universe. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I submit that to be a Darwinist leads to Nihilism. I submit that Darwinists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existance, but with destroying meaning. I submit that ID serves to suggest meaning, which is why Darwinists are so against it. I submit that ID leads to navel gazing. I submit that IDists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existence. I submit that SCIENCE serves to increase knowledge of how {life the universe and everything} works, that searching for meaning of life that is not based on a real perception of reality is nonsense. Enjoy. but you are getting off topic here: perhaps another thread? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
there is no "darwinist philosophy"
evolution is science and this is off topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what does it add that the original post does not have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would say that the indian experiment would not be ignored if it can be reproduced ... the repeatability test of the observations to validate them that is one of the fundamental tenets of science.
there are lots of "metaphysical" implications in any area of science where the answers are not known -- gravity as you note (and the metaphysical dark stuffs). the question is whether you make assumptions based on those concepts, or just say "we don't know enough at this point to know" enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sorry, typo. entropy. is the energy unavailable because it has been "spirited away" ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024