too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Before you go ICDESIGN, could you please tell me if you have read my post Message 48, which you haven't responded to? I was hoping it would have given you some insight in how science works. Did it help you in any way?Edited by Parasomnium, : Question mark added.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

if you can back your opinion up with proof or reason then you will find it to be very fair.
But if you resort to tempertantrums and personal insults, well expect to be burned,
and good riddance

Actually, no you are not an infant, but rather a Blasphemer of the Holy Spirit and a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.Sorry, but them's the facts.You are really woefully ignorant which is pretty normal these days, but what is sad is that you also seem to be willfully ignorant, Ignorant by Design and Desire.You diminish the Christian GOD and have created your own version, turning the Christian God into an Incompetent Designer that you worship. That is, of course, your choice. Just do not try and pretend that you are worshiping the Christian GOD or that you are interested in truth.There are people here who are more than willing to help educate you, to try and help you work past the influences of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and towards a greater understanding of your Faith and of Christianity, but to do that, you must first be open to learning. That is a commitment that only you can make.As a fellow Christian, I hope that you will decide to stick around and to learn the truth. If you do so, you will find that this universe is a far more interesting place and that GOD is far larger, far grander than the picayune little tinkerer you now worship.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You do Jesus a disservice.He didn't mean that you should brag about what you don't know.He meant that you should be a blank page like an infant - you should be willing to learn. Refusing to learn is never a sign of wisdom.If you're going to admit you're an infant, then act like it: sit up straight, keep quiet and learn something.(For homework, you can show us where Jesus told you to run away from the hard questions.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. When you make accusations like: you'd best be prepared to substantiate them. What material, exactly, have I presented to you that is false, fraudulent, or otherwise dishonest?Since you're calling me a liar, I think I have a reasonable expectation that evidence that I have been lying be presented. It's really frustrating to try to talk to you, IC. First you're adamant that you want to debate these issues. Then you insist your opponents shut up. Then you apologize for pitching a fit and insist that you're interested in these issues.Now, once again, you're insisting that you never wanted to talk about this stuff in the first place. What, exactly, is going on with you? Just when you're this close to maybe learning something about the world around you, you accuse everyone around you of lying to you and throw a tantrum, like this. If you're convinced we're all liars, why are you still here talking to us?It's your good sense breaking through. Just when our points are starting to sink in, you panic because you're beginning to realize what an intellectual sinkhole creationism really represents. That's why there's so much back and forth with you. On a personal note - if it were my job to create pseudoreligious "scripture" that would insulate people from looking critically at the beliefs they were force-fed as children, this is exactly what I would write. But, you know, I'm sure it makes perfect sense that science is all foolishness. I mean, what the hell have scientists ever done for anybody?**Besides, you know, curing diseases, saving billions who would have starved, sending men to the moon, and creating the very computer you're reading this message on. Besides that stuff, I mean.

All that you are prepared to accept is physical evidence and there is no physical evidence to support ID. However there is no physical evidence to support the concept that only naturalistic causes exist.By your terms then, if I understand you correctly, logic doesn't enter into it at all and we are only left with reason. In that case then I have come to the conclusion that ID is a far more reasonable conclusion. As far as I can see the human mind cannot envision nothing. We tend to think of it as empty space. However it seems to me that empty space, (if even that exists which seems unlikely), is something because it has dimensions. However we do know that there is something as opposed to an absence of something. What we don't know in a scientific sense is why. We have to turn to philosophy for those answers which doesn't provide answers with the same kind of knowledge that science does. You cannot know for sure that I am wrong. Frankly I'm really only interested in the truth. What either you or I want to be the truth is immaterial. In the end we are Intelligently Designed or we are not. Based on what I have observed in life I find that reason leads me to believe ID is far more likely than not.Suggesting that I have ulterior motives for the conclusions I have come to isn't a useful argument. I could claim the same for you. I'm only saying that the simple answer isn't always the best one. The fact that time and space were absolutes under Newtonian physics is much simpler than is SR and GR, yet Einstein was correct. I'm sure that those who really know science could come up with better examples.Mind you I still don't accept that Occam's Razor applies to this argument anyway.Cheers

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

rather, there is no physical evidence that something else besides naturalistic causes is operating. this means that the simplest explanation, and the one supported by the evidence, is that natural causes is what is operating. you don't understand correctly. there is no evidence for ID--and you think it is the more reasonable conclusion? the reasonable conclusion would be that which is supported by the evidence and/or logic. Logic never leaves the picture. ID just is not supportable as a logical or reasonable conclusion.and here's one to ponder one: the universe has a sum of zero mass and energy.

How could there be, logically speaking? Such evidence would have to be evidence that proves the non-existence of supernatural causes. Since it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything - how do you prove the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? - what you are saying is a non-starter.However, the fact that we cannot be sure that supernatural causes do not exist, does not mean that we must therefore assume they do. For what should we believe in that case? There are a million different ways in which we can imagine supernatural causes for the universe. But since we have no evidence for any of them, maybe we should just stick to what we do have evidence for, and that's a naturalistic explanation.To boot, this naturalistic explanation also has some really useful predictive power, something which can't be said of any supernatural explanation that people have come up with so far.Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I haven't seen that view expressed so well before. The thing is; what constitutes evidence? There is scientific evidence and philosophical evidence. If you only accept the scientific then you are right. I have no argument. I believe that there is more than what can be determined scientifically. It might be convenient and the simplist explanation to assume that consciousness, the moral code etc are all just natural phenomenon but frankly I don't think that it is the most reasonable. There are a lot of very bright people, (of which I am not one), who would disagree with you. I've never seen that before. Can you expand on it? It gives a different perspective on something from nothing.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

there's not too much of a difference between philosophical and scientific evidence. the difference lies in that scientific evidence lies in what is, whereas philosophical evidence is more free to explore what could be.In my opinion though, the best evidence lies in what is.as to the sum of mass and energy, get cavediver or songoku (or someone like those two) to explain it. all I know is that it has to deal with dark mass and dark energy balancing out energy and mass. I do not know how or why.

Once again, it depends on what you believe constitutes evidence. Scientifically I would agree with you. I just believe that there is more knowledge, (although I would agree of a different kind) than just the scientific. I'm all for science learning all that it can. (Mind you as well as the cure for polio etc it has brought us nuclear weapons. )

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

And that depends on what you believe constitutes knowledge. Science didn't bring us nuclear weapons, it just found out how atoms work. For nuclear weapons, we have to thank our politicians.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Granted, and I've made no claim to the contrary.But from the conclusion "we don't know this all there is", to jump to "...and I know that what's beyond this is something called 'God', who has these characteristics" is to make a very considerable leap of faith indeed. Certainly not a logical one.We're ignorant about what exists beyond the material universe. To argue from that position of ignorance, to use ignorance as a foundation to make assertions, shouldn't be something you expect us to take seriously. Why not?I'm sorry, but I just don't find the question very significant. The universe exists. So what? I'm much more interested in its properties than in unanswerable questions about it's origin - if it even has one.The question you pose is unanswerable. The reasonable response to an unanswerable question is not to use it as an excuse to jump to the conclusion you like the best. No, I can't; but it's your responsibility to prove your assertions, not mine to disprove them. And what I do know is that the thought process you appear to have used to generate your conclusions is not one that, historically, leads people to the truth. In your opinion, does jumping to the conclusion you like the best tend to lead people to truth? The simplest explanation that explains the observations is the best one, though. Between two theories that explain the same data, we reject the one with the unnecessary features. Between the explanation of gravity, and the explanation that little angels push down on my shoulders, I know which explanation is the more scientific model for why I don't float out of my chair. Indeed - but Newton's laws proved to be wrong. They were contradicted by observation. Thus, their simplicity ceased to be relevant, and relativity was accepted - the simplest explanation that accounted for all observations. Oh, my apologies. I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of scientific theory.

quote:

---

To a degree I would agree, but don't we all do that regardless of the conclusion that we come to.

---

No.

Occam's razor does not tell us what is true, all it says is that in the absence of sufficient evidence to judge between two different theories that we should start with the simplest explanation first. If that is not helpful then we can move to more complicated theories to see if they provide more degrees of explanation, even if the first is not falsified.The problem here is that this is moving from science to philosophy where invalidation is not always possible, and the results will be different for people with different philosophical approaches.That's my two pennies in a random pattern ...

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.