Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
69 online now:
caffeine, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Peg
Member (Idle past 3272 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 136 of 327 (503556)
03-20-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:12 PM


Re: Light and the dark
riVeRrat writes:


quote:
Huntard said: Who says light is good? I think many creatures prefer the dark.

To hunt for food that would not exist without light.

not to mention the plants wouldnt like it too much


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:12 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3272 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 137 of 327 (503557)
03-20-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dr Adequate
03-20-2009 7:41 AM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
DrAdequate writes:

But not while swallowing it, which is why lyx2no actually said.

no, not while swallowing... im not sure if you've ever tried, but i have and its impossible to breath while swallowing

thats thanks to the epiglottis

I dont think the designer missed anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2009 7:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 8:53 AM Peg has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 138 of 327 (503570)
03-20-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Peg
03-20-2009 7:47 AM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
Hi Peg,

A slight modification to the architecture of the throat would make it possible to drink and breath at the same time. All other primates as well as human infants can do this, and it is believed that our evolutionary relatives and ancestors, such as the Neanderthals and Australopithecines could, too.

On the downside, it might have a profound negative effect on our ability to clearly enunciate. Providing concurrent breathing/drinking capability along with clear articulation might not be possible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 139 of 327 (503718)
03-21-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phage0070
03-19-2009 3:04 PM


Phage0070 writes:

My point is that just because someone is wise does not means that they are infallible.

I never implied that.

Do you claim to be able to determine that something is designed despite having never observed something naturally occurring?

How could I? If everything was designed to occur naturally, and what appears to be random.

First of all my position is not that everything is random

You might want to re-think that position.
From wiki:
As described above, there is universal agreement that quantum mechanics appears random, in the sense that all experimental results yet uncovered can be predicted and understood in the framework of quantum mechanics measurements being fundamentally random. Nevertheless, it is not settled whether this is true, fundamental randomness, or merely "emergent" randomness resulting from underlying hidden variables which deterministically cause measurement results to happen a certain way each time. This continues to be an area of active research.

Chemicals didn't just randomly decide to come together to form life, they came together because of the fundamental nature of their structure.

Well the structure was either random or not.

Your viewpoint states rather that everything was created "just because" and that the plan of the creator is unknowable and unpredictable; in other words, random.

Um, no. It's just not known at this point. That does not make it random. Things may or may not have been created "just because".

You believe in an undetectable, omnipotent, omniscient being that created everything the way it is but purposefully withheld evidence of its existence from humanity.

That is a completely false statement. I believe in God. I can't know if God is omnipotent, omnisient, and I certainly do not think He is undetectable.There is no way I know if held evidence of His existence. WE do have the bible which explains much of what He expects, and how to know Him. In scientific terms, knowing Him is subjective. Just because something is subjective, does not mean it does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phage0070, posted 03-19-2009 3:04 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Phage0070, posted 03-22-2009 12:21 AM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 140 of 327 (503719)
03-21-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by lyx2no
03-19-2009 3:47 PM


Re: Don't Defy… Deny
lyx2no writes:

Your argument pertaining to the rock star was an (nonjudgmental) appeal to personal responsibility.

Um, no. I just never heard of a rock star drowning in his/her own vomit unless they were drugged out. You tend to assume to much, judge motives, and over analyze things, don't you? I mean that in a good way.

Then why do you defy Him? Accept the teachings of The Lord and deny His existence.

I don't deny Him, I just can't tell you what to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by lyx2no, posted 03-19-2009 3:47 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by lyx2no, posted 03-21-2009 1:20 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 141 of 327 (503721)
03-21-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by riVeRraT
03-21-2009 12:10 PM


Jabberwocky Redux
Let me gather the relevant parts of this string into a single piece:

lyx: [The creator is] either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves rock stars drowning in their own vomit.

riV: Rock stars drowning on their own vomit is a poor example, because the Rock star was probably overdosing on drugs, and the designer gave us enough info to know that we shouldn't be overdosing on drugs.

lyx: [L]et me rephrase my statement:

[The creator] is either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves infants drowning in their own vomit.
So, tell me, what was the evil, little infant doing to deserve its fate?

riV: Why is the infant evil? That is a prejudice statement right there.

lyx: Your argument pertaining to the rock star was an (nonjudgmental) appeal to personal responsibility.

riV: Um, no. I just never heard of a rock star drowning in his/her own vomit unless they were drugged out. You tend to assume to much, judge motives, and over analyze things, don't you? I mean that in a good way.

It's beginning to dawn on me that the thing I improperly assume is that words aren't puffy, little things; like clouds that everyone gets to see their favorite figures in.

"Look there, a bunny."
"No, it's a clown."
"You're both wrong; it's and arm chair."


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 03-21-2009 12:10 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Son, posted 03-21-2009 1:38 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Son
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 142 of 327 (503723)
03-21-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by lyx2no
03-21-2009 1:20 PM


Re: Jabberwocky Redux
Lol Riverrat, try to stop Gish gallop plz? Your answers were completely off the mark. Why don't you go back to the original question?
Btw,it was about how we can't breath and shallow at the same time.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by lyx2no, posted 03-21-2009 1:20 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2009 10:47 AM Son has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 327 (503772)
03-22-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by riVeRraT
03-21-2009 12:07 PM


riVeRraT writes:

I never implied that.


No, you just implied that because someone appears to be correct in one area according to your experiences, when they claim something else which is ludicrously at odds with your own experiences you should trust them over yourself.

riVeRraT writes:

How could I? If everything was designed to occur naturally, and what appears to be random.


My point exactly. I look at something that appears to occur through natural means and conclude that it occurs through natural means. You look at something that appears to occur through natural means and conclude that it is obviously a cleverly designed simulation of natural occurrences. I postulate that you are completely out of your mind.

riVeRraT writes:

You might want to re-think that position.
From wiki:
As described above, there is universal agreement that quantum mechanics appears random, in the sense that all experimental results yet uncovered can be predicted and understood in the framework of quantum mechanics measurements being fundamentally random. Nevertheless, it is not settled whether this is true, fundamental randomness, or merely "emergent" randomness resulting from underlying hidden variables which deterministically cause measurement results to happen a certain way each time. This continues to be an area of active research.


Quantum mechanics is a subject that is continually misused by those unqualified. Simply because some aspects of quantum mechanics are as yet impossible to predict does not mean that they don't operate by rules; the fact that it is still an area of active research supports this because if everything was random and unknowable there would be no benefit of further research.

Those confusing aspects of quantum mechanics do not generally intrude into the macro picture. Chemicals and materials behave as their structure dictates, and we are very confident that they will continue to behave that way.

riVeRraT writes:

There is no way I know if held evidence of His existence.
...
Just because something is subjective, does not mean it does not exist.


That is the crux of the issue. It is true, just because there is no evidence for something to exist does not mean that it does not exist. The absence of proof is not proof of absence, BUT it is certainly not an endorsement of the idea. There are literally an infinite number of different things which there is no evidence actually exists and they hold equal merit when compared to your own unsupported beliefs. The trusty Invisible Pink Unicorn is somehow not acceptable to you though, even when it is on equal footing with your established beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 03-21-2009 12:07 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2009 10:57 AM Phage0070 has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 144 of 327 (504214)
03-25-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Son
03-21-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Jabberwocky Redux
Son writes:

Lol Riverrat, try to stop Gish gallop plz? Your answers were completely off the mark. Why don't you go back to the original question?
Btw,it was about how we can't breath and shallow at the same time.

There is no need to LOL, and lyx2no did a poor job a representing my position. His version of my representation is a biased one. My answer are 100% relevant.

Why don't we focus on the statement I made regarding our design purpose. To fully understand, or to be able to make a comment whether our design is good or bad, we must first determine what our design purpose is.

According to the bible, we live, and we die. We can also live eternally (regardless of how you think that happens). So if we live eternally in heaven, in a perfect place, then our design must be that of learning how to be there, and appreciate it. I life being consistent with that thought. Life is one long lesson, be it good or bad in our opinions.

So I conclude that the design is perfect, and I do not fully understand God. But God has given me enough clues to piece at least that much together.

Either way God leaves us with the choice, and faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Son, posted 03-21-2009 1:38 PM Son has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 145 of 327 (504216)
03-25-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phage0070
03-22-2009 12:21 AM


Phage0070 writes:

No, you just implied that because someone appears to be correct in one area according to your experiences, when they claim something else which is ludicrously at odds with your own experiences you should trust them over yourself.

I didn't do that either.

My point exactly. I look at something that appears to occur through natural means and conclude that it occurs through natural means. You look at something that appears to occur through natural means and conclude that it is obviously a cleverly designed simulation of natural occurrences. I postulate that you are completely out of your mind.

Thanks, I love being out of my mind!

They say that God knows everything before it happens. So some will logically (illogically) conclude that we are not in control of our destiny. But if God created us with free will, and the ability to make choices, then things can just occur naturally. But they were designed to be random.

i.e. I can create basic programming on a computer that appears to be random.

Quantum mechanics is a subject that is continually misused by those unqualified. Simply because some aspects of quantum mechanics are as yet impossible to predict does not mean that they don't operate by rules; the fact that it is still an area of active research supports this because if everything was random and unknowable there would be no benefit of further research.

Yes, I am aware of that, I was just pointing out the possibility, and re-enforcing the fact that we do not know nearly enough to even be discussing this effectively.

Those confusing aspects of quantum mechanics do not generally intrude into the macro picture. Chemicals and materials behave as their structure dictates, and we are very confident that they will continue to behave that way.

Like a tree in the wind.

The trusty Invisible Pink Unicorn is somehow not acceptable to you though, even when it is on equal footing with your established beliefs.

There is no evidence, subjective or objective of a pink unicorn. But it may still exist. I think if you can imagine something, then there is a possibility of it's existence.

It's not about existence being yes/no, on/off, it's about levels of faith, percentage. It is not guaranteed that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have almost 100% faith that it will. There is no evidence of a pink unicorn, but I have .000000001% faith that it could exist. Then there is everything in between.

Everything requires faith. That is the world which was created for us. My faith in God is not 100%, if I said it was, I would be lying. God created us to doubt, and tests us all the time. It's just part of life. To argue about it, and try to reason God away with one another, is pointless to me. There will always be a battleground in my mind, and in yours too.

The pink unicorn, or santa claus or any other fictional creature arguement is not a viable reason to not believe in God. Each one has it's own set of circumstances, and if you are to be logical about it, and approach it from a scientific method point of view, each one would have it's own set of tests. It is only after the tests that we could conclude if there was similarities in the fiction of it.

The pink unicorn, and God have nothing in common.

I am tired of so called logical thinkers here using that argument. They must be teaching it to you in school.

Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phage0070, posted 03-22-2009 12:21 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Phage0070, posted 03-25-2009 11:34 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 11:59 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 327 (504217)
03-25-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
03-25-2009 10:57 AM


riVeRraT writes:

They say that God knows everything before it happens. So some will logically (illogically) conclude that we are not in control of our destiny. But if God created us with free will, and the ability to make choices, then things can just occur naturally. But they were designed to be random.


"They say" IPU poop out roses, which leads some to believe that IPU land would smell sickeningly of roses. But if IPU are actually wonderful then they cannot smell sickening, meaning that they must be eating their rose-poop.

I don't care about the hoops you have to jump through to make your position logically consistent with itself. I am concerned rather with how you came to your conclusion and if it has any consistency with reality.

riVeRraT writes:

Yes, I am aware of that, I was just pointing out the possibility, and re-enforcing the fact that we do not know nearly enough to even be discussing this effectively.
...
There is no evidence, subjective or objective of a pink unicorn. But it may still exist. I think if you can imagine something, then there is a possibility of it's existence.

It's not about existence being yes/no, on/off, it's about levels of faith, percentage. It is not guaranteed that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have almost 100% faith that it will. There is no evidence of a pink unicorn, but I have .000000001% faith that it could exist. Then there is everything in between.


Excellent, we are making progress. Let me just point out here that the first part is a dodge that even you don't agree with at heart. As long as there is something that we do not know you can always claim that we don't know enough to discuss things effectively, which is the essence of the "God of the gaps" argument. The argument is weak in many areas, an obvious one being that you make decisions and conclusions despite not having all the possible information. You are nearly 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow and you believe in it, and you are .000000001% certain the IPU exists and you do not believe in it. The deciding factor is confidence level.

What nudges a concept into your realm of believable in the absence of objective evidence? I won't ask where your dividing line is since it is immaterial, but it does not seem to be consistent between similar concepts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2009 10:57 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 147 of 327 (504224)
03-25-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
03-25-2009 10:57 AM


riVeRraT writes:

They say that God knows everything before it happens. So some will logically (illogically) conclude that we are not in control of our destiny. But if God created us with free will, and the ability to make choices, then things can just occur naturally. But they were designed to be random.

You know, it's funny how creationists claim that creation science and intelligent design have nothing to do with religion, that they are just as much science as evolution, and should therefore be taught in public school science classrooms, but you get 'em talking and they just can't stop introducing God into the discussion.

When I put the Intelligent Design forum in with the rest of the science forums it was to give the benefit of the doubt to intelligent design proponents that it is science and not religion. Anyway, could we keep the focus on the science?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 03-25-2009 10:57 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1293 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 148 of 327 (504394)
03-27-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:34 PM


Sorry for the late reply...

Believing in nothing, is still a belief.

Perhaps a better definition is the lack of belief in any one specific deity. I would argue it is the lack of belief because you also share many of the disbeliefs I have when it comes to any other gods. - (Im assuming you are Christian)

So as you and I share a disbelief in Ra or Zues or Allah or Vishnu, we just seem to differ when it comes to Jesus/Yahweh. So I have disbelief and so do you, I just add one more god to my list than you do - you are a beleiver in Jesus, I am an atheist. I am an atheist in respects to Allah, so are you. We both lack belief in Allah. We don't have a belief in not believeing in Allah, that seems rather silly.

Many of the words in the bible now made sense to me.

That's curious, why the Bible? Did you pick up any other religious texts to see if you felt something from them too? Maybe it would have been the same across the board for all religious texts, or maybe the Bible just makes sense because it's the only one you were expossed to? - Maybe?

There is no way to prove it to anyone.

Nor should anyone ask you too.

Oh, and I wanted to tell you, that when I look at a bacteria flagellum, I see something that looks designed.

Are you a flagellum expert, though? How close have you gotten to studying the flagellum?

I don't doubt you see design, but then again if god created everything then everything looks designed because it exists. To pick the flagellum out seems rather small in comparison to the things you can point to, like a gallaxy. Wouldn't you agree that to you a galaxy, which is MUCH more complex than a flagellum, also looks designed?

But there are obvious pieces of the puzzle missing.

From what I have read, there is no puzzle piece missing. Can you tell me or reference me to something?

To think it is just random, could be considered crazy thinking as well.

What do you mean by random? I see that thrown around a lot and as an atheist I must agree with you that nothing is random. But then again I've never heard random used in any science class that I've taken so I don't know what you mean by that.

Intelligent life from random events, and stuff that just happens to exist.

This is either a very, very generalized version of what you think is meant by natural occurances or someone has made you believe that the only alternative to god is chance and random events. And what do you mean by stuff just happens? Where did you get these ideas from?

The science behind life, planets and the universe is very complex and very detailed to be generalized as stuff happens and we're here. Science delves very deep into that going as far as subatomic scales.

However, could you give me a detailed explanation as to how god is here? - The usual answer seems to be "he just is"...the very same argument that you refuse to accept for nature - seems rather contradictory doesn't it?

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3721 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 149 of 327 (504914)
04-04-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 10:17 AM


quote:
Do others agree with my assessment? Or, should I raise or lower some of the gauges?

I realize that there are potentially many possible combinations of attributes, but I only want to discuss the maximum (simply because the Designer is generally treated in the superlative).


RT: Being so inferior it is like give God an IQ test by dummies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 10:17 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-05-2009 1:02 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3721 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 150 of 327 (504918)
04-05-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Bio-molecularTony
04-04-2009 9:45 PM


Life is a masterfully created illusion
Continuing with the theme of this thread..

We can only speculate on the maximum abilities of God. He is not locked up in a room as a test subject, and so we could only use indirect methods to crudely estimate his abilities.

To show our mental lack of ability to estimate God, we can't even agree on what is natural, what is life, what is design, what is reality.

So much of our reality is a masterfully created illusion that the human mind gets stuck in the endless loops of circular reasoning.

If you manage to brake out of the box of circular reasoning in one area you may still have other battles to win to fully understand the magnitude of our circular thought limitations we naturally create for ourselves.

Life is not natural - but you can't tell that to a child or most people. Even in a science forum like this some just can't get it.

Life is a masterfully created illusion - and it does not depend on what you belief or not. It does not care if you can understand that fact ever within you life time or not. You were created to Believe in the illusion, designed to see the illusion as a "fact of reality".

Being such fools as we are - by design of course - how could we effectively know the mind of God and his true potential?

Most of us can't even know what life truly is as a starting point of understanding, never mind the great creator of the whole universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-04-2009 9:45 PM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by anglagard, posted 04-05-2009 2:11 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded
 Message 152 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-05-2009 4:15 PM Bio-molecularTony has responded
 Message 153 by Phage0070, posted 04-05-2009 10:02 PM Bio-molecularTony has responded
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2009 10:31 PM Bio-molecularTony has responded
 Message 155 by onifre, posted 04-06-2009 11:07 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Blue Jay, posted 04-07-2009 10:50 AM Bio-molecularTony has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019