Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 271 of 396 (617491)
05-29-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by intellen
05-29-2011 11:40 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
In what way are these "reinforcements" specifc to Intelligent Design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:40 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:49 AM Straggler has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 272 of 396 (617492)
05-29-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Bolder-dash writes:
I don't think you get it. Calling life complex is like calling the universe kind of big.
Yea its kind of big, but does that really adequately convey its size?
I've already said here that WE CANNOT say any object or system or event or phenomenon complex or not IF we don't have that boundary line. ToE did not have it. Old ID did not have it. Only the new Intelligent Design had that boundary line, can prove it and can show it.
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 273 of 396 (617493)
05-29-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
05-29-2011 11:43 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler writes:
In what way are these "reinforcements" specifc to Intelligent Design?
Simple, intelligent beings, as we humans categorize them, will surely make things to become successful. This means, they need reinforcement to their works,.
For example,
an engineer can build structure. But an intelligent engineer will surely reinforcement his structure to deal with nature.
Don't build ur house in the sand, build it on the rock. That is simple and yet profound truth in building a house. I mean, the rock is already a reinforcement for the foundation (IF we would like to be called intelligent).
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 11:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 12:46 PM intellen has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 274 of 396 (617495)
05-29-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by intellen
05-29-2011 11:49 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:49 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 1:30 PM Straggler has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 275 of 396 (617499)
05-29-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Straggler
05-29-2011 12:46 PM


Re: Still a form of faith
Straggler writes:
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 12:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 05-29-2011 1:37 PM intellen has replied
 Message 278 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 5:07 PM intellen has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 276 of 396 (617500)
05-29-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by intellen
05-29-2011 1:30 PM


Of course Nature reinforces.
intellen writes:
Straggler writes:
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too.
Why can't nature make reinforcement?
Do you have any understanding of what Natural Selection is?
If those things that work get selected for doesn't that reinforce the trait?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 1:30 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 5:55 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 277 of 396 (617524)
05-29-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 11:38 AM


"Mere Chance"
You talk about "mere chance". But if complexity is not that which you identify as unable to come about by what you describe as "mere chance" then what is it you identify as requiring Intelligent Design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 278 of 396 (617531)
05-29-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by intellen
05-29-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Still a form of faith
Intellen writes:
Straggler writes:
So how do we recognise these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell.
I am glad it is easy to tell but I am still confused as to what exactly constitutes "reinforcement". Can you be more explicit about what "reinforcement" is exactly?
Intellen writes:
Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature.
So how exactly do you decide when to invoke intelligent design? Is everything designed? Or do you think some things aren't intelligently designed?
Intellen writes:
So, it is very easy too.
Then differentiating between that which has been designed and that which hasn't should be a simple task. I assume you will be able to tell us how to definitively make this distinction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 1:30 PM intellen has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 279 of 396 (617545)
05-29-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by jar
05-29-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Of course Nature reinforces.
jar writes:
intellen writes:
Straggler writes:
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too.
Why can't nature make reinforcement?
Do you have any understanding of what Natural Selection is?
If those things that work get selected for doesn't that reinforce the trait?
Because NATURE cannot think, like thinking humans do.
There is no natural reinforcement, there maybe natural selection. Of course, nat selec is also a fairy tale.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by jar, posted 05-29-2011 1:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 05-29-2011 6:02 PM intellen has not replied
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 06-01-2011 3:16 PM intellen has not replied
 Message 285 by bluescat48, posted 06-01-2011 10:42 PM intellen has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 280 of 396 (617547)
05-29-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by intellen
05-29-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Of course Nature reinforces.
intellen writes:
jar writes:
intellen writes:
Straggler writes:
So how do we recognie these intelligently designed "reinforcements" from those complex things which have just occurred naturally?
NATURE cannot make reinforcement, so it is very easy to tell. Complex things in nature is only a mimicry of nature. So, it is very easy too.
Why can't nature make reinforcement?
Do you have any understanding of what Natural Selection is?
If those things that work get selected for doesn't that reinforce the trait?
Because NATURE cannot think, like thinking humans do.
There is no natural reinforcement, there maybe natural selection. Of course, nat selec is also a fairy tale.
Do some critters succeed in reproducing while others do not?
Do those critters that are more suited to a given environment have a greater chance of living long enough to reproduce?
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 5:55 PM intellen has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 281 of 396 (617550)
05-29-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by SavageD
05-29-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Who designed the designer?
Hard to see why you would regard the phrase "before time" as meaningless since it's always mentioned when considering the formation of the universe. Time had to have a starting point, so there is a period before & after time.
No, look, "before" and "after" and "during" and similar words are all about relations between times. If something was "before time", that would have to be a time before time, which makes no sense. It's like saying "downwards from the center of the Earth", or "north from the North Pole"; it's syntactically well-formed but semantically vacuous.
You lost me here, are you saying that matter can refer to nothing?
No, I'm suggesting that perhaps something can be not matter and still be something rather than nothing. For example, God is traditionally conceived to be an example of such a thing, as is the soul. Or in physics under some definitions gauge bosons don't count as matter, though they definitely exist.
Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'.
But I can't help but wonder, which theory do you accept regarding the existence of this universe?
I don't. That is, I accept the Big Bang theory and would wager a small sum on the Inflationary Hypothesis, but for more ultimate questions than that I don't believe that we are in a position to supply answers.
lol, I wasn't asking you how gravity functioned...On the other hand, are you saying that gravity is here simply because it was necessary?
I say it might be. If we knew how the Universe came into being, we might find that there was no option but that gravity should exist and work the way that it does.
By analogy, since we know how snowflakes form, we know why they must have sixfold and not fivefold symmetry; we need attribute this neither to chance nor to the preferences of Jack Frost. If we knew how universes form, we might be able to see with the same clarity why gravity must exist and work the way it does, but we don't so we don't. On the other hand, we might find that it could have been some other way, and is the way it is due to the fall of some cosmic dice (so to speak).
Why don't you just admit it, your taking the position that everything in this universe is here by chance.
I do not "admit" to taking the position that you ascribe to me because I have not in fact taken that position, as you can see from my posts, in which I question that position.
It is abundantly clear that things which do not happen with intelligent direction do not necessarily happen by chance as the only other option. Some things happen because there's nothing else that could happen. (Indeed, some people would question whether anything truly happens by chance, and would assert that chance is simply the name we give to events whose causes are too complicated for us to predict the effects of. But I am now straying from the topic.)
Of course I chose to, was I Claiming otherwise?
You said that you were "forced" to. But you are really under no such necessity.
... as for your last point, I'm not certain where your getting at. My position is simply that this universe was created, what does personality have to do with it?
In order for the cause of the universe to be a designer, it would have to be something like a person, would it not? If the universe was created by a set of unthinking physical laws, we wouldn't call that a designer, would we?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by SavageD, posted 05-29-2011 10:13 AM SavageD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 396 (617775)
05-31-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by intellen
05-28-2011 5:05 PM


Re: Still a form of faith
Yes. I don't run since I can show it. Will u run?
But you're not showing anything...
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : your -- > you're

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by intellen, posted 05-28-2011 5:05 PM intellen has not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


(1)
Message 283 of 396 (618115)
06-01-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Percy
05-29-2011 10:58 AM


Re: Who designed the designer?
Percy writes:
Hi SavageD,
First let's get the off-topic stuff out of the way. I was going to send you a PM, but since I find myself responding to one of your messages I'll tell you here: My Admin alter ego merged your 1SavageD1 account with your SavageD account. All your SavageD account information was maintained except for the email address and password, which came from the newer 1SavageD1 account.
yep, something seriously went wrong man, first my password had stopped working and message boxes were extremely small so i couldn't respond. none the less i got past those problems...
Theories about multiple universes come from science, not atheism. Some scientists are atheists, some aren't.
There are a number of flavors of theories (hypotheses is a more appropriate term, but it has become common practice to refer to them as theories) of multiple universes, but none have experimental verification and so none are yet accepted within science. But probably most cosmologists believe that something at least somewhat along the lines of one of them must be correct.
I agree. I just worded my sentence in that fashion to play with peoples heads, as some people truly believe that "all" theories should be held as absolute fact....
I think most people of a scientific nature would echo Witgenstein's sentiments: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Never heard of it but, they are indeed words of wisdom.
In other words, the evidence we currently have in hand doesn't tell us which of the many theories of cosmological origins is correct. Or with more brevity, we don't know how the universe came to be.
I agree here also. It is possible that one of the cosmological models may be correct.
How does the question of cosmological origins bear on the question of the origins of the intelligent designer?
In a nutshell: From my point the universe appears to be ordered & because it appears ordered I deduce that a creator must be behind this order. There are galaxies (planets, the moons, gas giants, the suns), planetary seasons, and there is of course the various laws of physics which govern the universe (Gravity for example) and holds everything in place. etc
Not only do I deduce a creator because of ordered universe, but also because there seems to be an underlying system in which things are governed to function (eg. the way planets orbit each other) whether it be on the atomic level or physically observable levels.
There are number of other reasons, but they are way too lengthy & I'm way too lazy & busy. I may be right I maybe wrong, who knows, though it's still fun to argue about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 05-29-2011 10:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 284 of 396 (618143)
06-01-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by intellen
05-29-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Of course Nature reinforces.
Because NATURE cannot think, like thinking humans do.
Why is thinking necessary for the production of reinforcements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 5:55 PM intellen has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 285 of 396 (618187)
06-01-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by intellen
05-29-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Of course Nature reinforces.
Of course, nat selec is also a fairy tale.
Please, show me the evidence of this.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 5:55 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by intellen, posted 06-06-2011 10:13 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024