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)?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 191 of 396 (616715)
05-24-2011 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by intellen
05-23-2011 11:52 PM


Re: A form of faith
Hi Intellen, welcome to EvC!
It would help a great deal if you would make your arguments from scratch here in messages and just use links to webpages and videos as supporting references. You definitely do not want to leave the key parts of your arguments out of your messages.
I at first thought your message made no sense because you began your arguments at item 8 and left out what came before, causing the two items by themselves to read like nonsense. But after viewing your video I see that all you did was copy the text of slide 8 and slide 9 into your message.
Some comments about your video:
  1. It isn't a video, it's a slide presentation.
  2. It should only be used as a supporting reference.
  3. Playing a schmaltzy version of Go Tell It on the Mountain in the background is distracting and inconsistent with a science presentation. The Intelligent Design forum is for discussion of ID as a science, not a religion.
  4. One of the first slides says to first watch Video 6. You should have mentioned you want people to watch two videos, not one.
  5. You may want to wordsmith the slide where you say, "predicts the most intriguing predictions".
  6. You never describe the "boundary line between natural and intelligent".
  7. You never define the "principle of intelligence."
  8. You might want to wordsmith the slide where you say, "the 'non-existence of matter' is also must be real".
  9. You might want to wordsmith the slide where you say "the important of things".
About Video 6 which you say should be watched first, it appears to be a collection of unrelated and unsupported assertions that do not make much sense. For example, you say that your experiment with the egg and tissue paper (which is described in neither slide presentation) shows that the one object destroys and the other object supports, and that this means a natural process has no opposing sides, just one side. You need to explain yourself a bit more, because what you say in the slide presentation makes no sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by intellen, posted 05-23-2011 11:52 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by intellen, posted 05-25-2011 4:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 223 of 396 (617146)
05-26-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by intellen
05-25-2011 4:32 PM


Re: A form of faith
intellen writes:
2. Actually, that was my manuscript when I submit to NATURE PRECEDINGS. I've just broken them piece by piece so that they could be understood.
I don't think you're making yourself understood very well. There's general agreement that you're not making much sense, and it may be because you're trying to start in the middle instead of at the beginning. Instead of starting with a presentation of the material from one of your later slide presentations you should start at the beginning.
It would be best if you could bring your evidence and arguments into this thread. Use links to your slide presentations as supporting references.
3. My discoveries pinpoint Jesus Christ as the Intelligent Designer. So the background music is consistent with that presentation.
If Jesus Christ is the Intelligent Designer of everything and everyone, including Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, etc., then shouldn't the music be non-denominational? Or, even better for a presentation that claims to be science, no music at all?
6. I described it in video 3, 5, 22. To make it simple, I'll write it here:
intellen = problem/solution + solution + solution
naturen = event
So you're defining intelligence as the ability to solve problems. When bacteria are deprived of their primary nutrient, thereby being presented the problem of how to survive, and then they evolve the ability to metabolize other nutrients in their environment, is that intelligence?
or let us make it clear
intellen = life + defense mechanism + sensory system
naturen = life + NO defense mechanism + NO sensory system
Could you provide a few examples of "naturen"?
7. OK, in context of my discovery, the definition for the principle of intelligence is the principle of how an object or event or phenomenon is being made.
So if a rock's shape is sculpted and made by wave action, that's an example of the principle of intelligence?
8. OK, thank you. But that is what I've found. Since intelligence follows opposite phenomena, then, I think that is the best explanation to describe natural phenomenon. What is the best phrase? Can you tell me?
I was just pointing out a grammatical error: "is also must be real". What you probably meant to say was, "The 'non-existence of matter' must also be real".
a symmetry. But we know that a symmetry is an opposites, two sides. My experiment also tells me that intellen (with importance) is an asymmetry. It will look like this:
problem/solution+solution+solution+... (more solutions than problem}
Sometimes you have more problems than solutions, sometimes more solutions than problems.
So, we can easily conclude that naturen is not symmetry nor asymmetry. That means, nature has only one side. This is true. For example, if an earthquake occurs, then, it has no problem nor solution, for nature has no problem, nor solution. We define nature as neutral.
First you say "naturen" is "life + no defenses + no senses", then you say "naturen" is an event that is neither symmetric nor asymmetric, and then you say nature is neutral. You've got two different and unrelated definitions of "naturen", and I'm guessing it's somehow related to nature, but you don't explain how. You haven't provided any justification for the invented terms "intellen" and "naturen".
I'm afraid I can't see much sense in what you say, nor can I see any connection to an Intelligent Designer, and certainly not to Jesus Christ.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by intellen, posted 05-25-2011 4:32 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by intellen, posted 05-28-2011 4:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 224 of 396 (617147)
05-26-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by RAZD
05-25-2011 11:05 PM


Re: and Still a form of faith
Getting a useable definition of intelligence is more of a problem for IDologists than for scientiests.
I'm aware of several definitions in science, such as Shannon's definition:
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". Parts 1 and 2, Bell System Technology Journal, July 1948, 379-390; October 1948, 623-637.
Claude Shannon is the father of information theory. Information, not intelligence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2011 11:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2011 8:04 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 249 of 396 (617458)
05-29-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by intellen
05-28-2011 4:49 PM


Re: A form of faith
Hi Intellen,
How did it come about that each of your quote boxes contains both an empty intellen quote box and my signature? I am not so vain that I sign my name beneath each paragraph. It's a bit redundant for a quote box to begin "Percy writes:" and conclude with "--Percy".
The empty quote boxes along with all the "--Percy" signatures makes your post unnecessarily long and not all fit on the screen, so took I advantage of my admin status and removed them.
Anyway, my reply is brief. I can see little sense in anything you say, certain no coherent chain of logic or argument, and you don't appear interested in composing comprehensible answers for those asking questions, so I'll just let this be. I understand you believe that Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer, and if at some point you say something I can make sense of I'll rejoin the discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by intellen, posted 05-28-2011 4:49 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 9:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 258 of 396 (617475)
05-29-2011 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by SavageD
05-29-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Who designed the designer?
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.
SavageD writes:
Fair enough, you do not believe in an infinite number of universes. I guess all atheists do not 'believe' in the same 'theories'.
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.
If you do not attribute the universe to coincidence or creation, what is your stance?
I think most people of a scientific nature would echo Witgenstein's sentiments: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
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.
How does the question of cosmological origins bear on the question of the origins of the intelligent designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by SavageD, posted 05-29-2011 10:13 AM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by SavageD, posted 06-01-2011 1:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 262 of 396 (617481)
05-29-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Bolder-dash
05-29-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Still a form of faith
Bolder-dash writes:
Complexity is a mountain of sand. Life is not just a mountain of sand. Complex is not a word that is even in the same ballpark as the description of life.
What of the specified complexity of Dembski? The possession of specified complexity drives his conclusion that life is the product of an intelligent designer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-29-2011 11:15 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by intellen, posted 05-29-2011 11:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 290 of 396 (618801)
06-06-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Portillo
06-06-2011 8:26 AM


Portillo writes:
This is the reason why God is eternal
Straggler and Coragyps asked how you know this, and I'm going to ask the same question, but in another way.
Cosmologists studying the universe have not yet gathered enough evidence to know whether the universe is eternal or not.
Since you appear to know that God is eternal, you must have gathered sufficient evidence to reach this conclusion.
What is that evidence?
One other thing. Should your statements about God be construed as a belief that the ID designer is God? If so, do you have any evidence supporting this view?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Portillo, posted 06-06-2011 8:26 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 299 of 396 (618942)
06-07-2011 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Portillo
06-07-2011 7:43 AM


Re: Faith Or Evidence?
Hi Portillo,
I think you're in the wrong thread. You're even in the wrong section of the website. Faith-based arguments belong in the Religious Forums.
It works like this. When you have evidence for what you believe, you take it to the Science Forums. When have expressions of faith for what you believe you take them to the Religious Forums.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Portillo, posted 06-07-2011 7:43 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Portillo, posted 06-08-2011 3:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 319 of 396 (621833)
06-29-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 5:29 AM


Re: More Creationist idiocy
Hi Nuggin,
I was hoping to participate in this thread rather than moderate, so as a participate I'll just briefly say that I think you're a bit over the top regarding rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 5:29 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 10:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 320 of 396 (621835)
06-29-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Chuck77
06-29-2011 6:55 AM


Re: More Creationist idiocy
Hi Chuck,
You can report any problems you encounter during discussion to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. In this case there's no need to do that, moderators are already aware, and there's no need to take moderation into your own hands.
As long as I'm replying to you I'll spill my own 2 cents, but it just echos what others have already said. If you accept ID as a matter of faith, and if you don't think it should be taught in science class, then I don't think many would have any problem with that. But if you not only accept ID as a matter of faith but also think it is science deserving of attention in public school science classrooms, as Dover, Pennsylvania, did back in 2004, then all science minded folk would have a big problem with this, and would push you to describe ID's qualifications as science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Chuck77, posted 06-29-2011 6:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 323 of 396 (621874)
06-29-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 10:44 AM


Re: More Creationist idiocy
Nuggin writes:
If his response to you was this:
You seem like a real D**K to attack me like that. You get off on it?
Good point, sorry, I didn't notice that. I just didn't want to see the thread spiral out of control.
Maybe people use the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread so little because it feels like tattling, but I wish they'd use it more. Or PM a moderator or moderators.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 10:44 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024