Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is obvious to everyone that design exists. Why not search for it?
 
Bu bu but, it might make people think of that word that begins with a G. In Europe, the alarm has been sounded.

God bless,
Ed
 
If we can design and participate in creating clocks, then it is certainly logical to try to discover precisely whose “clock” we are living within.

It is downright prideful to assume we are at the beginning of that “chain” of designers.

What makes us so great as to be the sole designers in the universe anyway?

Don’t get me wrong, I do think we’re smarter than trees and rocks. But it is amazing how much we have learned under their tutelage. What makes nature so intelligent as to always have something to teach us? As long as we keep learning from science, the Intelligent Design questions remain: Who made this universe this way? Who made me?

Pax!
 
edwest2 said:
A theory that will not go away. The nature of information and how it can be generated is the subject of this book:

evolutionnews.org/2009/05/new_book_probability_nature_an.html

And that is my point. Information does not appear out of thin air, and acquiring new information must be goal oriented.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ugh, disgusting. This is just the cosmological argument, except wrapped up in a new skin to make it seem sophisticated and current, similar to how intelligent design is just repackaged creationism (we’ll keep saying it because it’s true).

“The nature of (existence or matter) and how it can be generated is the subject of this book.”

“(Matter) does not appear out of thin air.”

DNA may be said to be information, but it is more basically matter. In the formation of DNA there is no actual new information or data, because there is no new matter created, just rearranged. There, I just destroyed the premise of the entire book.

It also seems to have some bit to do with probability. The fact is that any single event has a probability of practically 0. You’re probability of existing as you are Ed, is near infinitely asymptotic to 0. Does that mean you really don’t exist?

The entire Intelligent Design argument can be summed up as:
  1. Complicated things are improbable.
  2. Complicated things happen.
  3. God probably did it.
There is also no such thing as blind chance. There is no chance that a blueberry pie will pop up right in front of you on your keyboard. Natural events are restricted to possible pathways.

Ed, you wonder why atheists and agnostics come to post on these forums and debate with believers in general. It’s to combat the deliberate misinformation and irrational thinking put forth by people and organizations like the Discovery Institute.

Here, watch this video. It will go a little into why non-believers think it is imperative to counter superstition, but more importantly, Why Evolution is True.

youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig&feature=player_embedded

I also recommend you read the book by Jerry Coyne, the speaker in the video. It’s excellent.
 
Hubriss said:
Ugh, disgusting. This is just the cosmological argument, except wrapped up in a new skin to make it seem sophisticated and current, similar to how intelligent design is just repackaged creationism (we’ll keep saying it because it’s true).

“The nature of (existence or matter) and how it can be generated is the subject of this book.”

“(Matter) does not appear out of thin air.”

DNA may be said to be information, but it is more basically matter. In the formation of DNA there is no actual new information or data, because there is no new matter created, just rearranged. There, I just destroyed the premise of the entire book.

It also seems to have some bit to do with probability. The fact is that any single event has a probability of practically 0. You’re probability of existing as you are Ed, is near infinitely asymptotic to 0. Does that mean you really don’t exist?

The entire Intelligent Design argument can be summed up as:
  1. Complicated things are improbable.
  2. Complicated things happen.
  3. God probably did it.
There is also no such thing as blind chance. There is no chance that a blueberry pie will pop up right in front of you on your keyboard. Natural events are restricted to possible pathways.

Ed, you wonder why atheists and agnostics come to post on these forums and debate with believers in general. It’s to combat the deliberate misinformation and irrational thinking put forth by people and organizations like the Discovery Institute.

Here, watch this video. It will go a little into why non-believers think it is imperative to counter superstition, but more importantly, Why Evolution is True.

youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig&feature=player_embedded

I also recommend you read the book by Jerry Coyne, the speaker in the video. It’s excellent.
Click to expand...
The molecule is the storage and transmission media of a language. Languages, codes, instructions and maps all come from a mind.

Why do you care what we believe?

An interesting rebuttal to Coyne by Miller here
 
Hubriss said:
Ugh, disgusting. This is just the cosmological argument, except wrapped up in a new skin to make it seem sophisticated and current, similar to how intelligent design is just repackaged creationism (we’ll keep saying it because it’s true).

“The nature of (existence or matter) and how it can be generated is the subject of this book.”

“(Matter) does not appear out of thin air.”

DNA may be said to be information, but it is more basically matter. In the formation of DNA there is no actual new information or data, because there is no new matter created, just rearranged. There, I just destroyed the premise of the entire book.

It also seems to have some bit to do with probability. The fact is that any single event has a probability of practically 0. You’re probability of existing as you are Ed, is near infinitely asymptotic to 0. Does that mean you really don’t exist?

The entire Intelligent Design argument can be summed up as:
  1. Complicated things are improbable.
  2. Complicated things happen.
  3. God probably did it.
There is also no such thing as blind chance. There is no chance that a blueberry pie will pop up right in front of you on your keyboard. Natural events are restricted to possible pathways.

Ed, you wonder why atheists and agnostics come to post on these forums and debate with believers in general. It’s to combat the deliberate misinformation and irrational thinking put forth by people and organizations like the Discovery Institute.

Here, watch this video. It will go a little into why non-believers think it is imperative to counter superstition, but more importantly, Why Evolution is True.

youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig&feature=player_embedded

I also recommend you read the book by Jerry Coyne, the speaker in the video. It’s excellent.
Click to expand...
Sad that you use obfuscation. Superstition has nothing to do with explaining how gills turn into lungs.

Example: I want to program an automatic milling machine to create 140 surface variations on a piece of metal. Then, I program the milling machine to create 4 surface variations on another piece of metal. Which program contains more instructions?

Or: I have a string of DNA that already codes for a complete organism. It is a fish. I now want to add lungs. Random mutation and natural selection cannot turn the fish into an open air breathing animal. Period.
  1. Archaeologists find objects in the ground all the time.
  2. They can determine that a piece of dried clay is a piece of dried clay or a shard of pottery. They can determine if a triangular rock is a triangular rock or an arrowhead.
  3. If a complex, mechanical and symmetrical object were found on Mars, I wouldn’t say God made it but it would be an obvious example of Intelligent Design.
  4. Non-theists would accept the fact that an intelligence made an artificial object found on another planet even if there was no trace of the maker.
Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Sad that you use obfuscation. Superstition has nothing to do with explaining how gills turn into lungs.

Example: I want to program an automatic milling machine to create 140 surface variations on a piece of metal. Then, I program the milling machine to create 4 surface variations on another piece of metal. Which program contains more instructions?

Or: I have a string of DNA that already codes for a complete organism. It is a fish. I now want to add lungs. Random mutation and natural selection cannot turn the fish into an open air breathing animal. Period.
  1. Archaeologists find objects in the ground all the time.
  2. They can determine that a piece of dried clay is a piece of dried clay or a shard of pottery. They can determine if a triangular rock is a triangular rock or an arrowhead.
  3. If a complex, mechanical and symmetrical object were found on Mars, I wouldn’t say God made it but it would be an obvious example of Intelligent Design.
  4. Non-theists would accept the fact that an intelligence made an artificial object found on another planet even if there was no trace of the maker.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Why is it that no one wants to answer the question - does design exist?
 
buffalo said:
The molecule is the storage and transmission media of a language. Languages, codes, instructions and maps all come from a mind.

Why do you care what we believe?

An interesting rebuttal to Coyne by Miller here
Click to expand...
The rebuttal clearly illustrates the power struggle between theists and atheists. They are both sitting at the negotiating table in distrust. The atheist sees God in the theist’s writings about science: “I want God excluded 100%. You cannot even imply God!” However, the theist recognizes the atheist’s commitment to turning science into a tool for his belief system.

I would argue that evolution is not science, or that whatever science it may contain was immediately compromised after the appearance of Darwin’s book. People do come here to mention 150 years of… something. Obviously, someone is funding teams of people to go out into the field and dig up more bones. Someone is funding laboratories to carefully clean, x-ray and otherwise preserve these bones. And finally, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that someone is funding people to go on the internet to continue the current “just say yes” campaign.

And the reason people come here to discuss evolution is not about education. Eternal vigilance must be maintained unless “creationist” ideas might become popular with the public. Wouldn’t it be terrible if people ignored evolution entirely? I don’t think so. Food would still be delivered. Scientists would still go to work. Tanks, planes and tanker ships would continue to be built. But… But, there might be a revival of theism. People might go to Church/Mosque/Temple more. We can’t have that. It might lead to people buying less porn or not visiting the local strip club or prostitute. It might endanger the amoral and immoral secular culture around us.

Evidence? Here are a few words from the Council of Europe:

assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1965

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The rebuttal clearly illustrates the power struggle between theists and atheists. They are both sitting at the negotiating table in distrust. The atheist sees God in the theist’s writings about science: “I want God excluded 100%. You cannot even imply God!” However, the theist recognizes the atheist’s commitment to turning science into a tool for his belief system.

I would argue that evolution is not science, or that whatever science it may contain was immediately compromised after the appearance of Darwin’s book. People do come here to mention 150 years of… something. Obviously, someone is funding teams of people to go out into the field and dig up more bones. Someone is funding laboratories to carefully clean, x-ray and otherwise preserve these bones. And finally, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that someone is funding people to go on the internet to continue the current “just say yes” campaign.

And the reason people come here to discuss evolution is not about education. Eternal vigilance must be maintained unless “creationist” ideas might become popular with the public. Wouldn’t it be terrible if people ignored evolution entirely? I don’t think so. Food would still be delivered. Scientists would still go to work. Tanks, planes and tanker ships would continue to be built. But… But, there might be a revival of theism. People might go to Church/Mosque/Temple more. We can’t have that. It might lead to people buying less porn or not visiting the local strip club or prostitute. It might endanger the amoral and immoral secular culture around us.

Evidence? Here are a few words from the Council of Europe:

assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1965

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, the world would come to a rapid end without evolution, don’t ya know?😉
 
buffalo said:
Why is it that no one wants to answer the question - does design exist?
Click to expand...
Yes design exists doesn;t mean intelligent design is true. I mean there are things in the natural world that look designed that we know have been made naturally. And you know even if we were created directedly no evolution by some supernatural being…how is science supposed to study that?
 
Calliso said:
Yes design exists doesn;t mean intelligent design is true. I mean there are things in the natural world that look designed that we know have been made naturally. And you know even if we were created directedly no evolution by some supernatural being…how is science supposed to study that?
Click to expand...
Patterns are natural processes. Design includes patterns, but natural patterns do not contain language or symbols.
 
edwest2 said:
Evidence? Here are a few words from the Council of Europe:

assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1965
Click to expand...
Ed - thanks for posting that link. That is a remarkable statement – it definitely confirms the view you offered here.

In a resolution passed by 48 votes to 25 during its plenary session in Strasbourg, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) declared: “If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights.”

Presenting the report, Anne Brasseur (Luxembourg, ALDE), a former Education Minister, said: “It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.”

“The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education,” the parliamentarians said in the resolution. “**Creationists are bent on ensuring **that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.”

The parliamentarians said there was “a real risk of a serious confusion” **being introduced into children’s minds **between conviction or belief and science. “The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.”

“Intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger,” they added.

“Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.”

The report cites examples from Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The language used here is of crisis, panic and fear.

All of these “dangers” of creationism have to be stopped, but how?

… it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science …

How are they going to “prevent belief” from doing what it should do? Usually, that means some kind of oppression from the atheistic-state. Science works on cloning human beings, creating more efficient ways to kill children through abortion and risking the entire planet by smashing atoms – and “belief” must be prevented from opposing anything that science wants to do or claim.

Clearly, the Darwinian propaganda machine has been failing in Europe also.

Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom

Intelligent Design ideas are catching on all over the world. More people are rejecting the Darwinian lies and have begun to embrace the idea that there is evidence of a supreme Intelligence at work in nature – and that evolutionary theory simply fails to offer a rational explanation for the structured order and purpose that is obvious to millions of people.
 
Reggie,

Here is the full version of what they are concerned about. I find that from point 80 on, they show that this is, in fact, theism vs atheism. Point 90 clearly shows that evolution has had an effect on religion and society in general.

assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm

Their primary concern is a loss of “human rights.” Which rights are these? In Poland, the Polish Peasant Party is against Poland, which is mostly Catholic, joining the European Union. Why? For one thing, a condition of membership is accepting the “right” of abortion in your country. Incredible, isn’t it?

Then it’s mentioned that work towards an AIDS vaccine would be put at risk. I’m not opposed to any sort of research to fight human illnesses.

I’m glad the Europeans are more explicit regarding the ‘bad’ consequences of accepting Creationism/ID and/or denying evolution.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Superstition has nothing to do with explaining how gills turn into lungs.
Click to expand...
Nor does evolution since gills did not turn into lungs. Lungfish have both gills and lungs. Many amphibians have both gills and lungs. Gills develop from the Pharyngeal arches; lungs develop from the gut. They are different organs with different origins, lungs did not evolve from gills.
I have a string of DNA that already codes for a complete organism. It is a fish. I now want to add lungs. Random mutation and natural selection cannot turn the fish into an open air breathing animal. Period.
Click to expand...
Were you there? Did you see it not happen? We already have fish with lungs - lungfish. A lungfish can survive for months away from water. Lungfish are related to Tiktaalik, a fish with gills, lungs and legs. Tiktaalik is related to Acanthostega, an amphibian with gills, lungs and legs. We are descended from Acanthostega or something very like it.

Your own personal disbelief is not relevant in science.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
Then it’s mentioned that work towards an AIDS vaccine would be put at risk. I’m not opposed to any sort of research to fight human illnesses.
Click to expand...
What about embryonic stem-cell research? There are people who have opposed that on religious grounds.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
Reggie,

Here is the full version of what they are concerned about. I find that from point 80 on, they show that this is, in fact, theism vs atheism. Point 90 clearly shows that evolution has had an effect on religion and society in general.
Click to expand...
That was quite amazing. I’ve never seen anything like that before. It looks like panic, desperation and fear running through the whole text. Toss in some exaggerations and misconceptions and the idea that God has created the world has turned into a global threat - endangering children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top