Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   (ID) Grading the Intellect from the (non-natural) Design (Lost Thread)
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 1 of 4 (489253)
11-25-2008 4:28 PM


Ok, let's see if I can bring back another one. I found the thread back in Google cache up until message 289, I will give a brief glimpse about how the thread had developed.
OP:
Bio-molecularTony writes:
(ID) Grading the Intellect from the (non-natural) Design.
All through our society we grade one another on different levels of gifted intellect. We do it in school, at a new job, Doctor with stoke victims. We even do it on the things made by an inventor, artist, painter.
You could say, "by the number of humans (X) the number of years it take mankind to understand the machinery of life ( =) the minimum intellectual level of the creator of life."
The “base line” is that life does not come from non-living matter.
From there the intellectual levels increase with the greater complexity of the system.
What it takes a man to do is a guide to what it took for life to come into existence. So if 100 men intelligently create life, aided by a supercomputer, then you have an idea of the intelligence level need from this comparison.
Any mythical stories will show up in the non-working models.
Man creating by intelligence is our model of intelligent design. What man must intelligently create is not natural.
As far as I can tell, in the end Fosdick and DevilAdvocate were having a discussion between themselves about abiogenesis. I will quote their last two posts.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Fosdick writes:
No, I'm an atheist. Why are you averse to questioning loose assumptions made by otherwise solid scientists? Socrates would frown on this.
Sorry it was a bad joke. I am actually an agnostic which puts me a little closer to the creationists than you so to speak.
I agree though that abiogenesis itself is not as well established in science as biological evolution. Just where and when abiogenesis actually occurred, terrestrial or extraterrestrial, is speculative. Am I not correct. Either way until we attain incontrovertible evidence one way or the other it is useless to argue over this. We should just allow the scientists do their job and see what the end result is.
Fosdick's response:
Fosdick writes:
DA,
What fascinates me most is how strangely difficult the mystery of abiogenesis is to solve. I would think that scientists should be able to routinely brew life from scratch in their laboratories by now. Something very odd and mysterious (thus far) must have happened when that first cell came alive. It is amazing to me that scientists haven't yet figured it out. And that is why, I think, the ID folks see this as wiggle room for God.
I don't know why the ID folks don't just say God did all, as he is alleged to have done. That would include allowing us to learn about evolution by descent with modification. Why don't the ID folks recognize that God, if there is one, gifted us with Darwin as much as he did with Jesus? If God can squeeze water drops out of the clouds to make the flowers grow then he can do anything else that nature does, since he created it all in the first place. And he also created humans and knowledge for us learn, because he made us after his own image for that purpose. Why doesn't that work? It solves everything, doesn't it?
On the other hand, I feel uncomfortable that the Designer they worship is the God of Abraham. He did to Abraham what no good god would do to anyone.
”FTF
One post above this Admin had said the thread was about to be closed, and summations should be made. His post:
Admin writes:
This thread is approaching 300 messages and will be closed soon. Participants should begin thinking about posting summations. Because a summation represents someone's last words on a topic, please do not reply to summations, and please do not continue posting after posting your summation. Thanks.
The last post I could find was one from Bio-molecularTony himself, it was a reply to this, although he did quote message 257 which I couldn't find again, so you'll have to make due with the single quote he used:
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Message 257: Evolution bloopers strike again
The issues of intelligent design and Grading the Intellect from the (non-natural) Design is child’s play.
The understanding of the human mind of those not willing to see the tall trees in the forest of inexcusable evidence is the hard part. Religion picks up at this point in explaining why people to what they do (bible). Science can't do this....
At this point I seen to be keenly interested in studing the human mind through a book called "People in perspective": behaviour social science of psychology, sociology and anthropology.
Debating can't be fruitful without honesty by all members. It just goes around and around with never getting any progress in understanding.
I came here because it causes me to think deeper and I did and I learn on my own greater things. Not all really give out useful information so I did it on my own, so the forum can give the need motivation to do research and for this I say thanks.
Now, I don't know if the Admins want to reopen this thread completely, or if they just want people to give their summations about it. Either way, this is about the best I could do

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 11-25-2008 8:30 PM Huntard has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 4 (489262)
11-25-2008 5:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 3 of 4 (489279)
11-25-2008 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
11-25-2008 4:28 PM


Where never the twain shall meet
Huntard writes:
The understanding of the human mind of those not willing to see the tall trees in the forest of inexcusable evidence is the hard part. Religion picks up at this point in explaining why people to what they do (bible). Science can't do this....
No good scientist would disagree with you. You're working in non-scientific territory by necessity, and we don't dare go there. It's above our pay grade.
btw: I've heard the woo-woo bird lives up in those tall trees.
”FTF

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2008 4:28 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2008 1:50 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 4 of 4 (489297)
11-26-2008 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Fosdick
11-25-2008 8:30 PM


Re: Where never the twain shall meet
Actually, that's not me who's saying that, that's Tony.
Although I do agree with your comment.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Fosdick, posted 11-25-2008 8:30 PM Fosdick 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