|
Author
|
Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 45 of 648 (585632)
10-08-2010 10:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
10-08-2010 10:22 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is. Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me? Yes, you are wrong. One side presents a model that explains HOW the variety of life we see came about. That is called the Theory of Evolution. The other side asserts it is design by an intelligence but present no model of the process or places the designer on the lab table to be examined. The ONLY model out there is the Theory of Evolution.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:22 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 1:49 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 55 of 648 (585687)
10-09-2010 10:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by tesla
10-09-2010 1:49 AM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
tesla writes: The ONLY model out there is the Theory of Evolution.
If that were true, you would not be arguing against ID for so many years. No, there will always be ignorant folk that simply do not understand the question or even what a model is. That is why this continues.
tesla writes: If you call I.D religion based only, then this site needs to evolve. Religions interpret the will of God, while as an I.D. proponent, I simply recognize God is there scientifically. I accept the basics of evolution, while reject the interpretations until more evidence can confirm links. How does one recognize God scientifically?
tesla writes: Yes there are other things besides 'biological evolution proves all things have randomly came together so screw donkeys if you want to' science. Misrepresent what is said much Charlie? And once again, notice that you did not present the model for ID. The Theory of Evolution is still the only model available to explain the variety of life we see. If you have the ID model, here is a chance to present it.
tesla writes: I am a practicing Christian. based on the evidence I have found and UNDERSTAND as true science, vs. wild guesses that scientist love to pull out calculus and say hahaha *point* your stupid. Don't try pulling out some "I'm a Christian Card" because this is not an issue related to Christianity. I too am a Christian and would hazard a guess that I have been a Christian longer than you. The Theory of Evolution is understood and accepted by much if not most of Christianity and Christians, just as the Big Bang Theory is not just accepted by Christians, it was developed by a Christian Priest. That card is just not a trump card, it is not even the two of spades. it's just the two of clubs.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 1:49 AM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 11:35 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 61 of 648 (585887)
10-10-2010 9:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by tesla
10-09-2010 11:35 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
You first need a scientific definition viable to scientific observations of what is. Some aspects of theory cannot be proven, in even our most accepted scientific theories. There is enough evidence and belief for the belief of God and a created universe, vs. the belief the universe exist from random energy interactions (chance) Yet you claim that:
tesla writes: If you call I.D religion based only, then this site needs to evolve. Religions interpret the will of God, while as an I.D. proponent, I simply recognize God is there scientifically. I accept the basics of evolution, while reject the interpretations until more evidence can confirm links. I am curious how you did that?
tesla writes: Double speak aside: either chance or direction was the universe brought into being. How exactly did you eliminate all other possibilities?
tesla writes: What’s missing is a scientific definition of God that will be accepted. Accepted being the key. It has to fit the science. Huh? What about the tests and experiments needed to verify? And above, you indicate that you already have that since the way you recognize god is involved was scientifically. How do you do that?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 11:35 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:28 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 67 of 648 (585977)
10-10-2010 6:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by tesla
10-10-2010 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
My argument is that the assumed 'universe' being 'everything' is wrong. And the opposite position needs explored. For a decent assumption all probabilities need equal review. My argument isn’t that the universes we know, and its interactions, don't have specific laws and rules to govern them, therefore being self governed by those laws for interaction. my argument is that it was designed that way by an intelligence, and the position of most great scientists is that it’s just those interactions that gave birth alone, and intelligence a product of interactions from non intelligence, whereas, I say intelligence was first, and lesser intelligences (such as mankind) were a decided product and outcome by the first greater intelligence. The first intelligence is assumed. LOL But there is evidence for for the laws and rules and interactions. Where is the evidence for some "first greater intelligence".
Therefore: by faith science assumes no God, and by faith I assume there is. But science does NOT say that, does not assume that. Science says just as I said, where is the evidence? Present the evidence for your "first greater intelligence" and science says then it can be investigated.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:28 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:50 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 73 of 648 (585996)
10-10-2010 7:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by tesla
10-10-2010 6:50 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
I do trust an answer of "We don't know". That is in fact the proper answer in many cases. But saying that "there is some first intelligence" is NOT accepting an answer of "We don't know", it is simply asserting a phrase that has no meaning and pretending that it is an answer.
You think that the big bang theory is solid science? Absolutely. Just understand that your cut-n-paste has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory, it's just another attempt to misdirect folks attention while the pea gets palmed. Sure there is a period approaching T=0 where our current understanding breaks down. The honest response to that is to say "We don't know" and then to continue to explore those questions just as science is doing. But the topic is... "The evidence for design and a designer " and so far you have not presented anything related to that. What is your evidence of some "first intelligence"?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:50 PM | | tesla has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:19 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 75 of 648 (586002)
10-10-2010 7:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
10-10-2010 7:06 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
I'd revise that slightly.
quote:
God is a factor that has never been observed objectively and has no known effect on the observable universe.
If someone actually produced an objective observation of God or an objective observation of some effect of God on the universe then it would be possible for science to investigate.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 7:06 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 80 of 648 (586014)
10-10-2010 7:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by tesla
10-10-2010 7:19 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
tesla writes: Oh I get it, we don't know, so we should stop looking for answers right? Oh I mean, that’s how science has the knowledge we have today after all, never exploring other angles..... Get the gist of my sarcasm jar? The truth is, God IS, is just as viable as: God is NOT with man's current scientific knowledge. Why do you think the debate is still pertinent? And yes, I did answer the 'proof' aspect; you just are choosing to ignore it. No problem, others can read my post and see that you are simply misrepresenting yet again. No one but YOU have said to stop exploring. In fact that is exactly what science does. You are the one that tries to insert your answer. And I looked through yet again at your posts and still do not see where you presented any evidence or support for some "first intelligence". However, even if there was some 'first intelligence" it is really pretty much irrelevant. If it was true, the question remain. We would still need to find the methods and model that resulted in what we see. Some designer or first intelligence is really unimportant, what we need to understand is precisely how that designer or first intelligence actually did anything. Once that is understood, the designer or first intelligence is only relevant as a historical footnote or in cases of product liability.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 7:19 PM | | tesla has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 87 of 648 (586033)
10-10-2010 8:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by tesla
10-10-2010 8:00 PM
|
|
Re: What experiments?
tesla writes: This logic suggests T=0 is an inevitable point, in which all the energy of all that does exist existed singularly, and without time. HUH? I have NEVER heard a single cosmologist even suggest such a thing. In fact, all the evidence seems to show that none of what we know as energy or time even existed at T=0. And I looked through yet again at your posts and still do not see where you presented any evidence or support for some "first intelligence". However, even if there was some 'first intelligence" it is really pretty much irrelevant. If it was true, the question remain. We would still need to find the methods and model that resulted in what we see. Some designer or first intelligence is really unimportant, what we need to understand is precisely how that designer or first intelligence actually did anything. Once that is understood, the designer or first intelligence is only relevant as a historical footnote or in cases of product liability. Edited by jar, : hit wrong key
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 8:00 PM | | tesla has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 110 of 648 (587097)
10-16-2010 9:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
10-16-2010 8:54 PM
|
|
It's even funnier when you actually read what he wrote and you quoted.
Dawn Bertot writes: change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS Design observes order and laws?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 190 of 648 (587460)
10-18-2010 9:58 PM
|
|
|
The third possibility
The Initial First Cause Designer designed and died. Th problem is Dawn Bertot continues to present absurdities and false dichotomies. There are not simply two possible causes, there could be an unlimited sequence of small, transitory and ephemeral causes. In addition, as has been pointed out, even if there were some designer that fact is irrelevant and unimportant except as a historical footnote and in the case of Product Liability suits. The designer, even if real, is worthless and insignificant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 194 of 648 (587467)
10-18-2010 11:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 193 by Buzsaw
10-18-2010 10:48 PM
|
|
Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Once we know the laws, the processes, the procedures, Buz, what value or significance has the designer even if it existed?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 10-18-2010 10:48 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 7:54 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: The third possibility
I did give examples of possible causes. You even quoted some. I said that the designer was unimportant and insignificant, irrelevant even. You need to show why the designer if true even deserves a footnote.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 210 of 648 (587511)
10-19-2010 8:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
10-19-2010 7:54 AM
|
|
Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Buz writes: Processes and procedures hypothesied and theorized by secularists purposefully avoid anything that could be attributed to ID, especially when Biblically supportive. What does that even mean Buz and how is it related to what I posted? What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 7:54 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 10:39 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 215 of 648 (587522)
10-19-2010 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 214 by Buzsaw
10-19-2010 10:39 AM
|
|
Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
You can't figure that out by yourself? You need help in comprehension? ToE involves perceived process and proceedures, does it not? No Buz, the Theory of Evolution involves OBSERVED process. And the question remains, "What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed?" Edited by jar, : repeat question
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 10:39 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 6:51 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: The third possibility
Dawn Bertot writes: Jar you cannot even get passed the logic that postulates order and design, why worry about the designer His existence however, would mean that the design theory is valid. Producing a designer or his method is not necessary, where the evidence already permits it Please elaborate on your possible causes And you will not address the evidence for a designer (a key point if there is design) or show why the designer, even if true, is relevant or of any significance. To claim that there is evidence for some designer you must do more than show that your idea is not excluded. If you wish to see design taught you MUST present evidence that explains what is seen better than any other explanation.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2