this is a fun video to watch when things get too pseudosciencey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw
Printable View
this is a fun video to watch when things get too pseudosciencey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw
Very fascinating!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
prayers causing miracles? No, I believe in an intelligent designer but not miracles, but thats just some guys opinion.
some reasons why I believe in design not accident....(not that anyone cares)
Everything about science proves intelligent design: The earth, about 93 million miles from the sun, it does not freeze or fry, its the perfect distance from the sun, its axis of about 23.4 degrees, "our planets tilt axis seems to be "just right" (rare earth-why complex life is uncommon in the universe), if it was off we would already be dead, it causes annual seasons and a wide range of climate zones, it spins the right amount of time for day and night, so we wont burn or freeze, it helps with life, growing food etc.
earths magnetic field: The center of the earth is a ball of molten iron and it causes our earth to have a huge magnetic field that stretches way out into space that shields us from the full intensity of cosmic radiation, solar wind (steady stream of energetic particles), solar flares (that can release in minutes as much energy as billions of hydrogen bombs), explosions from in the outer regions or corona of the sun the blasts billions of tons of matter into space. The atmosphere keeps us breathing along with protection absorbs 99% of incoming UV radiation , and from space debris. And thats not even scratching the surface of one subject.
Science would not work or be a reliable source of testing and research if cells, chemicals and such did not have a reliable consistent outcome. How did it become reliable and consistent? You don't just throw a bunch of nuts and bolts in a box and shake it and have a new car do you? Of course not. and when you see a log cabin in the middle of the woods you just know that it all fell into a perfect pattern and became a house right? no, you wonder who built it. Design. I mean do things evolve? yes many things do! but to say there was no thought or design to how we all ended up here in a perfect environment to sustain life, have food, water, reproduction etc etc isn't very scientific, in fact many scientific theory's have less evidence and they run with it. People say there is no evidence, well the evidence is more than sufficient if you just look around on our small planet. More evidence of intelligent design than aliens but many believe in aliens (not saying I do or do not cus I don't know). How many things that are as precise as the earth happen on its own? Not to mention how amazing our bodies are! If our bodies weren't consistent then JJ would not work as well as it does, we base our technique off of the consistency of our human anatomy!
Many things we use everyday are copied from nature, like birds for flight and aerodynamics, sonar from bats, etc etc.
Not trying to turn this into debate or anything guys but logically a designer makes more scientific sense to me than "it was all an accident", we have accidents and explosions everyday for hundreds if not thousands of years and never seen a new species come out of it. I believe in science and creation i believe they completely coincide with each other ha ha, anyway nothing but love hope this doesn't offend any of you and i don't want to turn this thread into a debate, but i wanted to throw my thoughts in there cus it seems very few here believe in design and bag on someone for believing in creation and i couldn't let Ron feel alone in this :)
copypasta bc I'm feeling lazy
from http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_145.html
Argument from Analogy
Firstly, the analogy of human created products with the phenomena of the universe is fallacious. Taking complex products as effects of human production is one thing. We observe this every day. We create products ourselves everyday. I can observe a house and without any problem, conclude that human beings — architect, bricklayers and so on — created it. It is safe to conclude a posteriori, on the grounds of observed experience that a house needs the combination of land developers, planning departments, architects and builders without which it would not be built; that human complex contrivances presuppose human design. This conclusion is reached from the experience of such things. It is not safe to extend this a posteriori reasoning to what is unobserved — to the creation of the phenomena of the universe — which the argument from design does.
So upon and within the grounds of observed experience, it is safe to conclude that complex designs of a car, a house, a hammer presuppose human designing intelligence; for it has been observed that the former cannot exist without the latter. It has not been observed of the phenomena in the universe that they cannot exist without a designing intelligence. So, the argument from design is resting on a conclusion extending from an observed premise to an unobserved premise and this does not follow. A premise is fallacious making the conclusion unsound. Applying thinking 'inside the box' of human experience to what is 'outside the box' of human experience, is not conclusively sound.
Secondly, the argument from analogy rests on complex human artefacts requiring a human designer. But it doesn't follow that all human artefacts are complex in character. Some are simple, like the whittled stick or the stone used to make markings. As such, the analogy doesn't hold as human artefacts are not always complex. If not all complex then the example of created human objects as complex being analogous for complex phenomena of the universe doesn't follow.
Thirdly, contrary to its claims, the argument from design does not remain within observed experience. Remaining within a posteriori reasoning alone permits the conclusion only that human designer's create artefacts, products of complexity. Contrary to a posteriori reasoning, its limits are transgressed and something not observed within experience is introduced as the cause of what is empirically observed. This appears to commit the fallacy of Petitio Principi — assuming the truth of that which has yet to be proven.
Like effects prove like causes?
Yet it is retorted that like effects must follow from like causes. We conclude the complex yet coherent innards of a watch are effects of a designing cause. Likewise, the complex yet coherent phenomena of the universe are an effect of a cause — a designing cause. The like effects of complexity arise from like causes. For all complex coherence there must be a designing intelligence. Again, that P leads to Q does not entail Q leading to P. That a designer P leads to designed complexity Q does not logically entail that complexity Q entails a designer P. This is borne out when we observe human designers create artefacts and products of complexity but is not borne out by observing non-human phenomena and inferring they likewise require a designer. It can be concluded only that human designing intelligences entail complex, designed artefacts.
So the phenomena of the universe if perceived as complex yet purposive in their manifestation, do not logically or empirically entail an intelligent, designing cause. There may be other explanations and/ or none.
Complexity
Contrary to the a posteriori, empirical based reasoning of the Design argument, complexity and purposiveness might be perceptions reducible to human cognition and not an objective character of the universe.[3] If not objective characteristics of the world 'out there' then a central premise of the argument from design — that the universe displays complexity and coherence — is not sound and the desired conclusion of a creative intelligence of such complexity etc. will not follow. Additionally, what is understood by purposive and coherent is problematic. Socrates keeps what appears to be a shambles of a filing system compared to Immanuel whose files are labelled and appropriately placed under definite categories and cabinet draws. Yet Socrates knows were everything is and can retrieve requested information as quickly as Immanuel. So complexity and purposiveness display an ambiguity. With the ambiguity no sure inference can be drawn from complexity to a creative intelligence.
I will now assume that the universe does display a complex coherence of means to ends. Assuming there is an objective complexity 'out there' independent of human cognition where means cohere into ends. Is complexity alone evidence of the necessity of a designing intelligence? No. For even if there is objective complexity it does not escape the fallacy of analogy objection discussed above. Complexity does not require or necessitate a designing intelligence. It just doesn't follow that non-human complexity must require a designing intelligence for its existence.
Even if it were admitted that the complex coherence displayed by phenomena could be accounted for by intelligent design, then the nature of intelligent design itself would have to be accounted for. The agency of intelligent design must itself possess complexity in order to create complexity. If as the argument for intelligent design maintains that complexity has to be explained by an intelligent designer then the complexity of the designer likewise has to be explained. If not, it is being maintained that the intelligent designer does not possess complexity. If not complex it has no understanding of complexity so cannot intentionally design complex creations. So if it designs complex creations, it must possess complexity and this has to be explained in terms of the design argument, in the existence of an intelligent designer of the intelligent designer and so on ad infinitum.
Goldilocks and Intelligent Design
Another approach in the argument for intelligent design is to propose that the conditions for life to exist are so delicate, so intricate that they could not have occurred by chance alone. Neutrons are slightly heavier than protons. If it were the other way round, atoms could not exist, as they would have decayed into neutrons after the 'Big Bang'. No protons, no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms then no chemistry. No chemistry then no life. That there is life at all is due to the condition of slightly heavier neutrons. In the story of Goldilocks where unlike Father and Mother Bear's porridge, Baby Bear's porridge, is 'just right' — so the conditions in the universe are 'just right': just right to allow life to exist, This so-called 'Goldilocks enigma' cannot have arisen from chance.[4] If not from chance then there must have been a creative intelligence designing the phenomena of the universe.
The immediate response to the Goldilocks enigma is that it is precisely because such delicate conditions pertain that life exists. Without these delicate conditions, life could not exist — as we perceive in the solar system. We are the lucky strike in the cosmic game of dice — no god or deliberate design is necessary.
Furthermore, an intelligent designer could not have been that intelligent. If it had, it would have loosened up on the conditions necessary for life so that they weren't so stringent. Such conditions for life reduce the chances of life rather than necessitate it. A change of a few degrees in temperature can decide the existence or not of life. An intelligent designer would have made conditions more flexible ensuring greater survival conditions for life.
Conclusion
The argument from Design whether to the Abrahamic God or to an Intelligent Designer fails. It primarily fails because it is based on analogous reasoning which is fallacious. Whilst human beings create complex products it does not follow that a designing intelligence is required to create the universe. This undermines the Argument from Design and its modern derivative of arguments for Intelligent Design.
Awesome video ;)
Dustin, life adapted based on what was available (distance from sun, temps, atmosphere, etc) not the other way around.
99% of ALL species that have ever lived are extinct - 99%. For an "intelligent" design that is one shitty track record.
I've heard every argument available for intelligent design and it always goes back to the same basic assumption - something can't come from nothing. Unless of course you are talking about the designer, then that rule doesn't apply.
What marinara sauce covered, omnipotent, flying, noodley, beer and stripper loving God made man....and midgets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel"EL DIABLO"Diaz
http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1216051883.jpg
Intelligent Design DOES exist Chris! It just has a LOT more pasta and sauce and midgets than previously thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Ludington
http://www.kn1ghtmare.com/images/FSM/IDballs.jpg
And here's the true history of "creation"
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=360&h=292
Intelligent design vs. random cosmic coincidence is based on presuppostion. The fact is this:
http://visual.ly/what-are-odds
The probability of our existence is pretty much zero. So some people say, wow, we MUST have been created! Other say, WOW it's a miracle that such a coincidence occurred!
So, you see, both sides have a legitimate right to believe in what they believe.
IMO, the improbability of all these occurrences happening in such a short period of time leads me to believe in a designer, not coincidence.
But that's just how I see it. When you have TOO many coincidences, it usually means someone is pulling the strings.
So let's just say there is a "creator", then what? Does this creator get to have a name? Does this creator get credit for all that it has created (love/hate, sickness/health, life/death)? Is the randomness in which people live and die just a cruel ass joke this "creator" is playing? And this is the small scale. When looking at the universe as a whole, this creator didn't have much ambition when it came to using "earth" as the test subject for life.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rosado
Did the "creator" say:
What's the point of attributing the entire universe to a single creator? What does that answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Creator of the universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by People that accept a "creator"
Ay homie, first off, please be a bit more mature about this. I'm not being condescending to you for having a differring view. I believe I should receive similar respect. I'll be cool about it since I know most people aren't into debating and usually don't know how to have a mature discussion. But I'll do my best to answer. I'll just have to rephrase your questions for you. I got nothing but love for you and all the folks on this board, homey. So let's keep it on that level.
So let's just say there is a "creator", then what?: well, it depends. Has this creator communicated with us? Do we know the purpose of the creator for creating us? Are we just an expirement? What did the creator create? Just organisms or all of existence? What is the creator? Hyper intelligent "Alien" or actual divine force? And without knowing who/what the creator is, and the creator's purpose, the "then what?" only leads to more questions.
Does this creator get to have a name?: Does the creator communicate with us or simply observe? Like I said, we need to know what the creator's purpose is before we can move on. But, let's say the creator DOES communicate with us; does the creator tell us His/Her name?
Does this creator get credit for all that it has created (love/hate, sickness/health, life/death)? : Depends on context. Again, what is the creator's purpose and intention? Does Ford get credit for car accidents? It depends on what the intentions are.
Is the randomness in which people live and die just a cruel ass joke this "creator" is playing? Who's to say it's random? Random to us? Maybe. What if this is all part of the plan for the creator? Again, it all goes back to: "What was the purpose of creation?" It could be a sadistic being to watch us suffer. It could be a benevolent being who's trying to show both the power of his wrath and the extent of his mercy. We could be trapped in an intergalactic war over whether we should be free or enslaved or wiped out. We don't know.
When looking at the universe as a whole, this creator didn't have much ambition when it came to using "earth" as the test subject for life.
: That operates under the pressuppostion that if you were a god, you'd do better. What's more amazing? The Taj Mahal or a nano computer? Well, if the creator was able to make huge celestial bodies, then he's able to create that. What if the creator is only a hyper intelligent alien and we're experiments? How is it any less impressive to make incredibly small organisms with so many amazing features? To me, both are insanely amazing. So if there is a creator, then a creator is able to use their discretion to make whatever they want. That being the case, if the creator did "zap" the earth and make organisms, what's it to you? What makes you believe that you'd have better discretion given those powers?
What's the point of attributing the entire universe to a single creator?
That depends. But let's suppose that there is a creator and it has communicated to us; we'd have to ask the creator what the point is. Maybe it's to help us evolve. Maybe it's to teach us. Maybe it's preparing us to join a huge utopian intergalactic civilization. Maybe it's a divine being that just wants credit for how great he is.
What does that answer?
It doesn't quite answer anything simply believing that there is a creator. There are only more questions that need answers.
Now there are a bunch of religions that try to answer all of the above questions. And there are so many other theories that don't involve religion at all. If I were you, if you care about knowledge, rather than accepting a convenient school of thought, I'd at least try to learn what others believe and see how much of it aligns itself with reality. There's a lot of crazy stuff in those books man.
Or maybe your mind won't change at all. But at the very least, maybe you'll be more educated and respect that even intelligent people can believe in a creator.
Creationism=/=Religion. Not all creationists believe in a religion.
I probably won't respond after this, but in the end, the truth is, we're all looking at the same evidence, but our presuppositions influence our conclusions. And knowing this, the least we can do is agree to disagree, and love eachother regardless.
Peace.