Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I fear that the corruption of the ID alternative "source" for the changes attributed to an undefined "Nature" or "natural" in Evolution Theory (Not a replacement of the theory) is too widespread to continue to use the Designer designation. The two versions of Evolution theory are: Guided evolution and Unguided evolution . . . THAT is what I have been discussing . . . NOT the Discovery Institute and the Creationists!
This has nothing to do with what I said. You gave a list of things we are currently ignorant of and gave this as evidence we must resort to using gods to fill in the cracks. Please explain why gods are any more useful than saying "we don't know".
Quote:
What you are trying to call "explanations" are speculations and there are many . . . but nothing "scientifically" corroborated . . . just consistent with findings as are the "guided" speculations. The simple reality is that wherever you can say it is "natural" (whatever) . . . you can insert it is "God's."
But why? There's no reason to add a god to the mix when it doesn't give us anything more than what we can explain via natural causes.
Quote:
The point is that it IS our IGNORANCE of the complex causal chains that makes it impossible for us to predict and requires the creation of probability distributions.
This is your assertion - now it's time to provide evidence. I gave you several examples of things which are thought by scientists to be truly random, but you claim they are wrong. Please let us know how you know this.
I asked earlier how you would define ID, but nary a peep.
It's way easier to defend something if you can change what it means without telling anyone else. You get to be right because you can simply say "no it isn't". Of course, if we don't know what ID IS, I'm not sure how it's possible to have any evidence in favor of it. But that's never stopped creationists before - they start with the conclusion and need to be convinced it's wrong rather than looking at the evidence to see what might be right.
Each consciousness (Self) exists as a composite in a non-physical substrate (field) that contains its composite characteristics. Any attempt to locate a "physical" representation fails to account for the self-referential nature of consciousness. (Sorry . . . this requires much more extensive explanation than is doable in this venue).It is proof of concept as the source of a field that consists of something (unmeasurable = non-baryonic) other than the existing four forces known to science (measurable = baryonic).I prefer the minority view of Fred Hoyle (now deceased) and his associates . . . the continuous creation theory of an always existent universe.
So you basically are saying that because we have self-referential consciousness that is unmeasurable, it is proof that (A) things can have a consciousness, and also is proof that (B) there is an unmeasurable field that contains the self-referential aspect of our conscious.
I agree with A, although there is still a disconnect because you are assuming that consciousness can apply to a non-biological object.
B is an untestable hypothesis, obviously, because it's unmeasurable (undetectable).
Not sure that this really gets you very far with your 'brand' of intelligent design 'theory'..
Intelligent design is not empirically falsifiable. Ergo, it's not a theory. It's an insult to rational inquiry and a cheap veneer for people trying to cloak dogma in sophistication.
Then, re-read. Then re-read. Then, re-read. Then re-read. Then, re-read. Then re-read. Then, re-read. Then re-read.
By then, you should have it down so you can repeat it on command.
This is the essence of the scientific method. Nothing else need be said.
Now, as to the logical concept of it, it fails on every analysis as well, even despite it's absence of scientific validity. It's dogmo-theistic crud with an obvious agenda.
My mother in law got me a second edition leather bound copy (from the late 1800s) of 'On the Origin of Species' for my birthday this year and I almost pee'd my pants.
I can't wait to delve into it but I need to wait for a few other books to come in the mail before I start. I know it's way over my head at this point, but I haven't been this excited to start a research project since college
The (unfortunately) late Stephen J. Gould did a wonderful job explaining Darwin. I also read the "Origin" and, as a writer Darwin didn't exactly keep you on the edge of your seat. His ideas were first rate. Gould explains in depth the works of Darwin and puts them in terms that anyone can understand. ( I got turned on to Gould back when he was doing monthly articles in "Natural History" magazine) I have been a fan of his for years.
This has nothing to do with what I said. You gave a list of things we are currently ignorant of and gave this as evidence we must resort to using gods to fill in the cracks. Please explain why gods are any more useful than saying "we don't know"
But why? There's no reason to add a god to the mix when it doesn't give us anything more than what we can explain via natural causes..
It isn't any more useful . . . it is just EQUALLY plausible. The deceptive use of "natural" as IF it is a more scientific explanation than God is what I find arrogant and irritating. What the hell does "natural" explain. What does it even mean in concrete terms . . ."it just is" . . . i.e. we have no idea but it isn't God. THAT latter addendum is what is unscientific and unconscionable.
Quote:
This is your assertion - now it's time to provide evidence. I gave you several examples of things which are thought by scientists to be truly random, but you claim they are wrong. Please let us know how you know this.
The entire notion of random is artificial and a construct of our mathematics . . . a creation of our mind!! To talk about something "truly random" as if there is some reality correlate is nonsense. It is a pattern of outcomes we do not understand . . . that's IT! (But we clever conscious beings have produced an artificial rubric with which we can assign frequencies of occurrence to model this unknown pattern with various degrees of confidence. Trying to make concrete comparisions to reality as if there is a real thing called "random" that comprises our reality because we can model it in the artificial rubric in our mind is ludicrous.
Consciousness is a unique function of brains. When you say "the universe is conscious.", you mean there is an universal-brain somewhere?
The word "function" is a euphemism for "we have no idea what it is, can't measure it, and can't ignore its reality, but it is produced by the brain."
Quote:
You are a religious person, go ahead make up some stories (this galaxy is God's dick, that galaxy is God's brain ...).
(Right, and why? It's not random.)
I am not a religious person . . .I acknowledge the reality of God and believe His human manifestation is Christ. Religions are man-made dogma and doctrine machines with ulterior purposes that have little to do with God or His purpose for us. I am a Christian Mystic because Christ is the human manifestation of God.
The word "function" is a euphemism for "we have no idea what it is, can't measure it, and can't ignore its reality, but it is produced by the brain."I am not a religious person . . .I acknowledge the reality of God and believe His human manifestation is Christ. Religions are man-made dogma and doctrine machines with ulterior purposes that have little to do with God or His purpose for us. I am a Christian Mystic because Christ is the human manifestation of God.
Then you are indeed religious, as without religion there would be no Jehovah or Christ.
The (unfortunately) late Stephen J. Gould did a wonderful job explaining Darwin. I also read the "Origin" and, as a writer Darwin didn't exactly keep you on the edge of your seat. His ideas were first rate. Gould explains in depth the works of Darwin and puts them in terms that anyone can understand. ( I got turned on to Gould back when he was doing monthly articles in "Natural History" magazine) I have been a fan of his for years.
I did order a copy of Gould's Ever since Darwin: reflections in natural history. It was recommended for me by a professor friend of mine who happens to be an evolutionary biologist in his spare time I ordered a few other as well, so they should help me understand Darwin a bit better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
