Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Silversoul]
    #4755443 -

I thought someone meant the ID as in "ego and ID" - just my ego, I guess
now I have unballanced this thread and I am unravelling in embarrassment.

Intelligent Design (not ID as in "ego and ID") is not science by any measure or consideration. while ID as in ID in "ego and ID" is part of science.

Intelligent design is the embodiment of backwards thinking, like deja vu - "if this is beautiful let us thank the artist", but it is nature, the art is in our own appreciation, no external agency need be involved in the totality of nature.

unfortunately most people understand Evolution backwards as well which makes many of the minor arguments too much more meaningful than they should be in the silly contexts that they are waged (and I have done nothing to help with my "ego and ID").


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4755640 -

exactly


--------------------

http://www.myspace.com/sarasotafnb
http://www.wcwtampa.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4755753 -

This is something i've been trying to tell people for many years. It's the extremists on each end of the spectrum that don't think it's possible for evolution and intelligent design to coexist. I believe in a combination of the two and, for me, they complement each other.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #4755976 -

psilocyberin said:
No one has talked about the imminent by-product of all this. If ID can be taught in science class, then why cant evolution/big bang theory be mandated in theology and philosophy classes?
Furthermore, what would then stop the creation of the church of human secularism, which gets tax free EVERYTHING as well as government endowments and such.

I mean, who actually pays attention in high school, or who even, by the time they get to X science class where they teach these two opposing ideas hasnt already made up their mind.
By the time 7-8th grade biology or environmental science rolls around, these kids will have been either evolutionist, or creationist for years.


um since when isn't evolution/big bang theory discussed in philosophy classes? are you suggesting philosophy is only taught with a theistic presupposition? secondly, if i recall correctly, philosophy and theology classes are not part of the standard high school curriculum. my high school did not offer a single "theology class". what would there be to mandate? also whether the kids were evolutionist/creationist is irrevelent, some people are undecided and others change their minds.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4755992 -

redgreenvines said:
I thought someone meant the ID as in "ego and ID" - just my ego, I guess
now I have unballanced this thread and I am unravelling in embarrassment.

Intelligent Design (not ID as in "ego and ID") is not science by any measure or consideration. while ID as in ID in "ego and ID" is part of science.

Intelligent design is the embodiment of backwards thinking, like deja vu - "if this is beautiful let us thank the artist", but it is nature, the art is in our own appreciation, no external agency need be involved in the totality of nature.

unfortunately most people understand Evolution backwards as well which makes many of the minor arguments too much more meaningful than they should be in the silly contexts that they are waged (and I have done nothing to help with my "ego and ID").


but when you say "totality of nature" emphasis is still on the whole rather than a specific part. for example if i see a beautiful tree outside i'm aware that the tree doesn't exist on its own but as part of the totality of nature which created it. therefore rather than worshiping the tree itself, it makes more sense to think of the totality of nature. this is essentially the same as the concept of God ( don't thank me, thank God).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4757452 -

until the intelligent dsign hypothesis can be tested, it will remain pseudoscience...

thus far no one has devised a test that will either prove or disprove intelligent design...

and the one question intelligent design proponents will not and cannot answer is, what is the origin of the supposed designer?

was there an intelligent designer for the intelligent designer? surely an intelligent designer who can create such an elegant design for the universe could not have come about except by intervention of an even greater intelligence...


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #4757549 -

I say, explore god with all means, then try a hypothesis which can be tested :wink:
I am quite sure, humans will find something behind existence somedays in the future, what they are able to proof and interpret.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #4758001 -

the only "evidence" that ID theorists have is Dembeski's "Design Filter" which is also used in the SETI project. Basically it's a process that determines probablity. If a pattern has a certain degree of improbability and all alternative explainations are discounted, then it supposedly indicates design.

The only problem with this is that the results are not falsifiable. Using the "design filter" we can only search for negative characteristics (or the absence of characteristics) but we can never affirm characteristics of design. All we can do is say "well, we've checked off all other alternatives. All that's left is design by an intelligence."

This is an extremely abstract inference! And since design can only be confirmed by this method, and not falsified, then this method does not stand up to the criteria for a valid scientific theory.


--------------------

http://www.myspace.com/sarasotafnb
http://www.wcwtampa.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4758133 -

premises of intelligence consciousness and or design with which seti was conceived, may not be correct.
fractal patterns seem designed and are basically chaos.

is this about making up a new creation myth?
or about which club we are members of?


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4758165 -

that's interesting, that's like saying designers are not part of nature. brain are chaotic systems, biological, natural systems. even the most "designed" pattern is "undesigned" from a certain perspective, and vice versa it seems.

IOW an arbitrary, useless concept IMO.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4759196 -

MikeOLogical said:
until the intelligent dsign hypothesis can be tested, it will remain pseudoscience...

thus far no one has devised a test that will either prove or disprove intelligent design...

and the one question intelligent design proponents will not and cannot answer is, what is the origin of the supposed designer?

was there an intelligent designer for the intelligent designer? surely an intelligent designer who can create such an elegant design for the universe could not have come about except by intervention of an even greater intelligence...


who says they will not answer it? they will say the original designer also designed time and therefore always was.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4759412 -

the original designer would have to be so complex that it is unfathomable that it came about without the help of a supremely intelligent being


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4759415 -

crunchy, that's exactly what the ID theorists are saying, that high degrees of order can not come from chaos...

but we know from fractals and chaos theory that this is not necessarily true.


--------------------

http://www.myspace.com/sarasotafnb
http://www.wcwtampa.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4759421 -

MikeOLogical said:
the original designer would have to be so complex that it is unfathomable that it came about without the help of a supremely intelligent being


ah! A paradox! lol!


--------------------

http://www.myspace.com/sarasotafnb
http://www.wcwtampa.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4759748 -

MikeOLogical said:
the original designer would have to be so complex that it is unfathomable that it came about without the help of a supremely intelligent being


why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4760857 -

because surely if the universe is so complex that it cannot come about without the help of an intelligent designer, then the designer of the universe would have to be even more complex, such a designer would need an even greater intelligence to be designed... and then you're left with the paradox of who designed the designer of the designer...


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #4760948 -

no, not if everything is the expression of only one intelligence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: redgreenvines]
    #4761121 -

redgreenvines said:
Annom said:
Paradigm
The hypothesis that the earth was created in 7 days is the same as ID. ...


no it isn't
one is a metaphor in which the idea of creation is embedded as a closed issue, and the other is a collection of mechanisms that are directly observed repeatedly and consistently not fully understood - being an open case for ongoing investigation.

I find the comparison dangerously misleading


Funny that everything in the bible that is obviously crazy is a metaphor.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: Deviate]
    #4761212 -

Deviate said:
no, not if everything is the expression of only one intelligence.


But that is the very ARGUMENT of the ID theory, that biological complexity must be a result of design. The designer most definitely is going to be complex. IDT refutes the idea that specified-complexity (or irreducible complexity) can come out of a system that is not specifically (or irreducibly complex). Therefore, such a complex creator must have been designed, and IF NOT, then such a creator can just happen out of nowhere, or by complete chance, then the whole premises of IDT goes out the window!


--------------------

http://www.myspace.com/sarasotafnb
http://www.wcwtampa.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate [Re: dr0mni]
    #4763392 -

I think, to discuss ID, we should forget about our well known linearity of time, as it is obvious for me, that design and evolution will mix only in the future. We are constantly under constructrion, aren't we ? So, were does design will lead us ? Is it related to total order, which is equal to death (which is the rooting-point of all life) ? Or lies the design, what will lead us to something, allready in the process ? I think, it lies in the process, and so can not be that external. We use to mistake something, we don't know and can't measure so far, to be external. Common fault.

If we will look from the (optimal designed) futute to the (not so well designed) past, the vision could get clearer (but for me still clouded somehow at the moment). Interesting how the optimal design just got channeld to the immense singularity of bigbang... I have to contemplate :grin:

Or this expression of ID doesn't lead anywhere, because so many misinterpretations could be inside ?

Now I stop, as I get confused :grin:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Intelligent Design
( 1 2 all )		 djd586 3,329 22 12/18/03 03:32 PM
by fireworks_god
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,681 10 12/09/07 07:38 PM
by Holly
* Creationist Propaganda
( 1 2 all )		 Viveka 1,826 22 04/21/04 04:31 PM
by Viveka
* Is evolution still being debated???
( 1 2 all )		 GoBlue! 4,437 34 11/29/02 08:14 AM
by Adamist
* Science and Pseudoscience
( 1 2 3 all )		 Huehuecoyotl 3,722 49 01/25/05 05:30 AM
by oceansize
* A debate on the subject of the morality of drug use. neuro 1,942 7 02/21/03 05:10 AM
by Sclorch
* Spiritual Debate: Which is more necessary for humanity.... tekramrepus 1,803 18 06/17/03 03:22 PM
by ViBrAnT
* assessing intelligence Phencyclidine 1,407 16 05/25/04 01:00 AM
by Phencyclidine

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,110 topic views. 0 members, 81 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.