NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????


I'm not actualy an ID'er as you say, but I am a God botherer. Let me give you a lil bit of scripture to answer your question.


One Universal Creator God.
The Name Is Truth.
Creative Being Personified.
No Fear.
No Hatred.
Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent.
Known by Guru's Grace.
Chant And Meditate:
True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True.

Which means, in the beginging there was only God, God without fear or enemies, God who is beyond birth and death. God created and Gods creation is God. God can be known by us but only by Gods grace, God was true in the beginging, is true now, and when the universe is gone there will still be God.

I guess I am an ID'er in the sense that I believe that God created everything, but probably not in the sense that I don't think that's particularly science or that it should be taught at school.......you know, at all.

The most difficult thing to understand about God is this

God is.

I'll never tell you where i came from, so don't bother asking.

I guess I am an ID'er in the sense that I believe that God created everything, but probably not in the sense that I don't think that's particularly science or that it should be taught at school.......you know, at all.

The most difficult thing to understand about God is this

God is.


Heheh Or should that be I Am.

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????
It's turtles all the way down...

I'm not actualy an ID'er as you say, but I am a God botherer. Let me give you a lil bit of scripture to answer your question.


One Universal Creator God.
The Name Is Truth.
Creative Being Personified.
No Fear.
No Hatred.
Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent.
Known by Guru's Grace.
Chant And Meditate:
True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True.

Which means, in the beginging there was only God, God without fear or enemies, God who is beyond birth and death. God created and Gods creation is God. God can be known by us but only by Gods grace, God was true in the beginging, is true now, and when the universe is gone there will still be God.
Which boils down, I believe, to the origin of the Designer being irrelevant. If you assume there is one, the question doesn't matter. Asking that question is like the question once asked of Saint Augustine, what was God doing before he created the world and everything in it? The Saint answered that He was creating Hell for people who ask questions like that one.

Which boils down, I believe, to the origin of the Designer being irrelevant. If you assume there is one, the question doesn't matter. Asking that question is like the question once asked of Saint Augustine, what was God doing before he created the world and everything in it? The Saint answered that He was creating Hell for people who ask questions like that one.


Exactly or that it sort of makes sense that the creator's origin is beyond our ken.

How many machines ask where did my creator come from, and how many would understand an answer. Well none coz as far as I understand it machines are nort sentient, but you know wot I mean.

Which means, in the beginging there was only God,

And where did this "god" come from?


God is.

Is what?

Sorry if either question comes accross badly... I still don't understand how either of those answers the question. :(

Please explain further.

And where did this "god" come from?




Is what?

Sorry if either question comes accross badly... I still don't understand how either of those answers the question. :(

Please explain further.

Basicly, we don't know. Nor do we know where existance came from.

Which boils down, I believe, to the origin of the Designer being irrelevant. If you assume there is one, the question doesn't matter. Asking that question is like the question once asked of Saint Augustine, what was God doing before he created the world and everything in it? The Saint answered that He was creating Hell for people who ask questions like that one.

And if that's a serious answer, then god is esentially a sadistic monster.

Basicly, we don't know. Nor do we know where existance came from.

So why place faith in it?

And where did this "god" come from?

Heh perthaps we shall never know that, perhaps it is sufficiant to say that before anything existed there was only God, then God said let there be light, and Lo there was light.

Ask your self this one, where did the sky come from? When you have that answer, ask you self, yes but where did the thing that made the sky(or caused the sky to form if you like) come from. Then when you get that answer just keep asking the same question, untill you get bored or confussed or both, and then the idea of in the bigining there was just God, becomes a lot easiy to comprehend.

Is what?

Sorry if either question comes accross badly... I still don't understand how either of those answers the question. :(

Please explain further.
God is eternal, God is the begining and the end, God has been around forever, will be around forever, God is truth, He is time, He is everything, God is.

So why place faith in it?

Why believe that the universe exists, if we can't explain where that came from either?

So why place faith in it?

Shit why not?

When I think of asking serious questions to IDers, I imagine something like this:

"Hey, do you have a little monkey in you?"

"No."

"...do you want one?"

When I think of asking serious questions to IDers, I imagine something like this:

"Hey, do you have a little monkey in you?"

"No."

"...do you want one?"

Heheh yeah, can I steall that one?:D

I'm not actualy an ID'er as you say, but I am a God botherer. Let me give you a lil bit of scripture to answer your question.


One Universal Creator God.
The Name Is Truth.
Creative Being Personified.
No Fear.
No Hatred.
Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent.
Known by Guru's Grace.
Chant And Meditate:
True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages. True Here And Now. O Nanak, Forever And Ever True.

Which means, in the beginging there was only God, God without fear or enemies, God who is beyond birth and death. God created and Gods creation is God. God can be known by us but only by Gods grace, God was true in the beginging, is true now, and when the universe is gone there will still be God.
right. some some words say it in some old book somewhere.


hmm.

right. some some words say it in some old book somewhere.


hmm.


Heh shit mate belive or not I really don't care. I care about my soul, yours, well it matters not to me, you either belive or not, as God made you.

And if that's a serious answer, then god is esentially a sadistic monster.
Or Saint Augustine was. He's not my favorite person, I have to admit, more than a little too grim for me, and very much a part of making Original Sin part of Christian dogma. If you read the Old Testament, God does have a pretty sadistic (by our standards) nature. He has his lucid moments but He's very much concerned with making sure his People worship Him properly by putting them through as many nasty tests as possible.

Heh shit mate belive or not I really don't care. I care about my soul, yours, well it matters not to me, you either belive or not, as God made you.
i don't really care either, i just think its a poor way of answering the question in the OP. some old words prove nothing and don't answer the question is all

Can't you just as easily ask an evolutionist how the basketball-sized hunk of tightly compacted matter that preceded the big bang came into existence?

Heheh yeah, can I steall that one?:D

Go for it.

Let me know if it works...

Can't you just as easily ask an evolutionist how the basketball-sized hunk of tightly compacted matter that preceded the big bang came into existence?

That has nothing to do with evolution, but it's still a valid point.

That has nothing to do with evolution, . . .

Point taken.

Can't you just as easily ask an evolutionist how the basketball-sized hunk of tightly compacted matter that preceded the big bang came into existence?

What the hell is an Evolutionist?

What the hell is an Evolutionist?

Poor word choice on my part, but you get the drift.

Can't you just as easily ask an evolutionist how the basketball-sized hunk of tightly compacted matter that preceded the big bang came into existence?

You could, but thats beside the point: Intelligent Design advocates (and others) argue that because something (i.e the universe) exists, it must have a cause/designer/creator who made it exist.

So by asking IDers: "Well, if that's the case, what's the ahem Intelligent Designer's cause/designer/creator?" we are applying their own reasoning to their hypothesized universal creator.

Except that doesn't seem to work for them. Because they apply their logic inconsistently. I believe that is what the OP is getting at with this question.

You could, but thats beside the point: Intelligent Design advocates (and others) argue that because something (i.e the universe) exists, it must have a cause/designer/creator who made it exist.

So by asking IDers: "Well, if that's the case, what's the ahem Intelligent Designer's cause/designer/creator?" we are applying their own reasoning to their hypothesized universal creator.

Except that doesn't seem to work for them. Because they apply their logic inconsistently. I believe that is what the OP is getting at with this question.
Probably right, about the OP. But the Designer's origin, to an IDer, is irrelevant. It is an inconsistent application of the logic they want applied everywhere else, but it happens because ID is ultimately (you should pardon the expression) faith-based, whereas Science is fact-based. One may not like the facts, and one may certainly try to prove them wrong, but there they are.

Probably right, about the OP. But the Designer's origin, to an IDer, is irrelevant. It is an inconsistent application of the logic they want applied everywhere else, but it happens because ID is ultimately (you should pardon the expression) faith-based, whereas Science is fact-based. One may not like the facts, and one may certainly try to prove them wrong, but there they are.

Of course. That's I think what the OP is illustrating: that logical proofs for god (as applied by IDers, as well as old Tommie Aquinas) are all flawed, because in the end its about faith, not logic, and certainly not proof.

You could ask the same questions of Darwinists also. Keep going back - where did single-cell life come from - then well were did the elements come from - you get the picture.

You could ask the same questions of Darwinists also. Keep going back - where did single-cell life come from - then well were did the elements come from - you get the picture.

And the answers will be "I don't know yet but we're still looking" in comparison to "We don't know so God did it, we're done here".

And the answers will be "I don't know yet but we're still looking" in comparison to "We don't know so God did it, we're done here".
Absolutely. I made this point in one of these (increasingly) silly threads, that by saying "We don't know, God did it," you restrict God's role to only those things we haven't figured out, you make Him the God of the Gaps. Over time He gets smaller and smaller ...

Can't you just as easily ask an evolutionist how the basketball-sized hunk of tightly compacted matter that preceded the big bang came into existence?
And they'll tell you there are couple of theories about that. The most popular one at the time being that it was an intersection of branes that caused. This is just hypothetical and more experimentation is needed, though. Stay tuned.

That's a very different answer from what you'd get from an IDer.

Absolutely. I made this point in one of these (increasingly) silly threads, that by saying "We don't know, God did it," you restrict God's role to only those things we haven't figured out, you make Him the God of the Gaps. Over time He gets smaller and smaller ...

And you'll keep having to repeat yourself over and over again as the same non-arguement is made over and over.

And you'll keep having to repeat yourself over and over again as the same non-arguement is made over and over.
Maybe I should write it up once, stash it in a document and then just cut and paste ... nah, I'll get called a spammer. A "spanner" is more along the lines of what I'd like to ... :rolleyes:

Absolutely. I made this point in one of these (increasingly) silly threads, that by saying "We don't know, God did it," you restrict God's role to only those things we haven't figured out, you make Him the God of the Gaps. Over time He gets smaller and smaller ...

"Is your God getting smaller? Is His greatness just not satisfying? If so, He may be suffering from im-omnipotence. Call our toll-free number about Intelligent Design, nicknamed as the 'Viagra of God.' You'll never have to be ashamed again!" :)

Ask your self this one, where did the sky come from? When you have that answer, ask you self, yes but where did the thing that made the sky(or caused the sky to form if you like) come from. Then when you get that answer just keep asking the same question, untill you get bored or confussed or both, and then the idea of in the bigining there was just God, becomes a lot easiy to comprehend.

So you are saying that God is the answer for the lazy people who refuse to keep thinking ?

"Is your God getting smaller? Is His greatness just not satisfying? If so, He may be suffering from im-omnipotence. Call our toll-free number about Intelligent Design, nicknamed as the 'Viagra of God.' You'll never have to be ashamed again!" :)
Oh, man, Iknow where you're spending the rest of eternity. :D

So you are saying that God is the answer for the lazy people who refuse to keep thinking ?
Uhm, well, in the nicest possible way, yes. I'm not saying that religious people aren't thoughtful, they are, but in this subject - intelligent design - the ultimate answer - when you reach the end of your understanding of a natural phenomenon - is "ID did it."

And the answers will be "I don't know yet but we're still looking" in comparison to "We don't know so God did it, we're done here".

Nice try but it's more like this: "all the evidence suggests that the only way this thing can exist is for it to be designed, so we must presume there is a designer", rather then: "we don't know where this came from so therefor there is a god".

It's easy to be manipulative by twisting what IDism is, but it's annoying as well.

Nice try but it's more like this: "all the evidence suggests that the only way this thing can exist is for it to be designed, so we must presume there is a designer"

Then by all means, share with us how *exactly* that would be determined.
The ID movement will probably give you a medal, since they still have not gotten further than "irreducible complexity" and "design inference" - both concepts that have been shown to simply not work.

To repeat your own remark: it's easy to be manipulative by twisting what IDism is, but it's annoying as well.

Then by all means, share with us how *exactly* that would be determined.
The ID movement will probably give you a medal, since they still have not gotten further than "irreducible complexity" and "design inference" - both concepts that have been shown to simply not work.

To repeat your own remark: it's easy to be manipulative by twisting what IDism is, but it's annoying as well.

I am not here to debate the scientific merit of the theory, i am just debating that it cannot be logically wrong but it could be scientifically wrong. It depends how you interperet the evidence.

Nice try but it's more like this: "all the evidence suggests that the only way this thing can exist is for it to be designed, so we must presume there is a designer", rather then: "we don't know where this came from so therefor there is a god".

It's easy to be manipulative by twisting what IDism is, but it's annoying as well.

No, more like, "We believe some evidence points to a designer so we're going to assume there is one even though there is no evidence for one whatsoever and can't be disproven." which completely negates it as a scientific hypothesis, nevermind a theory.

Since ID came from the "scientists" at the ICR, and the main ID literature has had "creationism" text replaced, it walks like a duck.

I am not here to debate the scientific merit of the theory, i am just debating that it cannot be logically wrong but it could be scientifically wrong. It depends how you interperet the evidence.

But there is NO evidence for it. NONE. Anywhere. It even fails logically. If something designed requires the assumption of a creator, then something has to have created the creator as well.

I am not here to debate the scientific merit of the theory, i am just debating that it cannot be logically wrong but it could be scientifically wrong. It depends how you interperet the evidence.

Do you however agree that some interpretations have more value than others ? After all, I could interpret the yellowness of lemons to be evidence that George Bush is a monkey - but objectively I would argue that that is quite a silly thing to do.

Do you however agree that some interpretations have more value than others ? After all, I could interpret the yellowness of lemons to be evidence that George Bush is a monkey - but objectively I would argue that that is quite a silly thing to do.

I believe that, at the moment ID is the only theory that uses complexity as evidence. So anyone who disagrees with ID is interpretating the evidence another way.

Basicly, we don't know. Nor do we know where existance came from.
It didn't come from anywhere; existence simply is. There is no predicate, as Kant would say. Existence exists, as Rand said.

But there is NO evidence for it. NONE. Anywhere. It even fails logically. If something designed requires the assumption of a creator, then something has to have created the creator as well.

If you found a computer in the forest. That has no writing on or anything, just a bunch of microchips and stuff. Because there is no "evidence" it was not designed, would you assume it was just a bunch of particles floating together to suddenly produce this.

I believe that, at the moment ID is the only theory that uses complexity as evidence. So anyone who disagrees with ID is interpretating the evidence another way.

That depends. The ID movement has sofar carefully avoided to define what they mean when they use the word "complexity", so I cannot judge if I agree with their interpretations or not.

First step for IDers to be taken seriously: stop dodging.

If you found a computer in the forest. That has no writing on or anything, just a bunch of microchips and stuff. Because there is no "evidence" it was not designed, would you assume it was just a bunch of particles floating together to suddenly produce this.

No, because I know by empirical evidence, observation, and testing that computers are built in factories and designed by human beings. Also that the materials used are processed and refined to be produced.

There is no such empirical evidence, observation, or testing to support the belief of ID.

If you found a computer in the forest. That has no writing on or anything, just a bunch of microchips and stuff. Because there is no "evidence" it was not designed, would you assume it was just a bunch of particles floating together to suddenly produce this.
No, because we know that computers are designed. A proponent of ID might say, "This computer must have been designed by someone." A scientist might say, "Who the heck left this computer out here in the woods?"

Take the flagellum question. Looks "irreducibly complex," right? But doesn't that "irreducibly complex" just mean that we don't understand how it came together? The way ID uses "irreducibly complex" implies that we will never understand how such a thing came to be, which seems to me a terribly limiting outlook.

Take the flagellum question. Looks "irreducibly complex," right? But doesn't that "irreducibly complex" just mean that we don't understand how it came together? The way ID uses "irreducibly complex" implies that we will never understand how such a thing came to be, which seems to me a terribly limiting outlook.

For completeness sake, it should be mentioned that it was already known the flagellum wasn't irreducibly complex even before Behe used it as the ID posterchild. Less complex versions had already been observed in other bacteria.

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????

This universe is someone's science experiment. The other person lives in the outer-verse (we're the inner-verse) and surmised the exact conditions of gravity, matter to antimater ratio. He then created a 26-dimensional universe which, because it was in a high energy state, collapsed into our present 11-dimensional universe with a release of energy that eventually formed an expanding bubble that eventually gave rise to galaxies, planets, and human life.

Our universe is sitting on a folding table with paperboard panels behind it describing the scientific method. Our creator got a B+.

Can we stop with the technological bits and pieces sitting by themselves in unlikely places? We get the analogy.

Our universe is sitting on a folding table with paperboard panels behind it describing the scientific method. Our creator got a B+.
Don't think this hasn't occurred to me, and I think a B+ is generous.

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????
Who cares?

Before we give them the honor of asking questions about their "theory," IDers need to prove that they have a theory in the first place.

To do this, they must present their theory complete with its hypotheses, and they must provide a series of experiments which can be used to test each hypothesis. The explanation of the experiments must include a description of the results which would disprove each hypothesis.

Until this is done, there is no reason for anybody to waste time paying the least bit of attention to the sloppy, lazy, dishonest "theory" that they are attempting to pass off as science.

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????

When you believe in GOD, you believe in some great power which is beyond physical laws that require a beginning. GOD was always there. Then you may ask, why dont we say instead that universe has always been there? Because we know that it indeed has a beginnig.

Which boils down, I believe, to the origin of the Designer being irrelevant. If you assume there is one, the question doesn't matter. Asking that question is like the question once asked of Saint Augustine, what was God doing before he created the world and everything in it? The Saint answered that He was creating Hell for people who ask questions like that one.
LOL! I'm a Christian, loosely at least, and that's still the funniest thing I've ever heard.

And ID is ridiculous, if you attempt to describe it as science. A creator such as what we believe to exist would be outside science, and hence it can't be tested as a hypothesis. Big whoop. Our answers are all in a book, and Big Bang theorists don't have any. So.... I guess I just can't draw the energy to get involved in this sort of debate with any degree of heart anymore.

Since we seem to have a number of recent poster agruin ID, if an intelligent designer created the universe, where did the IDer come from? Wa it designed by a precursor? Of so, repeat the question for thge precursor. If not, the what's the origin of the IDer????
See, that's the thing that is completely illogical. God just was and is. Why? Well, because he is. It's one of the things that I really like about my religion, because if I ever need something to blow my mind (or piss off some logical tart), I always have "In the beginning, there was God."

No, because we know that computers are designed. A proponent of ID might say, "This computer must have been designed by someone." A scientist might say, "Who the heck left this computer out here in the woods?"

Take the flagellum question. Looks "irreducibly complex," right? But doesn't that "irreducibly complex" just mean that we don't understand how it came together? The way ID uses "irreducibly complex" implies that we will never understand how such a thing came to be, which seems to me a terribly limiting outlook.

Maybe that was a bad example, but for the very first life form. The fact that it's DNA is so much more complicated then a computer, and it would be extremely massively unlikely that the parts just floated together that way, some people would find it more rational to believe it was designed.

Who cares?

Before we give them the honor of asking questions about their "theory," IDers need to prove that they have a theory in the first place.

To do this, they must present their theory complete with its hypotheses, and they must provide a series of experiments which can be used to test each hypothesis. The explanation of the experiments must include a description of the results which would disprove each hypothesis.

Until this is done, there is no reason for anybody to waste time paying the least bit of attention to the sloppy, lazy, dishonest "theory" that they are attempting to pass off as science.

Just as some religious people are stubborn and dogmatic about the existance of religion, you are stubborn and dogmatic about the non-existance of GOD. Different opinions but same way of thinking, which is idiotic.
So, what theory meterialists have?


Evidence (E): There exists a complex physical system of material objects of varying sizes and characteristics that are connected in space and time, and which behave and interact according to a relatively small number of basic physical laws.



E includes many facts that are unlikely on the materialist hypothesis, for on that hypothesis the existence of the Universe and its order is ultimately a chance phenomenon. But this would require an amazing series of coincidences. Although natural processes (e.g., evolution) may explain the development of complex life forms from more simple ones, all such explanations presuppose very fundamental laws of physics. Such scientific explanations are not ultimate explanations of E. We are still faced with a dazzling array of coordinated physical laws that make our universe and many of its important features possible.

Life => Carbon =>Stars (stable and massive) =>Hydrogen atoms and gravitational force

1. The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history. But if rate of expansion could not vary much, neither could gravitational forces, for the rate of expansion depends on gravitational forces.

(2) If strong nuclear force is increased by 2%, there would be no protons (and hence no atoms)

(3) If the weak nuclear force is slightly stronger or weaker, there would be no hydrogen.

1. If slightly stronger, then hydrogen would be turned to helium.

2. If slightly weaker, then neutrons would not decay into protons.

1. If electromagnetism was slightly increased or decreased, stars would either be too cold or too hot. Gravity is 1039 weaker than electromagnetism. If it were 1033 weaker, then stars would be a billion times less massive and burn a million times faster.

2. Electrons must be much less massive than the proton for solids to exist.

3. Stable nucleides (basis for chemistry and biology) require neutron-proton mass difference to be exactly twice the electron's mass (otherwise neutrons would all be turned into protons or vice-versa).

The existence of the universe today can be explained with reference to its state yesterday (along with the relevant physical laws). And the mere existence of material objects and physical laws can lead us to expect many of the phenomena exhibited in the history of our Universe. But what leads us to expect that there should be anything at all? And why should the Universe that has existed and exists today be the way it is with respect to its most fundamental laws? Chance and theism are the two primary explanations to these ultimate cosmic questions.

and I think a B+ is generous.
LOL, then you try to create something that lasts for 4 billion years. It's not as easy as it sounds....

But you can check out the one in my bottom drawer if you need a model!

In the other thread about ID, I realized that one of things stopping communication is the idea that scientists don't spend any time at all with the idea that there may be a creator of everything. I don't think this is true. I think that there are many scientists who cannot ignore the fact that that is one of the possibilities out there. And that this idea is both with scientists of faith and those without with a minority being adamantly against the very idea of even suggesting such a thing.

The problem is, we have no way to test for a God simply by the very definition of what a God is. Until we have such a way to test for it, God can never be a part of a scientific theory. That doesn't mean that God can't be a part of some questions but the answer to the God question has a very short answer and is not what a lot of ID proponents like to hear.

LOL, then you try to create something that lasts for 4 billion years. It's not as easy as it sounds....

But you can check out the one in my bottom drawer if you need a model!
Yeah, but 4 billion years might just be a semester to the Designer! And I ain't goin' anywhere near your drawers. :p

LOL, then you try to create something that lasts for 4 billion years. It's not as easy as it sounds....

But you can check out the one in my bottom drawer if you need a model!

Ah, but it's 4b years in the inner-verse. Outer-verse time doesn't run the same. In reality, 12 hours have passed to the creator.

The B+ was for ingenuity in actually creating a planet with life forms. Points were taken for style, sloppy presentation, and the fact that it will someday collapse in on itself from its own gravity.

The creator said this was by design, so he didn't have to clean up the mess. The teacher was unmoved.

Maybe that was a bad example, but for the very first life form. The fact that it's DNA is so much more complicated then a computer, and it would be extremely massively unlikely that the parts just floated together that way, some people would find it more rational to believe it was designed.

Some people believe lots of silly things.

DNA also changes over time. It is organic. This has been empirically tested and repeated. Science has also created simple protiens in early earth models.

Just because it's 'unlikely', is not evidence for an "intelligent designer".

ID is a belief. It was started as a modification of creationism by creationists.

Are you familiar w/ the concept known as the "Wedge Strategy"?

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

LOL, then you try to create something that lasts for 4 billion years.

I thought it was 6000 :p ?

Just as some religious people are stubborn and dogmatic about the existance of religion, you are stubborn and dogmatic about the non-existance of GOD.

I don't believe anything whatsoever in my post refered to "God." That is your mistaken assumption.

I simply hold all people to the same standard. If ID proponents want their myths to be discussed as scientific theory, then they must follow the same rules as everybody else: present the material as a scientific theory. If they will not do that, then they should not expect their myths to be discussed as "theory."

Different opinions but same way of thinking, which is idiotic.
God =/= ID. Plenty of people who believe in God are quite capable of recognizing ID for what it is.

God =/= ID. Plenty of people who believe in God are quite capable of recognizing ID for what it is.

Thank you. And conversely, there are those of us who've believed in ID for a long time who are now being falsely labeled as Christian Fundies because they hijacked our beliefs and paraded them around as pseudo-science.

Maybe that was a bad example, but for the very first life form. The fact that it's DNA is so much more complicated then a computer, and it would be extremely massively unlikely that the parts just floated together that way, some people would find it more rational to believe it was designed.
Ah, but who said the first life form's DNA was all that complex? It didn't need to be. In fact, it could have been RNA, not DNA. Assembled on a clay substrate. The "parts" were a lot more concentrated back then, probably, so they could very well have "floated together." We don't know. Will we ever find out? I like to think so, because I like to look forward to the advancement of human knowledge.

Thank you. And conversely, there are those of us who've believed in ID for a long time who are now being falsely labeled as Christian Fundies because they hijacked our beliefs and paraded them around as pseudo-science.
Hell, the idea that the world was "intelligently designed" has existed for thousands of years longer than Christianity has! It's not a new theory at all. What's new is the idea that superstition should be presented as science.

I don't have a problem with creation myths. There are some really, really cool ones out there. I've got a book of them, as a matter of fact, and it's one of my favorites.

What I have a problem with is when certain people think they are above the rules. What I have a problem with is when certain people dishonestly try to get special treatment for their pet myths, and refuse to be bound by the same standards as everybody else. What deeply offends me is when scientists spend lifetimes studying, researching, and accumulating evidence, and then some yahoo walks in with a scrap of paper that says, "God did it," and the yahoo wants his "theory" to be granted equal weight in scientific discussions.

If somebody wants to believe God made the world, that's up to them. But if they want to pretend that their beliefs are "scientific," then they're going to have to back that shit up. :)

I usually make it a point not to post in threads like this (or in any thread really), but the science experiment broke the ice for me. Now, I'm most definitly not ID person, and I definitly follow science all the way with this. I mentioned the science experiment joke/analogy/call-it-what-you-will because of the mention of the amount of dimensions in this universe. (I realize I'm being very round-about with my point, but I'll wrap it up eventually) What if we discovered that our origin (theory points to the Big Bang here) is actually our end? Our universe was a closed system? Towards the end of all existance, a chain reaction occurs that produces a mass amounts of energy that does two things: Pulls all matter towards one point, thus the Big Bang, and causes a shift in the fourth dimension, thus pulling all matter back to the begining, and we start over. Wouldn't that be wonderful? To know the end was the begining, the begining is the end? Course, then one can ask "where did the closed system come from?" Really, the whole argument is pointless, because we can always ask for the step before. And just as a poke to the ribs of ID'ers, it's ludicrous to think that your god is always there, ever-present. Even if such a being existed, there would be something to precede him/her/it.

Oh, man, Iknow where you're spending the rest of eternity. :D

Nah, God has to have a sense of humor.
Look at the platypus.
The giraffe.
Humans.

No disrespect meant, but human males particularly carry their genitals in a very awkward and easy to damage place...

I usually make it a point not to post in threads like this (or in any thread really), but the science experiment broke the ice for me. Now, I'm most definitly not ID person, and I definitly follow science all the way with this. I mentioned the science experiment joke/analogy/call-it-what-you-will because of the mention of the amount of dimensions in this universe. (I realize I'm being very round-about with my point, but I'll wrap it up eventually) What if we discovered that our origin (theory points to the Big Bang here) is actually our end? Our universe was a closed system? Towards the end of all existance, a chain reaction occurs that produces a mass amounts of energy that does two things: Pulls all matter towards one point, thus the Big Bang, and causes a shift in the fourth dimension, thus pulling all matter back to the begining, and we start over. Wouldn't that be wonderful? To know the end was the begining, the begining is the end? Course, then one can ask "where did the closed system come from?" Really, the whole argument is pointless, because we can always ask for the step before. And just as a poke to the ribs of ID'ers, it's ludicrous to think that your god is always there, ever-present. Even if such a being existed, there would be something to precede him/her/it.
I do hope if that's the case that the next iteration isn't just a repeat of this one.

Now, what if I believe God was created by another god, who in turn was created by another god, ad infinitum?

There are two ways of looking at this.

1. If all things that are irreducibly complex need a designer, isn't that designer irreducibly complex, and thus need a designer of his own? And doesn't this extend infinitely, and thus make the explanation entirely meaningless?

2. If the designer created the universe, and one feature of the universe is the linear time we experience, then the designer must exist outside of that linear time, which makes the question of what came before the designer meaningless.

There are two ways of looking at this.

1. If all things that are irreducibly complex need a designer, isn't that designer irreducibly complex, and thus need a designer of his own? And doesn't this extend infinitely, and thus make the explanation entirely meaningless?

2. If the designer created the universe, and one feature of the universe is the linear time we experience, then the designer must exist outside of that linear time, which makes the question of what came before the designer meaningless.
I think someone said back aways, it's turtles all the way down. Or was that this thread?

2. If the designer created the universe, and one feature of the universe is the linear time we experience, then the designer must exist outside of that linear time, which makes the question of what came before the designer meaningless.

...So, isn't the universe eternal too? Considering time is part of the universe and all...

...So, isn't the universe eternal too? Considering time is part of the universe and all...


If time is part of the universe, then the universe isn't eternal.

No disrespect meant, but human males particularly carry their genitals in a very awkward and easy to damage place...

That's true and we like it that way!

It takes courage to walk around knowing someone could bash you there and cause great pain. That's why you have to have balls to have balls. :p