Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

^^^^Yes folks, these are the words of an atheist

oh go fukk yourself man.

WTF are you blabbing about?

Again, this is your argument:

"The universe is so complex and some ratios exist based on equations that make simplistic assumptions, and because it seems implausible for life to have formed, it must be impossible without a creator"

Get the fukk outta here with that appeal to ignorance.

You're a complete idiot for even trying to connect this shyt.

EVEN IF SUCH EQUATIONS COULD CALCULATE ALL VARIABLES IN THE UNIVERSE, THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THERE IS A "CREATOR"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I watched the video, again, the premise of the video was that imperfect design proves evolution at work, which is in fact an assumption, not a fact. A bad design simply means a bad design. Are we gonna say a 1989 Ford Taurus was an act of evolution? Again, ID is not about PERFECT design, it's about INTELLIGENT design.

How do you distinguish between the two?

Oh, because the force of an object can be measured by its mass and acceleration therefore ...creator?

WTF are you saying?

 

[blackzeus]

To our knowledge, which is limited to a small amount of information

Even if said ratio did exist at a consistent rate...so???

what reason (read: arrogance) do you have to assert that it should be some fluctuating number?

Why 1 MB? Why not 1 Kb? See why this argument is bullshyt?

Even if you don't believe in randomness taking preference in a unique corner of the universe, that it happened makes it possible.

You don't get to keep talking out of your ass about how "impossible" it is.

So?


None of this means theres a creator

You the type of the dude to see a villa in Sevilla and see the same exact one in Chile yet argue with somebody that they are of different origins Again, let's just agree to disagree, for me it was over when you said there was no correlation between observation and statistics

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Can someone explain to me why evolution cant be a part of the intelligent design?

Evolution selects traits based on mutations, natural selection, and random variance

ID removes that mechanism and asserts that things were "developed" along some specific and single pathway.

Theres no evidence of this.

Evolution isn't teleological...as in, it doesn't lead towards an end. It just keeps going

ID was created in response to evolutionary arguments so as to remove the agency of the unknown and place it into pseudo-deities and allow theists their opportunity to insert their "single source" hypothesis into everything. Its unscientific, and inherently rhetorically flawed.

@blackzeus's entire argument rests on the fact he thinks everything is impossible therefore it all has a creator.

His own ignorance is defining the tenets of his argument.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You the type of the dude to see a villa in Sevilla and see the same exact one in Chile yet argue with somebody that they are of different origins Again, let's just agree to disagree, for me it was over when you said there was no correlation between observation and statistics

Theres no connection between observation and the statistics you're perverting.

You can not infer predictably what should happen with respect to the scale you're talking about or the type of argument you want to make.

Talking about how improbable lifeforms are doesn't change the fact that they do exist.

 

[blackzeus]

To our knowledge, which is limited to a small amount of information

Even if said ratio did exist at a consistent rate...so???

what reason (read: arrogance) do you have to assert that it should be some fluctuating number?

So let me get this straight, THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE expanding at the same fixed rate should be assumed to be a chance occurrence? If everybody in the world jumped up 10 inches at the same time on Monday at GMT -5, would you call that a chance occurrence? You call yourself a scientist?

Why 1 MB? Why not 1 Kb? See why this argument is bullshyt?

Even if you don't believe in randomness taking preference in a unique corner of the universe, that it happened makes it possible.

You don't get to keep talking out of your ass about how "impossible" it is.

So?


None of this means theres a creator

The bolded would make my argument even stronger buddy. That would be like expecting a fetus to provide a dissertation on ZFC set theory in Amharic

 

[blackzeus]

How do you distinguish between the two?

Oh, because the force of an object can be measured by its mass and acceleration therefore ...creator?

WTF are you saying?

No what I am saying is that the same laws for dark energy being applicable to a galactic system 7 billion light years away implies intelligent design, it is statistically impossible for that to be a chance occurence. That would be like saying the fact that it's 9PM in NYC and 8PM in Chicago every day of the year is a chance occurrence

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So let me get this straight, THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE expanding at the same fixed rate should be assumed to be a chance occurrence?

Can you demonstrate that it shouldn't be random? Or why does your incredulity not allow you to accept this as merely being so, without inserting your "god" into the equation? Because thats what you're really doing here.

If everybody in the world jumped up 10 inches at the same time on Monday at GMT -5, would you call that a chance occurrence? You call yourself a scientist?

What does this have to do anything?

The bolded would make my argument even stronger buddy. That would be like expecting a fetus to provide a dissertation on ZFC set theory in Amharic

Your inability to accept that things have happened doesn't mean it was "impossible" to have happened.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No what I am saying is that the same laws for dark energy being applicable to a galactic system 7 billion light years away implies intelligent design, it is statistically impossible for that to be a chance occurence.

Its not possible to know that its "impossible"

Thats the point.

You're presuming shyt that has neither been proven, nor rooted in the rationale that it would be unlikely or even impossible to occur. You're reading too much presuppositionalist bullshyt.

That would be like saying the fact that it's 9PM in NYC and 8PM in Chicago every day of the year is a chance occurrence

Time zones are arbitrary demarcations made by humans.

WTF type of metaphor is this?

fukkin' hell you're horrible at this

 

[blackzeus]

Evolution selects traits based on mutations, natural selection, and random variance

ID removes that mechanism and asserts that things were "developed" along some specific and single pathway.

Theres no evidence of this.

Evolution isn't teleological...as in, it doesn't lead towards an end. It just keeps going

ID was created in response to evolutionary arguments so as to remove the agency of the unknown and place it into pseudo-deities and allow theists their opportunity to insert their "single source" hypothesis into everything. Its unscientific, and inherently rhetorically flawed.

@blackzeus's entire argument rests on the fact he thinks everything is impossible therefore it all has a creator.

His own ignorance is defining the tenets of his argument.

1) You have obviously never read/heard of Plato's Demiurge, ID is about as old as logic breh.

2) No again, you keep twisting my words, ID rests on the simple statistical improbability that chance/randomness created the universe as we know it that's all. Again, we can't claim ID to be a fact, any more than we can claim the theory of relativity to be a fact, but we can come to a reasonable conclusion that ID is 10000x more likely to be true than evolution, similar to any scientific theory given the statistical probability of it being applicable to real life situations

 

[blackzeus]

Theres no connection between observation and the statistics you're perverting.

You can not infer predictably what should happen with respect to the scale you're talking about or the type of argument you want to make.

Talking about how improbable lifeforms are doesn't change the fact that they do exist.

Yes, you're right, I can predictably confirm the same ratios apply to objects 7 billion light years away but I can't infer how the fact that the ratios exist by design, not by chance

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

That's actually a really good question. In the absence of a precise definition of "intelligent" in "intelligent design", all I can assume is that it means "not evolution" and/or "I perceive this to be more complex than evolution". I can't scientifically argue against someone's arbitrary perceptions of "complexity." So, all I'm left to argue with is that evolution exists therefore intelligent design is wrong. I.e. intelligent design is the antithesis of evolution - evolution being something that is precisely and scientifically defined.

Basically, it's impossible to argue for or against "intelligent design" because the intelligence is ill-defined. That makes it easy for people arguing for it to pivot, equivocate and move goal posts when they think they're losing internet arguments. But, since it's an irrefutable and unscientific claim, it's pointless to argue about it.

Thanks for the response.

When I say Intelligent Design, I do not mean to imply either of those assumptions. Some others may or may not. In my concept of intelligent design..its almost as if whatever caused/created/designed Everything included processes that are precisely and scientifically defined to unfold itself almost like an algorithm in a computer program etc. I see what youre saying about lack of definition...but I am more-so implying "not at all random" throughout the Universe rather than "not Evolution" or "more complex [necessarily] than Evolution." (or natural selection/adaptation etc)

Perhaps im not 'by the book' on ID with that but I believe in the general concept far more than randomness

 

[blackzeus]

Its not possible to know that its "impossible"

Thats the point.

You're presuming shyt that has neither been proven, nor rooted in the rationale that it would be unlikely or even impossible to occur. You're reading too much presuppositionalist bullshyt.


Time zones are arbitrary demarcations made by humans.

WTF type of metaphor is this?

fukkin' hell you're horrible at this

Please read the thread, unlike you, I'm not talking out of my azz:

http://www.space.com/19282-einstein-cosmological-constant-dark-energy.html​

...
The proton and the electron are two fundamental particles that make up the atoms inside stars, galaxies and people. Recently, a team of astronomers used the German Effelsberg 100-meter radio telescope to observe alcohol molecules in a distant galaxy, and found that the protons and electrons in those molecules' atoms weigh about the same as the ones right here on Earth.

Because the galaxy they studied lies 7 billion light-years away, its light has taken that long (7 billion years) to travel to Earth, and thus we are seeing it as it was half the universe's lifetime ago. (The universe is thought to be about 13.7 billion years old.) The observations strongly suggest that this fundamental constant has remained mostly unchanged over the past 7 billion years. [The Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps ]

Building on that finding, which was detailed in the Dec. 14 issue of the journal Science, University of Arizona astronomer Rodger Thompson calculated how much the proton-to-electron mass ratio would change over time if the rolling scalar fields theory were true. He found that the predictions did not match the data....

Here in ID world we talk about quantifiable facts Again, we can't confirm anything for sure, we are talking statistics, but the statistical probability that these are chance occurrences are slim to none. It takes more faith to believe in randomness/chance/evolution/chaos than it does in ID. To quote the street poet Yo Gotti, "numbers don't lie"

 

[blackzeus]

Its not possible to know that its "impossible"

Thats the point.

You're presuming shyt that has neither been proven, nor rooted in the rationale that it would be unlikely or even impossible to occur. You're reading too much presuppositionalist bullshyt.


Time zones are arbitrary demarcations made by humans.

WTF type of metaphor is this?

fukkin' hell you're horrible at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time

Noon Greenwich Mean Time is rarely the exact moment when the sun crosses the Greenwich meridian and reaches its highest point in the sky there, because of Earth's uneven speed in its elliptic orbit and its axial tilt. This event may be up to 16 minutes away from noon GMT, a discrepancy calculated by the equation of time. Noon is the annual average (i.e. mean) time of this event, prompting the inclusion of "mean" in "Greenwich Mean Time".

Yes Attorney-at-Law @Napoleon, I apologize, let me clarify my statement. Would you assume that 9 billion people jumping 10 inches in the air within a +/- 16 minute range is a chance occurrence?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

@Mission249

My universal view is kind of a mixture of ID/Quantum Multiverse/Taoism if that makes any sense