The Evolution Fraud - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15006516
annatar1914 wrote:Real Science doesn't dispute intelligent design, it is the necessary condition for real science to even develop.


Can you expand on this one? I don't see why you would have to accept intelligent design to study the universe?
By Hindsite
#15006522
The Definition of Intelligent Design

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006525
annatar1914 wrote:Under my definition of Religion (and ''Religion'' comes from the Latin word meaning ''to bind'')as a system that claims to have answers to common issues of ultimate human concern, there's no such animal in reality as an absence of belief but rather the replacement of one belief by another.
Well then, you're simply wrong them. Absence of belief is not a replacement of it with another. Only a supreme arrogance would assume such a thing.

PLease, @annatar1914 Tell me what I "believe".

annatar1914 wrote:Nor is a ''literal interpretation'' of the Bible in this case something that is ''Anti-scientific'', because science involves matters that are testable and repeatable under rigorous laboratory conditions, organized philosophically in terms of formal logic.
It is when it starts to dispute the age of the world, and humans, as established by science. Intelligent Design is just a fancy word for Creationism.

Intelligent Design is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.

annatar1914 wrote:Non-Atheistic thinkers and scientists do the same thing, merely in some cases making different fundamental assumptions about nature and reality than the Atheist scientist and thinker would do. I could talk about information theory and irreducable complexity, and other specific philosophical and scientific problems with the the theory of evolution, but I don't think that would be particularly useful or necessary. You simply believe in it, and I simply do not, although I used to and equally as sincerely until I saw intellectual problems with it.
Evolution(the theory) has nothing to do with "belief" and that is where your argument is fundamentally flawed. It has to do with science. Belief has no place in science.

Assigning intellect to the universe is fine, as long as it doesn't start interfering with science which, as you clearly demonstrate with your disbelief of a well-established and proven Theory, it does. You don't believe the science because of your "belief" in ID. Therefore, you're ignoring the science in favour of "faith". That is why you fail.

Yes, @Hindsite, and ID is just a form of moronic Creationism, where science doesn't matter, if it disagrees with ID.
#15006527
Rancid wrote:Can you expand on this one? I don't see why you would have to accept intelligent design to study the universe?


It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator Who is in fact Intelligence Himself. Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006533
It's only madness because you can't conceive of a universe without purpose because of your BELIEF in God. This is the same argument that people use when we discuss morality among non-religious people. The religious people can't conceive of it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15006540
annatar1914 wrote:It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator Who is in fact Intelligence Himself. Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.


I disagree, the existence of an intelligible universe does not preclude random chance and chaos. Intelligent design means we need to find ACTUAL evidence of a designer. I'm not sure we could ever find that evidence, as we would probably need to be able to observe the universe outside of the universe to know if someone made it.

To be clear, the existence of an intelligible universe could be part of a body of evidence suggesting intelligent design. I can accept that. However, I think we would need more evidence to conclude on intelligent design.
#15006559
@Rancid ;

I disagree, the existence of an intelligible universe does not preclude random chance and chaos.


That's not what I was saying, either; Chaos and randomness do exist, but they are not a self-organizing force. As Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers said; ''out of Nothing, nothing comes''. Randomness (I took courses on probability theory once) does not increase intelligence or intelligibility, but breaks it down Evolution is therefore in that respect a cousin to the mathematical ''Gambler's fallacy'', the expectation that given enough time, magical results will appear and not disappear.


Intelligent design means we need to find ACTUAL evidence of a designer. I'm not sure we could ever find that evidence, as we would probably need to be able to observe the universe outside of the universe to know if someone made it.


Again, Intelligibility presupposes an Intelligence that created the Universe, because for one thing we surely did not. The question of who or what that intelligence would be is another question altogether, mind you.

To be clear, the existence of an intelligible universe could be part of a body of evidence suggesting intelligent design. I can accept that. However, I think we would need more evidence to conclude on intelligent design.


You are that evidence...
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006562
Man is evidence of nothing, except that some animals evolve intelligence as an adaptation.
#15006567
Godstud wrote:Man is evidence of nothing, except that some animals evolve intelligence as an adaptation.


That's your faith-based belief talking :D

But anyway, that being the situation IMO, this is why I do not enter much into these kinds of debates anymore. I figure that we'll find out in any case soon enough, who was right and who was wrong. In the interim, I try not to judge people and their motivations too much.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006581
annatar1914 wrote:That's your faith-based belief talking
:roll: No. That's science. You're saying silly things now, just to support your belief system. Science isn't about "faith". Faith exists even in absence of evidence. Science does not.

You want a philosophical debate about a biological subject.

annatar1914 wrote:I figure that we'll find out in any case soon enough, who was right and who was wrong.
How?

annatar1914 wrote:I try not to judge people and their motivations too much.
You just did.
By Hindsite
#15006589
Godstud wrote:Man is evidence of nothing, except that some animals evolve intelligence as an adaptation.

See what I mean. :lol:
User avatar
By Godstud
#15006591
Just because A and B exist, does not mean that C exists, @Hindsite. I suppose I can't expect you to understand that, since it's probably well beyond your near genius intelligence level. :D

It's like saying that fish live in water. If water exists, there must be fish in it.
User avatar
By Sivad
#15006602
annatar1914 wrote:It's the uiniverse's intelligibility that presupposes a Creator


It doesn't presuppose a "creator", it only points to an ordering principle or force.

Once you go down the path to random Chaos somehow magically resolving itself into Order, one's own intelligibility becomes after a while madness, nonsense.


Most atheist materialists are philosophically illiterate, they don't get that brute facts completely undermine materialism and even naturalism.

“Every model of the universe has a hard swallow… a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it.

The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang… this is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing, in a single instant. Well, before we dissect this notion, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely, or less likely to be believed. …it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant for no reason? … it makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, ‘And God said, let there be light.’

And what the philosophers of Science are saying is, ‘Give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward from the birth of Time to the crack of Doom! Just one free miracle.’ And then it will all unravel according to natural Law and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.

Well, I say, then, if Science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle. ” -Terence McKenna
#15006607
It doesn't presuppose a "creator", it only points to an ordering principle or force.


As with everything else in natural experience, an ordering principle or force cannot be less than what it orders or organizes forcefully in scale or kind. Sure, a pencil sharpener sharpens pencils, but requires a will and intellect that wants a pencil sharpened to begin with.



Most atheist materialists are philosophically illiterate, they don't get that brute facts completely undermine materialism and even naturalism.


I'm a materialist of sorts, but not atheistic, but i'm not sure philosophy in and of itself is very convincing to most Atheists
“Every model of the universe has a hard swallow… a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it.

The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang… this is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing, in a single instant. Well, before we dissect this notion, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely, or less likely to be believed. …it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant for no reason? … it makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, ‘And God said, let there be light.’

And what the philosophers of Science are saying is, ‘Give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward from the birth of Time to the crack of Doom! Just one free miracle.’ And then it will all unravel according to natural Law and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.


Reminds me of reading Thomas Kuhn and his works on the nature of scientific revolutions.

Miracles though are fine by me, because to dismiss them as something outside of what we know doesn't mean that it is something that is outside reason or the realm of possibility. I'm rather comforted slightly by the fact that we don't know much in the natural sciences, in reality, but i'm not for that reason fearful of science properly so-called.
#15006626
Miracle definition:
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

I doubt if speaking of miracles is something that MrWonderful would appreciate on his scientific based thread concerning the evolution fraud. No miracles allowed.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15006686
annatar1914 wrote:You are that evidence...

How so? What experiment was carried out to show that our mere existence is evidence of intelligent design? Where is the experimental evidence?


annatar1914 wrote:That's not what I was saying, either; Chaos and randomness do exist, but they are not a self-organizing force. As Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers said; ''out of Nothing, nothing comes''. Randomness (I took courses on probability theory once) does not increase intelligence or intelligibility, but breaks it down Evolution is therefore in that respect a cousin to the mathematical ''Gambler's fallacy'', the expectation that given enough time, magical results will appear and not disappear


Your understanding is a bit flawed.


Yes, in the macroscopic. Randomness and chaos tend NOT to organize, and thus, you would think that the formation of the universe and life is not possible. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that the universe is massive. If you look at local sections of the universe (microscopic), you will find positive energy systems that tends away from entropy.

Example: If you look at the earth as a closed system, it is a system that is constantly getting energy injected into it, and thus creates the chance that self replicating molecules and life can come to existence. As a local system, the earth tends AWAY from entropy at this particular point in space-time. Eventually, the macroscopic nature of the universe will take hold and this will not be true.

Intelligent design is not needed to explain this.
#15006721
Hindsite wrote:Miracle definition:
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

I doubt if speaking of miracles is something that MrWonderful would appreciate on his scientific based thread concerning the evolution fraud. No miracles allowed.


I appreciate your insightful remarks, Hindsite. My point is that scientifically speaking, Darwinism is fatally flawed from the outset by the insuperable statistics. There's simply no way around them, try as the Alphabetologists may. "A>B>C>D" may work in Richard Dawkins' biology classes, but it is as inane as you can get.

Nobody has to mention the Bible or anything religious in discussing the Evolution Fraud. Darwinism must stand on its own or it fails. Darwinists are constantly demanding "alternative" theories or else theirs "wins" by default (they think, they claim, they pretend). That is not science, but then again, they only pretend to be experts in the field.
User avatar
By Sivad
#15006723
annatar1914 wrote:As with everything else in natural experience, an ordering principle or force cannot be less than what it orders or organizes forcefully in scale or kind. Sure, a pencil sharpener sharpens pencils, but requires a will and intellect that wants a pencil sharpened to begin with.


Will and intelligence isn't necessary, esoteric philosophy holds that the universe emerges spontaneously out of the primordial chaos as a natural response to the mere presence of the divine singularity. There is no deliberate, intelligent act of creation, the universe is the product of an unintentional force exerted by the Absolute on infinite potentiality.
#15006725
How so? What experiment was carried out to show that our mere existence is evidence of intelligent design? Where is the experimental evidence?


Do you know that a single human being consists of more bits of information than in the entire inorganic universe?

Irreducible Complexity on that scale alone makes the theory of evolution flawed.




Your understanding is a bit flawed.


Yes, in the macroscopic. Randomness and chaos tend NOT to organize, and thus, you would think that the formation of the universe and life is not possible. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that the universe is massive. If you look at local sections of the universe (microscopic), you will find positive energy systems that tends away from entropy.

Example: If you look at the earth as a closed system, it is a system that is constantly getting energy injected into it, and thus creates the chance that self replicating molecules and life can come to existence. As a local system, the earth tends AWAY from entropy at this particular point in space-time. Eventually, the macroscopic nature of the universe will take hold and this will not be true.


Time plus Magic =Evolution is not scientific, never will be. Self-organization is assumed by the moderns, not observed, and overall entropic processes, the working ''arm'' of chaos and probability, undoing anything that is made, is impossible to ignore.

That is not to say that variation within groups cannot be observed, nor that in isolated cases organic progress cannot or has not happened (I believe that in fact there was an Unique 'speciation event' which took place within recorded human history), but that everywhere just as in your own life, intellect and intentionality and will are the reasons at work, not a mythical and magical self evolving universe that just ''happens'' without any reasonable mechanism for this development being scientifically observable. We know from life that intellect moves and makes all things, what that Intellect Designer or intellects designing are in this case Cosmologically is not a question solvable by the natural sciences.

Intelligent design is not needed to explain this.


It is if it is something scientific at work and not just another belief system that starts from fundamental assumptions and goes from there. We know from our own personal experiences that intelligent volition is what is at work in the world we live in everyday, and the universe is no exception to that rule.

Now to be fair to modern evolutionary believers, the notion of generation resulting in complex order arising instead of the observed complex order resulting in generation of new things, is not a new idea at all. It was common in the Pagan myths worldwide, actually. But it isn't Scientific, and I doubt we would be able to even have the civilization that we have now if we had not been living off the intellectual and spiritual capital of those who for centuries taught and believed otherwise, past 100 years or so.

But this conversation is rather arid and sterile, as it changes nothing, least of all belief.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17
EU-BREXIT

I note that you posted a graph that actually back[…]

PS: Just quickly; the 'RA pretty much lost their '[…]

I don’t. You see, when my father and mother divo[…]

Perhaps to you. I haven't seen too many people v[…]