Instead of making idiotic remarks, you should grow up --and address the evidence I have given.

There are scientists who are mapping our DNA. There are scientists who are smashing particles and creating mini "big bangs" and black holes.

There are genetic engineers who are re-designing genes to improve human health issues.

We can grow body parts in laboratories, grow skin, clone animals and embryo's. This is what I mean by intelligent design.

It also points to a future where we will be designing and re-designing the human body. Where else can this science lead?

This is the evidence and the proof. I am NOT talking about a God so stop being so paranoid that the big mean God is going to send you to hell, that is not what I am talking about.

I am an artist and a designer. That is what I mean by design and designer.

If you see designers as gods then okay... I am a god.

nuff said.

you mean idiotic and ungrownup remarks such as this one of your's bean?



any grownup would see that i'm not blind. it would be idiotic to suggest otherwise.

2 + 2 does not always equal 4.

We know that emergent properties exist by the knowledge had involving the periodic table. Knowledge comes after all of the things before it.

Design comes after knowledge. It would take a 'God' of some sort in order to intelligently design the universe in such a way as it has been shown to exist.

What we call laws are simply recognized patterns. One could view a completely random set of numbers and find patterns.

Our understanding shows patterns. Patterns do not prove design.

That idoitic remark has more truth value than anything you have presented attempting to show an intelligent design of the universe.

Apparently it has been proven that I am a god.

i don't think a designer of the universe exists. that is the topic is it not? do you really think that i am arguing that there are no designers of artistry, archetecture, bridges, electronic devices? just what have i ever said here that would make you think that because you are an artist i consider you a god. you chastized somebody here for making idiotic remarks and suggested that he grow up. now do you want to discuss the issue in an intelligent and grownup fashion or not? we just wasted an entire post simply because you needed to be set right on the silly notion that i think that gods are designers so therefore you are god. i would never suggest you were idiotic as i don't lower myself to such personal attacks but i will say that the grownups i'm familiar with would not continue along these lines of personal attacks. we're only having a discussion for crying out loud.

is that apparant to you bean?

All of the unexplained things in this world.


What about all of the explained things?


All the sweet nothings.


What about all the bitter somethings?


All the happy accidents.


What about all the horrid accidents?


All the similarities.


What about all the diversity and incompatiblities?


All the uniqeness.


That actually supports randomness.


Can you truly say this was all an accident?


Well, the atheists make it very clear that it was no accident!

It's all explained by "natural processes".

Disclaimer: Check with your local universe for the which processes may be called 'natural' according to the laws set forth by that universe. Any complaints may be sent to:

G.O.D. - Government of Dissatisfaction,

or to W.U.X - Whining Unsatisfied X-believers.

For positive feedback send complaints to J.E.A.N.I.E.B.E.A.N.

Justification Explained to Anyone Nervy eNough to Inquire of the true Essence of their Being, for they are Eternal Artistic Neophytes.

I think it is quite apparent that we are this universe.

What else could we be?

It would require more faith and pink elephantic smooges to believe that we are something other than this universe experiencing itself.

If we're not the universe, then what are we? And where's the evidence for this non-universal thing that we are that isn't the universe?

Just curious. Shouldn't that hypothesis be required to show proof that we aren't this unvierse? And also show evidence of how we could be something other than this universe?

**The topic is whether there is intelligent design involved in the manifestation or creation of this universe. It is not about a God or a single designer of this universe. At least that is the way I look at it.**



Well you said:





Yes he did, and he should. But that is just a suggestion.



**You DID say that designers are gods.

"i see that you call a designer something other than god and i call a designer just another god.**




I did not say that he was idiotic. I said that his remark was idiotic, which it clearly was in my opinion.

He said: "For the same reason is it not evidence of a pink and black elephantic smooge. "

then we see the topic as quite different. as apparantly does the op with this statement of his in the original post of this thread.



reads to me like he is interested if anybody has evidence of a "single designer" and not "designers" of the universe.



yes. in the context of the this thread, evidence for a designer of the universe, a designer is synonmous with god, deity, supreme being, creator in my view. not in your view, in my view. since clarity seams to be a problem for you in this i'll take it a step further. i do not see designers such as draftsmen, archetics, electrical or mechanical engineers or artists or any other animal or plant as a god. i'm trying to make this as simple as i can. don't want further misunderstandings of what i consider gods or deities or designers of the universe to be.

"i see that you call a designer something other than god and i call a designer just another god.**




i stand corrected. you did say it was the remark and not him that was idiotic. my appologies. now, in terms of idiotic, how would you call the comment of yours regarding my being blind? delusional? in psychiatry a delusion is diagnosed when someone beleives something to be true in spite of evidence of to the contrary. if we were ever to meet i could produce much evidence that i am far from blind. if not delusional then you must not actually believe that i'm blind. so where does that leave us? personal attack simply because we see things differently?

This is true.

I've been addressing creation from the 'static' mainstream viewpoint that this universe began as a big bang and it was either pre-designed or it wasn't.

Of course, it's also a mainstream religious view that creation is continuous, but only via an 'intervening god' who reaches in and dumps water on people once it a while, or turns them into a pillar of salt, or has them nailing people to poles.

Most people aren't fully aware that the universe is indeed being dynamically created at every moment. They just don't think like that. They see themselves as victims of a universe they have no control over, and they are entirely at the mercy of a god who has a whistle in his nose breath and smelly feet.

(I love that description wux! )

It such a sacred chant of praise it deserves to be made into a religion on its own merit. "The Divine Whistlers of The God with Smelly Feet" (They whilstle their hymns whilst the preist eats Limburger Cheese in front of a fan aimed at the congregation).

I can actually see people taking that whole thing seriously too!



Ok, where was I? Oh yeah, Jeanniebean's right. This idea that the unvierse was "created" at one point in time and then just unfolded from there is a strange idea indeed.

In fact, I used that argument to show why such a universe would be anything but happenstance.

But that argument only fits that "Static Creation" model.

Even the atheists speak about "Natural Processes Evolution". That's already an idea of an on-going continuous creation. In fact, as ironic as this may seem, the atheistic "Natural Evolution" picture of "Creation" only verified that Jeanniebean is right on the money!

If the atheists hold that this universe is 'created' by "natural processes of evolution", then they have NO CHOICE but to bow down and worship Jeanniebean as speaking the untimate wisdom of enlightenment!

For all she's doing is saying, "Look here you idiots! If you believe that natural processes of evolution is what "Created" this unvierse, then guess what! We have already evolved to a state of sentience, therefore by your very own definition that "creation" is a "natural process of evolution" then You have BECOME Gods! Because now you are able to take control of the "Creation" of your own lives!"

Sheesh!

All Jeanniebean is telling the atheists is that if they could take themselves seriously even for two seconds they'd recognize that they have just concluded that they are the "Creators" of this universe NOW!

They are no longer "victims" of natural processes and they need to start recognizing that the "process of natural selection" is OVER, it has now become a "process of conscious selection!

So wake up and start realizing that YOU ARE GOD! You are the creators of your own lives and you are the "process of conscious evolution" now!

So quit preaching utterly stupid atheism and start realizing that You ARE the conscious cosmic mind manifest in physical form!

What does it take to get through to you half-evolved morons?



Whew! This was fun post to write.

Just curious but, do patterns prove anything at all?

Well if he meant 'a single designer' he did not say 'single' designer. "a designer" only means he only needs evidence of one designer and does not care about the others.

Also, if he meant 'a single designer'; why didn't he just ask for evidence of 'GOD' or a supreme deity?

If he had asked for that I would have never even posted in this thread at all because I am an atheist.

We had been discussing 'intelligent design' in another thread and that is why he created this thread in the first place.

"Intelligent design" does not assume a single designer.

But if that is what he wants... Evidence of God.. then I have wasted a lot of time because I am an atheist.

So as Rosanna Rosanna Danna would say:

Never Mind!

Yeah, that's pretty much how I took it too.

And looking back on all that's been said in this thread, particularly by the OP himslef, I'm not even sure what he would consider evidence.

It seems to me that, from his perspective, any evidence of a design would necessarily require a viewpoint that is external to the system under consideration ("the universe" in this case).

So the question itself contains an inherent contradition - "I want to see evidence of the existence of something external to the system, but the only evidence you're allowed to present is from inside the system."

Silliness. Pure and simple.

Well when I asked Dragoness what kind of evidence she would accept or what she would consider as 'proof' she admitted that she did not believe there was any proof or that I had any proof. Which means that she is not prepared to consider anything at all to be "evidence" or "proof" because it is outside the scope of her belief system.

It is the same as my asking a Christian for proof that their God exists or that Jesus is God and they give "The Bible says so" as their proof and I say, "that is not proof" "That is not evidence."

So I think what we failed to do is define and clarify what Creative is asking for, and define "intelligent design" before wasting our time.

At any rate I am satisfied that I proved my point about proof. That if nobody agrees with you, they will not call it 'proof.'

I also proved that design does exist in this universe and that designers exist and are at work as we speak, learning how to improve upon and re-design the human body.

I also proved that if you believe a designer is "god" then we are all "god."

It is apparent to me that I am a god (in training)

On the other hand, if the system under consideration were defined as “things that follow the known laws of physics”, then there is evidence – the PEAR research into man/machine interfaces, for one. There is a significant body of scientific evidence that shows there are phenomena that do not follow any known laws of physics, but yet have intent, purpose and order. And such phenomena have been replicated many times under laboratory conditions.

So my question would be: Are things that don’t follow any known laws of physics considered to be external to the system under consideration?

If so, then there is evidence.

True.

So we, as gods, failed to understand what Creative, as another god, was requesting.