Jeeeeeeez .. I need some repair ... am I his 1st try to design ?

Your so short sited Abra.



It does apply, becuase before we knew about the genome many many people used the exact same argument from ignorance to support creation, or ID as it has come to be called.

So without knowing why the properties of the fundamental particles of nature are what they are you are making the same argument only a few steps back.

Its pathetic.

But this is where you are short-sited.

You clearly show that you miss the entire point by suggesting that it's merely a "few steps back".

Because what you are failing to recognize is that when you take those 'few steps back' you end up "outside of the box"

And that's the whole point.

The argument for "no-designer-required" goes like this:

Give us an immaculately clean universe with all the proper contents to allow for a siutation where life can evolve, and we'll show you why no designer is required.

That's pathetic.

That would be like me telling you to give me all the parts required to make a car as a "given", and I'll show you why no designer is required.

From my experience, limited though it is, one reason people reject the existence of God is because they reject the misrepresentation that is made by those who believe in God. That the salvation that is made available is by such narrow definitions that good and righteous people are damned to hell for lack of fitting those narrow definitions whatever they may be.

If God (whoever whatever God might be) sends good people to hell because of some lame criteria; then I don't need Him, I reject His very exisitence.

However, I find what I believe is a proper understanding of the Bible, removes this difficulty for many. YES the Bible says the way is narrow, but also that it is JESUS who will judge the thoughts and intents of the hearts of men, for he paid the price. Now the Jesus of the gospel is the Savior, one who Redeems. It is He alone that shall judge, and He will choose whom He will.

I believe we will be surprised to find out just how forgiving He is; and there will be people there from every tribe, every nation. I believe people will be there that dont fit our 'narrow' definition; people we feel certain are bound for hell for not meeting 'OUR' criteria.

I find when people understand that HE is the judge, and when they come to know HIM...then the reason for rejecting the existence of God is removed. When they understand that HE will choose whom HE will, and the people we wonder how God could send to hell...well, that is up to Him, and He is the REDEEMER (I believe I will see them among the chosen! not the condemmed).

That, I believe, is the God of the Bible; a God that does not need to be rejected because of our own foolish understandings and misrepresentations of God. One that can be received; thus removing the need and reasonable rejection of a lie...a narrow minded mis-interpretation of who God is.

<warning: sermon to come>

Now when you start talking about a "savior" or a "redeeemer" you have gotten way off of the subject of this thread which is a long way removed from any notion that there is a god-man whose purpose it is to "save" us or "redeem" us from whatever. This is "religion."

There is no way to "come to know him" because he does not exist, except as an ideal. The only thing you can "come to understand" is what he might represent as a symbol of redemption and forgiveness in the royal journey of the soul.

One must come to understand "Love" and "Forgiveness." When one forgives ones self and learns what real love and compassion means in relation to the whole, then you are on the path to redemption. Jesus is an ideal, a symbol. He represents a point of faith and belief which in itself can save a person from manifesting a life of misery, pain and suffering. We create our own reality and our own misery. It is in the mind and the heart.

The absence of true love and forgiveness is the road to darkness.

You cannot understand love and forgiveness by being loved and forgiven. You must feel and be love and you must find forgiveness (for all others) in your own heart before you can be redeemed.

</end of sermon>

Gloria Jean, High Priestess of the Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.

There is no argument for "no design needed". Just a failed argument for design. THAT is the problem, you think we have made an argument, we have not, we have shown you how arguments are supposed to be formed, what is needed to support them, and shown how you have failed to do that.

I have been clear I remain agnostic to design, as does the scientific method, becuase to determine design you must have empirical examples of designers with causative methods for the application of design: none of which exists.

You positing design without that is an argument from ignorance, its the easiest thing to do, and fails miserably when weighed and measured.

Your example of the car fails, why becuase we DO have empirical examples of car designers, FAIL FAIL FAIL. Until you can put the designer into the causative process at a specific point without appealing to the unknown your argument with continue to be an argument from ignorance and fail.

Fail fail fail.

That's your criteria not mine!



Not at all. What I argued is that happenstance fails, therefore the only thing left is design.

That's my criteria. If you disagree that's your problem, not mine.



You missed the whole point to that. You're claiming that you DO have empirical examples of car designers. Of course you do!

That's totally irrelevant. I say that if you gave me all the parts to a car as a "given" I could explain a car without the need to bring in the idea of a designer.

But that's all you are doing with evolution. You're taking the atoms as a "give" and then explanation the results of what atoms do as not requiring a designer.

The fallacy of that line of thinking is that you totally ignore the fact of the starting materials.

Part of my argument is that atoms are clearly not happenstance. Thus if they aren't happenstance they must be 'on purpose'. Purpose implies a designer.

That's a valid argument whether you agree to that 'criteria' or not.

Moreover, I keep showing that this isn't any different from what scientists are doing with String Theory.

Quantum Mechanics is like Evolution, in this scenario. Quantum Mechanics is an explanation in its own right (given the properties of the quantum field). Just like Evolution is an explanation in its own right (given the content of the universe)

There's no difference here at all.

Scientists don't like the idea of just 'settling' for Quantum Mechanics. They demand that there is more "structure" behind the quantum field. So they invent a notion of strings.

That's no different at all from me looking at the order of this universe, recoginzing that it's not happenstance, and then inventing a notion of a designer.

It's the same deal.

The only thing that you're objecting to is that I'm suggesting a concious awareness being involved. And you seem to feel that this is 'unnecessary'. But why?

We have absolutely no reason to believe that order can come from choas without intent and, IMHO, intent requires conscious awareness.

So I have reasons behind everything I do.

It's no different.

Besides, I'm not saying there IS a designer. All I'm saying is that in my opinion there is 'evidence' to suspect that their might be a designer.

Why are you so vehemently against that notion?

Why does science necessarily need to demand that all hypotheses must be based on ideas of "mindless matter".

Where does that come from?

Who decided that this should be a requirement for making hypotheses in science?

Science only allows hypotheses of the existence of "stupid stuff"?

How did that ever come to be?

Actually this is true!

This is precisely how science works and precisely why it could never postulate a 'designer'.

If scientists met God face to face and sat down and had a conversation with God, they would then want to disect God to see what makes God tick in terms of "stupid stuff".

This is precisely why it's utterly absurd to even talk about a designer from a scientific point of view.

But this is also why it's totally wrong of anyone to hold science up as implying that something doesn't require a designer.

Science is simply ill-equipped to even say anything at all when it comes to a concept of a designer.

The real problem is that scientists are attempting to teach that evolution doesn't require a 'designer'.

But it's that point of view that's false. It's false in that science has no clue whether it requires a designer or not!

Therefore, for them to teach that it doesn't require a designer is false. They haven't assertained that to be the case.

But yet they do teach this very thing.

In this story, the computer = the universe.

My computer does amazing things. I suspect it might be intelligent. (NOT REALLY) But what if I did? Sometimes it does seem intelligent, other times It seems stupid.

But in any case, it is MAGIC!! (Well, Not Really)

Well it certainly seems magic at times. I can do such amazing things with it!!

Abra suggests that my computer may have had an intelligent designer who wrote all the programming for it. I suspect maybe there was more than one designer involved. Bill Gates is not God you know. (They do say that he is the son of God though.) There are other designers who write programs and I have a lot of their programs on my computer.

But Bushidobillyclub is saying that there is no evidence of any design. He says a computer does not need a designer. Maybe he is right because I only have people's word that my computer has programs that they may have been designed by Bill (God) Gates and even others.

Bushidobillyclub says its all natural. The computer evolved naturally.

I find that hard to believe.

I suspect the computer may be alive, or at the very least have living people inside of it. I have lots of friends in here that I talk to all the time. It is a universe in here.

But if you have enough faith, and if you accept Bill Gates as your personal savior, and upgrade your operating system, you will be saved from all the errors of the past and live forever in cyberspace with all your cyber friends.

Its my new religion. Its called "The Gates Gateway."

Come and fellowship with us!

NOW FOR GOD REALIZATION: DOWNLOAD THE INTERNET HERE:




!

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha

__________________ ___________________
Yep, just as I stated at another thread:

....Compared with an Absolute Knowledge -- as vast as our current scientific comprehension of the universe might be -- our's rezembles that of the scientists' of the the middle ages! (i.e. Compared with an Absolute Knowledge, that is)

Therefore, any conclusion we may draw would only reflect our current level of the scientific sophistication!

Thus, I suspect, it might be premature passing a conclusive judgement regarding the nature of the Universe -- happenstance or designed... For the future discoveries might might flash out even more evidence -- Either way!!!

But, certainly, No harm done hypothesizing in haste...

Sounds hypothetical either way!!!

( LOL, even Catherine Zeta Jones might be amused!!!)

Now that you mention it, we at least have proof of divinity, if not design.

Happenstance divinity.

Wow! What an accident!

I guess I can live with this, or at least I'd like to!



Any scientist who thinks this looks like an accident should be stripped of all credentials and sent back to kindergarten.

Emotional rhetoric

It's nice to know, James, you still have your emotions in order!!!

Just keep it up, you never know what surprises this reality has in store...

* * * But seriously, what else would you call a man and a woman getting together... and producing such precious being -- design???

Looks like a pure happenstance...

I'll see your Cantherin Zeta-Jones and raise you an Anne Hathatway

Truly.

A lifetime as a scientist and I've managed to retain my humanity whilst so many others have become cold heartless zombies lost in the emptiness of meaningless data that holds no value even to them.

I don't know whether to be disappointed or dance.

The only thing I do know is that I understand things far better than many of them. And the dreary dry conclusions they jump to without sufficient reason is their own nemesis not mine. They can't see the forest for the trees. But that's what science will do to the unwary.

I guess I was fortunate to always be able to maintain a bird's-eye view and never fall for the fallacies of unjustied conclusions that can't be supported by reason or observation.

The conclusions these people draw are simply unwarranted. They look at one little nitch and lose sight of the grander scale of things. Although, I'm quite sure that popular religion has indeed molded the minds of many atheists. They were taught to think of "god" as a judgmental Santa Claus that can intervene in their lives. They've realized that such a god is a farce and so now they go totally overboard rebelliously rejecting any nothing of anything that even remotely reeks of 'religion' or 'spirituality'.

The greatest irony of all is that everything in science is always dependent upon the supernatural. There's no getting around it. Even from a scientific vantage point it's clear that the box has an "outside" and that the "outside" of the box cannot be assessed from within.

I guess that I was fortunate to have recognized that fact quite early on. Science is a discipline that is attempting to lift itself up by it's own bootstraps. Yet, it is also a discipline that has recognized precisely why such a feat is impossible.

So it would be oxymoronic to even think of the scientific method of inquiry as a valid philosophical tool. It's great for technology, but as a philosophical tool it has absolutley no value whatsoever.

I still love it, because I love technology.

But as a philosophy it has nothing to offer. It's sealed within the coffin of the very box that it is attempting to describe.

That's cool with me.

The less competition the better!

You can have Hathataway, and owl stick with my Zeta Babe.

Imagination rules the world. Emotions have power.

These are things that make humans special. For anyone to thumb their nose at these attributes of humanity shows their ignorance of what humanity is.

If we did not come from intelligent design of those who went before us, then we should take all the credit for ourselves for what we are now, which is okay by me. It still leads to the same conclusion... we are responsible.

Have you ever heard of the tree of life and do you know what it is? Have you every heard of the Golden Mean which is the ratio that is used in Nature to generate growth patterns in space?

There is a formula involved in "nature" that manifests life. There is a formula that projects 3-dimensional looking reflections and images throughout the mulit-dimensional universe.



Here is the "Tree of Life"



I don't know a lot about sacred geometry but I think it plays a roll in nature and the structure and formula's of this reality.

This guy has spent 20 years and lots of money coming up with these images and ideas. Here is an interesting site: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~chenry/

Here is an animated artificial anthropoid which is simply a reflection using spears stacked inside of a structure.

His conclusion:






This is an animated gif image and should be moving.

I think he did exactly that. Amazing read. It's part of it that I was missing.