Is the Universe Conscious?

[Vidav]

Yeah, methinks Joey has been stuck in Joseph Smith land a little too long.

At least now we know there is no point in talking to him about such things. He doesn't understand science.

[Chizzang]

I'm not trying to disprove your point...
I'm trying to explain what you admit you don't understand

Think:
Motivation, then ask yourself the same questions again

Can we first agree to "DEFINE" the intelligent design hypothesis as:
Physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent creator.

Is that ^ the proper definition right there...?

You basically are saying that you do hold a double standard.

Most ID people don't think science is evil despite what some fanatics say. There' no real sinister agenda to get rid of science.

Of course most ID people don't want to get rid of science...
They want to be taken seriously as scientists and then add a fairy tale to it

But all ID really proves is that god is an asshole
and for some reason he loves Beetles and mutating virus more than almost anything else

That's what the logical scientific application of ID shows us...
If you really want to look at it scientifically and make a determination about God
You have to admit to the actual findings untainted by any fable or predetermined outcome

and at the very least (the bare minimum) ID tells us that we have NO CLUE what God wants

[CID1990]

I don't discount the idea of a higher intelligence having created human life

Science fiction is full of stories of highly advanced beings "seeding" the universe with life - and surely it is possible

But in terms of the actual creation of the universe, there is no way we can know this. The idea of intelligent design is based completely on a LACK of evidence to the contrary.

ID can't even be considered science fiction because it isn't science, at least not in the classical sense. It is wishful thinking, which is antithetical to scientific discovery

But considering that the theory ID is a function of those things we do not understand, I'd say this intelligent designer's box is getting smaller by the day - he used to live in campfires.... then he used to live in thunder and lightning

Now he lives out beyond quantum mechanics

[Pwns]

Of course most ID people don't want to get rid of science...
They want to be taken seriously as scientists and then add a fairy tale to it

But all ID really proves is that god is an asshole
and for some reason he loves Beetles and mutating virus more than almost anything else

That's what the logical scientific application of ID shows us...
If you really want to look at it scientifically and make a determination about God
You have to admit to the actual findings untainted by any fable or predetermined outcome

and at the very least (the bare minimum) ID tells us that we have NO CLUE what God wants

You confuse intelligent design with perfect design...

Making a car's wind shield out of glass isn't optimal...it's hard to make transparent materials really strong because of the irregular arrangement of atoms or molecules in them and that structural weakness costs lives. But obviously making the wind shield strong and opaque isn't an option.

Do you think that any and every theist thinks that gawd loves us all and that if something bad happens it's for a reason or because of what we deserve?

[Jjoey52]

Yeah, methinks Joey has been stuck in Joseph Smith land a little too long.

While I am in Smithland, I surely do not buy anything that he or his followers sell.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jjoey52]

Wrong, see the scientific explantation and discard the evolutionists rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, ID is tied to religion. It is rebranded creationism.

Vidal, watch the show on Netflix, it is purely an examination of geological and biological evidence of creation, or are you and the others afraid?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Vidav]

No, ID is tied to religion. It is rebranded creationism.

Vidal, watch the show on Netflix, it is purely an examination of geological and biological evidence of creation, or are you and the others afraid?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am super scared.

[Chizzang]

Of course most ID people don't want to get rid of science...
They want to be taken seriously as scientists and then add a fairy tale to it

But all ID really proves is that god is an asshole
and for some reason he loves Beetles and mutating virus more than almost anything else

That's what the logical scientific application of ID shows us...
If you really want to look at it scientifically and make a determination about God
You have to admit to the actual findings untainted by any fable or predetermined outcome

and at the very least (the bare minimum) ID tells us that we have NO CLUE what God wants

You confuse intelligent design with perfect design...

Making a car's wind shield out of glass isn't optimal...it's hard to make transparent materials really strong because of the irregular arrangement of atoms or molecules in them and that structural weakness costs lives. But obviously making the wind shield strong and opaque isn't an option.

Do you think that any and every theist thinks that gawd loves us all and that if something bad happens it's for a reason or because of what we deserve?

I think ID is Religion swimming backwards as fast as it can to stay in the conversation with the adults...

Look man, I want it too
I want to believe so hard it isn't even funny - I just lack faith
I do not lack motivation and I do not lack sincerity or the desire for God

I just lack faith...
But we want the same thing me and you

[Skjellyfetti]

I think ID is Religion swimming backwards as fast as it can to stay in the conversation with the adults...

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

St. Augustine, De Genisi ad litteram , 415 AD

[SeattleGriz]

You confuse intelligent design with perfect design...

Making a car's wind shield out of glass isn't optimal...it's hard to make transparent materials really strong because of the irregular arrangement of atoms or molecules in them and that structural weakness costs lives. But obviously making the wind shield strong and opaque isn't an option.

Do you think that any and every theist thinks that gawd loves us all and that if something bad happens it's for a reason or because of what we deserve?

I think ID is Religion swimming backwards as fast as it can to stay in the conversation with the adults...

Look man, I want it too
I want to believe so hard it isn't even funny - I just lack faith
I do not lack motivation and I do not lack sincerity or the desire for God

I just lack faith...
But we want the same thing me and you

How are they swimming backwards? The science they perform is on par with current methods.

[Pwns]

I think ID is Religion swimming backwards as fast as it can to stay in the conversation with the adults...

Look man, I want it too
I want to believe so hard it isn't even funny - I just lack faith
I do not lack motivation and I do not lack sincerity or the desire for God

I just lack faith...
But we want the same thing me and you

Wait a minute, I thought the one defining characteristic of religion was that it was obstinate in the face of evidence and isn't malleable to facts?

BTW, there isn't anything new about the question of how God can be all-powerful and loving. I'm sure there were astute people asking that question as soon as that concept became new in religion.

[CID1990]

I think ID is Religion swimming backwards as fast as it can to stay in the conversation with the adults...

Look man, I want it too
I want to believe so hard it isn't even funny - I just lack faith
I do not lack motivation and I do not lack sincerity or the desire for God

I just lack faith...
But we want the same thing me and you

How are they swimming backwards? The science they perform is on par with current methods.

Really?

Is there a mathematical theory out there that differentiates down to

X = GOD

What observable phenomena are being explored by this legitimate scientific line of inquiry?

[SeattleGriz]

How are they swimming backwards? The science they perform is on par with current methods.

Really?

Is there a mathematical theory out there that differentiates down to

X = GOD

What observable phenomena are being explored by this legitimate scientific line of inquiry?

One does not have to prove God, in order for there to be proof of Intelligent Design. As I have stated before, ID is looking at complex and specified information and how it pertains to the creation of new species or structures.

To take the structures example, one performs knockdown testing. If the structure no longer performs after "knocking down" one of it's components, then that shows the structure couldn't have built itself up one piece at a time to get to a functional state. Where did all that complex and specified information come from to get to that structure?

While it's not quite that cut and dry (a lot of summation in that previous paragraph), that is a normal test procedure.

[CID1990]

Really?

Is there a mathematical theory out there that differentiates down to

X = GOD

What observable phenomena are being explored by this legitimate scientific line of inquiry?

One does not have to prove God, in order for there to be proof of Intelligent Design. As I have stated before, ID is looking at complex and specified information and how it pertains to the creation of new species or structures.

To take the structures example, one performs knockdown testing. If the structure no longer performs after "knocking down" one of it's components, then that shows the structure couldn't have built itself up one piece at a time to get to a functional state. Where did all that complex and specified information come from to get to that structure?

While it's not quite that cut and dry (a lot of summation in that previous paragraph), that is a normal test procedure.

It doesn't matter what you call it

God, an intelligent designer, a grand chimpanzee in the sky with a typewriter...

The "evidence" for ID ALWAYS boils down to a lack of evidence against an intelligent designer. It can be explained in 50 different ways, but at its core is always the very unscientific assumption that something coincidental that cannot be explained by science must therefore be assigned to some kind of intelligent force

It is the ultimate logical fallacy

[Skjellyfetti]

What kind of structures are you talking about?

Is this like "how do elements form from compounds"? Basic chemistry? Can only be explained by intelligent designer?

[CID1990]

What kind of structures are you talking about?

Is this like "how do elements form from compounds"? Basic chemistry? Can only be explained by intelligent designer?

He's talking about ID as a strategy

(not as a science)

If you can poke a hole in a currently accepted theory, such as special relativity, for example-

Then you have dropped the entire curtain, therefore revealing the grand chimpanzee who is furiously typing away on his typewriter

[SeattleGriz]

What kind of structures are you talking about?

Is this like "how do elements form from compounds"? Basic chemistry? Can only be explained by intelligent designer?

One you see a lot is the flagella or the clotting cascade is another.

How do you get to this complexity via mutation, if the whole structure or process has to work? Did it come about one piece at a time? How does that work, if it isn't functional until it is all built?

There are proposed pathways, but nothing that can be proven out. Speculation, just like on the ID side.

Been saying it for a long time. The science at this level of argument is above 99% of the population, me included.

[SeattleGriz]

What kind of structures are you talking about?

Is this like "how do elements form from compounds"? Basic chemistry? Can only be explained by intelligent designer?

He's talking about ID as a strategy

(not as a science)

If you can poke a hole in a currently accepted theory, such as special relativity, for example-

Then you have dropped the entire curtain, therefore revealing the grand chimpanzee who is furiously typing away on his typewriter

Proving that an aspect of evolution is lacking does not "drop the whole curtain", but it surely shows the theory is not complete. Many in the evolution field feel that natural selection and mutation aren't powerful enough and new stuff needs to be added to the theory. Now, with that being said, what evolutionists believe needs to be added is taken from the extended synthesis side of evolution. Simply expansion of evolution to include more evolution tools.

[Chizzang]

He's talking about ID as a strategy

(not as a science)

If you can poke a hole in a currently accepted theory, such as special relativity, for example-

Then you have dropped the entire curtain, therefore revealing the grand chimpanzee who is furiously typing away on his typewriter

Proving that an aspect of evolution is lacking does not "drop the whole curtain", but it surely shows the theory is not complete. Many in the evolution field feel that natural selection and mutation aren't powerful enough and new stuff needs to be added to the theory. Now, with that being said, what evolutionists believe needs to be added is taken from the extended synthesis side of evolution. Simply expansion of evolution to include more evolution tools.

You had me at marginal...
I'm prepared to assume the holes are God

Okay, Now what..?
Because: You haven't answered the REAL questions about ID and the Hand of the Creator

What does it say about God
When God and Science are hand-in-hand
Tell me what this means

[CID1990]

What kind of structures are you talking about?

Is this like "how do elements form from compounds"? Basic chemistry? Can only be explained by intelligent designer?

One you see a lot is the flagella or the clotting cascade is another.

How do you get to this complexity via mutation, if the whole structure or process has to work? Did it come about one piece at a time?

I dunno

Therefore Jesus

[Jjoey52]

I knew none of you Darwin fans would look at that movie, as you don't want facts to get in the way of your evolutionary rants/rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I knew none of you Darwin fans would look at that movie, as you don't want facts to get in the way of your evolutionary rants/rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Facts? From something produced by Focus on the Family?


"EDITOR'S NOTE: The film Is Genesis History? has created something of a splash among conservative Christian communities. It is a documentary hosted by Del Tackett, who is known to many Christians as the host of Focus on the Family’s Truth Project, which was used as a small group curriculum by many churches a decade ago. Tackett purports to go on a journey to discover whether a literalist interpretation of Genesis yields a historically reliable account of earth’s history. The film is beautifully produced and no doubt will be held up by many as a model of Christian scholarship. And we do not question the good intentions of the filmmakers, but of course we believe their conclusions to be seriously flawed.

Our inbox has been flooded for the last week with people wondering what we think of the film. There is nothing new here that we haven’t attempted to correct before, but we thought our readers might appreciate some discussion of this particular packaging of young-earth arguments. We have several people in our network writing responses. This first one is by a group of scientists who have extensively investigated the Grand Canyon, a (badly misportrayed) centerpiece of the young-earth position.

Our worldview is based on a belief that the Bible is true – cover to cover, from Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21. We believe God created the universe, that sin really did enter the world through human disobedience, that Jesus died and rose from the dead, and that there is life and judgement beyond the grave. We further believe that nature, as a reflection of its Author, is orderly and logical – that we can trust the story it tells to not be designed to mislead. So now you know the lens through which we offer our critique.

The cinematography of Is Genesis History? is excellent, with creative artwork at each transition, beautiful landscapes, and technical prowess. We can also commend Dr. Tackett for his desire for the world to know truth. Unfortunately, the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature.

The problems start with the title of the film—and especially in conjunction with its subtitle: “Two competing views...One compelling truth.” A false dichotomy is created from the very first words by giving the viewer the impression that the world is divided between those who believe Genesis is history and those who believe it is merely a collection of myths. No mention is made anywhere in the film that highly respected church fathers, going back at least to Augustine, and including more contemporary figures like B.B. Warfield, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and C.S. Lewis, did not consider the truth of Genesis to be confined to a superficial record of events.

But let’s allow for a moment the possible truth of the claim that the earth is young and was catastrophically shaped by a global flood. In exploring the natural evidence for such truths, should one only seek the input of those who agree with you? Much can be gained by considering the arguments of those of differing views, yet in the movie Dr. Tackett does not consult any Christian scientists who could point out errors in the arguments of his exclusively young-earth counselors. This is despite the fact that young-earth creationists are a tiny minority among practicing Christian scientists, especially in fields of science relevant to the question of the earth’s age. We ought to demand more from someone who promotes himself as a flagbearer of evidential truth.

Moreover, would the truth of an earth of recent creation and violent history need to be propped up on a tangled web of misrepresentations, half-truths, and concealed data? Regardless of whether one thinks the earth to be young or old, Christians should insist on accurate and honestly presented data.

So what did we see in this film? It would take a book to flesh out all the false assertions made, so we’ll confine this review to a few illustrative examples.

Just minutes into the film, we find ourselves in the Grand Canyon with Dr. Steve Austin, a young-earth creationist geologist. Here we are told that the layers are flat with no erosion or significant channels, that geologists have abandoned long ages for the canyon formation since it couldn’t be stable over millions of years, that remnants of giant lakes are found that once dammed water before failing and violently carving out the canyon, and that a massive erosional feature near the bottom of the canyon, known as the Great Unconformity, has been observed all over the world. A bit later in the film, we are informed that the layers of the canyon preserve a succession of marine ecosystems, each washed in and deposited by flood surges. Conclusion? “The only explanation that makes sense is a global flood!”

Many who watch this movie will think: “These men are Christians and scientists, so it must be true!” Yet it doesn’t take much digging to discover that evidence of erosion between layers in the Grand Canyon is abundant, including now filled-in river channels as much as 400 ft deep. The so-called “abandonment of long ages” actually means that while some geologists think the carving took over 70 million years, others think it formed over a shorter period of about 6 million years. The giant lakes turn out to be speculation, with no actual evidence of their proposed size. Attention was drawn to the widespread occurrence of the Great Unconformity, but no mention was made of the two-mile thick sequence of tilted rocks below the Great Unconformity that has remarkable similarities to the layers above – all somehow deposited before the great flood.*

And perhaps worst of all, when mentioning those sequential layers of marine fossils laid down by flood surges, they conveniently leave out the fact that in a vertical mile of catastrophically deposited sediments, there is not a single fossilized bird, mammal, dinosaur, flowering plant, or even a grain of flowering plant pollen. This looks remarkably like evidence of rising and falling oceans at a time when birds, mammals, dinosaurs, and flowering plants did not yet exist. How does an earth-scouring watery cataclysm, with a miraculous removal of all traces of these organisms, provide “the only explanation that makes sense"?"

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/a-geolo ... BfFjm.dpuf

[SeattleGriz]

Proving that an aspect of evolution is lacking does not "drop the whole curtain", but it surely shows the theory is not complete. Many in the evolution field feel that natural selection and mutation aren't powerful enough and new stuff needs to be added to the theory. Now, with that being said, what evolutionists believe needs to be added is taken from the extended synthesis side of evolution. Simply expansion of evolution to include more evolution tools.

You had me at marginal...
I'm prepared to assume the holes are God

Okay, Now what..?
Because: You haven't answered the REAL questions about ID and the Hand of the Creator

What does it say about God
When God and Science are hand-in-hand
Tell me what this means

What real questions are those? Please restate them, as it is difficult to keep three conversations going at once. (Cid, Skelly and you).

[SeattleGriz]

One you see a lot is the flagella or the clotting cascade is another.

How do you get to this complexity via mutation, if the whole structure or process has to work? Did it come about one piece at a time?

I dunno

Therefore Jesus

As you should know, I can easily pull the Evolution of the gaps statement as well.

[Aho Old Guy]

What kind of structures are you talking about?

Is this like "how do elements form from compounds"? Basic chemistry? Can only be explained by intelligent designer?

One you see a lot is the flagella or the clotting cascade is another.

How do you get to this complexity via mutation, if the whole structure or process has to work? Did it come about one piece at a time? How does that work, if it isn't functional until it is all built?

There are proposed pathways, but nothing that can be proven out. Speculation, just like on the ID side.

Been saying it for a long time. The science at this level of argument is above 99% of the population, me included.

It's not that complicated, except for the 99% of evangelicals who "believe" otherwise. That's fine -- you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. You are not free, however, to teach those alchemy "beliefs" in public education without a scintilla of scientific reason. It is not an 'alternative' to life in the Universe.

For over 20 years the concept of "Irreducible Complexity" has been seriously de-bunked. It was shot down in the 1990s. It was shot down during the 2000s at trial with Dover, and has been shot down in comparative genomics studies.

But, feel free to keep flagellating yourself ...