1 - "So since we haven't been to the center of the Earth, every scientific research we read about the nucleus are just wild guesses." - I don't care what science papers say. I care what the evidence says. And the only evidence for the Earth's composition that I know of is based on seismic waves. That's hardly as reliable as observing water boiling at 100 C at sea level. It is still observable data, so I guess you have a point. /bow
2 - Please don't link me Wikipedia again. It's a joke as a reliable information source. And it's bias is so clear in favor of seculararism that it makes me puke. Read for yourself from other wikis, not that they're not biased or anything. All wikis are unreliable, imo. Everyone presents his interpretation and the critics that they can refute. The real deal is when you get both parties to have a debate, that's where everyone puts all they got on the table.
"Are you seriously trying to suggest replacing the word creator with designer makes it a different idea?" - Who said it's about what words they use to name themselves? Creationism is very different from ID, purely because creationists argue for the God of the Bible as a premise for their case, while ID demonstrates that design requires a designer, and shows how that works when it comes to the information within the cell and other organisms. What's so hard to understand?
3 - "Unfortunately for you, all of that can be explained within chemistry and it is done so." - Unfortunately for you, you're plain wrong. Chemistry operates with material objects. Information is not material, nor is a property of matter, just as you say when you continue with...
"Information is immaterial because it is an abstraction of our mind, it is not a metaphysical entity." - Therefore Chemistry operates with abstractions of the mind. This goes to the "Greatest Artu Quotes Ever" thread
"The source of information is matter though." - Reeheeheaaally? Matter is only a medium in which information propagates, it is NOT the source of information. The only source of information that we know is intelligence.
"Maybe you should reconsider learning "logic 101" before throwing around fallacies." - If you say so, professor.
4 - "You do realize that life on earth dates back to 3.7 -3.5 billion years and transformations such as one-cell organism to multi-cell organism took millions of years, and the change was gradual." - Yea. that's what evolutionists say.
"EVERY ORGANISM IS THE SAME SPECIE WITH ITS PARENTS" - That's what creationists say.
"the transformation occurs in thousands of generations not individuals." - Then your premise above, namely "EVERY ORGANISM IS THE SAME SPECIE WITH ITS PARENTS", is not true. You actually managed to disprove your own premise in the same phrase.. goes to "Great Artu Quotes Ever".
"And unless your God created different kind of animals every 10 million years and spread them around as if they have a gradual kinship that is degreed by location and time, this is not a matter of debate." - I have no such god. My God is the God of the Bible, not a straw man.
5 - "Biologists seem to disagree with you." - Evolutionary biologists, that is.
6 - "The fossil records also seem to disagree." - Evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, that is.
7 - "This is just... You attempted a logical fallacy and now that it's shown to you, you're even defending it to get ahead?" - Nah, I wanted to show you that your analogy was totally flawed. So, so flawed.. The leader of the Flat Earth Community is an evolutionist.. how good can this get?
"Troll" ..... God Bless You!
@ GunFred:
"Is Stevie the replacement for Elodin? If so, I want Elodin back because he appeared like he understood common sense and did not sound like an obvious troll... " - Elodin?! Nah.. no way.. he was waaay too soft. You ain't seen nothing yet!
And just so you know, I'm not trolling, I'm being serious. But I guess that ranting about "common sense" and calling me a "troll" is alot more easier than trying to debate me with arguments, like Artu does. I commend him for his efforts! So far, you're the only one sounding like a troll. Don't take it personally, I might just not know you well enough.
I think GunFred's point is more directed towards how you say it, than what you say, i.e. your tone isn't very pleasant.
____________
Living time backwards
And a warm welcome to HC, btw. it's always nice with new member and I'm sure you'll find the OSM (other side of the monitor subforum) very entertaining ____________
Living time backwards
Stevie said:And just so you know, I'm not trolling, I'm being serious. But I guess that ranting about "common sense" and calling me a "troll" is alot more easier than trying to debate me with arguments, like Artu does. I commend him for his efforts! So far, you're the only one sounding like a troll. Don't take it personally, I might just not know you well enough.
I am not here to debate. I leave that to more caring people and I do not have the energy to enter keyboard typing contests. I was simply summarizing the impression that I got from your posts.
Stevie said:
OhforfSake said:I think GunFred's point is more directed towards how you say it, than what you say, i.e. your tone isn't very pleasant.
You might be right. I will refrain from such behaviour then. I apologize for my rudeness.
I was condemning you to hell so... no need to apologies... I guess...
Still going to hell though for rejecting God and science...
OhforfSake said:That's very kind of you, thank you.
And a warm welcome to HC, btw. it's always nice with new member and I'm sure you'll find the OSM (other side of the monitor subforum) very entertaining
Hey, thanks for the welcome! Glad to be a part of this community.
GunFred said:I was condemning you to hell so... no need to apologies... I guess...
Nah, apologizing is only fitting to this thread. It's impossible not to wrong others, but it takes love to have the power to apologize.
Edit: I thought I was on the "What is love?" thread for a sec.. /facepalm
Well, dark matter/dark energy themselves are not things I am an expert on. I've watched a few documentaries and read a couple of articles written in lay man terms. Details are gone already. I also watched a program of 4 physicists discuss about it a while ago and they all agreed that after the experiments in Cern, the theory about their existence got much stronger. But the theory itself is not in question here (we're not physicists and that is advanced physics). The nature (category) of it is. I see where you're getting at but I'm quite sure you're very well aware that after the Enlightenment, scientific knowledge is expected to be naturalist: That is, it should explain natural phenomenon with nature. Full of holes or even wrong as they can be, the Big Bang and dark energy/matter qualify to that. Concept of God, even if we leave religion out, does not. That is, for God to mean something specific, distinctive from unknown cause, first reason, beginning of everything, unifying theory, etc etc... it should have some sort of self-awareness, consciousness, a personality if you will. (Which is why I call it anthropomorphic). The first problem there would be, if universe coming to existence on its own seems irrational to someone, a consciousness coming to existence on its own should seem much more irrational. Theologians of medieval ages used to answer to that with the ontological proof argument, yet those were times of Neo-Platonic idealism. In their paradigm, essence of things existed before the actual thing itself. That is contradictory with anything remotely scientific. The second problem would be, there would still always be the question of how was the creator created? Or by what law does he proceed? So all the unexplained questions are still there, we just switched the subject of the sentence. It is now God, instead of "the universe."
I think given the age and size of the universe, some level of uncertainty and holes in the theories are not only expected but inevitable. This still does not change my opinion that God as an explanation is outdated. Not because science is flawless or omniscient (on the contrary, it's a continuous learning process) but simply because God is not convincing at all. I must point out, I base this (the devaluation of God as an idea) more on the development social sciences. Although universe turning out to be a quite chaotic place also confirms it. The stable, steady universe of perfect orbits and infinite balance of the Newton Age may have sounded a little Godly despite everything. This big explosion of fading stars, colliding galaxies, and eventually a total freeze-out does not.
@Stevie
2- How can this be biased, it is not an opinion, it's factual detail:
The intelligent design movement was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on the grounds of breaching the separation of church and state
And for your information, encyclopedias are supposed to be secular. That is not being biased, that is being objective. There are thousands of religions in this world, some polytheistic, non-theistic, some monotheistic... A source of unbiased information can not favor YOUR religion.
3- Are you deliberately being thick-headed. The gene transfer is a chemical process. You NAME it information, it's not like the male genes are reading a book to the female genes. It's transference of molecules, we call it information as a figure of speech. Literal information itself is an abstraction of the mind though, and can not be presented as a metaphysical entity to "prove" a designer.
4- Then he has a lot of explaining to do.
5- Ever heard of Project Steve, Stevie?
6- Yes, the interpretation that actual people whose job is to study the records agree on.
7- Maybe you should learn how an analogy is made, you take two things and point out to what's similar in them. Denying evolution and denying roundness of the Earth are similar in disregarding scientific consensus and sticking to an old, outdated cosmology. A flat-earth community member not denying evolution does not harm that similarity, because that's not what's analogous about them. He may be disregarding one scientific theory and accepting the other, yet in the one he disregards, he's similar to the disregarders of the other theory.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
2 - Straight from the horse's mouth, rather than from biased 3rd parties like Wikipedia:
Quote:What is 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.
Note that they even believe in the old earth ages, millions and millions years ago...
Quote:Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
That's what you're trying to do. Discredit ID because of legal issues, rather than adressing their arguments.
Quote:Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
3 - So you don't see the cell as a complex information system? You say that I'm exaggerating? It's all in my head?... Well, take a look at this:
You know what I see here? Nanotechnology! Factories everywhere. Mass protein production and DNA replication. This kind of technology seems from outer space. Our current level of advancement merely pales in comparison to what happens within our bodies. This is direct evidence of design, not a gap theory. Such that even the thought of debating this is silly and proves just how low humanity has gotten.
4 - God has explaining to do? God owes us an explenation? God doesn't owe us anything! Yet He explained to us everything we need to know because of His loving nature to us. It's called the Bible, or the Word of God.
5 - Another appeal to authority? Nah, this time to majority!
6 - There is no record, there are just dead bones in the dirt. Your record derives from interpretation, not from the actual evidence.
7 - Are you defending flat-earthers because an evolutionist is leading them? Cuz that's the way it looks from here. Say it was a creationist, would you still defend him? Can't you see how biased you are?
For me there is no way you can explain the whole of what exists - the universe or multiverse or whatever you call everything that exists OBSERVABLY - without something like an "immaterial" layer of existence behind it. "Immaterial" not aiming to ghosts or spiritual or such things, but meaning something like BEYOND matter.
Based on that - IF there really IS a layer of existance that's NOT based on matter, then there may be life forms massively different from ours.
Imagine you are some kind of insect. Humans can be pretty disruptive - but they may also - unwillingly - make their life quite easy, providing them with waste they can feed on easily. I'm not sure we may not be in that situation in some way. Because what we know about the universe is, that it is VAST - too vast for us to even comprehend it.
And I simply don't believe in a NEEDLESSLY vast universe, which means that I do believe in the existence of conscious minds for which the universe is less vast. That can maneuver in it. Think evolution.
2- Yes, the guys trying to jump over a law are telling the truth. Saying something is designed is absolutely much different than saying something is created. How can I not see the obvious difference between the two conclusions, it's a Darwinist(!) conspiracy!
3- Complexity evolves gradually. This have statistically been documented by simulation programs.
4- In other words, you are doing exactly what you're being accused of and denying to do. You are using a religious text as source material in a scientific matter. This alone disqualifies your judgement on the subject.
5- You are again 100 percent on spot. If I say, not according to biologists and you reply "evolutionary biologists only" as if that's like half of them, yet it is actually like 99 percent of them and I mention it, that's what it is, appealing to majority.
6- Yes, bones in the dirt that precisely fit a pattern and timeline matching with their genetic level of kinship. Nothing to get suspicious about!
7- No. I explained the basis of that analogy like explaining it to a 5 year old, can't get any simpler, sorry if you can't grasp it.
An important differance between Artu's and Stevie's scientists is that Artu's use the evidence to find the answer. (4x8-3=?)
Stevie's scientists think they already have the answer and make up evidence to fit their answer. (God=6+2x8)
Sure, some scientists work for shady corporations, some deny everything but their own answer and some are outright incompetent. But I prefer to trust in the majority of all credible scientists who brought us technology, knowledge and more, than to be some massive conspiracy theorist.
Besides, the Koran contains everything you need to know about God. You guys should try reading it. It is glorious and filled with undeniable and enlightening truth.
____________
I suppose, the question means: how did the immaterial level come into existance.
But consider that time and space/distance are only defined in the material world. In an immaterial world (no mass, example light) there is neither time nor space: for an immaterial "point" of light time is standing still an space is shrinking to "not there".
So basically it's just a matter of perspective, and "existance" might have a totally different meaning depending on that.
I don't know whether you know Galouye's book Simulacron 3, which is somewhat dealing with this.
Ask yourself this question: suppose you are n-dimensional and live in an n-dimensional world. Is there any way for you to observe an n+m-dimensional world? (With or without machines)?
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted October 31, 2013 11:02 PM
GunFred said:Is Stevie the replacement for Elodin? If so, I want Elodin back because he appeared like he understood common sense and did not sound like an obvious troll...
Btw, Allah has a special place reserved in hell for people like Stevie, Artu and the rest of you guys!
Since it was posted in a previous page, I'm quoting this here to issue Gunfred a warning. This is not an appropriate way to treat each other. Please read the code of conduct, especially the rule about provocation.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
OhforfSake said:Very very great vidoes! Thanks for sharing.
Funny these worlds looks so alien, without context they could have been mistaken for life on the surface of another planet.
My pleasure
@ Artu:
2 - Design is not used as an assumption. Rather ID proponents reason the evidence to show design as a conclusion! Adress their case please, not their legal issues.
3 - Yea, I know about that. I even saw evolution happening on TV in many documentaries. Many many simulations and transformations and creatures morphing into other creatures like they were plasticine... Great evolution evidence!
4 - AGAIN: Design points to a Designer! I am NOT using the idea of an Intelligent being as a premise! I am using the evidence as a premise ,what we know, what we see in nature! And that most logical conclusion for the evidence of design is a Designer! NOTE: THE IDEA OF A DESIGNER COMES AS A CONCLUSION, NOT AS A PREMISE! Have I left the scientific field untill now? Have you seen me appealing to any "religious text" as a source so far?
Now, AFTER establishing that a Designer exists (or at least existed) you can try and find his identity. It is at this point that I use a "religious text" to argue that the identity of this Designer is actually the God of the Bible. It is at this point that AFTER I look at the scientific evidence and reason that desing requires a intelligent designer that I use philosophical/religious/history/non-scientific texts (in the sense of experimental science) that I try to establish the identity of this Designer.
Any questions?
5 - Truth is decided by facts and evidence, not by majority, nor authority.
6 - How do you know how old are they? How do you know those bones are millions of years old and not thousands of years old like young earth creationists say? (this is gonna get so interesting here, trust me)
7 - Let's quit with this "argument", it has no relevance whatsover. Though it was funny, to me at least
@ GunFred:
GunFred said:An important differance between Artu's and Stevie's scientists is that Artu's use the evidence to find the answer. (4x8-3=?)
Stevie's scientists think they already have the answer and make up evidence to fit their answer. (God=6+2x8)
No, it's actually the same. Evolutionists follow naturalistic explenation which assumes the inexistence of God. They interpret the evidence based on these assumptions. Creationists assume the existence of God (the Bible God) and interpret the evidence acordingly. So it's not a matter of bias because both sides are biased, it's a matter of whos assumption is right.
GunFred said:Sure, some scientists work for shady corporations, some deny everything but their own answer and some are outright incompetent. But I prefer to trust in the majority of all credible scientists who brought us technology, knowledge and more, than to be some massive conspiracy theorist.
Evolution didn't bring you your cellphone. It didn't bring you TV or the internet. It didn't bring you your car nor your fridge nor your washing machine. EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE DID! The only thing that evolution brought you is a story of the past and a worldview, HISTORICAL SCIENCE (hardly even that).
2- They don't have legal issues because they robbed a bank. They have legal issues because they try to pass what is not science as science. "These creatures appear designed" is not even a hypothesis, it's an impression.
3- Simulation is not animation.
4- Again, an impression or wishful thinking both don't count as scientific conclusions or premises.
5- Saying biologists themselves disagree with you on what biology consists of isn't about, them being majority, it's about them being biologists.
6- With stratigraphy. (It's not going to get interesting, you don't sound as half as clever as you imagine you do).
Quote:Evolutionists follow naturalistic explenation which assumes the inexistence of God. They interpret the evidence based on these assumptions. Creationists assume the existence of God (the Bible God) and interpret the evidence acordingly. So it's not a matter of bias because both sides are biased, it's a matter of whos assumption is right.
Shows how little you know. Your symmetry is -again- a logical fallacy. Biology is a positive science, in positive sciences you only assume something if you have a valid reason to and your assumption belongs in the natural world. Your Christian God can not be an exception to that, why should it? Why shouldn't reincarnation or Zeus or Hinduism or Peter Pan be the exception then? You're trying to bypass something unscientific as scientific and your justification is the unreasonable expectation of favorism for your faith. Whether God exists or not may be of no interest to a biologist, it's not relevant. Evolution is backed up by data, God is not. Simple as that.
And again, it is not a story of the past but an on-going process and although it didn't bring you cell phones, it brought you many life saving disease treatments and anti-biotics. Yes, we develop medicine by applying the principle of natural selection.
JJ:
An extra dimension can be modeled if it has some influence on what we can perceive. If it has no observable influence on our world, then it might as well not exist - to us, there is no difference between a world in which no extra dimension exists and a world in which one exists, but has no influence on anything observable. You might as well say that there are fairies floating all around us, but they don't affect or influence anything, and there's absolutely no way to detect them.
____________ Eccentric Opinion
Excuse me for interrupting, but I have to ask you about this:
Quote:Evolutionary biologists
Is there any non-evolutionary biologist in this world? I thought that evolution is considered in biological studies as a fact and only people who are not familiar with biology claim that there's no such thing as evolution and that everything had to be designed or some stuff like that...
I know there's Michael Behe, a biochemist, but his theories about "irreducible complexity" has been rejected and disproved by scientific community. Every other creationist/"intelligent-designist" I heard of wasn't a biologist or their scientific degrees were unknown. Does anyone here know any other real biologist that rejects evolution?
____________ Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted November 01, 2013 03:51 AM
Hobbit said:Is there any non-evolutionary biologist in this world? I thought that evolution is considered in biological studies as a fact ...
There aren't and it is. But you'll never convince him of it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
This thread is pages long: 
posted October 31, 2013 05:01 PM
If you say so, professor.
..... God Bless You!
" - Elodin?! Nah.. no way.. he was waaay too soft. You ain't seen nothing yet! 
