.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
let's keep it at that and not confuse it with "ID vs. Abiogenesis" which is completely different.
From what I know it is a part of all-encompassing theory of evolution. But anyway, I would suggest you guys get familiar with M-theory and at least theory of Electrical Universe
To add:
Gotta go to sleep, will answer to any comments tomorrow
.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
No, it requires that you accept the possibility that complexity does not require a designer. By definition, design requires a designer. It is not clear that complexity does, although that is what the ID camp believe.
Of course it is one thing to make a statement like that and quite another to prove it. Forgive me for being blunt but to me this sound like nothing more than playing with words. Can you substantiate it with concrete examples? M-theory is exactly where it should be as it implicitly states that we ourselves could be gods of someone else's universe.
I don’t think that evolutionary theory has passed the first step of explaining how life came out of inanimate substances before we ever get into the discussion of natural selection.
Having said all of that I want to state that for the time being I don’t have any strong religious feeling either but I’m far from being convinced by evolution. In fact, some new physics theories seem, to me at least, for the first time as something that gives tangibility to the question of origin of universe and the life itself.
.
a good friend of mine got in big ass trouble for this..... photoshopped to remove his name.
if he gives me any more good pics- youll be the first to get em!
LMAO,
And of course if he had a car he could always put something like "Wanna ride?"
.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
I always like your posts, but you've committed an error of analogy that is central to the argument of I.D.
OK help me to see it
now you all probebly puked all over the moniter reading the the thread topic .
here is a website to haunt ya all!
http://d21c.com/ljesun/song113.html.
Also strange how he didn't yet get thrown out by the GB who tolerate no criticism whatsoever from the JWs.
I think I've read on his site that he god booted not long ago
.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
Here is also a good site with an overview
.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
Well I would like to keep this down to earth (at least until some logical ground rules are laid down) because when we get into the realm of philosophy anything is possible or refuted. (At least on pages of philosophical books)
First evolution asks from us to believe into something that is outside our day-to-day normal logic in the same way a belief in god does. In this case it demands from us to accept possibility that design does not require a designer. Correct?
Of course we can accept possibility that, say, sea water, wind and erosion can create a natural bridge between two cliffs. These are blind forces we are talking about. The question is can the same or similar process create, let say, a chair (maybe), how about a boat, or lets go just a step further, how about a yacht or a house and I mean I a real sense, can you still imagine natural forces doing that? How about a computer? Now try imagining something even more complex, say, first life form complete with “primitive” reproduction.
I think that many people have a problem with one basic word – god, which gives them hairy feeling of dumbness associated with religion (especially when fleeing something like WTBS). However, world around us is much more complex than either evolution or theology can express it.
In the last few years a new branch of physics understanding has been created termed a “theory of everything” or M-theory (try to google it). There is an increasing recognition in scientific circles that space-time in which we live is in fact far more than what eyes can see in our three-dimensional universe. In fact, there is a strong mathematical indication that there are at least 11 dimensions.
M-theory allows for the fact that universes can coexist without interfering with each other. In fact countless number of them could coexist in so called multiverse. There is even talk in some circles of attempting to create entirely new universe in a lab that would exist in its own space and time. (Scratching your head, are you?
Now lest try going a step further and imagine that certain beings can, in effect, traverse even from one dimension into another. What would they appear as to being that are, for example, living in confines of, say, only a three-dimensional universe? Probably, something like angels or alike (explanation would vary depending on local worldview, culture and collective consciousness)
Great number of scientists are now realizing that we are only stretching the surface as far as understanding the universe and beyond is concerned. A number of new theories have sprung up. One of them being an Electric Universe which would in a sense diminish a need for big bang or moment of creation as such (this is something that goes even beyond M-theory if you are interested here is a good site http://www.holoscience.com)
We see everything from our three-dimensional world and are hence judging it accordingly. Of course if we want to be objective we have to admit that all our reasoning applies only to our own universe (and it might not even be correct) How do we judge something like 11 dimensional global multiverse which we have never experienced and existence of which we can only infer mathematically? And if there are intelligent beings that can transcend different dimensions or even if they can create universe in some sort of a lab, what would they be to us if not gods?
.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
That a design needs a designer is not illogical, (if you prove it to me otherwise I'll pay you a dinner at most expensive restaurant) the question is: can design be created without a designer. Neither side should fear investigating possibility of it further without any preconceived idea or a bias. Many times people refer to "nature" as a creative entity. But then in process they attribute nature almost intellectual abilities. What is at stake here is simple, are there forces in nature that though being unintelligent and in a sense blind can create immense complexity of life.
I guess one should stop reading commentaries of commentaries of commentaries and go directly to the original idea.
Let's read what Darwin himself had to say, here is the text of the whole book: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
now you all probebly puked all over the moniter reading the the thread topic .
here is a website to haunt ya all!
http://d21c.com/ljesun/song113.html.
Have you been to the forums there?
Have read some posts but no not really never been a member. Sounds like s standard JW gossip, i.e. stuff dubs don't have balls to speak about openly but discuss within circle of "trusted" friends they'd invite for a dinner.
now you all probebly puked all over the moniter reading the the thread topic .
here is a website to haunt ya all!
http://d21c.com/ljesun/song113.html.
e-jw site is support site for e-watchman.com I think
