Inteligent Design

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:06 pm

judging from my experience and the reactions i get from non-believers it is hard not to make a generalization. hopefully i will see a difference in the posts here then.

now that youve alienated what was left of your audience i doubt it

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:30 pm

well i made it to 1000 posts, have never done that before on these sites, even christian ones. since this is a landmark occassion for me i have decided to post a few more quotes from the book called 'origins'.

these quotes undermine any claim evolutionists may have about how the world began and takes the life out of the arguments. all quoptes come from chapter 11:

"In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segmens most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins..."

"this in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points atwhich we can check these theories against observational data."

"When we turn to the origin of the planets, the mysteries deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."

Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before."

"...and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen.'"

as i have been saying all along, once you remove God from the picture, the answers are removed as well. you are juststumbling around in the dark unable to provide anything but more questions. this is why i have stated that science is fallible and along with other fields of science incapable of being the final authority on these matters.

i will have more quotes later in the week for you.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:52 pm

who wrote this book Arch ?

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:07 pm

planet formation is that it can't happen

Planet formation can't happen?

That's going to play hell with the real estate market.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:18 pm

I wonder if NASA knows that? I'll kick the hell out of their space program.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:29 pm

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/new ... _link.html

Scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope have observed the first part of this key phase in planet formation, where the disk of dust and gas surrounding a newborn star becomes flatter and denser, allowing matter in the disk to clump together into planetary building blocks.

The observation supports theories of planet formation, with a surprising twist in the details. Understanding planet formation is necessary for understanding our origin, a goal of NASA's vision for space exploration.

Apparently, NASA thinks quite the opposite!

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:10 pm

ah what do they know
they havent even found Nibiru yet

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:04 pm

i know at least two absolute refutations to the concept of intelligent design:

Religious Politicians

Scientific Lawyers

(Quod Erat Demonstrandum)

and one other point. it is impossible for a (theoretical) omniscient being to have any capacity whatsoever for intelligence. if you know all, then there is nothing to know.
(i.e., the shorter version of oxford dictionary's leadoff definition for intelligence is "the faculty of understanding; intellect". if you are omniscient then by definition you have no "faculty of understanding".)

and as "design" is a function of intelligence - your "faculty of understanding" - it too completely disappears in the presence of omniscience.

which leads me to the conclusion, that, if we posit the existence of an omniscient being, the perceptible, physical, results of that being's existence would be a completely, utterly, random series of events.

everywhere, all the time, simultaneously

"who borrows the medusa's eye

resigns to the empirical lie

the knower petrifies the known

the subtle dancer turns to stone"

don't know the author

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:47 pm

It was in a book by Theodore Roszak.

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:05 pm

Minimalist wrote:It was in a book by Theodore Roszak.

minimalist -

many thanks. do you know which one. you wouldn't believe how long i've been looking for the source of that quote. i found it written in marksalot on a hiway 101 sign while hitchhiking in northern california in 1969.

true

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:10 pm

Stand by.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:12 pm

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... ZeFEQDdOaA

I found it on Google Book Search. If you have a gmail account you can sign in with that.

If you don't have a gmail account you can get one for free.

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:43 pm

john wrote:i know at least two absolute refutations to the concept of intelligent design:

Religious Politicians

Scientific Lawyers

(Quod Erat Demonstrandum)

and one other point. it is impossible for a (theoretical) omniscient being to have any capacity whatsoever for intelligence. if you know all, then there is nothing to know.
(i.e., the shorter version of oxford dictionary's leadoff definition for intelligence is "the faculty of understanding; intellect". if you are omniscient then by definition you have no "faculty of understanding".)

and as "design" is a function of intelligence - your "faculty of understanding" - it too completely disappears in the presence of omniscience.

which leads me to the conclusion, that, if we posit the existence of an omniscient being, the perceptible, physical, results of that being's existence would be a completely, utterly, random series of events.

everywhere, all the time, simultaneously

"who borrows the medusa's eye

resigns to the empirical lie

the knower petrifies the known

the subtle dancer turns to stone"

don't know the author

john

dang. where'd all you intelligent designers go? i was kinda hoping for a wide-open, freewheeling discussion on this one. after all its already run 33 pages. a couple more wouldn't kill you........

john

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:11 pm

It's been a slow day, John.

It happens.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:29 pm

dang. where'd all you intelligent designers go? i was kinda hoping for a wide-open, freewheeling discussion on this one. after all its already run 33 pages. a couple more wouldn't kill you........

its been 33 pages, we need a break but feel free to post something intelligent pertaining to the topic and you will get responses. just make sure you have source material links to back you up or mention which book you got it from.

the quotes i have posted, are not only food for thought but also supporting what i have been saying all along.

sorry if you think they are out of context, i am just highlighting to bring my previous points home.