ddunbar: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Do things in nature really look designed to you or do you just have faith that such things are designed because the Bible tells you so?
What a refreshing post. Thanks, dd. Yes, this is the thing we are taking issue with. Although they deny it up and down, this is exactly what the ID/Creationists here are asking of us. No proof is necessary. The universe 'looks' designed, and that is it. This means that there is an intelligent designer of life on earth. "What's that? You want a testable hypothesis that could show ID/Creation? Ok, here it is: The hypothesis is that the first life on earth was designed by an intelligent entity. That is my testable hypothesis". Now what the hell can a reasonable person do with that? Try to start pointing out the fallacies? What a relief to finally see someone of faith make this statement. It seems you have a good measure of both faith and reason (or common sense)! Who knows, maybe you have it all, the best of both sides.
ddunbar: We know for a fact that machines are designed. " With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is." Science News vol 151, p173 "the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans." Cell 93, 17-20 So anything that resembles a machine must...
I like it... even he can't bear to finish the sentence! Ironic, isn't it, that these people so readily fall into the Cartesian trap? Galileo had to recant his beliefs.
The "big bang", and all that followed it, first appeared in consciousness. Not only a "big bang" but multiple within it. And every scenario that resulted from those were played out in consciousness first...in a single instant. Like a 'green flash' at sunset, the instant was less than that relative to the eternal. That's how long time lasted. It was no time at all. That was the beginning and ending of "time". So what you see is all "past". Evolution was one scenario that was explored in that instant. Deja vu experiences are reminders that you've already been here, in that single instant. What, then, are you still doing here? You are observing that instant, and every instant within it from a point outside of it, outside of time. Think of it as a multidimensional movie house. And when you go to watch a movie in this house, you observe by participation. When you give it your whole attention, it becomes very 'real' to you. By saying you are observing form a point outside of time, I'm saying you are observing it from your place in reality, from a universe beyond. Like standing on the shore looking out over a distance, imagining what it would be like to be on a desert island out in the middle of nowhere. Given the premise of the instant in which this was imagined, every moment inside it reflects the initiating ideas. The ideas are all opposite of the world you call home...so it's a bit of a nightmare. Your experience of this 'movie' is scripted. The detail to which you follow the script is exampled in your 'deja vu' experiences. The point is, you think you are making choices, but you are really just observing. So all choices are the same choice: to remain as an observer/experiencer of an instant that is long gone. Because you were involved in the initial moment, and in the exploration of all it's consequences, and because you are One with all other players involved, you can say that you are the designer. You appear to be wandering about your design, wondering what happened. The wicked little secret, is that to view this movie, you must deny yourself, and forget you denied yourself, forget how that felt, but feel it haunting you throughout the movie...for this is the premise of the single instant. All other moments in this movie play out that theme, and what it felt like, over and over again. Because the premise was false, all thought relative to it's construction is unreal. So all form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. It is nothing, and meaningless. Time seems to tick because you desire to observe this movie from the inside. But the single tick is done, and it is long since disappeared. Therefore, you literally do not see anything with eyeballs. Incidentally, in the version of the movie you are watching, there was a migration from Mars, and a previous migration to Mars from somewhere else. You should be able to find the equivalent of a Mt. Rushmore there. But that would be like spoiling the end of the movie for you, and you won't want to know certain details if you are interested in still watching the movie. That too, is part of the movie, and you are just dying to find out what happens next. It's a movie about how 'time' attempts to replace eternity. The movie is designed to suck you in 'forever' while it gives you the appearance of choice. Finding a Mt. Rushmore equivalent edifice on Mars would not necessarily induce you to want to exit the movie house. You will want to stay to find out how "life" got to Mars, and so on. You are free to seek, but you are not free to ultimately find. Because there is but one thing to find, yourself, and the movie is about everything you are not. The only out-of-pattern choice you can make is to see things as they are, let what is true be true, and forgive. Jesus
LOL! <--- I mean, I actually LOL'ed. Here's why: 1. Catholics see what appears to be an image of Mary on the side of a building and conclude it's divine. (strangest behavior IMO.) Well, that's because they presuppose that Mary is actually the Queen of Heaven and that she actually intercedes and that abrorations(sp?) are her way of confirming their faith. Circular. 2. Bats use sound echo location not unlike how a Submarine uses sound reflection to determine the distance of objects. Do we conclude that this comparitive of processes is a function of design for both? You see, the ID movement's problem is that they use circular reasoning laced with presupposition to establish what they think are proper correlations and comparatives. Show me a cell you KNOW to be designed, then we can determine that any particular cell is designed or not. And make predictions going forward about future design or non-design. There can be no hyposthesis of design until you establish for certain that there is in fact a designer. Then all we have to do is figure out what the designer designed and what it may not have. And for what it didn't, we'll have to postulate another designer. and so on and so forth. Everything can look designed. So freaking what? But you have ZERO means for determining what is designed and what isn't because you have no proper frame of reference. Get it? Got it? Good. Until you understand that all valid comparatives have as their basis a valid frame of reference, you'll be stuck wrongly thinking that ID actually has merit beyond what you wish to believe. I'm actually shocked that you would think that a comparative of a non-living entity which is known to have been created/designed can be made to a living one of which you have no knowledge whatsoever of creation/design as evidence of design. And you submitted those quotes as if that would be a credible showstopper?! Aye corumba, amigo!
I am. Umm. Are you Taoist or something? I can't engage you because, honestly, I haven't a clue about what you're trying to say. It's not as straightforward as I'm used to dealing. I just don't get it. And why the jesus thing when you routinely contradict... Nevermind.
ddunbar: I'm not the one that made the comparison. Scientists did. They see molecular machines as literal machines. And as far as I know a molecular machine is not alive.
ddunbar: But if we have a frame of reference we don't need to establish for certain that there is in fact a designer in order to tentatively conclude something is designed, right?
I hope you are not being serious. one understanding is all we need!!??... I am misreading an ironical post, no? just in case then⦠Others may have an agenda to call babies atheist, I do not, so you are absent some information here. That I have an agenda is an accusation made by ddunbar. He chose at one point to use that approach rather than deal with the substance of the argument I put forward. As ddunbar has raised the issue on two occasions I am aware of , without any prompt whatsoever from me, and when I have not even been involved in the posts, it can hardly be reasonable to assume it is I who has an agenda on the matter. ddunbar appears to me to make a refreshingly clear and unambiguous separation between his religious belief and the science of things. I would say it is both unusual and reassuring these days to hear such broad minded and rational arguments toward the illogical standpoint of Teleology, from someone who says he also believes in ID, as ddunbar has, but without messing science into it. More power to ddunbar. Behind my argument was never to establish the position that babies are atheist , that does not in itself concern me at all whether they are or not. What I have been trying to explain time after time but which is constantly denied or ignored by ddunbar, is that the understanding how babies are (or would be if you like) atheist, goes quite some way to help appreciate how one of the most valid definition of atheist is ignored dismissed and not generally understood. Now again, I am not concerned that it is, per se , but I do object to someone saying this .... ....but then ignoring dismissing hand waving away denying valid definitions himself. Moreover, if ddunbar (or you 2cents) cannot appreciate that simple point of view, what true validity is there in taking Teleologist or ZZzztroll to task when they make all those undefined unsupportable and contradictory assertions based upon their own sets of absurd arguments. If you will cherry pick areas where you too will employ any of those things, such as "only one ...definition is all we need"â¦. (apologies if that is not what you really meant) then you are handing to them no more, no better, than they throw at you. Those evangelical lettuce sales have always found a gap in the market under such confusions. My main issue with ddunbar is that no matter how unpalatable a proposition might appear to science or belief , the argument for or against is not rationally made by ignoring the facts within it. My assertion is ddunbar is not separating his beliefs away from this one, as well or successfully as he obviously otherwise does . I am curious to understand why he would be reluctant to do so on what I see as the trivial argument that babies are atheist.