Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Will Due]

 

Life embraces phenomena which are not wholly material. Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true, for the ten men could not so do it; they would get in one another's way so badly that the work would be greatly delayed.

 

 

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Which makes your previous what ifs meaningless as there is not even the remotest evidence to support them

 

Not yet.

 

 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Why can't someone be materialistic and spiritual?  

 

Because man cannot serve two masters.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

Not yet.

If it doesn’t exist then it’s meaningless as a point of discussion. Particularly as a possibility doesn’t make something a fact. 

cormac

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. 

Arithmetic does not say that.  That's like saying that since one woman can have a baby in 9 months, arithmetic says that 9 women can have a baby in one month, which it of course does not.  You aren't using the correct equations for your word problems.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Illyrius said:

It isn't exacty "mistrusting" science in a sense of an absolute denial - nowhere near that, it is a critique of scientism and dogmatism which is abundantly present in science.

What looks like dogmatism is often just the inability of the listener to understand the nuances of reasoning.  This is often the case when looking at masses of data when even the tiniest change in the way the data are collected or analyzed can have humongous effects on the outcome.

To give an example from my own experience:  I set up a tree-planting experiment in which I used a randomized block design.  In randomized block, treatments are randomized within a block with each block getting exactly the same number and kinds of treatments.  Thus in each block, ten seedlimngs were treated with weed barrier, ten with polymer, ten were controls, etc.  There were two blocks in one planting and four in another.  The plantings were monitorred for 25 years.  At the end, the four-block planting had suffered complete loss of two blocks and had only one surviving tree in a third block.  The blocks were obviously not the same, thus the test results were dubious.  In the other planting, each block had suffered about the same losses and gorwth rates, indicating that soils were equivalent in each block.  Because of the many losses and differences in the two tests, I elected regression anaylsis as my analytical method.  I got the paper back from peer review for failure to use the correct analytical method.  Once I had set up a randomized bloack, I had to use the analytical methods associated with it.  Using another method changed the results, even though not one tree was any different.

What is obvious to the beginner may not be at all obvious when you get into the nitty-gritty of examining nature.  Put yourself in the place of the scientist who has to explain a complex statistical process to someone without a background in statistics.

Doug

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

possibility doesn’t make something a fact. 

 

True. Not yet.

 

 

[GoldenWolf]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Because man cannot serve two masters.

 

 

So says the bible, what if that verse is wrong?

You can be spiritual without the bible and Abrahamic God.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Mystic Crusader

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Because man cannot serve two masters.

 

 

I don't believe that god miisleads people.  He gave you a mind and expects you to use it.  To do otherwise is to spurn god's gift.

Doug

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Mystic Crusader said:

So says the bible, what if that verse is wrong?

 

See Doug's post above.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

True. Not yet.

We can come back to this argument when you can show multiple celestial objects of the same mass rotating around each other while simultaneously drawing in outside material AND NOT being influenced by same, in violation of the known laws of physics and celestial mechanics. Until then you’ve got nothing.

cormac

[jmccr8]

53 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Hi Jay.

I must admit this time i have some problems with catching your point because your posts are usually much clearer to me, but i will try to present my idea to what i perceive as your dilemma. Lets start with this. Human consciousness in physical world is a very limited fragment of universal consciousness. Universal consciousness is practically infinite, unlimited, incomprehensible. At this stage of evolution our psyche, and our brain are developed only to a very limited potential of what is "out there" so to speak. So basically i cant understand you think there should be less envioromental conditoning variations. We are not only thoughts, we are emotions, instincts.. Human being is complex. We are born in certain circumstances and adapt to our surroundings. Sorry but i probably can't catch your point this time.

Hi Illyrius

If there was a constant in universal consciousness and all receivers had the same capacity and access to reception then all receivers would access the data in the same way and then there would be less environmental variation because all receivers would act in the same manner. When a radio station plays a song all receivers also play that song because that is a constant in frequency.

Tv and radio my have several other stations at a different frequency bit if there is on universal consciousness then it would stand to reason that it is a singular unless there are competing consciousness which would broadcast a different signal. As of yet there is nothing to support either aspect so I am inclined to say that we are individual processing units that respond to the conditions that they exist in and are capable of exchanging information with each other to change environmental conditions.

jmccr8

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

If there was a constant in universal consciousness and all receivers had the same capacity and access to reception then all receivers would access the data in the same way and then there would be less environmental variation because all receivers would act in the same manner. When a radio station plays a song all receivers also play that song because that is a constant in frequency.

Tv and radio my have several other stations at a different frequency bit if there is on universal consciousness then it would stand to reason that it is a singular unless there are competing consciousness which would broadcast a different signal. As of yet there is nothing to support either aspect so I am inclined to say that we are individual processing units that respond to the conditions that they exist in and are capable of exchanging information with each other to change environmental conditions.

jmccr8

Yes i see what you mean now. Imagine a source as infinite potential of possibilites and states of consciousness and souls as entities of different capacity and stages of development not as identical TV sets or Radios.. I think that changes the picture. We are beings of free will, and have been evolving in our own way so our souls and brains differ significantly although each of us is a part of humanity. I hope this explains it.

[jmccr8]

24 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Life embraces phenomena which are not wholly material. Arithmetic says that, if one man could shear a sheep in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute. That is sound mathematics, but it is not true, for the ten men could not so do it; they would get in one another's way so badly that the work would be greatly delayed.

 

 

Will

Really, there is no physical way that 10 could work effectively in that limited of a space without that hair cut turning into lamb chops.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Yes i see what you mean now. Imagine a source as infinite potential of possibilites and states of consciousness and souls as entities of different capacity and stages of development not as identical TV sets or Radios.. I think that changes the picture. We are beings of free will, and have been evolving in our own way so our souls and brains differ significantly although each of us is a part of humanity. I hope this explains it.

Hi Illyrius

Yes I thought that was what you were saying but why would an intelligent designer make receivers of different capacities if it wanted to create unity? Even man understands the benefit of creating manufacturing product in a consistent manner to produce a desired predictable result. This is the norm in every aspect of our culture from education, medicine to building homes and cars. I would think that if unity and universality was the intent of an intelligent universal consciousness then it would be best served by making all the same with the same access to data and put them in similar environments.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

33 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

you’ve got nothing

 

Prove it.

 

 

[I'mConvinced]

51 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Why can't someone be materialistic and spiritual?  The Golden Mean and Golden Rule are two simple, good moral codes for the idea.

Not only this but it has been empirically shown that people of faith are no more moral than those without. They did find an interesting result though, while there was no difference between the groups in actuality there was one group who claimed to be more morally upstanding...can you guess which group it was?

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Prove it.

 

 

Done.

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Prove it.

Oh goody, you’ve got evidence of a verified violation of the known laws of physics and celestial mechanics then? Great, let’s see it. 

cormac

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

Yes I thought that was what you were saying but why would an intelligent designer make receivers of different capacities if it wanted to create unity? Even man understands the benefit of creating manufacturing product in a consistent manner to produce a desired predictable result. This is the norm in every aspect of our culture from education, medicine to building homes and cars. I would think that if unity and universality was the intent of an intelligent universal consciousness then it would be best served by making all the same with the same access to data and put them in similar environments.

jmccr8

Hi Jay.

That is a somewhat mysterious question but in a different sense. I think the whole universe is a thing of evolution of Life. I see everything as Living. Some beings are older soul entities and are in vastly different states of consciousness than we are. What is in Christianity known as Angels or Archangels are examples of this. How it all unfolded is a considerably greater question.

The simple thing is that Universe is not Unity. Source is incomprehensible One (Unity) (God) (Absolute) - an unlimeted infinity of potentiality. That is how i see it. How humanity emerged is also complex question, but God didn't want identical statues but a diversity, Life and evolvement of free will. Or that is Devil's work.

LOL

[GoldenWolf]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

but God didn't want identical statues

Genesis 1:27 disagrees with that^.

[Illyrius]

Just now, Mystic Crusader said:

Genesis 1:27 disagrees with that^.

Ali Baba also disagrees with that. You are boring.

[GoldenWolf]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Ali Baba also disagrees with that. You are boring.

And you've got a case of histrionics going on.

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Oh goody, you’ve got evidence of a verified violation of the known laws of physics and celestial mechanics then? Great, let’s see it. 

cormac

 

You said that I've "got nothing"

It's a pity that you might not ever understand what I DO have, which goes beyond what might be shown to you.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

You said that I've "got nothing"

It's a pity that you might not ever understand what I DO have, which goes beyond what might be shown to you.

In view of what we were discussing then yes you’ve got nothing. It’s rather disingenuous of you to pretend you didn’t know what was being discussed. Guess I should have expected that.

cormac