Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Harte]

12 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

If God created the Universe, he did a fine job--it looks completely natural.

Well, the natural look was in vogue back in those days.

Harte

[Only_]

2 hours ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Have you ever read the book?  In case you haven't and don't want to buy the book, here is a documentary:

 

You should read this one too, if you want the flip side of the coin:

 

DAVID BERLINSKI has a Ph.D. from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in France. He is the bestselling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newton’s Gift. A senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Berlinski writes frequently for Commentary, among other journals. He lives in Paris.

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266

Edited February 24, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Guyver]

Life is amazing.  You know what I’m talkin bout if you ever repeated Van Luenkooks experiment.  And, if not the bottom line is that thre is a whole universe of organisms all around us that we don’t even know without scientific exploration.  They are part of us, even as the oldest elements of the universe.

 

[Guyver]

God making us is the best explanation in my opinion.  You can have your science, that’s all good.  I don’t mind cause I like it too.

[Guyver]

So, it's like this.....you take it down to as far as you can go; no matter what angle you choose....you're still faced with the same problem.  When you get right down to it it's duality.  We see this in examining existence.  And, it's necessary as far back as you go.  So, either we were designed or we were not.  Yet, when you contempate the precision of the universe you realize that chance can't explain it.....unless you are willing to accept that every potentiality is realized.  And that is big medicine for a materialist, that they probalbly try to solve with multiverse.  

[Guyver]

And I'll just say, not only is multiverse plausible, I totally get why people would accept it.  The only thing that differentiates is experience.  If you have experienced divine, then you know it and science can't take it away, nor can the words of any person.  That's why we have these discussions.  

[cormac mac airt]

14 minutes ago, Guyver said:

God making us is the best explanation in my opinion.

...and...

So, it's like this.....you take it down to as far as you can go; no matter what angle you choose....you're still faced with the same problem.  When you get right down to it it's duality.  We see this in examining existence.  And, it's necessary as far back as you go.  So, either we were designed or we were not.  Yet, when you contempate the precision of the universe you realize that chance can't explain it.....unless you are willing to accept that every potentiality is realized.  And that is big medicine for a materialist, that they probalbly try to solve with multiverse.  

Who’s God? Yours? Mine? The Mormon’s? Someone elses? And how do you know with any verifiable specificity in order to speak for this god and everyone else too? 

Precision according to whom? And how have you taken pulsars, quasars, magnetars, planck stars, black holes, wormholes, neutron stars and other celestially destructive bodies into account in order to claim such precision? Also, how can you tell with any specificity how the rest of the universe looks when we can’t even see the rest of our universe?

cormac

[MauriOra]

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

And I'll just say, not only is multiverse plausible, I totally get why people would accept it.  The only thing that differentiates is experience.  If you have experienced divine, then you know it and science can't take it away, nor can the words of any person.  That's why we have these discussions.  

Hey G,

Your in a thoughtful mood and I like it, thanks for your thoughts..

Yes .. I have experienced many things, Divine, spiritual, awakening, whatever you want to call it .. 

I have no evidence to prove my knowing, I really wish I could.. It would be so Amazing if I could ..

Its just not possible for me to, because Only I see , hear and feel these Spirits.. Or entities, Or beings, And its not solid in my case, (I know some appear solid for others, so i have heard,) so I can not prove it ..

It is an Amazing experience, truly is .. And this will be with me for life ..

Mo..xx

[Crazy Horse]

8 hours ago, joc said:

1.  Visit a rehabilitation center for the brain damaged.

2. There is no proof that anyone has ever been clinically dead for several hours or days and miraculously came back to life.

3.  If Mind exists without body....why on Gods grey earth do we have bodies?

1; why?

2; yes there is.

3; experiencing life in a body is different than on the mental plane. Ps, the Earth is green.

[Crazy Horse]

8 hours ago, Harte said:

You have no scruples at all, and you display that fact for all to see, evidenced by your misrepresentation of Aristotle and the GREAT advancements in thinking that he was responsible for.

Harte

No, it was Aristotle that had no scruples, it was him that gave us this divisive, either, or, way of thinking about things, not so much great, more like LIMITING.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Crazy Horse

[Crazy Horse]

7 hours ago, Harte said:

A computer can beat you at chess, yet it is a pile of material. It's program, however, is not.

Harte

Exactly.

The body is a bunch of material, yet the mind isn't!

[Rlyeh]

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Sorry, this may be a stupid question. But reading through some of these comments I keep hearing about these 'Sovereign Citizens' and I honestly have no clue what that is.

Is this some sort of nutjob group I've yet to hear of, or is it just someone on here said or something?

Sorry again, kinda brainless atm.

Sovereign Citizens are basically anarchists who think the government has no business making laws or collecting tax.

For instance they believe the 'right to travel' means they have the right to drive on public roads without a license.

The movement is also associated with the fraudulent birth certificate scam, which they believe their birth certificate represents stocks which are worth millions, so they try to use that to pay their bills or taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

https://www.snopes.com/birth-certificates-financial-accounts/

 

[Davros of Skaro]

58 minutes ago, Guyver said:

And I'll just say, not only is multiverse plausible, I totally get why people would accept it.  The only thing that differentiates is experience.  If you have experienced divine, then you know it and science can't take it away, nor can the words of any person.  That's why we have these discussions.  

Sounds like cognitive bias? 

[Crazy Horse]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's right, that's what science is about, submitting a claim to others with good knowledge in the field to be critical and attempt to falsify the claim. If it cannot be falsified it stands. If you fail, you go back to the drawing board and work on your mistakes, you don't create a new body to approve you own work, that's not a valid testing process. 

No it's the trouble with ignorant people such as yourself who openly embrace these cheats and present them to others ignorant of both science and your claims to offer the guise of validity when it's nothing more than an appeal to authority. Really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You refuse real work to support pet theories through alternate avenues and say my attitude is disgusting???????? Seriously man.

And that's just an appeal to authority. I work for a large company but I am not that company I just work there, my personal opinions are not affiliated with it whatsoever. 

Yes, in short they make stuff up and call upon each other to establish thier own validity when they fail in the real world. 

I do believe we would not have got this far if they refused to move forward and stopped at 11th century thinking as you have. 

Im bored, I'm gonna go watch some paint dry, its gotta be better than reading this stuff....

[Davros of Skaro]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

You should read this one too, if you want the flip side of the coin:

 

DAVID BERLINSKI has a Ph.D. from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in France. He is the bestselling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newton’s Gift. A senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Berlinski writes frequently for Commentary, among other journals. He lives in Paris.

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266

Now I know where DieChecker gets his ideas from. 

https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/6955-david-berlinski/page:2

[Crazy Horse]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

  Man did that crack me up!!!! 

 

Illy, this is one of those posters I've learned a lot from. It's why I love this place. Badeskov Kmt Sesh, cormac, too many to mention. It's an honor to have the opportunity to have met such great people and learn so much. I can really appreciate Dawkins comments on this existance being a privilege thanks to the doors these posters have opened for me. 

Serious point.

How can existence be a privlege if as Dawkins says,  “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” 
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.

That doesn't really fit well, that existence is a privlege and yet we are robot vehicles etc. Does my computer, when switched on think to itself, "wowzzer, Im so lucky right now!"

Also, 

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.

 

That is almost as bad as believing that we are born of original sin. Nobody is born selfish, we are taugh division, scarcity, selfishness... Dawkins is the High Priest of Material Science with as many dogmas as any organised religion. And just these ideas saying that we are original sinners on the one hand, and born selfish on the other - to me this is totally unhelpful.

 

This other idea that I have been talking about, that in fact we are perfect beings who, because of this stuff above, have forgotten our divinity, but at least with this idea of perfectness I have something amazing to aim for...other than being a "selfish sinner"... Geez, and we wonder why humanity is in a mess?! We wonder why young adults are feeling more and more depressed.

[Crazy Horse]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's right, that's what science is about, submitting a claim to others with good knowledge in the field to be critical and attempt to falsify the claim. If it cannot be falsified it stands. If you fail, you go back to the drawing board and work on your mistakes, you don't create a new body to approve you own work, that's not a valid testing process. 

No it's the trouble with ignorant people such as yourself who openly embrace these cheats and present them to others ignorant of both science and your claims to offer the guise of validity when it's nothing more than an appeal to authority. Really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You refuse real work to support pet theories through alternate avenues and say my attitude is disgusting???????? Seriously man.

And that's just an appeal to authority. 

Discipline has two meanings.

In one sense it means to knuckle down and stick with it. The other sense it means different traditions, like Tae kwon do, and kung-fo, boxing and wrestling, these are all different disciplines.

Sheldrake is investigating phenomena associated outside of normal, established disciplines of Material Science. And thats a good thing, following in the path set by Galileo and Socrates. Thank God for folks who think outside the box, not allowing the estabilshed dogma to stagnate everything.

And by the way, these peer reviewed journals.....you think appealing to authority is bad?

[Illyrius]

4 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

You should read this one too, if you want the flip side of the coin:

 

DAVID BERLINSKI has a Ph.D. from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in France. He is the bestselling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newton’s Gift. A senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Berlinski writes frequently for Commentary, among other journals. He lives in Paris.

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266

I just started to read this book. I like stuff like that

[Illyrius]

2 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Sounds like cognitive bias? 

I find it really interesting people such as yourself have this mantra of cognitive bias and stuff like that, without realising you are biased too. In my opinion even more biased than most spiritual advocates here are. You use "funny pictures" all the time hahaha....

Can you actually debate seriously?

[Crazy Horse]

6 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Why is it we are told that it is us who are close minded, yet it never appears to be that way. An open mind considers all possibilities. Then it narrows its focus after shifting through a ton of information for facts. It also has nothing against being factually corrected.

So how well has science considered Spirit?

Narrowing things down to a mere 3 dimensional material experience is not considering all options.

It is limiting us to some amazing discoveries about mind/spirit/and the material planes of existence.

I do acknowledge the material world, and I am thankful for any creature comforts, although too many might not be such a good thing?!?! But I simply do not believe that this is all there is, and so I do my "best" to prove this to myself at least..

Can I prove Spirit in an empirical sense? I doubt it, one must experience these things for oneself.

 

 

[Illyrius]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Can I prove Spirit in an empirical sense? I doubt it, one must experience these things for oneself.

I think i can. For example time is something non-material and non-3d, and spirit is something beyond matter and 3d. Science acknowledges the existance of time. So it acknowledges the existance of spirit.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Illyrius

[Crazy Horse]

7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

I think i can. For example time is something non-material and non-3d, and spirit is something beyond matter and 3d. Science acknowledges the existance of time. So it acknowledges the existance of spirit.

I understand the hypothesis.

And yes, time is non-material, its a mental construct built around this 3D paradigm. And I agree, spirit is beyond matter and the 3D paradigm too.

But I am not sure how exactly science acknowledges time? If you can give a little more detail on this point? 

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

I understand the hypothesis.

And yes, time is non-material, its a mental construct built around this 3D paradigm. And I agree, spirit is beyond matter and the 3D paradigm too.

But I am not sure how exactly science acknowledges time? If you can give a little more detail on this point? 

Dunno, non-mathematically some scientists characterise it as a "measurement". Einstein says that it is an illusion. Yet relativity is about space-time 4D concept. So everything is a little confusing IMO.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Illyrius

[Crazy Horse]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Dunno, non-mathematically some scientists characterise it as a "measurement". Einstein says that it is an illusion. Yet relativity is about space-time concept. So everything is a little confusing IMO.

Well, to be honest, I think science does acknowledge time, probably in differing ways, but thats because we can see change, we experience change for ourselves each and every day, and so this concept of time has become second nature, I personally dont see it this way, yet I still use the term, because it is so deep rooted.

Anyway, Spirit is a different matter for science. It isn't so obvious and therefore some folks don't even acknowledge it, let alone actively seek it. Therefore, science doesn't even try to gain any kind of empirical evidence...

Perhaps if it tried,...

[Illyrius]

19 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well, to be honest, I think science does acknowledge time, probably in differing ways, but thats because we can see change, we experience change for ourselves each and every day, and so this concept of time has become second nature, I personally dont see it this way, yet I still use the term, because it is so deep rooted.

Anyway, Spirit is a different matter for science. It isn't so obvious and therefore some folks don't even acknowledge it, let alone actively seek it. Therefore, science doesn't even try to gain any kind of empirical evidence...

Perhaps if it tried,...

All i know that is that science and scientific method is based on empiricism and empirical proofs. They use time as a parameter in their equations and ways of describing the universe. Other things such as forces have "particles" so they can be "seen" empirically. Time on the other hand is only a concept. Is it a "human construct" only if it has nothing empirical about it but only consequences of it are a part of physics? In that case science itself works with an illusion and condemns others about dealing with illusions. Very confusing.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Illyrius