Don't worry about my beliefs. I am not here to preach. That's just my need to establish a worldview based on what I see in the world. I would like to experience the samadhi of enlightenment if I can but know there is no guaranteed path to that. Like I said, I know nothing of God. I can only posit possibilities. I have had personal spiritual experiences (they could have been mere psychoses) that lead me to believe in a higher power. I have tons of time on my hands too so I am free to wonder about these things.

satsujin wrote:Don't worry about my beliefs. I am not here to preach. That's just my need to establish a worldview based on what I see in the world.

Have you ever seen an instance of creation?

satsujin wrote:Like I said, I know nothing of God. I can only posit possibilities.

Maybe you should be looking at plausibilities instead.

Well, this thread has got off topic. It has been interesting but I'm unsubscribing now. Until next time....

satsujin wrote:
surreptitious: You seem to be referring to Young Earthers. This is not something I think is valid and I do not think most IDers do

They also do not think that Evolution is valid either but as I said before their objection is a philosophical not a scientific one Now a good skeptic should never disregard facts just because they do not conform to their world view and yet that is exactly what Intelligent Designers are doing. It has been a hundred and fifty five years since publication of Origin Of The Species and in all that time there has not been one jot of evidence to disprove Evolution. Indeed it is one of the most resilient theories in all of science. Unlike Intelligent Design it is not predicated on belief but on evidence and which is why as I already stated you should not assume them to be of equal merit as they most definitely are not. In point of fact they are as far apart as it is possible to be because while the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming that for Intelligent Design is simply non existent

I have seen a couple of fully on topic-questions that are still left unanswered. Perhaps you could scroll back and answer these before you leave?

satsujin wrote:Well, this thread has got off topic. It has been interesting but I'm unsubscribing now. Until next time....

Next time you might get a better response if you actually defend your position and respond to questions and criticisms.

satsujin wrote:Well, this thread has got off topic. It has been interesting but I'm unsubscribing now. Until next time....

Unsubscribing seems a bit drastic. Logging off for today, fair enough.
You might eventually like it here, we have many other sections you know.

Did anyone, after reading the OP, think this thread would go any differently than it did? Me neither.

If Dembski was still giving students bonus marks for trolling, I'd say satsujin had accomplished what he came here for. But I don't believe Dembski is teaching anymore.

satsujin wrote:By design, I mean something that seem to have be programmed rather than randomly assembled. And by intelligent I mean a sentient consciousness though I have no idea of its nature.

You keep tossing the word 'random' around, but I get the sneaking feeling that you're employing it in a non-technical sense. Perhaps you could tell us what you mean by it.

satsujin wrote:
By design I mean something that seem to have be programmed rather than randomly assembled
And by intelligent I mean a sentient consciousness though I have no idea of its nature

You appear to be seeking a conclusion before you have found any evidence to justify it which is not how to determine the answers to scientific questions. For you should look for the evidence first and then establish a conclusion from it. You also appear to be seeking a philosophical explanation for how life came about rather than a scientific one. This is begging the question because you are assuming that there must be one. If you are seeking evidence of a programme then it logically follows that there must be a programmer. So you have to find evidence for that also. The notion of random implies that which is spontaneous but in physics it is actually something more specific namely that which is possible but statistically improbable. And by that definition life on Earth emerged out of randomness. But it can all be explained by physics and chemistry and biology. So I suggest you stop looking for philosophical or metaphysical explanations and stick to scientific ones instead as that is where you will find the answers you are seeking

Bookmark

satsujin wrote:
Darwin's book was called Origin of Species not Observable Changes in Species.

That's right. Darwin's book seeks to explain why there are species or, more clearly, why all life doesn't simply consist of the same species. It is not titled Origin of Life, but Origin of Species. You are making a very clear and embarrassing category error.

satsujin wrote:I already stated that ID leads to an untestable area. I also stated that accepting it should not mean stopping the search for a better answer. What I find strange is that the majority are so vehemently opposed to accept it as a plausible hypothesis that people have lost careers, jobs and reputation when attempting to do so.

Only in the world of fiction.

satsujin wrote:@surreptitious: Perhaps if ID were given leeway to evolve it could start looking in the cosmos for further evidence of design.

Oh it can just use it's current methodology.... is it designed? Yes.

satsujin wrote: I don't accept fine-tuning since other constants of the cosmos could just have led to a different form of life suitable for THAT scenario. But ID had been given no consideration at all so at best it can only postulate on the best example of design, the order of life.

ID is not a result of observation - it's a result of presuppositions being bolstered by cherrypicking.

In my field, we have to learn to distinguish designed artifacts from non-designed artifacts. We have a metric for doing so that is easily testable on objects of known provenance. It works, we find stuff.

How is it that ID proposes no such metric? On what is it basing its inferences of design? The answer is that it's presupposition all the way down - it's not a scientific enterprise, but a religious one.

satsujin wrote:

How is that even an example of design, let alone the best one?

Well, I certainly think that design is better explanation of all this order(let's say the organization of DNA in all our species) than the current "hey it happened by multiple instances of random chance".

Well, that would indicate that you're uninformed about evolution if that's what you think evolution proposes.

satsujin wrote:

Where does 'random chance' come into it?

It certainly seems to have occurred at the origin stage of life and new species if one discounts design.

Seems certainly?

Then you should have no problem providing the metric which you use to arrive at this certainty, right?

satsujin wrote:But, I can see no one wants to even consider design here which I am willing to do.

This is an error in your understanding. Many of us here have considered design, apparently in far more depth than you, and have rejected it as being unable to account for observations.

satsujin wrote:So, adios amigos! My current theistic inclination also may find a foothold in quantum theory, an field I know practically nothing about but have seen some interesting videos on.

Interesting. Something you know nothing about could support your presuppositions. Looks like you're the perfect target audience for ID!

satsujin wrote: I shall keep seeking. If there are any articles/books anyone wants to recommend, please do so.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

satsujin wrote:By design, I mean something that seem to have be programmed rather than randomly assembled. And by intelligent I mean a sentient consciousness though I have no idea of its nature.

Again, evolution does not propose that organisms are randomly assembled. You are taking the claims of ID regarding evolution as the standard and ignoring or unaware of the formulation of evolution by biologists.

No 'random assembly' takes place - that wouldn't result in functional organisms.

My suggestion, instead of reading up about ID, would be to go and take a look at what evolution actually proposes.

satsujin wrote:@Eshuis: Then I guess I'm an agnostic theist.

@campernon: I am talking about order in life, not matter.

The Dover trial had to do with the teaching of Young Earth creationism. I am simply talking about design being given more leeway in research. Maybe they can be given more chance to find examples of design in our universe.

They already have ample leeway in research - no one is stopping people from positing design and testing it. It is the supposed ID scientists themselves who are unable to formulate a coherent and testable design metric.

satsujin wrote:But like I said, it is apparent you have all closed your minds to the idea of design so all responses will be biased.

People don't agree = closed minds. I think you need to try a dictionary on your way to studying evolution.

Rejecting something on rational grounds does not equate to being closed-minded... it does, however, provide a whiff of hosiery in your interaction here.

satsujin wrote:Please only post if you have a link or quote to some scientific article that can dismiss it.

No, I will post whatever I like, just as you will!

satsujin wrote:I'd like to know more about design. I'm interested. What can you tell me about design?

An awful lot as it's an essential observation in the field research area of my area of expertise. What would you like to know about it?

Let me ask you a question: How do you think anthropologists ascertain that a rock is in fact a piece of material culture crafted by a human ancestor as opposed to just being a rock shaped by natural forces? And why is it that this method clearly works as represented by the thousands of pieces of material culture discovered?

Following this, why can't ID propose a working model which can ascertain the features they claim exist. How exactly do they arrive as a conclusion without having a working metric in the first place?

The answer is clear: they are leveraging only their religious presuppositions.

satsujin wrote:
@mindhack: I told you I'm an agnostic theist. I dont know of a God but I see evidence of something directing life in this world.

Great, so the first step then would be for you to present that evidence here, right?

satsujin wrote: I don't think God willfully interferes with our existence but maybe our universe is some dream being played in the mind of God. He cannot direct, only watch. But I don't want to discuss my beliefs. Watch the video. I think it presents some good arguments for why life could not have just jumped from not being to being.

Why would life have jumped from non-being to being? That sounds like magic; like living organisms winked into existence. Actually, that's the Creationist account, not the scientific one.

satsujin wrote:Well, this thread has got off topic. It has been interesting but I'm unsubscribing now. Until next time....