Intelligent Design? Myth or Fact

Then why did you post this?

Lithium "if you do not believe that any scientific theory can be "valid" - which is what your argument seems to imply - then discussing the merits of any particular scientific theory is somewhat pointless".

You are very welcome

Nope, this question is irrelevant to subject matter , subject matter being your raising the claim that the theory of evolution is the valid one, and now you have the burden of proof, you must prove and validate your own claim, or else it's moot and I have the benefit of assumption.

Once this subject matter is over, then we can move on and discuss other subjects, among which are the theories that I consider to be scientifically valid.

 

While this is a good argument I must beg to differ.
In fact here's some scriptural reference as to gods omnicience.
"Lord, thou knowest all things?" (John 21:17)

"God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things" (1 John 3:20).

Did not the writer of Hebrews teach us that "All things are naked and open unto his eyes" (Hebrews 4:13)? Did not the Lord tell Jeremiah "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee" (Jeremiah. 1:5)?[8]

O Lord, you have searched me and you know me, You know when I sit and when I rise.You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways (Ps. 139:1-2a & 3).

There is a very good example of this in the New Testament. Was not the Lord most surely aware of every circumstance in the life of the apostle Paul when he sent an angel to tell his apostle that not one person's life on board the ship would be lost? (Acts 27:21-25). How could God have his messenger say such a thing if he did not know all that would take place?

Did he not also know that Paul would do the responsible thing and tell the soldiers that if the sailors did not stay with the ship, they could not be saved? Surely, the Lord knew that the soldiers would make the right decision. The Lord was not waiting to find out what they would do. Though there are passages that indicate that the Lord tests us, and "awaits" our obedience, these are certainly anthropomorphic. There are far too many affirmations in Scripture that God knows all things, from the beginning, to think otherwise.

Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord (Ps. 139:4).

To deny the omniscience of God is also to play havoc with the central verities of the faith. The clear testimony of Scripture is surely enough to convince us of the truth that God is all-knowing, but it is the incarnation and the cross of Christ that reveal this attribute in its most wondrous demonstration.

God did not await the decisions of men before announcing the specifics of his future purpose. Isaiah, for example, tells us that the Lord had revealed to him that the servant of God would be "smitten" "pierced" and "crushed." Isaiah, long before the coming of the Messiah, knew that, following his humiliation, he would "see the light of life and be satisfied" and that "by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53).

The omniscient God sent an angel to the mother of our Lord to reveal a specific program. "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the son of the Most High. The Lord will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end" (Luke 1:30b-33).

The Lord could make such assertions because he knew all his holy will that he had purposed to do. None of the angelic language suggests that God might have been waiting to see what angels or men would do, before announcing a course of action.

Hmmm
eace:

 

In no way did I deny God's omniscience but simply stated that God uses his powers as he sees fit and in the case of free will, if he chooses not to know something, it is well within his right and ability to do so.

 

While I don't disagree with you, i would like to point out that no where in the bible does it give the impression that god chooses not to know all things at all times. That thought is unbiblical, no offense.

 

No blind eye?

 

Indy Hippy - you have mightily impressed me.
God bless you.

 

Umm thanks? Yeah thanks Anyway for all you debaters that're gonna check this tomorrow here's a new thought for ya, or maybe its not so new. What if our world is in reality a world within a world? For example an ant hill and all its ants. To them their ant hill and surrounding areas they harvest is the only world they know, they don't even realize that other things exist outside of that area. Or at least in our current knowledge of them they don't.

 

HE?? are you sure?

 

OK, so you've refused to answer the question again. I'm going to assume that you do not believe there is any scientific theory which is valid. I think this is a reasonable assumption given your enumeration of "just a few of the most elementary questions" we would need to answer before we could even begin to consider evolution to be a valid theory. These included a thorough explanation of the existence of matter itself. Obviously this raises the bar for required evidence to a point at which no scientific theory would pass the test. (This also indicates that you misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory, which is ultimately conditional and pragmatic, not a declaration of absolute certainty.)

This assumption brings me to my next question. (If the assumption is incorrect please give me one example of a scientific theory which meets your requirements and is valid.) Given that all scientific theories are (in your view apparently) "mythical wishful fantasies", is it possible to differentiate between these fantasies as to the most plausible version? For instance: can we decide between the "wishful fantasies" of aeroplanes flying because of the principles of aerodynamics or because they are pushed by sky fairies? In your view, are both these wishful fantasies of equal explanatory value? If we can differentiate between them, how?

 

WOW!

Way to NOT grasp the concept of OMNISCIENCE!

I have TOTAL KNOWLEDGE, except for the knowledge that I choose not to know!
Oh shit, God's in denial again, Jesus hide the fucking razor blades!

 

The question is irrelevant to subject matter at hand and is nothing but a diversion on your behalf,
besides I wrote what should constitute an answer to it even before you asked it.

Now I will not let you shift the subject matter of this conversation until after you either prove your claim or demonstrate and confirm total lack of ability to do so (so far all you write, diversions, "assumptions" and changes of subject included, point to your lack of ability to sustain your own claim).

That's all you do, assume. You don't have to read or know anything, all you do is "assume" and there it is, "as you wish".

I strongly suspect that you follow the same concept when it comes to your "assumption" about validity of theory of evolution.
You don't even know what it is, unless you can demonstrate to the contrary.

You were the one who insisted that I post any sort of question, even though I didn't have to. Burden of proof is entirely yours and it's up to you how you proceed.

But now that you raise this subject that rose out of your own earlier demand that I put forward some questions to you , then may be you should first explain why you think we don't need to answer these most elementary questions?
You are confident that it's not a part of what you have to address to convince skeptical minds of validity of theory of evolution?
Great, go ahead and reasonably explain why. Put it in the context, for all to see and understand. Explain why theory of evolution conveniently has to ignore the answer to the very basic questions of how the simplest matter came into existence out of its' elementary constituents, by means of natural selection ?

As to common ancestry, the stove in the kitchen and I also have the common ancestor, which is the Big Bang. How did what I have in the kitchen end up as a stove as opposed to me?
What mechanisms of natural selection were at work there when our common ancestors split? And how did they get there from time of the Big Bang?

I understand that no man, lest one invents Time Machine , is capable of going back in time and bringing Empirical Evidence or Proof of what really transpired during or after the Big Bang.
That's not what I am asking you to do.

What I am asking you, when I say "prove the scientific validity of your theory" or "prove your claim that the theory is scientifically valid", is that you meet the following criteria:


1. Valid theory would , relying on facts of event, try to make a logical conclusion as to origins and cause of event , without being arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing such conclusions or simply relying on hearsay.

Someone who claims the theory to be valid would need to first present the facts and then prove the scientific validity of the method used to arrive to conclusion.

Any scientific theory that is not arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing its' conclusions merits to be accepted as valid for the purposes of this discussion.

2. Using .... empirical data and known properties of matter one can draw inferences or come up with theories as to what originally caused the effect that is observed empirically.

The difference between valid and invalid theory is that invalid theory is arbitrary , akin to wishful fantasy, whereby valid theory relies on empirical evidence and strict rules of reason.


3. If it is your aim to convince the skeptical mind you must keep in yours that for any theory to be accepted as valid it must make sense and not be akin to a wishful fantasy like ancient myths, it must very well correspond to known empirical facts and evidence and be a logical extention and inference from it, with no contradoctory questions arising out of it.

See above. Evdently one who keeps misunderstunding is not me.

See above

That is not true. It contradicts what I repeatedly wrote and even copy-pasted in hopeless attempts to have you read what I write instead of you "reading" into what I write what is on your own mind.

As a sidenote:
The idea of common descent and transmutation of species dates back to 6BC Greek philosopher Anaximander, btw.
Did you know that?


As to how do we differentiate between the wishful fantasy and plausible scientific theory, I think I have no choice but to copy-paste what I already copy-pasted at least three times but you conveniently refused to read:


The difference between valid and invalid theory is that invalid theory is arbitrary , akin to wishful fantasy, whereby valid theory relies on empirical evidence and strict rules of reason.

Australian aborigen may claim that there is a cause-effect connection between woodstick and a rainfall.
But that is not scientific theory , it's wishful fantasy, no matter how many aborigens believe it or repeat it.

Valid theory would , relying on facts of event, try to make a logical conclusion as to origins and cause of event , without being arbitrary or wishful in the process of drawing such conclusions or simply relying on hearsay.

Someone who claims the theory to be valid would need to first present the facts and then prove the scientific validity of the method used to arrive to conclusion.


Which brings us back to:


You can go in circles as many times as you wish but it won't change anything:

you either prove your claim in strict accordance with scientific method or you render your claim moot and I have the benefit of assumption.

 

One of the advantages of being simple minded from a rustic part of the country is that I can get through life without expending a lot of energy on things that keep the "deep thinkers" up all night. Like, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Philosophers of science and baryogenesis buffs can and have debated that till the cows come home. My eyes just glaze over. The okie response is "I dunno, there just is, man. Go with it." Santayana used the term "animal faith" (pardon me for dropping the F-word in an atheist forum), to describe the only way of making headway on some of these basic issues like: how do I know you guys exist, and that when I get replies to my 1,548 posts it's not just an hallucination or a trick by Satan, and I'm pissing away my life communicating with illusions? There are scientists and philosopers drawing large paychecks from reputable universities who think that the movie The Matrix got it right and our consciousness is just a computer simulation run by aliens or evil robots. There are others into "quantum consciousness" who believe that what we call reality is entirely subjective and that the moon goes away when we're not looking at it. When I encounter people like that, I just smile and say: "Yeah, that could be true, man. So how did you enjoy the sixties?"

Relating this to the discussions on this thread, I think Lithium is right on Darwin, but he'll never be able to prove it to Jumboli's satisfaction, and if he tries, he (& maybe Jumboli) will end up in a padded cell or a science department at a major university. It seems to me that evolutionary theory does an impressive job in accounting for the facts of life, just as it seems to me I've been having some interesting discussions on Hip Forums, but I have to admit there's an outside chance I'm wrong, and how would I know?

I have a similar reaction to the argument about God's omniscience. Olderwater Brother seems to be basing his argument on a traditional understanding of God, as presented in the Bible. Relaxx is challenging that view, but will be up against some well-established defenses. When skeptics raise questions about perceived contradictions, e.g., if God is omnipotent and omniscient, and omni-benevolent, how could there be so much evil in the world?" The traditional approach is to "clarify" the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience, as OWB has done; or invoke "free will";and if all else fails, resort to the maxim "God moves in mysterious ways." Some people buy it, others don't. I mean, this is kind of like my dogs trying to figure out why I get upset when they shit on the carpet. Another approach, taken by Christian process theologian Charles Hartshorne, is to throw assumptions about divine omniscience and omnipotence out the window. In his book Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes, he discusses what he considers to be "six common mistakes about God", omnipotence being one, omniscience being another. What I'm saying (even though I make no claim to omniscience) is that I think I can predict how these lines of argument will unfold, and that after much fuming and fussing, it will end in a draw, or both sides will win (in their heads). But we could learn some interesting stuff along the way, as well as pick up some good "zingers" and one-liners.

 

Despite PC to the contrary, in the English language masculine pronouns are the default.

 

Neither does the Bible give the impression that God, who is omnipotent, uses only the amount of power necessary to do the job at hand but it’s obvious that he does or else the Universe would be destroyed every time he uses his power.

Likewise it should be obvious that when God, who is omniscient, give mankind and the angels free will; the only way that would be possible would be to restrict his omniscience in the case of the free will of individuals.

As for unbiblical, the Bible not saying something does not mean it didn’t happen that way; it just means the Bible did not comment on it one way or another.

 

One of the advantages of being simple minded from a rustic part of the country is that I can get through life without expending a lot of energy


Yeah... but is it worth putting up with anal MJ laws

 

That's the downside.

 

To say "I think Lithium is right on Darwin" is fine, I could say "I think fairy tales my paretnts told me about Santa Claus were right".

But he makes a bold claim, that the theory of evolution is scientifically valid, that's quite a statement there so now he has a burden of proof, either that or his claim is moot and I have benefit of the assumption.

 

Yes, I still understand the words. Please can you give me an example of a scientific theory which fulfils the criteria you've set out here and is in your view valid, if there is such a theory. You're suggesting that in principle there can be such a theory, but I'm unsure as to whether any scientific theory in practice can actually meet your demands. Consequently this is of pivotal relevance to the matter in hand. It seems to me there is no possibility in practice of generating such a theory due to exceptionally rigorous standards of evidence quite beyond the realms of science as it is currently practised. If this is indeed the case, then attempting to present evidence for evolution would be a waste of both our time, since you would be ideologically opposed to the possibility of its validity.

 

I hear you. I was living in Ne. and there were a lot of things I liked about it.

The rich soil.... critters.... the young folks would hold open the doors for the old ladies.. the "howdy" factor

But when the tripled the MJ fines recently ... while all the other states are going in the OTHER direction... I knew it was time to gallop away.

Sad thing is they , like I understand is going on in OK.also.... are having a major meth problem.. the cookers have moved out that way because the DEA has run them out of Cali. , AZ and NM.. so they relocated to the middle.

Typical federal solution...

 

Many theories in practice meet the criteria set above !

And I assure you, once we are over this subject (that is, once you either prove your claim or demonstrate your utter lack of ability to sustain it), I may gladly let you know of the examples of theories that I consider scientifically valid , all of which meet the criteria set above.

But I will not do so until after this subject matter is over, because judging from my experience of discussing this matter with you I can not exclude the possibility that if I give you any example of such theory you may immediately try to sway the whole point of this discussion from it's subject matter (which is your raising the claim and having a burden of proof now) to something frivolous and irrelevant to it, such as comparing apples to oranges and claiming that any other theory I may bring as an example of scientifically valid theory is just as short of meeting set above criteria as the one you are unsuccessfully trying to defend here, facts and evidence to the contrary nothwistanding.

That would force me to spend a lot of energy and time, perhaps pages of copy-pastings and tons of fruitless arguments, to persuade you of the obvious differences [as can be seen from quoted definition of "scientifically valid" as opposed to "scientifically non-valid" theories] between the theories that I in practice consider to be scientifically valid and those that I don't, which is not the subject matter of this discussion anyway (but one, I suspect, you are trying to turn it into in face of your utter lack of ability to sustain your own claim), and in the end you could still say that any other theory I bring as an example of scientifically valid theory is just as indefensible as the theory of the evolution you are unable to defend, disregarding all the facts and reasonable arguments to the contrary.

So, I am not going to fall into that trap. Instead, I will wait for you to produce the proof and validate your claim first or demonstrate your lack of ability to do so.

Then, once this subject matter is over we can discuss any other, among which the theories that I consider to be scientifically valid.

Which brings us back to:

you either prove your claim in strict accordance with scientific method or you render your claim moot and I have the benefit of assumption.