tronvillain

Except we can't do that with ID either.

Automaton

randman: Remove your head from your ass. Back here in reality, YOU attacked US first, insulting our intelligence (gee, maybe it was because you have absolutely no argument), merely because we asked you to back up your assertions on these imaginary "kinds" of yours.

You claim we are the perpetrators of dishonesty, when you continued to spout the same quote even though the REAL, full quote was provided, which said the exact opposite of the crap you claimed it did. Then you said we had yet to show that it was out-of-context! Are you so indoctrinated by your beliefs that you cannot even see how you are behaving?

Bill

I think you first need to distinguish between "rules" that are human "best guestimates" of what is (or is not) true and the actual underlying phenomena which we humans are attempting to describe when we set forth some sort of "rule" (or "law of nature" in this instance). Just because Newton "discovered" the Laws of Gravity does not mean that gravity didn't exist before Newton's discovery. Rather, gravity always exists whenever you have matter existing within space and time.

And Einstein didn't "repeal" Newton's "Laws of Gravity" with his Theory of Relativity. Instead, Einstein only shows just how imperfect was Newton's own understanding of exactly what gravity really is. Now, as gravitational theories are being developed, even Einstein's own understanding of what gravity entails is being challenged and modified.

None of these theoretical posturings about gravity have changed the actuality of gravity one iota. That is the difference between "reality" and "a model of reality." The workings of a model can change, but the workings of "reality" cannot.

=====

Thus, my answer to your assertion is that "reality" is clearly eternal (it has always existed). Frankly, it cannot be otherwise, because for "reality" to have begun to exist would require a "cause" that is outside of "reality" (and therefore "unreal"). Such a thing is oxymoronic. And, this concept lies at the base of all claims that "God" must be "eternal" as part of the theistic explanation of the cosmos. Well, if "God" must be "eternal," then why not "reality" instead of "God?" If "God" is part of "reality" then "God" cannot have caused "reality." No "eternal" thing can have a "cause." That is the nature of being "eternal."

We don't know what exists throughout all of "reality." There could be a "God" out there somewhere, but if so, that "God" is merely a powerful alien (see my essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> for more on this concept). What we do know is that it makes far more sense for impersonal laws of nature to have had "eternal" existence than it does for any sort of an "intelligent being" to have had "eternal" existence. An impersonal law of nature has no part of its essence which can in any way decay or be destroyed. It is difficult (if not impossible) to conceive of a "God" that cannot decay or in some way be destroyed (without equating "God" with some "law of nature," anyway). The moment you make "God" part of "reality," that gives "God" substance (matter, energy, whatever) and substance inevitably decays (or can be destroyed). The only possible salvation for the whole concept of "God" is if "God" does not actually exist in "reality." Of course, that is exactly what atheists claim.

== Bill

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry, that sounds like uninformed gobbledygook. We simply do not need to try to prove Intelligent Design, at least as far as life is concerned. The mechanisms we already know of are more than adequate. So what's the point? I assume you've heard of <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html" target="_blank">Occam’s Razor</a>?

Thiaoouba, please clarify one thing. Are you talking about design of the universe, or of biological things -- life. As far as I'm concerned, we've already got how biological stuff comes to appear designed cracked. We'll happily explain that to you if you'd like. It's what this forum is about. But if you're talking the universe, though, it's off to Science and Skepticism with you...

TTFN, Oolon

liquid

Something I think doesn't come up enough (especially effective against the theist IDers rather than the alien IDers) is the problems of getting an experimental control...

If the universe isn't designed, then there are no non-human examples of ID and obviously its a load of rubbish.

If the universe is designed (say, by a god) then everything is designed, there is no such thing as something that is undesigned and we have no comparison or experimental control because it would be impossilbe to know what 'undesign' is.

Basically, all attempts at finding divine design are futile, either because they are wrong or utterly untestable. This is one thing I like to bring up about Dembski's filter...

Jonesy

Please read the following. It's short and simple to read:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a>

(Download, unzip and use password 'free' in the pdf file)

The description of that book is under:
<a href="http://TheFreedomofChoice.com/" target="_blank">http://TheFreedomofChoice.com/</a>

I'm coming from lines similar to those of the author of that book.


Initially there was Nothing. The inteligent creator was the very first thing to develop IN the nothing. He thought up and designed the Big Bang and everything that goes after it. When 'in' the nothing, the intelligent being was 'something' and for this 'creator', reality was much different (we don't know what exactly) then our reality now. The creator, being infinitely intelligent, can be in whatever reality it desires to be. We, humans, have to date figured out how to experience only one reality.

But have a read of the book above, as it best presents the argument for Intelligent Design of the Universe.

With your argumentation, you are unlikely to get past page 10, since (don't exactly remember on which page) between pages 3 and 10, very important conclusions are reached that set the scene for the rest of that book.

Oolon Colluphid

As far as I know, palaeontologists do not even use the term, except in response to creationist claims that such things do not exist. What palaeontologists do is analyse the features – in minute detail – of the fossils they find, and compare them to other fossils and living forms. What they find, over and over and over again, is shared features, often shared between more than one already-known group. Such fossils are often earlier than the ones which they seem to bridge between. What are they to make of that?

This is obviously some strange definition of the word ‘truth’ I wasn’t previously aware of.

This is an outright lie. Assuming you mean ‘species’ to mean the same thing that biologists and palaeontologists mean it, then I have already informed you about Peter Sheldon's study of Welsh trilobites in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000197&p=2" target="_blank">this thread</a>. Let me remind you what <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0632052384/qid=1015700506/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-8637056-7391618" target="_blank">Clarkson (1998)</a> says about it:

(The original paper is P Sheldon: 'Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites', Nature 330, 561-3, 1987.)

To emphasise, pygideal ribs are used to classify species. If we only had the early and late fossils, you would have no choice – assuming, as I say, you really mean species – but to say they are separate species. But we do have them, so you dismissed them in that thread as still the same kind. So you do not really mean species. Please therefore refrain from using terms you do not mean.

Since you don’t mean species, we have to assume you mean a larger grouping. Well, we’ve given you that too. Here, once again, is the link to Don Lindsay’s <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html" target="_blank">Smooth Change in the Fossil Record</a>. I have also posted plenty about the Synapsida, which show unequivocal transition from reptile to mammal.

So, Mr Randman, until such time as you offer a working definition of these 'kinds', I suggest you go hawk your nonsense elsewhere.

TTFN, Oolon

Writer@Large

I don't know whether to be happy or sad that I was so right.

Same shit, folks; different day.

--W@L

Writer@Large

randman,

If you'd tone down the vitrol and take the time to examine some links throughout this thread, you'd see that Thiaoouba has a history here, that some of us have tried taking him seriously, and that it's become painfully obvious that he's a cult member whose response to everything is "ask my cult leader" or "read this cult manual." Sort of like Christians, really, but without the centuries of apologetics to clutter things up.

--W@L

Jonesy

1. I'm not a cult member
2. The author of the book that I've mentioned is not a cult leader.
3. The book that I've mentioned is not a cult manual.
4. The book that I've mentioned is a logical argument for the existence of an intelligently designed universe.
5. Writer@Large does not seem prepared to accept that I don't represent or refer to 'a cult'.