I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

"The topic of settled science is a complicated one. You see, science doesn’t deal in proofs (with the exception of mathematical proofs in certain areas of physics). Rather, it deals in probabilities. In other words, it tells us what is most likely true, but it does not tell us what is absolutely true. It is inherently incapable of proving anything with 100% certainty because we are inherently incapable of knowing everything, which means that we always have to acknowledge the possibility that there is some other piece of evidence which eludes us."

Modern Scientists Are Wrong Far More Than You Think
Statisticians have shown that many scientific findings are wrong, and without an increase in statistical know-how for scientists it'll continue happening.
Scientists Are Wrong All the Time, and That's Fantastic
When a researcher gets proved wrong, that means the scientific method is working. Scientists make progress by re-doing each other's experiments*—replicating them to see if they can get the same result. More often than not, they can't.
25 Science “Facts” That Were Proven Wrong
We’re taught loads of scientific facts formally or informally from an early age. And they’re all said to be true and reinforced by our common sharing of them. As time progresses, scientists use new methods to find some of those facts (or, in some cases, rumors that are so pervasive they enter the common psyche as perceived true facts) wrong.

 

First off, if there is an intelligent designer, then there is a creation by default. Whether or not it falls in line with any given religion is irrelevant.

As to origin, I frankly could care less. Words, ideas, movements, all can go beyond what they originally intended to be. IIRC, the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization because it had moved so far away from what he started. While I do hold, personally, that there is a deity (and my beliefs to not conform to those of most others), I can accept that there may be other possibilities, including it's all purely random. Intelligent Design is nothing more that an expansion on religious based creationism, without the strict adherence to any given religious text. Intelligent Design at its most basic does not assume the creator(s) were/are seeking any form of worship. If we were a computer simulation, then the creator(s) would be seeking some sort of data, and not worried about whether we worshiped them or not. There are a lot of people out there that present ID in their own way for their own purposes. For me, it is simply that this universe and all in it were created. Whether the religious aspect I hold, holds up true under ID remains to be seen.

 

You are making an assumption on what the designer is trying to design. You are also assuming a 1:1 time ratio between them and us. For all we know, 1 of their days, takes millions or billions of our years. Was there a purpose in having various celestial bodies collide with each other? Do natural disaster (earthquakes, floods, etc) have a planned purpose or are they developments unforeseen in the initial design? Basically, you are looking at my invention, calling it a crappy coffee machine, before you ever learned that it was actually a motor oil recycler and dispenser. Just because it fit your view of a coffee maker, doesn't mean that it is, or was intended as such. Or to use the perspective of being inside and of the creation, you're complaining that the creator was clueless because as the muffler, you are subject to all the nasty discharges and noise, not realizing that was the intent.

 

It would have been nicer if you had made those links for other to review from themselves. You know.....peer review.

 

I can't logically disagree with any of your ideas here...I only wonder if the word "created" is adequate

 

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution, that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. All of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

 

A Lot to unpack requiring a relatively long response. Here’s part 1 (apologies to those having agnostic (pun intended) interest in the discussion between Jag and myself).

Regardless of differences of opinions, I believe honor exhibited should be acknowledged. Differences in opinion shouldn’t be an excuse to exercise honor and civility. I always found it interesting that Justices Scalia and Ginsberg (ideological polar opposites) were extremely close friends outside of court, often even going flyfishing together. It reminded my of the relationship I have with my closest friend, an ideological polar opposite of mine, but the differences in opinion do not devolve to conflict, but are a reflection of friends having a trust in the friendship that allows each to be completely honest and open with each other. But, as my friend one said, “we actually agree 99% of the time on values and objectives but the 1% of disagreement provides the basis for the sport of debate we both enjoy”.

Well, finally, a bit of time to respond to your post & your questions.

I am fairly certain we have different approaches to building a framework for knowledge, but I could probably say the same for most others. In saying that, I do not imply any superiority.

An Taibhse, pronounced ‘en cheev sa’ or ‘en cheev sha’ depending on the dialect, was a nickname given me by member of a gang I was in after they witnessed a member of an opposing gang put a gun against my head and pull the trigger (I ended up with the gun). The term means ‘the Ghost’ in Gaelic, though these days An Taibhse Laith, ‘the Grey Ghost’ is probably more accurate. I was supposed to be dead from that incident... so, the Walking Ghost. Very few of the people from those days know me by any other name.

As far as your preaching, it identifies your frame of reference, but to those that criticize it, no one is forced to read what you post when last I read the forum rules. People are adults they can make up their own minds. I suspect most that post arguments in this forum aren’t selling to others as much as they are to themselves.

I don’t have enough confidence in my knowledge in asserting atheism any more than I do of theism. They represent two sides of the same count to me.

I have had what some might suggest are spiritual experiences, but given they were product of hallucinative substance use when young or some other likely psychological state, I cannot justify or attribute them to anything related to any reality. They were interesting though...often a subjective feeling THE answers were just there, just beyond my Grasp. A shaman once said, you just need proper training.... it will cost... And, you... have made several suggestions regarding what I might read for answers. For me, the answers are coming; I am patient.

I haven’t read any of the works you listed. I have read many works regarding the ‘truths’ of Christianity, but can’t get past most not being able provide my self from such writings that are convincing arguments to overcome the hurdles of my cartesian skepticism and my framework of knowledge from my cross cultural studies of religion somewhat influenced by Anthony Wallace, but more augmented by my own experiences with indigenous peoples in Mid and South America in the 1980s. I have yet to see anything new and enlightening that hasn’t been said in many other ways many times over and I reject those that start with a conclusion of the ‘Truth’ of Christianity.
In reading of science however, where I do most of my reading, I find far more of the ‘new’ that is of interest, and run into fewer of those asserting ‘Truth’ (though some exist).

I don’t read the Bible regularly. However, I was raised a Catholic in Belfast Ireland and was an alterboy through my secondary school years. As part of that I learned enough Latin to assist in serving mass and studied the Bible to, as part of my duties, teach classes regarding scripture. I was subjected to frequent impromptu quizzing by the priests from both St.Peters and the Clonard Monastery, expected to answer questions correctly (sometimes I performed well).

I have read the Bible cover to cover. Beyond the Bible, I have read the Koran, and the Mayan Dresden, Madrid, Paris, and Landis codices (all from translations of colleagues such as Michael Coe and David Stuart). I have periodically dabbled in reading Sumerian cuneiform translations, Greek and Roman myth, the transcriptions published from the Dead Seas Scrolls and more. There are interesting similarities in all of them and interesting corollaries reflected in the associated social orders. But for me, all these works provide not ‘Truth’ but yield context and understanding of history and thinking of influential players in history.

Nearly at the end of my secondary schooling, I read a biography of Martin Luther which combined with some things I found contradictory in Catholicism, started me on the road to reject organized religion. It was a damning indictment of the Catholic Church. Another such was a book called the Sex Lives of the Popes. While at Queen’s University in Belfast with an initial focus on World history, I was given pass to be able to access the Long Room Trinity University weekends at Dublin. The Long Room has one of the best collections of original and rare books of antiquity in Europe... a playground for the likes of me. Reading first accounts of the events that unfolded in Europe, the power of the Catholic Church, the Reformation, etc. provided an amazing background for understanding. BTW, they had a first edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species and copies of his and Wallace’s correspondence (no interest to you, but immense interest to me).

As for my honor code, there are elements of the Golden Rule, but mine is comprised of quite a number of immutable rules which cannot be broken down to a small handful, but are somewhat based in my values of honesty, respect, integrity, generosity, action over words, courtesy, protection of those that cannot defend themselves, among several others. They cover my relationship obligations with strangers, family, friends, and enemies, etc., my sense of fairness and justice, when Violence (physical or mental) is or is not justified, and far more. My code is based on rules I began adopting starting at a young age when my Autie once told me to be the character of the man I was willing to live with or die being without regret; It was up to me to decide my character. Some aspects of my code, but not all would be familiar to Christians, Muslims, and even indigenous tribal peoples. I haven’t dropped my behavioral rules from my code over time, but have been added on over time. I probably have close to some 50 base rules each of which can act as implicit extensions in forming others.q
One basic rule is I do not try to control others and I will not be controlled. My code also extends to those some might consider as enemy to me (they may not always be so). BTW, I never disparage the person of another, but the exhibited behavior.
My adherence to my code is immutable, never situational, and has been tested, at times resulting in inconvenience and detriment to myself, but that is outweighed by the morning mirror. I have times where my code makes some things impossible to do for me... but, the mirror.
One funny thing, aside from always doing my best to do what I say I will do, all my friends know that if I use the phrase, “I promise”, it’s a vow I will never break. Hell, I maintain a promise given nearly 60 years ago to a priest that risked his life to save mine; he’s dead, but the promise stands.
BTW, strangely, the most honorable man I ever met was an IRA fellow I met when I was around 5 or 6. His reputation was well known. I don’t remember his name for certain, Staff Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, I think, but I do remember a story I heard about him. When he was arrested by the security forces, he asked if he could return home to see his bed ridden elderly mother was to be taken care of, giving his word he’d return to being detained. He was released after giving his word (such was his reputation the story goes), did what he did, and then returned to being detained. That was the story…not firsthand sure if it was true, but his character was such that the story was universally believed, and to me at the time seemed credible from what I observed of the man. While I didn’t particularly ascribe to his worldview, I did admire the man’s character; at least the parts I cherry picked to form my opinion of him. Some aspects of my code I borrowed from him.

Well, I have been informed by self ordained experts I am Hellbound. I am not a believer of the historic figure of Jesus Christ as being being divine any more than any Egyptian pharaoh, or Julius Caesar, or Palenque’s king Pakal the Great. Well, maybe Chaac. Lol ...see my link to another thread.

I guess I don’t have a heart, and I cannot profess to dishonestly believe what I cannot support to believe with logic that passes my methodology for assessing knowledge.

But, I find the notion, that “The Intellect can
be a hindrance to ever coming to the place where you can exercise
faith in God” a curious statement. Really? For me, it would be impossible to suspend reason. Surrendering my reason to the authority of another, not going to happen anymore than I would suggest anyone to ‘trust me’. I have never used that phrase, “trust me” in my life nor is there any I trust that implicitly.

I have no interest in wrecking Christianity. If it works for some, I don’t figure I have the right to infringe on the personal belief unless it become a coercively enforced doctrine. Then I will fight against it or any other that does the same, even those that try to suppress Christianity. As long as you don’t kill infidels or sacrifice lives, believe what you want if it works for you.

I see what people profess as faith is a projection of having faith in the writings of others believed to have certainty of the ‘secret knowledge’. A faith that the writings, words, of people claiming to know the druthers of ‘God’ have been passed down , faithfully translated, and unadulterated for generations through the hands of others despite language translations being near impossible to do without error in meaning and despite the potential of having men of sinful proclivity (we are all sinners, right) manually transcribing copies of the Bible (as an aside, visit the Book of Kelly’s at Trinity college and see the notations and modifications made by Monks in the Codice and convince me of the purity of the Bible has been preserved from the original sources).

Yes the supernatural cannot be investigated by Science at this point…but that doesn’t mean it does or does not exist. Does magic exist? At different times in different places, performing magic could put you on the barbecue…

As for faith, I don’t have faith in the historic revelations of others. The least reliable evidence is that of an Eye witness of revelation whose revelation is passed down, and those of scripture are basically relating hearsay, as a standard we don’t allow hearsay in our courts, much less than the basis for establishing something science can accept. Lots of people jailed and even executed on eye witness testimony suspected of error or ill intent. Even firsthand witnesses can be influenced by bias, personal motives, interpretive error, loyalties, money, status, etc. BTW, there have been many religions in history that have had those with stories of revelation. Which are considered true?
Want to see where I shared a firsthand account of a non Christian God intervening in the world?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...that-god-causes.572969/page-6#post-1071730377
Lightning, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, storms, plagues (Covid), ... which God? In, the case of Dennis (see the link), he was warned.

 

Here’s part 2 of the book(apologies to those having agnostic (pun intended) interest in the discussion between Jag and myself).

I have read the Bible. Sorry, doesn’t convince me of anything. The if only you give faith a chance bid? Sorry, not for me. I read continuously, much of it pertaining to my research interests and often, get sucked into extending my reading list as a consequence of what I do read. But not willing to suspend my reason.

My Ex Wife and her family were Quakers. They believed the Bible was the true word of God to anyone within earshot, but out of earshot. Hmmm. They gave it the old cult approach try; didn’t take. Because of my adherence to honor, it was decided I was harmless .... I guess. But then I am divorced.

When reading claims, I can measure a level of credibility against a range of other knowledge I possess and sources I find credible in the dynamic framework understanding I have developed over time. I sometimes make note of aspects of claims of which I cannot find reason to reject and often am prompted me follow other chains of inquiry to fill my knowledge gaps. I have published quite a number of studies, and when I do, I always lay out my operating assumptions, address any opposing views up front, provide my raw data and then invite any critique, of which I find a valuable resource in further lines of inquiry. I once had developed a model and methodology that I published, it was applauded, and at one point a 12 yr old girl made an observation that I and everyone else missed. Her, ‘uneducated’ observation was brilliant, caused me to throw out my entire approach, take a different track, ultimately resulting in a far better model and methodology. When I published, I included her as my co Author. Out of the mouth of Babes…

While it might be easy to accept that lofty thought of what I am and do, I am not sure I can accept myself as seeking ‘Truth’ , given there are so many subjective connotations to the word ‘Truth’. I prefer to think I pursue practical understanding, knowing my understanding can be changed by information I don’t yet possess or in re-examining what I know from a different perspective… it’s a never ending process of discovery. There are times a key piece of a puzzle is found to be wrong or replaced by something better in which case, there may be a rippling effect in other areas of my knowledge. Whether by design, or just what is, I find the process of discovery the stuff that keeps me engaged in life. My knowledge foundation is based on a Bayesian paradigm, one based on a range of the confidence levels I am able to assign to the underlying aspects of my epistemological reference frame; at any point they are provisional in nature, subject to change the more I learn. Analogous would be our understanding of Newtonian equations for gravity vs those of Einstein. Note however, the Newtonian equations are still hueristically useful in many applications.

First, I don’t consider myself supreme at anything… so no not something I would say.
Also, From my perspective that is a complex question. I don’t have the need to think in those terms. As for anything ‘higher’ than me, as I noted previously I don’t know and make no claims.
What is, is. But, I am compelled to understand and cannot surrender my need to satiate my curiosity by surrendering it to some collective belief in a Supreme Being type of explanation, besides if I am the result of a Supreme being then I was created to live life as I am doing.

I have been an instant from death many times, including the gun to the head incident as noted above. Among those life/death situations such as being in three declared emergencies while piloting private craft, another situation of experiencing being in a target area of a rocket attack, and even one where I faced the prospect of being executed in the by Mayan rebels in the 80’s.The latest incident was in December/January when I came down with a severe variation of pneumonia that resulted in a pleural effusion, fluid leaking into the pleural space which dropped my blood oxygen to 4%. I even had some amazing hallucinations, likely the product of hypoxia. I survived because of my heart conditioning from my 7,000 mi/yr or so cycling regime according to my team of doctors. They all seemed to agree, my survival amazed them. In none of my situations did I invoke ‘God’, despite the real prospect of dying. Not in my nature. My death is coming, I have long be reconciled to it. It can happen any moment. I will know... or...I won’t, in the latter case, it won’t matter to me when it happens... death will be like it was for me before birth...bookends of a life experienced.

Hmmm, I wonder if I have died before in some other incarnation? If so, I wonder how many plays I have left.Lol

Just because we haven’t figured out how to frame testable hypotheses, doesn’t mean we won’t at some point. The Amazing Randi has tried with his open offer of 1Million dollars to anyone that can scientifically prove supernatural abilities. No one has done so. There’s always excuses for failures to perform, and often, of those that try, proof of outright fraud. Why, fraudulent claims… Money, fame, Status… I know the shaman I knew one was a good magician... for him it was status.

I don’t ascribe to certainties. I approach knowledge from a heuristic perspective and a bayesian inference assessment strategy.

Technically, I am a Christian, given I was baptized, though certainly I am not a practicing believer.
It has never been a goal to re engage as a believer of Christianity ... I’d have to surrender my intellect, right?

I am sure an atheist might have their idea of what would be ‘a better friend’. I reference Paine primarily because his essays entitled ‘Age of Reason’ reflect a perspective I had prior to reading them though he was vastly more articulate than I and I found his views, expressed in 1789 interesting given the context of his time. Referencing Paine simply saves me from doing a long post from scratch to give a feel for my similar line of thought. And, while, I can list, and have in other threads, inconsistencies I have noted in the Bible or changes of it’s content over time, again, Paine does a fairly detailed critique. I could certainly have had a beer with him and figure we’d find common ground on some spiritual and political matters.

I can understand how 2 Corinthians Chaper 11 may resonate with you and stimulate aspirations for you, but why would you suspect it would do the same for me? Among the early readings (late teens) What resonated with me were Decarte’s Discourse on the Method and his Principles of Philosophy. They had a huge impact on my thinking. I doubt they would have the same impact on others that they did with me.

There are a lot of interesting passages in the Bible and interesting place and people historic references as you’d expect of any continually updated texts of antiquity, just as are found in other Egyptian, Summarian, Greek, Roman, and Babylonian writings from antiquity. Just because one might reject to the notion of divinity doesn’t mean some deep thinkers didn’t have anything of value to say or have accurate historic observations of the times they lived. I have a couple Chinese friends that can read ancient Chinese documents, including many of the early works of Sun Tzu found written on preserved bamboo strips and which are still considered of value and studied today.

I like the work of a few engaged in string theory, such as Brian Greene, Edward Wittin, Lenard Susskind, and the late Scott Gubser, but thus far, probably somewhat attributable to my lack of knowledge in some areas, have not found satisfaction with String Theory yet. I am a little more encouraged by M String Theory, but not there yet. Interesting work, but thus far it has been difficult for me to see a means for testing many of the concepts suggested given current technology. However, one prediction, that of extra dimensions I suspect may be possible to detect at CERN, something I have explained elsewhere…. Also something that may be yet evidenced in the vast amount of archival CERN data yet to be analyzed. BTW, data and tools are open source; anyone can play.
But, there are several proposals of TOE’s being worked on such as Loop Gravity and E8 which are interesting, but suffer the same difficulty of finding the means to test them.
As for String Theory, I think Brian Greene does a very good job in some of his videos on YouTube. And, as an aside, his PBS presentation called ‘Light Falls’, a celebration of the 100yr anniversary of Eddington’s 1919 confirmation of Einstein’s work is both brilliant and entertaining. Again found on YouTube.
I do applaud the efforts of these minds, and while I think we are a long way from satisfactory answers, progress is being made on a continual basis such as the recent studies with Anyons, newly discovered properties of light, etc. The work being performed on developing Quantum computing is being massively fueled by both state (US, China, likely Russia and Britain) and major corporations (IBM, INTEL, Microsoft, Google, and Apple) that are driving new research which have already priced results but may shed light on the quantum. A good place to monitor new discoveries is Phys.org a source in which you can see the results of new studies almost daily and even participate in forums where high level work is reviewed, shared, and critiqued by those engaged in the research.
I am pretty aware of the major mysteries yet remaining in Physics, and even have a developing line of speculative thought on a couple of them, like the nature of gravity, and how quantum fields manifest in the nature of particle composition represented by the Standard Model. But, given my relative education in particle physics and relative lack of master of the language of math, I do not have the skills to pursue that line of inquiry… yet. At the moment, I am consumed by research in a different field of science with physics being an area of recreational curiosity.

I have never been concerned about perishing. It has always been my expectation and not something I fear; I have been lucky to have had an amazing life. I have always rejected the, “ there is no proof but if you believe you will be rewarded; you just have to have faith” proposition. Perhaps as strategy gleaned from the religious message, many scammers appeal with a similar message…’just believe, have faith, and…”… a lot of conspiracy theorists use the same tact. I don’t conduct my life in hopes of a future reward. What I do is always what I perceive is right; that is my gift of character to myself, my North Star whether anyone is looking or not. It’s a gift that can never be taken away.

As for appealing to a higher power in life and death situations, when I had the gun pressed to my head as I mentioned above, my experience of time slowed and my thoughts were vastly accelerated (it was a pivotal experience for me and since repeated in similar life threatening experiences) and more clear than any previous experience. I wen’t through a range of thought trains, and was fully aware of each instant. I knew a gun was against my head, knew the instant the trigger was pulled, went through all the thinking I was absolutely about to be dead, wondering if I would be conscious of it, or if it was about to be ‘lights out’ with no knowledge the lights just went out… all of that along with the acceptance of it. There were no thoughts of God, despite me being an alter boy and involved with the church at the time. In my mind at the time, I was dead.
But, then, my mind was operating so fast and clearly, I was able to react (after the hammer click and no bullet), With absolute clarity and precision that I was able to move, snatch the gun, realize it was a Walther PPK, figure it hadn’t had a bullet chambered, and after snatching the gun, I racked it to chamber one. I walked away owning the gun (no, I didn’t kill my attacker, but…). That last part of the experience is difficult to explain, except could be likened to a couple of scenes in the Movies the Last Samurai and the Equalizer where there are depictions in slowed time where the protagonist plays out the action in his mind before actually executing what was just played through in the mind… always figured someone who designed those movie sequences must have had a similar experience to mine. That experience completely ended my fear of death; I have already come to terms with it. And that type of experience has been repeated in my life. Not something I depend on, but I often wonder why I can’t invoke the speed, clarity of thought and precision of action on demand, must be something in our neurology... we just need to sort it.

 

Again, apologies.

Part 3 of my response to Jag.
This length won’t happen again.

Not something I care to wonder on. Free will or not, I live as if I have it. If I don’t… interesting.
As for the question of morality, mine isn’t dependent on a higher divine authority.

As to the Question of a possible God’s power or it’s limits… it’s an infinitely recursive question. But, that question often brings two thoughts to mind. The first, Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The "laws" have been quoted and modified over the decades, including by me in suggesting that any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence or far future human would be indistinguishable from God.”
And the second when I was in the Amazon in conversation with a couple Guahibo who observed a plan fly over at altitude when one made a comment about the powerful ‘Sky Spirit’. I tried to explain there was no mystery, and tried to explain how planes worked and how I came to South America in one. In explaining, I even made a paper plane from page from my notebook to show how flight happens. All a mistake, I was relentlessly questioned the rest of my time with them, even raising incredulity when I explained how big a passenger jets was…when obviously, just looking at them up there they were smaller than some birds the people were used to seeing. Then, how do you hunt them? Then…?

An interesting chicken and the egg question; is math a product of the universe or is the human language of math just an elegant human language we use to describe what we observe of the universe? Ask the question as op to a thread and watch the debate. Then, think of some of the unanswered math problems or the frequent viral math puzzles like proving 2+2=5, of which, by the way, there is more than one prof to show 2+2=5… go figure.

As for Good and evil, cross culturally there is a continuum of belief in those concepts. Many, if not most of those beliefs can be explained as a product of variations in cultural strategies that have evolved to facilitate group survival. An interesting work on this was published by an early mentor friend, Marvin Harris, called Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches in which Marvin provided a cultural survival explanation for a number of cultural/religious beliefs. He does not suggest his explanations for some kind of truth, rather than shows certain seemingly non-logical beliefs in context of their value for survival for different groups of people and why they might be embedded in religious traditions. For instance he discusses why cattle in India are not raised for consumption despite relative levels of starvation seen there and why certain groups in the Mideast have prohibitions to consuming pig meat, and even explains the persecution of witchcraft in the Middle Ages. He even tackles some of the aspects of the rise of Christianity. The book provides a different way to analyze certain phenomena hidden in cultural/religious beliefs that can explain the hidden logic of values of some beliefs. Again, he doesn’t claim to be explaining truths, but provides a perspective of examining them in the context of beneficial value to cultures which share, observe, and propagate them, explanation that do not depend on the divine. However, I suppose after reading the book, some might make the argument that some of the prescripts in religious beliefs were divinely inspired by a benevolent creator looking out for humanity.

Sorry, for any misused words, poor grammar, dropped thoughts or other mistakes; responding to such long post is not easy on a smart phone with aging eyes, and I have consumed enough time.

 

Scientists are wrong a lot because they often deal with discovering new knowledge in new areas that are often very difficult. When you are trying to find a covid vaccine, mistakes are bound to be made, and theories will change all the time with new information.

But evolution has been settled science for more than a century and has mountains of evidence. This is also the case for the round earth, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and the theory of relativity. These theories have so much evidence that it is impossible they will be toppled.

 

Whatever natural disasters are they are death to many of his human creation - evolution or not. A bit of an uncaring attitude. I understand what you are saying but the designer obviously has a haphazard way of going about things. Then we come back to the origin of the designer. Who designed him/her/it? And who designed the first designer. Of course the designer may have no regard for other forms of life he has created. He's halfway to becoming human in that respect.

 

Again, from the inside, we can't be sure what intentions are. Religion is the specific set that claims a creator cares. ID makes no such assumption. It simply postulates that an intelligence designed the universe. After that individuals come up with details. Hell we could be a vast scale SIMS where it takes away the ladder after you get in the pool.

Ultimately that is beyond the scope of the initial question of who/what created our universe. We lack an answer to that, so naturally we will lack an answer to the next level as well, if there is one. ID looks only at our level, not any beyond it.

 

"evolution has been settled science" "This is also the case for the round earth"......for more than a hundred years you say....
and yet for thousands of years before that, humans believed the world was flat...and might even have you executed if you suggested they were wrong.
Perhaps the only that you've proven....beyond the shadow of a doubt....is that humans believe what they WANT to believe.
Take a glance at the present state of your society...and then pretend that you know what's true and what is not.

 

@An Taibhse

An Taibhse,
Thank you for writing up your Part {1}, {2}, and {3}
in response to my posts.

I read what you wrote. It was amazing.

Even more amazing is the fact that you wrote all
that on a smart phone. There ought to be some
kind of a prize for anyone that can do that and
especially do that with "aging eyes."

I hope that what you wrote will have many readers
who will find your prose unusually interesting.

You have had "quite a life" and seem to still be
"going strong."

More later , , ,

And thanks again for your comments, your contributions,
and all that hard work writing all that up on your smart
phone.

The best prize I can give you is 3 Tolkien quotes.

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such
times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to
decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
___J.R.R. Tolkien

_________________

“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.” ___J.R.R. Tolkien

____________


And this one , , , my favorite , , ,

“PIPPIN: I didn't think it would end this way.

GANDALF: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path,
one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all
turns to silver glass, and then you see it.

PIPPIN: What? Gandalf? See what?

GANDALF: White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.

PIPPIN: Well, that isn't so bad.

GANDALF: No. No, it isn't.”

___J.R.R. Tolkien

Best Regards,

JAG


``

 

Back in the middle ages people did believe the earth was flat. But they didn't have the scientific community we have today with the rigorous application of the scientific method. The best they had were a few monks who did a little bit of philosophy in their free time. So you can't claim that the scientific community can't be trusted just because superstitious people in the middle ages were wrong about the shape of the earth.

Also, if you don't completely trust the word of scientists, you are free to take a look at the evidence and the fossils for yourself. We have mountains of genetic, fossil, observational, and morphological evidence for evolution that you can see for yourself with a quick google search.

Below is a great article that goes through the evidence for evolution. There is even a creationist response to this article and the authors counter-response. You can even go to Wikipedia and just google the theory of evolution and see a basic outline of the evidence for yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

Excellent post. But these people won't do that, because they don't want to hear that their core beliefs are wrong. It's a case of willful ignorance.

 

Proponents of ID offer no valid challenge. Their assertions regarding evolution are based on theological principles, apologetics and pseudoscience.

 

``
Regarding The Screen Name An Taibhse

An Taibhse,
I enlarged this part of your post and put it in its own posting block because it was interesting
and because me doing this will probably increase the number of people who will read what
you wrote about your interesting and unusual screen name An Taibhse.


JAG
___________

Quote For Today.

“War must be, while we defend our lives against a
destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love
the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow
for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.
I love only that which they defend.”__J.R.R.Tolkien


``

 

Than you for the comments. I don’t figure my life story is anything amazing or what I have of the a background any pedigree for the importance of my opinions and observations beyond to me. Many people have interesting stories and opinions; that’s what pubs and alcohol were invented to be facilitators of the sharing.

 

I often submit in half (only half) gets is given the high probability that evolutionary theory is credible, and what we have learned in the last 100 years of DNA, to discard the notion of evolution is to deny respect to your unique genetic signature that represents the cumulative product of the inherited experience and lives of around 2,000 of your direct human ancestors, over 100, 000 of your hominid ancestors and over a billion of you ancestors of other life forms; all that contributed to what and who you are.
Look back over your shoulder at those that lived and died for you.

 

Exactly my point...if you notice....as you're pointing your finger at those who disagree with your perception of "truth"
there are three of your fingers that are pointing back at you.
You've only proved that you are every bit as pig-headed as the ones you would accuse....nothing more.

 

Noted.

Fascinating.
There is a Wiki page titled 2 + 2 = 5
{link below}

Start quote.
"In Notes from Underground (1864), by Feodor Dostoevsky, the
anonymous protagonist accepts the falsehood of "two plus two
equals five", and considers the implications (ontological and
epistemological) of rejecting the truth of "two times two makes
four", and proposed that the intellectualism of free will — Man's
inherent capability to choose or to reject logic and illogic —
is the cognitive ability that makes humanity human: "I admit that
twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but, if we are to give
everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a
very charming thing, too." [17]
End quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_+_2_=_5#:~:text=The phrase "two plus two equals five" ("2,the 1949 dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell.

_____________


My view is that the Religion Of Atheism has, in principle, and for all practical
purposes, accepted that 2 + 2 = 5. Likewise, some members of the Religion
Of Atheism believe that the Religion of Christianity and religion in general has
accepted in principle, that 2 + 2 = 5 ~ ~ ~ which in my view is merely an
interesting way of both sides saying that "your beliefs are irrational and you
have embraced illogic." {You read it in threads all the time where opponents
constantly accuse "the other" of being illogical and irrational, so its not any
hot news item.}

Something Even More Cool , , ,
There are other ways for both sides to make the same point that "the other"
is illogical and irrational , , , for examples , , and I really like these much better
than the 2 + 2 = 5 thingy , , , , ,

Accusation , , ,
Based on your beliefs , , ,
, , , You have seriously embraced the following , , ,

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop I implore thee my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my
blurglecruncheon, see if I don't."
___off the web

And , , ,

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
___off the web

2 + 2 = 5 is the same idea -- an idea expressing illogic and irrationality.

JAG

``

 

If you want to challenge the theory of evolution you must address the evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this you must know both the theory and the evidence.

 

Similar to your story was the one that suggested.....blowing up a junk yard would not produce a Cadillac.
ID seems the most logical from our limited view and understanding...
Evolution seems to be the popular opinion here...but is still just that...an opinion.
For science to be helpful, it must remain open-minded.
For science to advance...there must be at least one person humble enough...
and in some cases brave enough to admit that even the most up to date science books could be wrong.
Unfortunately they don't seem to be posting here.

 

My view is that Math originated in the nature of God who
was the Original Mathematician --- just as all the other
disciplines also originated in the nature of God.

God was the , , ,
Original Mathematician
Original Physicist
Original Cosmologist
Original Inventor
Original Artist
Original Scientist
Original Oceanographer
Original Philosopher
Original Epistemologist
Original Empiricist
Original Poet
Original Writer
Original Lover {wanting the best for others}
Original Chooser { Volition }
Original Economist
Original Emotion-ist {the full range of All Good Emotions}
Original Planner
Original Creator
Original Designer
Original Technologist
Original Everything Good , , ,

, , and we humans participate in all that up there since we are
made in the image of God , , ,

, , and that above is why human beings, made in the image of God,
have been able to build the modern world and will be able to keep making
progress in Science and Technology for ever and ever, even when the
human race makes the transition from Earthly human history to Eternity.

Humans are made in the image of God and God has , ,
~ An Intellect --- and so do we humans
~ Emotions --- and so do we humans
~ Volition {a Will, the ability to choose -- and so do we humans

God's Human Race Project ends victoriously.

JAG

``