ADN

Then, at any time, feel free to give a different and better one...

QUOTE("windlord")the evolution from prokaryote cells into eucariote that allowed for the appareance of pluricellular organism......

My point, is that if you're about to say that human life is the result of such an evolution, I'm about to tell you that is as ridiculous as me saying God sits in heaven and created man out of boredom...

QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 07:39 AM) My point, is that if you're about to say that human life is the result of such an evolution, I'm about to tell you that is as ridiculous as me saying God sits in heaven and created man out of boredom...
Directly not, humans appear after 800 million -1600 million years later and the crresponding evolution, evolution doesn't bring new species overnight, but it modifies existing ones gradually, and as mutations come and go and individuals live and death, those that fit better with their environment tend to reproduce better than those who not.

An interesting reading for ID lovers is this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

How about this for an example?:

Crickets Loose Their Song

x3n:
[quote]RAUM, it seems to me that the case you're making for Intelligent Design is more a study on mathematics. You even make mention of the fact that we, as a species, record and standardize our perceptions. It seems a logical step to problem solving, we record events, find patterns and describe them as such. Time being a great example, absolutely!. We measure the ethereal, we find the pattern in the cycles of nature. WE find it. [/quote]

um, the Mathematikoi were the Samothracian Initiates. Literally, they were the Masters of Mathema. Mathema is "Science, Knowledge, Learning." Science [Scientia] is Intelligence, Understanding. That is what is all about. The standardized perceptions we have established are essentially, our assumptions. WE may find it, but we also are sometimes not looking for it.

Eureka! has its place, and not jst in California...

[quote]Lifespans are broken down into seasons, months, days, hours and so on. Even if we have to resort to adjustments and leap years, some "months" might have less or more "days".[/quote]

That is the flaws of a solar calendar. That, in my humble opinion, is the worst method of keeping time. Look at the Lunar calendars of antiquity. They focus on transitional points of visible phases of the moon. Not "there is day, put a notch on the paper with 365 spaces." John Dee's calendar suggestion was infinitely better, even in the event of needing a solar calendar, which was totally motivated by Christian influence that the sun was emulative of God. I personally believe our calendar is like forced mass insanity.

[quote]We then patch up these measurements, stubbornly with "daylight savings time" if we must...[/quote]

DST is designed to standardize the work and education periods established for humans, and is stupidity beyond reason to establish a servient class. It is a further division between the planet we are on, and the world we live in. and we wonder why noone can sleep anymore. WE ARE CLOCKS. and as a SR Energy Professional who reports Grid activity, I can give you straight numbers from the Dept of Energy that show it has no effective impact on energy conservation and to say nothing of the extra fuel usuage, which is why they say it is still in effect. it is part of the industrialization of the world.

[quote]we will find it. It doesn't mean it's "set up" that way, it means we find a way to standardize and pass down this information.[/quote]

The main statement of intelligent design is "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This is not a biblical creationism. They start with the assumption "The Bible is Right." and begin to "prove that". ID says, simply, CERTAIN features of the Universe and of living things are BEST explained by an INTELLIGENT cause, not an UNDIRECTED process such as Natural Selection.

It makes no pretense, in of itself, to say WHO OR WHAT that cause is... though many Theists, Christian, Muslim, Hindii, or otherwise may have their personal faith behind them. and many of us may only believe that there is something that inspires them all, and none of them quite get it.

I am not a Biblical Creationist, in the social sense, in as much the Bible is Empirical truth. I find the text to be translated in variance, even among the Jews who have no pre-davidic context intact.

If I had to give a text a bow, it would proverbs. wisdom teachings are much better legends, as far as i am concerned. I am a "How can i use the moral of the story" person, instead of a "Where does the book say dinosaurs come from?" As a Mentor once said, "Men who have no ability to use their findings ask "how is this so?", while men who use the products of their research ask "if this is possible, what else is?". I seriously believe that, from a Tibetan Lama, who is also a Scientist.

-------------

[quote]Let's not kid ourselves, experiencing the light and dark and the passing of friends and family, the migration of herds...at some point must have demanded some form of standardized chronology.[/quote]

actually I'd rather say having similarly functioning pituitary body and pineal ganglions was probably the culprit.

and if you ever look at the workings of the human concept of time, you will see it is no accident, nor some random variations that developed our cycle of bio-consciousness we call life.

-------------

[quote]Intelligent Design, as most know it and debate it today, requires a designer. It demands of the student a belief in a being behind it. [/quote]

Intelligent Design DOES NOT say we have to have a designer. It says "our best explanation is that some features of the universe and living beings is that "SOME OF THIS SURELY MUST BE INTENTIONAL." that is all, it does not demand belief, it requires openmindedness to the causality of the universe. This is the original stance on Intelligent Design. It was not a denominational or even religious element of science, and had NOTHING to do with the BIBLE as TRUTH. It had to do with the fact that we are constantly finding things that contradict everything we know, and thus, we enter a new scientific paradigm, after periods of [sometimes] extreme confusion. This cycle is as old as humanity's quest for Science, and the results are oddly familiar.

Personally, I think alot of Intelligent Designs function is similar to Clarke's Laws

A. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
B. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
C. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[quote]My problem with ID today is that, unlike science, ID is open to several interpretations. 6,000 YO earth, boats housing any and all animals, and a common ancestry of two (one born out of a rib) are all VERY real possibilites as topics. [/quote]

boats, housing, and rib joints are not Intelligent Design, they are Mythology. That is also the debate of Biblical Creationism, which is more popular in Intelligent Design because of the current controversy. But Intelligent Design is as old as man's search for consistency in his Universe. ID is not based on lore, ID is based on many factors, specifically:

Irreducible Complexity: infinite variation speaks for systems variances. but look at the eye, the whole system is solid and complete. how many variations exists between species. variations would have to include extra parts, or less parts, but without those specific parts functioning exactly the same, the eye, in all other possible variations but alignment of optin nerves and visual receptors, would actually endanger the organism, and thus by proxy of natural selection eyes would be elimnated from the species. why don't we have variations of people or species without optic nerves until generations of generations deprive themselves of sunlight. the answer is simple; SOMETHING DICTATES WE HAVE EYES. it is written in our "code" how to "make" an "eye", it is not freehand, either. It is set in stone.

Specified Complexity: 100 monkeys on 100 typewriters will never write a play by Shakespeare, simply by typing random variations of letters.

and finally, in my opinion this is the most biased to the human religions:

the Anthropic Principle: this is the idea that the biosphere of humans is so dependent upon critical balances that all of these balances must be inherently established, or the sheer possibility of extreme variation would make human existence unbearable and possibly impossible. yet, if it were possible for ONE species to evolve, as primates, why not another. how come no people have marsupial pouches, when it is ideal for mammals who are on the go, or live in treetops? what made "monkeys" make the evolutionary leap, that left ALL "racoons" in the trees? Racoons have opposable thumbs, and can even rationalize.

where are the racoon people? surely there must be at least ONE; at least a fossil, right? you know, infinite variation and all...

---------------------------------------

As a philosophy? yeah I think it could very well be brought into the classroom. Is that what we are talking about, or are we arguing for an OPTION to evidence?.
[/quote]

So, meteorology can be taught, even though it still has a less than 14% success rate with a 14 day analysis, but not the idea that maybe there is an inherently present CAUSE for at least some aspects of the existence of Life, the Universe, and Everything? that is preposterous.

You all seem to think Science is fixed. Science is open to MANY interpretations. We have no evidence of Electrons, and yet there a number of things that you can only do with chemistry that are possible if everything we know about electrons from the Bohr model is wrong! just as there are others, we can only achieve if everything we know is right!

all Scientific theorums are inherently subject to time, that is the nature of Science, which is a JOURNEY, not a DESTINATION.

What is worse:

The fool who says, "Aspects of The Universe and its inhabitants and their experiences are so complex that the best explanation available is that there is a INTELLIGENT administration of forces."

or the fool who says, "There must be no allowance for the possibility of INTELLIGENT administration of forces, even when we are left with no better available explanation."

See, this is why most people reduce the debate of intelligent design to the debate of "Biblical Creationism vs. Scientific Empiricism" - because so few people understand what intelligent design is. It is a "floating conclusion" to buffer scientific uncertainties and paradoxes unresolved from OTHER research.

that is all.

QUOTEThat is the flaws of a solar calendar... I personally believe our calendar is like forced mass insanity.
I agree completely. My point is that our actual calendar and all behind it are man made, not a universal law. At least not the exact, quantifiable measure we have been using. It's there to provide comfort in patterns and small measures.

QUOTEDST is designed to standardize the work and education periods established for humans...it is part of the industrialization of the world.
Then we agree here too, human measures. Flaws abound, as expected.

QUOTEThe main statement of intelligent design is "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This is not a biblical creationism. They start with the assumption "The Bible is Right." and begin to "prove that".

Then I feel I should apologize if I did not make the distinction. I assure you though, most defenders of the term ID right now, prefer NOT to make that distinction (ain't that right, fellas?).

QUOTEIntelligent Design DOES NOT say we have to have a designer. It says "our best explanation is that some features of the universe and living beings is that "SOME OF THIS SURELY MUST BE INTENTIONAL."

If there's intention, there's will thus a conscience, no?. A designer MUST exist, and for it to be so, it demands belief, according to that tenet.

You mentioned several times that natural selection is an "undirected process". It seems to me that survival is the direction. Not sure whether that calls for a "director" but it surely seems to guide the transitions.

QUOTEbut look at the eye, the whole system is solid and complete. how many variations exists between species. variations would have to include extra parts, or less parts, but without those specific parts functioning exactly the same, the eye, in all other possible variations but alignment of optin nerves and visual receptors, would actually endanger the organism, and thus by proxy of natural selection eyes would be elimnated from the species. why don't we have variations of people or species without optic nerves until generations of generations deprive themselves of sunlight. the answer is simple; SOMETHING DICTATES WE HAVE EYES.

The whole system is very good, but not the best around. There are variations of eyes. Many small changes over a long span of time can turn simple light-sensitive cells (which we are covered with) to a complex mechanism that suits our needs as a species, just like animals in the depths of the oceans require a somewhat different system. "SOMETHING DICTATES WE HAVE EYES." Again, you see why it's difficult to separate religion, or mythology from ID.


There are no raccoon people because raccoons have met their needs for family structure, shelter and apparently communication. Like most other species, a very advanced sense of smell. No eyeglasses either, something we seems to depend on en masse.

QUOTEYou all seem to think Science is fixed. Science is open to MANY interpretations...
all Scientific theorums are inherently subject to time, that is the nature of Science, which is a JOURNEY, not a DESTINATION.
I agree and no I do not thinkscience it's fixed. Religion is. Most proponents of ID are simply after the consensus that THE Designer made it, and that is a destination.

QUOTE...It is a "floating conclusion" to buffer scientific uncertainties and paradoxes unresolved from OTHER research.
There have always been scientific uncertainties, that's what science does, it adjusts. ID feels like a patch, "SEE?...THERE it IS!" and yet, it isn't there. It doesn't only need to serve as a buffer, it must also cover a who and a why, otherwise it just follows the trail of science and waits to pounce at the slightest misstep.

[quote]If there's intention, there's will thus a conscience, no?. A designer MUST exist, and for it to be so, it demands belief, according to that tenet.[quote]

nothing says the designer is a immortal or omnipotent.

it could as easily be possible that the designer designed to universe to *undo* himself,.. ask a Shivite or Gnostic.
----------

QUOTE(raum @ Oct 18 2006, 01:18 PM) That is the flaws of a solar calendar. That, in my humble opinion, is the worst method of keeping time. Look at the Lunar calendars of antiquity. They focus on transitional points of visible phases of the moon. Not "there is day, put a notch on the paper with 365 spaces." John Dee's calendar suggestion was infinitely better, even in the event of needing a solar calendar, which was totally motivated by Christian influence that the sun was emulative of God.
Sorry but that is simply ridiculous, antique civilizations usually used a lunar calendar & a solar calendar in conjuntion (aztecs, mayas, incas, etc..) , fusioned into a lunisolar one (jews, chinesse,etc..) or solar (egyptian, roman, greek). In fact the mayan solar calendar is so accurate that until late 60's and with the help of computers we weren't able to match.

Other thing is that current gregorian re reformed calendar is not the best availible, since there're other calendars with much greater exactitude (by example, a persian astronomer proposed a calendar reform by early XVII that misses 1 day every 48000 solar years, instead of the current reformed gregorian that mises 1 day every 25000 solar years, or the lunar calendar that misses 10-11 days per solar year in the case of non ciclic calendars, or 1 day every 247 solar years in case of most ciclyc calendars).

QUOTE(raum @ Oct 18 2006, 01:18 PM) DST is designed to standardize the work and education periods established for humans, and is stupidity beyond reason to establish a servient class. It is a further division between the planet we are on, and the world we live in. and we wonder why noone can sleep anymore. WE ARE CLOCKS. and as a SR Energy Professional who reports Grid activity, I can give you straight numbers from the Dept of Energy that show it has no effective impact on energy conservation and to say nothing of the extra fuel usuage, which is why they say it is still in effect. it is part of the industrialization of the world.
Well at least in europe there's an ongoing preassure to remove that measure since its effects are not messurable regarding energy consumption.

QUOTE(raum @ Oct 18 2006, 01:18 PM) The main statement of intelligent design is "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Have you ever heard of evolutionary electronics? In short it uses evolution & natural selection to try to create better designs for electronic circuits, and even if you beging with a a set of PLG full with random noise, once you start the procecss in very few generations you get human level designs, in few generations later you see unexpected and completely novel optimizations that look like they were directed by some inteligence, but the only preasure, the only direction is what the natural selection imposes.

QUOTEand if you ever look at the workings of the human concept of time, you will see it is no accident, nor some random variations that developed our cycle of bio-consciousness we call life.
No, it's a consecuence of the physical changes in the environment that the earth & moon movements movements create (light variations, etc..).


QUOTEIrreducible Complexity
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
Btw the eye is known not to be an IC system, and there're examples among other species of eye precursos and possible paths of evolution.

QUOTESpecified Complexity: 100 monkeys on 100 typewriters will never write a play by Shakespeare, simply by typing random variations of letters.
Although the probabilty is low, 1*10^-80 it can happen.

PD: I'll continue answering this one later

QUOTEnothing says the designer is a immortal or omnipotent.

it could as easily be possible that the designer designed to universe to *undo* himself,.. ask a Shivite or Gnostic.

Well, actually every believer seems to think so. No sense in taking their word as truth though, being that it's easier to repeat that shit than to actually think about it.

Since we're taking another route on this one, I thought I'd run this by you. You might have read it but I hadn't until last week.
An Asimov short story, and according to him, it's the best one he's ever written. Like I told some other peeps, I haven't read enough of his material to say the same, but I certainly dug it. Right on point too.
A tangent, but within parameters.

Isaac Asimov's The Last Question
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm

x3n sayeth, "actually every believer seems to think so."

um, I don't. in fact, I think there is a HUGE difference between Immortal and Omnipotent and Eternal and Supreme.

I believe the Intelligent Design of the Universe was developed by the sum total of the conscious that humanity currently emulates greater than any other animal. I believe, if you will, something is trying to "get out" or to acend to a state far greater than what humanity currently is. I believe the biblical stories are badly translated, and horribly redacted, though I do not believe there is any reason to suppose this was done with specific malintent. I believe that the El, that is to say, the Highest Octave of Thought is something we can commune with, and it's Intelligence is something which far more encompassing than MY Intelligence, largely due to the variances of the experience of time.

I do not believe "seven days" is the correct translation and I believe the experience of the material universe is a project of refinement. I have visible and tangible recorded evidence indicating the death of the organism is not always by proxy the death of the being's presence in the perceptual reality of other being who are still alive. (I *DESPISE* THE Presumption of Objective Reality and Subjective Reality, and instead regard "perceptual reality" and "proven reality".)

to me, Hell is nowhere to be found lest you simply haven't the integrity to witness The True Nature of Your Self, as an emanation of the full potential of what you can be, and I care not if it is something you evolve into, are absorbed into, or simply switch places with. but i have witnessed it... and last time I checked, Science in its truest sense is about WHAT IS OBSERVED, not simply WHAT IS READ or WHAT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. Even in dealing with the claims and assumptions of "objective science" (as also with Religion, Anthropology, or any other), I marry Skepticism to Enthusiasm.

So, in my opinion, there is a place for a person who believes that Ben Bova's "Story of Light" is a more relevant read for the modern man than the book of Genesis, in repsect to the bare glimpses to the Workings of the Universe, and also believes in the direct elements of Intelligent Design (as opposed to the overt highjacking of it for denominationally religious motivations or literal biblical interpretation of bad translations).

...and then leave it to x3n to bring in the Saints!

to me the intelligent design is not the "blueprints before the building", rather it is "the grain of sand in the oyster."

Asimov, to me, is no less a Saint than any Catholic Patriarch is to a Catholic. This certainly one of my favorites of his as well. And in fact, I have never read anything he did and not find it provoking within me the greatest hope for the species. Just as Arthur C. Clarke was the man who prophesized of satellites before they existed, and how kiosk is becoming the reality William Gibson wrote into being, So I eagerly look forward to what more weaving of this dream we call Life is inspired by tales of Asimov.

Ch

QUOTEx3n sayeth, "actually every believer seems to think so."

um, I don't.
I stand corrected, you don't.

QUOTEI believe that the El, that is to say, the Highest Octave of Thought is something we can commune with, and it's Intelligence is something which far more encompassing than MY Intelligence, largely due to the variances of the experience of time.
We agree, to a certain extent. I see the directives of survival in nature. In that respect, We could definitely discuss that as intelligence. Little by little, each species has gone through changes and only those useful for it's survival stayed, and continue to change. If there is any intelligence, I can see it in cells eliminating those traits which are deemed unnecessary or counter to it's survival.

But I still think you see a superior being above it all and I sincerely don't. I do see the structures and sadly, only read about the changes, as I've never had the experience of watching humanity in its infancy. I would still go as far as to contemplate the possibility of a collective consciousness. After all, the same elements were used for everything. Even then, this being has no place in this scenario. It doesn't require it. Not as architect, not as a guide, certainly not as a god.

QUOTElast time I checked, Science in its truest sense is about WHAT IS OBSERVED, not simply WHAT IS READ or WHAT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. Even in dealing with the claims and assumptions of "objective science" (as also with Religion, Anthropology, or any other), I marry Skepticism to Enthusiasm.
Yesss. What is observed and documented, having no access to the findings, except for books (both for and against claims) I'll go with that. We both seem to agree that the holy book is eliminated as a valid source for the serious study of the being YOU describe. I avoid it because I already read it a few times and frankly, it 5uxX0rz. I suppose that would leave the truest experience of this higher thought. But what of the kiddies?, what about those who feel the love so deeply it makes them cry and shake in church? How do we tell them to quit that bullshit already and really experience it rather than fool themselves?. The experience you speak off will leave MILLIONS outside the gates.

Oh...and don't bring the fucking Catholics into this, mayng! wrong wichoo?