Octopuses are Aliens

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 03:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Apparently you've had a little trouble comprehending what was said, but don't worry, it happens a lot around here. 

I originally said that there is more statistical evidence for ID. I never said "God did it". I'm looking at raw, known numbers and asking if the totality of the specific parameters needed to form and hold the Universe together, point toward a random event or something that was designed. 

So, the bottom line for you is, the exactness of many forces, that are necessary for the Universe to exist, are the result of happenstance or a random occurrence. 

As a side note, i never used the word "must". I'm asking a question. Please stop adding stuff to what i'm posting. If you're unsure, you can ask and i'll clarify if need be.

ID = Intelligent Design = God (some god)

You said it points to "God did it" but you hid it behind gobblety gook.


And yes, there is a randomness that comes together just right =/= had to be designed.  You are looking at an algebra problem to solve for "X" and since you don't know the answer you fill in "god".

Its ok.  Humans have ascribed natural phenomenon to gods for as long as they questioned how things work and why things happen.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-28-2015, 03:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I originally said that there is more statistical evidence for ID.

There is not.  This is simply your opinion of said information.  It may also be the opinion of those in the videos you showed...you know the ones with nothing but opinion being stated in them.  

I have little to no issues with your opinion other than when you quietly attempt to pass some of it off as fact.

Last...I'm really not sure why you keep trying to separate ID from God unless you are also accepting the hypothesis that the universe is possibly a computer program running a model or some other hypothesis that renders the designer more of a catalyst and less, for lack of better terms, hands on.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-28-2015, 02:06 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting the "not" since i agreed with what you said.

I got "not" from here...

(08-26-2015, 06:32 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There is an inumerable amout of things that can cause death. If one was designed, they were all designed. That doesnt really speak to if the universe is random or designed.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-28-2015, 03:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: ID = Intelligent Design = God (some god)

You said it points to "God did it" but you hid it behind gobblety gook.


And yes, there is a randomness that comes together just right =/= had to be designed.  You are looking at an algebra problem to solve for "X" and since you don't know the answer you fill in "god".

Its ok.  Humans have ascribed natural phenomenon to gods for as long as they questioned how things work and why things happen.

There is so much wrong here it's literally giving me a headache.

Literally. After reading this post, my head hurts.

[*rfaulk34*]

Never let it be said that those who cry for logic and reason aren't able to lay it down when it doesn't fit a pre-conceived notion.

lol. Random. Get outta here with that shit.

Finito

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 09:59 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: There is so much wrong here it's literally giving me a headache.

Literally. After reading this post, my head hurts.

The only thing wrong is that you have a predetermined result and are looking at the facts and making them fit that.

I'm simply pointing out with the FSM that if you already "know" the answer no fact is going to change your mind.

You believe God designed everything because you can't believe its random.  That's great.  But it doesn't make it true.  What *is* true is that the facts are showing more and more the things that had to happen for life to begin and exist...NOT that is was intelligently design...but that things happened.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-28-2015, 10:18 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Never let it be said that those who cry for logic and reason aren't able to lay it down when it doesn't fit a pre-conceived notion.

lol. Random. Get outta here with that shit.

Finito

Okay, consider this. I believe the logic behind intelligent design is the complexity of the final/current product. Correct?  Change one variable a tiny amount and life as we know wouldn't exist. Take the water molecule for example. When it freezes and turns from a liquid into a solid it becomes less dense. That's why ice floats. I'm not aware of any other solid which is less dense than its liquid form. That is a pretty neat trick that is important to the development of life on Earth. It is so unique it might lead one to consider intelligent design. Do I have the concept correct?

Now consider the human body. It is incredibly complex. Again, if you tweak the variables slightly life as we know it doesn't exist. Think of the engineering involved in a single red blood cell and the complexity of its molecular biochemical function to just transport oxygen to our tissues. Stuff like that amazes me and I enjoy learning about it.

Now look up how many diseases or disorders are caused by abnormal blood cells. I'm aware of the list. I know there are lots of things that go wrong with the design. Because there are so many screw ups with the design I'm not willing to consider it intelligent design.

Hell, some studies estimate as many as 80% of embryos never result in pregnancy. That is a terrible efficiency rating. The leading cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormalities because the design didn't go as planned.

Just walk off into the woods and try to find some potable drinking water; 750 million people world wide still don't have access to safe drinking water. It will take you less than 2 days to figure out how quickly this planet is trying to kill you.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-28-2015, 10:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: The only thing wrong is that you have a predetermined result and are looking at the facts and making them fit that.

I'm simply pointing out with the FSM that if you already "know" the answer no fact is going to change your mind.

You believe God designed everything because you can't believe its random.  That's great.  But it doesn't make it true.  What *is* true is that the facts are showing more and more the things that had to happen for life to begin and exist...NOT that is was intelligently design...but that things happened.

So much more wrong, assumptive, postulating. But what the hell? I'm already in the headache. I guess the degree is no concern at this point.

1. I have no predetermined result. Nor am i "looking at facts and making them fit". It's already widely agreed that the Universe if fine-tuned. That leaves the question of whether it was random or designed. Looking at the numbers found by those that don't ascribe it to a Deity, its my belief that in a statistical probability, design wins due to the number of things that have to be "just right" in order to not only sustain life, but to even hold the Universe together. I won't even bother to point out that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community don't believe it to be random. That same overwhelming majority would disagree with me that it was divine intervention, but they wouldn't attribute it to a random event.

2. Facts will always change my mind.

3. You don't know the first thing about what i can or can't believe. 

4. That last paragraph is "wha.......??". You obviously don't have the first clue about what i'm trying to discuss here. "Things happened". Uh, ok. Thanks for playing? 

Answers lead to more questions until there are no more questions known or left. The answer to the Fundamental Forces brought my question of its origin. Well, my first statement was that there was more of a statistical probability for design than against but after that i attempted to bring some kind of debate for the pros and cons of each. That was a pretty dumb thing for me to do...

And now, "I think what i'm supposed to say is, thank you, i'm out".

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-28-2015, 11:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okay, consider this. I believe the logic behind intelligent design is the complexity of the final/current product. Correct?  Change one variable a tiny amount and life as we know wouldn't exist. Take the water molecule for example. When it freezes and turns from a liquid into a solid it becomes less dense. That's why ice floats. I'm not aware of any other solid which is less dense than its liquid form. That is a pretty neat trick that is important to the development of life on Earth. It is so unique it might lead one to consider intelligent design. Do I have the concept correct?

Now consider the human body. It is incredibly complex. Again, if you tweak the variables slightly life as we know it doesn't exist. Think of the engineering involved in a single red blood cell and the complexity of its molecular biochemical function to just transport oxygen to our tissues. Stuff like that amazes me and I enjoy learning about it.

Now look up how many diseases or disorders are caused by abnormal blood cells. I'm aware of the list. I know there are lots of things that go wrong with the design. Because there are so many screw ups with the design I'm not willing to consider it intelligent design.

Hell, some studies estimate as many as 80% of embryos never result in pregnancy. That is a terrible efficiency rating. The leading cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormalities because the design didn't go as planned.

Just walk off into the woods and try to find some potable drinking water; 750 million people world wide still don't have access to safe drinking water. It will take you less than 2 days to figure out how quickly this planet is trying to kill you.

I am literally about to rip my own face off. 

I just spent a good amount of time typing a reply to this post and since my laptop was lagging, i was just wrapping up and i hit my backspace button to make a correction AND EVERYTHING DISAPPEARED because the cursor was outside the box. 

WOULD THE ADMIN OF THIS SITE PLEASE FIX THIS DAMN PROBLEM!!!!!???? It's not the first time it's happened. On the old site, when it happened, i could simply hit the forward arrow and all the text i typed would still be there. Not so here and it's VERY annoying. 

Anyway, i had typed that, yes, your first paragraph was correct except that i would include all of time and not just the current time--i don't dismiss the inefficiency argument....and i'm sufficiently pissed right now that i'll revisit this post tomorrow and see if i can recreate what i had previously typed instead of continuing to CliffsNotes it. 

Sooooo freaking pissed.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I forgot to mention the sun is the most common cause of the most common cancer.

Who designs that crap on purpose? What was the thought process?

1. Big ball of fire fueled by hydrogen fusion for light and heat.  Check.
2. Third rock from the sun with atmosphere to trap heat. Check.
3. Photosynthesis to fix carbon as basis of food chain. Check.


Well, looks like my work here is done. Looking forward to my day off tomorrow. Ah, shit!  I almost forgot the melanoma.

4. Melanoma. Check.

Now I'm straight.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2015, 01:04 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: So much more wrong, assumptive, postulating. But what the hell? I'm already in the headache. I guess the degree is no concern at this point.

1. I have no predetermined result. Nor am i "looking at facts and making them fit". It's already widely agreed that the Universe if fine-tuned. That leaves the question of whether it was random or designed. Looking at the numbers found by those that don't ascribe it to a Deity, its my belief that in a statistical probability, design wins due to the number of things that have to be "just right" in order to not only sustain life, but to even hold the Universe together. I won't even bother to point out that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community don't believe it to be random. That same overwhelming majority would disagree with me that it was divine intervention, but they wouldn't attribute it to a random event.

2. Facts will always change my mind.

3. You don't know the first thing about what i can or can't believe. 

4. That last paragraph is "wha.......??". You obviously don't have the first clue about what i'm trying to discuss here. "Things happened". Uh, ok. Thanks for playing? 

Answers lead to more questions until there are no more questions known or left. The answer to the Fundamental Forces brought my question of its origin. Well, my first statement was that there was more of a statistical probability for design than against but after that i attempted to bring some kind of debate for the pros and cons of each. That was a pretty dumb thing for me to do...

And now, "I think what i'm supposed to say is, thank you, i'm out".

Again, you "don't know" but the facts "lead you to believe".  And again I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't.  Your faith (other thread) is understandable but don't pretend it doesn't make you have a predetermined conclusion.

You can keep saying ID...but what you mean is "God".  The Christian God.

I'm sorry it gives you a headache to have to keep finding new ways to twist it.  I'm not criticizing you for it...I'm just pointing out that you are trying to be disingenuous by saying "you don't know, but..." when you already believe what the answer is while the rest of us are saying it is random and because of the way it is we are the way we are.

[Beaker]

Believers of ID, being religious, when faced with questions about god's ability or plan posed by non-believers, often reply with something like "god is so infinite and advanced beyond humans that humans can simply not wrap their brain around the scope of his abilities".

Maybe in the case of ID, those same religious people simply cannot wrap their brains around the scope of nature's abilities. They are limited by their belief that anything remotely complex has to have had a designer.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-29-2015, 11:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again, you "don't know" but the facts "lead you to believe".  And again I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't.  Your faith (other thread) is understandable but don't pretend it doesn't make you have a predetermined conclusion.

You can keep saying ID...but what you mean is "God".  The Christian God.

I'm sorry it gives you a headache to have to keep finding new ways to twist it.  I'm not criticizing you for it...I'm just pointing out that you are trying to be disingenuous by saying "you don't know, but..." when you already believe what the answer is while the rest of us are saying it is random and because of the way it is we are the way we are.

And again, it's not a predetermined conclusion. It's a conclusion drawn from stated facts. An opinion, like anyone elses, tbh. Regarding my original claim of statistical probability, i don't see it as illogical in any way based solely on a statistical probability. Regarding religion, i have strong beliefs but it would be wrong to say i don't have doubts or i don't question it at times. Of course, the only thing you can do with that is take my word for it, evidence of my statements on this board not withstanding.

I'd like to know who "the rest of us" saying it's random is. If i had to guess, i'd say the disagreements with my assertion of ID has to do more with my stated beliefs in the Christian God and not with any type of "intelligent designer", whatever that may be. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has clearly stated they believe it's random. As well as statements that the design doesn't seem too intelligent, based disease and other "faults". 

It would be nice if polls could be added within threads because i don't really feel like creating a new thread based on that question (random or design).

The headache isn't from "twisting" anything since my statements about how i came to the opinion has been static from the beginning.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-29-2015, 12:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Believers of ID, being religious, when faced with questions about god's ability or plan posed by non-believers, often reply with something like "god is so infinite and advanced beyond humans that humans can simply not wrap their brain around the scope of his abilities".

Maybe in the case of ID, those same religious people simply cannot wrap their brains around the scope of nature's abilities. They are limited by their belief that anything remotely complex has to have had a designer.

And then there are those that believe in science (which i do as well), believe in logic and statistics; yet turn around with numbers that support a statistical improbability, and claim it's more probable. 

Purely speculative point here so feel free to ignore it as it has no real merit as of yet...but it would be interesting to see non-believers reactions if the scientific community at large were to come out and say, "you know what, an un-quantifiable god aside, the numbers simply don't add up to natural selection. 'Something or someone' has caused this". I'm pretty sure my reaction would be, "hmm. not surprising". 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-29-2015, 03:35 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I forgot to mention the sun is the most common cause of the most common cancer.

Who designs that crap on purpose? What was the thought process?

1. Big ball of fire fueled by hydrogen fusion for light and heat.  Check.
2. Third rock from the sun with atmosphere to trap heat. Check.
3. Photosynthesis to fix carbon as basis of food chain. Check.


Well, looks like my work here is done. Looking forward to my day off tomorrow. Ah, shit!  I almost forgot the melanoma.

4. Melanoma. Check.

Now I'm straight.

"Who designs that crap on purpose" was part of my post that got erased last night. It's an answer i'm pretty sure i've given before and an answer that is not liked by those that don't believe; what good, or need is there, for a God if there is no negativity? (that is a shortened version of what i said last night). I know of the "why?" that follows, as well as rejection of the answer because it's just an opinion, but it's what i'm going with until something "better" comes along.

Part of what goes along with that answer is the belief that regardless of the negativity experience here, there is something better that comes afterward. And that answer carries the same reaction as the one in the previous paragraph.

[Beaker]

(08-30-2015, 12:10 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: And then there are those that believe in science (which i do as well), believe in logic and statistics; yet turn around with numbers that support a statistical improbability, and claim it's more probable. 

Purely speculative point here so feel free to ignore it as it has no real merit as of yet...but it would be interesting to see non-believers reactions if the scientific community at large were to come out and say, "you know what, an un-quantifiable god aside, the numbers simply don't add up to natural selection. 'Something or someone' has caused this". I'm pretty sure my reaction would be, "hmm. not surprising". 

Addressing your second sentence, the numbers, and evidence do add up to natural selection. In fact, that is not even questioned anymore. The organisms best adapted to their environment are the ones who survive to reproductive age to pass on their genes...and thus traits...to the next generation.

As far as your first sentence, what statistical improbability are you referring to? I am assuming the formation of the universe. If so, even a statistical improbability doesn't eliminate an option, which seems to be what you are implying. And an event with even a small probability, and supporting evidence is still thousands of times more likely than an explanation with zero evidence, like "god did it". So yes, the scientific explanation is still more probable than the religious one.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 12:34 AM)Beaker Wrote: Addressing your second sentence, the numbers, and evidence do add up to natural selection. In fact, that is not even questioned anymore. The organisms best adapted to their environment are the ones who survive to reproductive age to pass on their genes...and thus traits...to the next generation.

As far as your first sentence, what statistical improbability are you referring to? I am assuming the formation of the universe. If so, even a statistical improbability doesn't eliminate an option, which seems to be what you are implying. And an event with even a small probability, and supporting evidence is still thousands of times more likely than an explanation with zero evidence, like "god did it". So yes, the scientific explanation is still more probable than the religious one.

That was my mistake typing "natural selection". And i have no idea where it came from since it's not been part of any of this discussion. I may have been thinking natural process but that would be wrong as well because the question is 'design or random'. 

The statistical improbability that that the events of the "big bang" and everything that followed it was a random occurrence. And once again...it seems this has to be done a lot...i've never said a statistical improbability meant that it couldn't happen. The headache is coming back again and i know it's from people not taking the time to read and comprehend a post, then thoughtfully construct their reply. The fact that people can't put aside "God did it" and focus on the statistical merits fore each argument and the likely-hood of each is starting to make me think it's a waste of time to even try and engage most around here. The only thing anyone seems to be interested in is pointing out, endlessly, that 'God can't be proven so your argument is moot'. 

Scientists themselves are intrigued by the specific parameters of/for "life" yet people here still want to say things like "the scientific explanation is still more probable than the religious one". 

Blows.My.Mind.

Well, not really. That was just for effect.

[*rfaulk34*]

Why hasn't some well known theorist come up with the idea that life is the result of a random act because at the time of the "big bang", the Universe continued to "fire" until the exact parameters that were needed, happened; creating the Universe that we know today? You know, kind of like when you start your car. It doesn't happen until the electrical, fuel and oxygen combine to result in combustion.

Booyah! I just did something none of you chuckleheads could do. I came up with a plausible counter-argument to my argument.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-30-2015, 12:55 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That was my mistake typing "natural selection". And i have no idea where it came from since it's not been part of any of this discussion. I may have been thinking natural process but that would be wrong as well because the question is 'design or random'. 

The statistical improbability that that the events of the "big bang" and everything that followed it was a random occurrence. And once again...it seems this has to be done a lot...i've never said a statistical improbability meant that it couldn't happen. The headache is coming back again and i know it's from people not taking the time to read and comprehend a post, then thoughtfully construct their reply. The fact that people can't put aside "God did it" and focus on the statistical merits fore each argument and the likely-hood of each is starting to make me think it's a waste of time to even try and engage most around here. The only thing anyone seems to be interested in is pointing out, endlessly, that 'God can't be proven so your argument is moot'. 

Scientists themselves are intrigued by the specific parameters of/for "life" yet people here still want to say things like "the scientific explanation is still more probable than the religious one". 

Blows.My.Mind.

Well, not really. That was just for effect.

I agree that most people have there opinions and most seem unchangeable.  That being said I think there is validity your point.  Like I said before I can't disprove there is a god any more than you can prove that there is.  However that doesn't make your or my opinion invalid.  Personally I tend to agree with the scientific theories on the universe, but I do not rule out that a creator spurred the process.  I do admit that I flat out disagree with the creationist that believe the universe (or earth) is only 6000 yrs old.  Way to much scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2015, 03:29 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Personally I tend to agree with the scientific theories on the universe, but I do not rule out that a creator spurred the process. 

That's pretty much all i've been saying here. I too agree with scientific theories on the Universe but, instead of just not ruling out, i take it a step further and claim that the theories point toward design. 

The headaches come from those that keep trying to use the "science says it's this way, while creationist's say 'God did it'" argument that doesn't apply here.