[_ Old Earth _] On Intelligent Design and Atheism

[Rick W]

No atheist says that no intelligent designers exist, just that none were responsible for the formation of Earth/the universe.

So the atheist is limited in two ways.

In the past:
The "big bang" is as far as one can go. There's no way of knowing what was before that. If all matter was compressed as supposed then there can be no evidence produced to look any further back, only guesses and more unfalsifiable theories. If one cares to believe what was before the "Big Bang" then I must ask for verifiable evidence and the request to "Prove it".

In the Future:
Many wanted to believe the universe will slow down and collapse upon itself repeating a regenerative process. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, there is speculation on dark energy , dark matter and supergravity but all these are simply the works of theoritical speculation of those searching feverishly to prove the universe will not continue to expand forever. But by all observable evidence, including all thing genuinely detectable, the universe is expanding and will continue to do so.
That's a huge problem. For if it's "allowed" to expand forever then the implications can be rather distasteful with some very awkward questions involved.
By all things observable, with all verifiable evidence, if one believes the universe is slowing down and will collapse upon itself then I must again ask, "Prove it".

If the universe is expanding with no sign of slowing down as implicated by all observable and verifiable evidence through science, then the lifespan of the universe is no more than a very quick flash, if even that, when superimposed on the limitless time of eternity. The atheist becomes trapped within that flash with nowhere else to go, a self-imposed prison because of the denial of God.

 

[Patashu]

No atheist says that no intelligent designers exist, just that none were responsible for the formation of Earth/the universe.

So the atheist is limited in two ways.

In the past:
The "big bang" is as far as one can go. There's no way of knowing what was before that. If all matter was compressed as supposed then there can be no evidence produced to look any further back, only guesses and more unfalsifiable theories. If one cares to believe what was before the "Big Bang" then I must ask for verifiable evidence and the request to "Prove it".

No way of knowing yet, anyway. There is speculation as to what might have happened before and depending on the exact theory the big bang may not have hidden ALL information from the previous universe-state. In other words, stay tuned.

In the Future:
Many wanted to believe the universe will slow down and collapse upon itself repeating a regenerative process. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, there is speculation on dark energy , dark matter and supergravity but all these are simply the works of theoritical speculation of those searching feverishly to prove the universe will not continue to expand forever. But by all observable evidence, including all thing genuinely detectable, the universe is expanding and will continue to do so.

The big crunch hypothesis was based on an assumption that gravity would eventually overcome the acceleration of an expanding universe. However, we now know that the rate of expansion is actually speeding up thanks to recent data ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerati ... References ) and the current theory on the end of our universe is that it will either end in a big rip (where expansion speeds up to the point that everything is separated from everything else) or a heat death (where entropy becomes a maximum throughtout the universe and no meaningful work can happen).
Dark matter has significant evidence going for it; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster
'MOND' is an alternative explanation to attempt to explain the extra mass of dark matter as a variance in gravity instead. How overly contrived it's become says something about its inferiority to simply proposing dark matter as the extra mass, but scientists are free to attempt to modify it into a workable form nevertheless.

That's a huge problem. For if it's "allowed" to expand forever then the implications can be rather distasteful with some very awkward questions involved.

We aren't 'allowing' the universe to expand forever, we're observing that it probably will. Something can be horrible but still true.

By all things observable, with all verifiable evidence, if one believes the universe is slowing down and will collapse upon itself then I must again ask, "Prove it".

There's no evidence for this view anymore, of course.

If the universe is expanding with no sign of slowing down as implicated by all observable and verifiable evidence through science, then the lifespan of the universe is no more than a very quick flash, if even that, when superimposed on the limitless time of eternity. The atheist becomes trapped within that flash with nowhere else to go, a self-imposed prison because of the denial of God.

What period of time WOULDN'T qualify as a quick flash compared to eternity?
And who would want to live forever anyway? You would eventually exhaust the fun factor of discovering and trying new things, because there would be nothing left to do, every possible activity or conversation mapped out. What do you do then? You still have an infinity left, and you have to spend it somehow. I would go -bored- -out of my mind-. I wouldn't wish eternal life on anyone. It's for the better that life is finite.

 

[Rick W]

All through history civilizatoins have had some belief in life after death. The Egyptians, the American Indian, the Aztecs, the Mayans ...
Can it be proven? Of course not. But there's a nagging intuition within man that compels even ancient peoples to recognise the existence of an afterlife. Much research has been done studing this phenomenon. Civilizations separated by oceans have the same view, that there is something after this physical life, that the spirits of men don't die with the body.
Even in today's culture we still say, "May he rest in peace". If the dead become nothing at all, that the phrase has no basis. And of course I expect you to hold that there is no basis. :wink: But again, there's just something within man that denies an end of everything at death regardless of location or how far back into history one cares to go.

Carl Sagan mentioned a religion (Hindu?) that believes in a closed universe that expands then collapses to a point at which it again "explodes". There is nothing left between the "cusps", nothing physical anyway. So the idea is that the universe "has always been". But if the universe will continue to expand into oblivion then it's obvious that's not the case and the nagging question of where it came from in the first place comes to mind. There is an end. It follows there must have been a beginning and I seriously doubt the matter contained in the universe simply came to being from out of the void of it's own accord.

And who would want to live forever anyway? You would eventually exhaust the fun factor of discovering and trying new things, because there would be nothing left to do, every possible activity or conversation mapped out. What do you do then? You still have an infinity left, and you have to spend it somehow. I would go -bored- -out of my mind-. I wouldn't wish eternal life on anyone. It's for the better that life is finite.

"I would go -bored- -out of my mind-"\

Ah, entertainment value. That seems an empty basis for life, not to be bored.


"I wouldn't wish eternal life on anyone."

You have no hope for eternal life, you have no hope to be in the presence of The Father. You have no hope for something better outside the physical realm and no hope that there can be. You have nothing to look forward to except the grave. For you the clock is ticking, minute by minute, hour by hour and day by day toward your death where you believe it will all end in oblivion.
Hopelessness is an empty existence.
I'd wish that on nobody.

 

[Patashu]

All through history civilizatoins have had some belief in life after death. The Egyptians, the American Indian, the Aztecs, the Mayans ...

Of course, it is natural to want comfort and security in being able to have more life.

Can it be proven? Of course not.

It depends. If the religion proposes detectable and thus falsifiaible phenomenon as a result of its afterlife/spirituality/whathaveyou while remaining the most parsimonious theory for such phenomenon then the religion can be tested and found to be true, false, or true but adding unneccesary elements.

But there's a nagging intuition within man that compels even ancient peoples to recognise the existence of an afterlife. Much research has been done studing this phenomenon. Civilizations separated by oceans have the same view, that there is something after this physical life, that the spirits of men don't die with the body.

The actual afterlifes, spiritual beliefs and religious views of the many cultures of the world differ greatly. The ideas are incited by similar experiences but from those experiences, not from some kind of spiritual connection.

Even in today's culture we still say, "May he rest in peace". If the dead become nothing at all, that the phrase has no basis.

And we say god bless you when someone sneezes. It's just an artifact of prior culture, though. Co-opting you might even call it.

And of course I expect you to hold that there is no basis. :wink: But again, there's just something within man that denies an end of everything at death regardless of location or how far back into history one cares to go.

Mhm!

Carl Sagan mentioned a religion (Hindu?) that believes in a closed universe that expands then collapses to a point at which it again "explodes".

Kabbalism?

There is nothing left between the "cusps", nothing physical anyway. So the idea is that the universe "has always been". But if the universe will continue to expand into oblivion then it's obvious that's not the case and the nagging question of where it came from in the first place comes to mind. There is an end. It follows there must have been a beginning and I seriously doubt the matter contained in the universe simply came to being from out of the void of it's own accord.

We have no reason to assume time will simply cease to run one day; in that sense, the universe will go on forever. Perhaps on higher levels the concepts of causality and time do not hold at all; I can't imagine how such a thing would function, though.
As for the beginning, we could never prove that everything began there. If scientists found evidence for a pre-big bang state, you might ask what was before that, and then before that. There's no point where you can just stop and say we've found out where it all began.
(Also, the matter in the universe was originally energy. Same argument, where the energy came from is an open question in science I believe, just say energy.)

And who would want to live forever anyway? You would eventually exhaust the fun factor of discovering and trying new things, because there would be nothing left to do, every possible activity or conversation mapped out. What do you do then? You still have an infinity left, and you have to spend it somehow. I would go -bored- -out of my mind-. I wouldn't wish eternal life on anyone. It's for the better that life is finite.

"I would go -bored- -out of my mind-"\

Ah, entertainment value. That seems an empty basis for life, not to be bored.

Well, once you're in the eternal undying infinite, how do you plan to spend your infinity apon eternity apon endless infinite eternity of the rest of your life? No matter what it's devoted to you'll run out of things that you can stand to do sooner or later.

"I wouldn't wish eternal life on anyone."

You have no hope for eternal life, you have no hope to be in the presence of The Father. You have no hope for something better outside the physical realm and no hope that there can be. You have nothing to look forward to except the grave. For you the clock is ticking, minute by minute, hour by hour and day by day toward your death where you believe it will all end in oblivion.
Hopelessness is an empty existence.
I'd wish that on nobody.

I could argue that atheists value life more than those of any religion; they must accept that they only have the life they are endowed with, they don't have an eternal afterlife to get around to things, they have to make the most of the life that they have here and now while it's available.
And once all is said and done, one's deeds can live on in the minds of others and perhaps even in the corridors of history itself.

 

[BobRyan]

No atheist says that no intelligent designers exist, just that none were responsible for the formation of Earth/the universe.

The "There is no god" statement of atheism is slightly more adamant and militant atheism than the "no god that we can know of" of agnosticism. In Huxley's world the "not so-s you would notice" aspect of God is that either he does not exist or if He does He has not actually done anything that you could notice.

Either way - atheism.

Either way - it is the atheist primarily that has the "doctrinal need" to blindly censor the academic freedom to follow the data where it leads -- if that data is leading to a conclusion in favor of design.

So the atheist is limited in two ways.

In the past:
The "big bang" is as far as one can go. There's no way of knowing what was before that. If all matter was compressed as supposed then there can be no evidence produced to look any further back, only guesses and more unfalsifiable theories.

More than that -- the atheist has no "science" no "physics" to explore an unfolding universe at the point of the big bang. A universe that "pops into existence" in about 3 minutes time out to over 100's of millions if not 100's of Billions lightyears.

Furthermore the atheist has no way to distinguish between a "And God said let there be..." and a universe that simply pops out on it's own in 3minutes time.

Potluck
If one cares to believe what was before the "Big Bang" then I must ask for verifiable evidence and the request to "Prove it".

Questions that apply at every step of atheist darwinist "story telling" as Colin Patterson points out -- regarding "stories about how one thing came from another" and admits that they are "Stories easy enough to tell -- but they are not science".

In the Future:
Many wanted to believe the universe will slow down and collapse upon itself repeating a regenerative process. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, there is speculation on dark energy , dark matter and supergravity but all these are simply the works of theoritical speculation of those searching feverishly to prove the universe will not continue to expand forever.

Almost. The dark energy factor is apparently pushing the universe out faster and faster over time -- accelerating over time -- which means no chance of simply "collapsing back in on itself and starting over again one day".

That means the atheist is standing out on the limb of "one lucky shot" universe that just so happens to appear and just so happens to form organized systems and just so happens to form life and then one day in the future -- possibly dies out and never happens again.

Such "just so" story telling is not the stuff of "science" it is the stuff of magic.

If the universe is expanding with no sign of slowing down as implicated by all observable and verifiable evidence through science, then the lifespan of the universe is no more than a very quick flash, if even that, when superimposed on the limitless time of eternity. The atheist becomes trapped within that flash with nowhere else to go, a self-imposed prison because of the denial of God.

True - atheism has no place to go. But I think they are all resigned to that fact. In fact the "best outcome" is that they have no place to go -- the worst for them is that "The Bible is right". But it is only "worst case" for them if they choose to continue to turn a blind eye to the light of real science, the light of academic freedom, and the light of scripture all pointing to the "Designer".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Ouch burned

I must have missed it. What page is it on and I will re-read it?

Page 1.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you have a good case for the dark ages coming back -- please feel free to make it.

Bob

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D you slay me....

ID is looking at the evidence form science and applying that to a creator. Just like taking science+atheistic input and applying that to some comic soup millions of years ago.

Actually ID is merely the straight forward essence of SCIENCE itself -- insisting on the "Academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" rather than pandering to the dogman and junk science methods of atheist darwinism. EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of "design" -- a "hey look at this -- rocks can not do this over time -- this has function and purpose beyond what rocks can create -- it shows characteristics of DESIGN".

ID has no need to say "and it was designed by a nice person".

The person or entity that does the designing is not the subject of ID -- merely the "attribute of design" itself.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Could we differentiate electromagnetic wave transmissions from background noise before the intelligent design movement was realized?

Not really because "admitting to intelligent design" was BASIC to understanding the difference between "rocks-can-do-it background noise" and actual patterns in electromagnetic wave form that carried information.

Those ID scientist were FREE to experiment and discover -- they had the academic freedom to continue becuase there were no atheist darwinist pogroms organizing blind censorship campaigns against their research -- they needed no "ID defense" in court for what they were doing in science.

What do we have to thank ID proponents for?

For trying to open up the REST of science as the field of study of electromagnetic wave form was opened up.

For exposing the perfidity and junk-science blind-censorhip of atheist religionists trying to take science institutions hostage to their atheist religionist dogma.

For sending a "wake-up call" to sleeping America.

What science or methodology did they do that no one before them had done

They boldly CONTINUED the practice of reviewing the force and matter and discriminating between design and "background noise -- that rocks can create on their own given enough time" -- that had already been started in certain fields of science.

The very thing that atheist religionists want to stop.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Actually ID is merely the straight forward essence of SCIENCE itself --

Let's take a look...

From the guys who invented ID, (the Discovery Institute):
Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God...We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Oh, so it's a religion, with religious goals. OK, not science, you were wrong about that, Bob.

ID has no need to say "and it was designed by a nice person".

No kidding. That's one thing no one can say about ID. It was invented by a committee. And some of them aren't very nice people.

The person or entity that does the designing is not the subject of ID -- merely the "attribute of design" itself.

They didn't want the Wedge Document to be seen by the public, for exactly that reason. They want science to be consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. Funny part is, science already is consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

What they want, is to support their rather unorthodox religious ideas. Jonathan Wells, for example, wants it to support Myung Son Moon as an improvement on Jesus.

 

[Patashu]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Could we differentiate electromagnetic wave transmissions from background noise before the intelligent design movement was realized?

Not really because "admitting to intelligent design" was BASIC to understanding the difference between "rocks-can-do-it background noise" and actual patterns in electromagnetic wave form that carried information.

Well, here's the thing. If we look back in history we can see that the discovery of the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, maxwell's laws of elecromagnetic radiation, the invention of the radio et cetera all preceeded the foundation of the 'intelligent design' movement, therefore 'intelligent design' is not required to be able to utilize electromagnetic radiation and encoding.

Those ID scientist were FREE to experiment and discover -- they had the academic freedom to continue becuase there were no atheist darwinist pogroms organizing blind censorship campaigns against their research -- they needed no "ID defense" in court for what they were doing in science.

Free to experiment and discover...what? What knowledge have they contributed to the scientific body of knowledge? What hypotheses have they confirmed/disconfirmed with repeatable experiments and with verifiable evidence? Why should scientists accept ID as science?

[quote:c9a3a]
What do we have to thank ID proponents for?

For trying to open up the REST of science as the field of study of electromagnetic wave form was opened up.[/quote:c9a3a]
Again, we could utilize and study EM radiation long before ID was invented.

For exposing the perfidity and junk-science blind-censorhip of atheist religionists trying to take science institutions hostage to their atheist religionist dogma.

Do you think you could put any more buzzwords in that sentence?

[quote:c9a3a]
What science or methodology did they do that no one before them had done

They boldly CONTINUED the practice of reviewing the force and matter and discriminating between design and "background noise -- that rocks can create on their own given enough time" -- that had already been started in certain fields of science.

The very thing that atheist religionists want to stop.[/quote:c9a3a]
You're just telling me this. I have no reason to believe you on your word alone. Cite a source?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Ouch burned

I must have missed it. What page is it on and I will re-read it?

Page 1.

Bob

"For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers. "

That is not evidence that is an assertion.

Where is the meat. This is just the pretty wrapping around the burger.

 

[sheshisown]

Hi guys~ God has given you all bright minds, Praise Him indeed.

I do not have your intellectual abilities, although after reading thru your discussions on ID I have a question I would like to ask if I may.

Whether ID and its proponents Jonathan Wells, or Phillip Johnson or Behe, or others have thier own agenda involved in the study and use of their discoveries or not.
Whether Darwinists theories are being debunked and truth is manifesting to Americans regarding the 140 year strangle-hold of these manipulations of men, or not.
Is it possible, even probable that the Lord is allowing men in these days to find His intricately created universe~ because He knows humanity will soon be duped into worshipping one god?

For the world to kneel before a single god, it must believe in a single "designer" ~ YES? I will just read any answers you may offer, thanks. :wink: sheshisown.

 

[BobRyan]

For the world to kneel before a single god, it must believe in a single "designer" ~ YES? I will just read any answers you may offer, thanks. :wink: sheshisown.

I have been thinking about that one for a while. In 2Thess 2 that false god that appears at the end of time is mentioned as coming with the power and miracles of Satan. So the question is -- does he present himself as an evolved being -- "an ancient" in a chaotic universe where he claims rulership over life that has evolved in this part of the universe -- or does he present himself as "Creator God"?

The way Satan is promoting the storytelling mythology of evolutionism -- you would think it is the former.

The question is a good one.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Ouch burned

I must have missed it. What page is it on and I will re-read it?

Page 1.

Bob

Bob
"For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not publish background noise, static -- rather they discriminate in favor of the obviously DESIGNED patterns .

We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers. "

That is not evidence that is an assertion.

I see! head in sand?

For the rest of us -- we already "see" that TV and Radio "exist".

Where is the meat. This is just the pretty wrapping around the burger.

You can lead a horse to water - but you can't make him drink.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Not really because "admitting to intelligent design" was BASIC to understanding the difference between "rocks-can-do-it background noise" and actual patterns in electromagnetic wave form that carried information.

Patashu

Well, here's the thing. If we look back in history we can see that the discovery of the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, maxwell's laws of elecromagnetic radiation, the invention of the radio et cetera all preceeded the foundation of the 'intelligent design' movement, therefore 'intelligent design' is not required to be able to utilize electromagnetic radiation and encoding.

That is circular reasoning.

IF we could impose the same drackonian restrictions on the work with electromagnetic wave forms using the atheist " there is no god" formula for the "designer" then any efforts to SEE if design/patterns ARE manifest in electromagnetic wave forms would ALSO have been blindly censored.

The atheist steps in and says "yes -- but I will ALLOW man to be a designer -- I will not ALLOW a non-MAN source as designer because by faith I BELIEVE there is no god".

Notice the paradoxical fact that it is the ATHEISt argument that demands to "know the character of the designer so it can fear that it might be god" -- the ID argument does not look at the designer it all - it merely looks at the atrributes of the "designed".

However it is the SAME principle of detecting DESIGN in both cases -- and the fact that the electromagnetic wave form instance is SOOOO demonstratably successful against all the transparent atheist arguments of the form 'we can not detect design - we have no way of knowing if design exists -- we have no science for seeing design' -- that only a circular argument is left for avoiding it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of the scientists FREE to find "design" in magnetic wave forms and actually build discrimination circuits to differentiate based on "the science"

Bob said
Those ID scientist were FREE to experiment and discover -- they had "the academic freedom to continue" becuase there were no atheist darwinist pogroms organizing blind censorship campaigns against their research -- they needed no "ID defense" in court for what they were doing in science.

Patashu
Free to experiment and discover...what?

err ... umm -- the research that gave us TV and Radio???

Surely that point is not lost on the discussion

What knowledge have they contributed to the scientific body of knowledge? What hypotheses have they confirmed/disconfirmed with repeatable experiments and with verifiable evidence? Why should scientists accept ID as science?

because we already HAVE have TV and Radio proving that we CAN detect "design" from random background noise??

What part of this is not glaringly obvious?

Bob