I do not share your belief in anything supernatural. The range of possibilities? I dont know. It could be that there is something supernatural, and that it might care to communicate with us in some way. I tend to believe the simpler explanation, that takes in the full range of opposing revelations from all the divers gods and spirits.
maybe seeing to the edge is just the fact our universe is but one cell in a body of billions of trillions of cells within a body of trillions of billions cells. i actually don't profess to the above statement. it's not some scientific fact to be argued. then the whole layered multi universe is another method of stretching to understand what we "COULD" be. If scientists didn't ever day dream about " things" where would we be eh. when great minds wander eh… as for genetically altering what is here…lets make a thread.
Nobody has ever claimed it can't. Intelligent design, by definition, has no rules regarding what it can include or what it cannot. It can include evolution. It can include panspermia. It can include Genesis. It can include the creation myths of the Dogon people of West Africa. It can include an act of creation that took place 5 minutes ago and in which all of our memories never actually happened but were created as part of the package. "Intelligent Design" can include anything it wants. But this is not also true for science. Science depends for its usefulness on the ruthless testing of ideas and the rejection of those for which there is (at best) no evidence or (at worst) strong evidence against. Even were it not for its history, "Intelligent Design" fails the first and most important test for inclusion as a scientific idea. It has no evidence in its favor. It then precedes to fail essentially every other test for scientific ideas; it is not testable or falsifiable, it makes no predictions, it explains no facts, it solves no problems, and ultimately falls victim to Occam's remarkable razor. It adds useless complexity to an understanding of the universe that is simpler, more coherent, and more elegant without it. And this is where we see (as we eventually always see) the attempt to conceal the actual circumstances beneath the mask of a "conflict between science and religion" that does not actually exist. It is not "atheists" that reject Intelligent Design as a scientific idea. It is scientists who reject it, some of whom happen to be atheist but many of whom are not. "Perfect wisdom" also has nothing to do with it. The pragmatic power of science lays explicitly in its self conception as incomplete and error prone. It is the only human enterprise that focuses on ruthless self test, retest, doubt and challenge. It always suspects itself. And as a result, it works. Look around you. It does not matter if you love science, hate science, or are completely ambivalent. Science is objectively and without challenge the single most pragmatically productive and successful human enterprise in all of history. It did not get that way by suffering foolish ideas gladly. All beauty is human beauty. There are very good evolutionary reasons for why we find some things "nice" and somethings not. But "Gee whiz, isn't that tree pretty" is not a rigorous argument for the existence of God. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Science is beautiful. So is opera. Some people just don't understand them. Because both color and taste contribute to differential survival. It is exactly that simple. All beauty is human beauty. Period.
Oooh. That's not exactly gonna warm the cockles of Xandufar's heart. He seems to have an affection for Nicholas Cusa, a proponent not just of Jewish persecution, but uniquely denying them a status he even offered pagans... access to eventual salvation.
finally an argument for atheism i actually will give respect to. this is a lot of very concise thought out reasoning for the argument against Intelligent Design. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar holds true to Intelligent Design as well. I simply see that there is wisdom at play here that directly is pointed to the experience of being human. Humans are the present day top of the shelf species . The entire world we live in is enjoyed by humans on so many levels. It's not about religion for me, it's about reality..cold reality. Intelligent Design is not about some super being in the guise of some Matrix or underlying formula from which all possibilities are an outcome. It just is the way things are. If you look at the world we live in and take away all religion one should at least recognize that it is a perfect place for humans to dwell in. And to borrow a phrase "Man does not live by bread alone". If you cannot see this world as something for humans to enjoy then well, i just don;t know what to say. I have spent most of my life a die hard and at time ranting and raving drunken atheist…lol.. But I watched and listened and thought about it all. I have come to the conclusion that far too many coincidences are there for the human being to enjoy. Do ferrets really need a piece of fruit to be so cool in all aspects…lol…. more to come...
And as is clear from your posts on that subject, this assertion derives entirely from intuition rather than reason. All of human history is a record of how badly our intuition serves us. The first human endeavor that had made the effort to insulate itself from that effect is science. And as we see everyday, it works. And can only observe again that "Gee whiz!! Aren't ferret's cool" is not a rigorous argument in favor of intelligent design.
It is still a chance for any given "anarcho-capital" transaction to be successful; even with a probability of one in a million.
It's naught to do with intuition . It's about the reality we live in . as for my ferret analogy, it's weird how you did not get it. i thought more of you..
I find it informative to learn from flintc that the definition of life has and yet Ruthless ambiguities! This is good stuff.
It has exclusively to do with intuition. Actually no. It's about the great distance between the reality we live in and your understanding of that reality. I got it completely. It's the same "Gee whiz!" argument that underlays your every post in this thread. Unfortunately, "Gee whiz!" is not an argument at all. It is an exclamation. I'm so hurt. - - - Updated - - - Especially to those who make any effort to understand it.
Anything more than your non self-evident truth to commute your appeal to ignorance into a valid rebuttal and potential, refutation?
I thought I saw a show somewhere that described how dogs have become smarter, by their association with humans. So unlike wings or gills, intelligence seems to affect the evolution of even species without the trait.
No...the Dogs LEARN much in the same way a child learns from an adult. The Dogs already have a fairly high level of intelligence but after being domesticated and living with Humans for thousands of years they have evolved a higher level of intelligence as this was needed to interact with Human complexity. But if you took a Wolf Pup out of the wild and attempted to domesticate it....which would be near impossible....that wolf would learn from living with humans and acquire more knowledge than a wolf that did not live with humans. Thus this shows the difference between learned knowledge and intelligence. AboveAlpha
Well, I don't have an agenda here, I came here to learn, and I am in unfamiliar territory (but not completely unknown) in this forum. But I would like to know what I've said that would lead to your conclusion that I don't understand a scientific theory, so that perhaps I can work on my communication skills.
What you have described here is akin to M theory or Brane or Membrane Theory as Infinite Universes separate themselves by a Membrane...not a tangible physical one but rather a Dimensional One. I am well versed in Quantum Mechanics and Multiversal Theory and a Multiversal System best describes the actions of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms and their behavior as dictated by Quantum Mechanics. AboveAlpha
That's what I meant. Dogs have evolved a higher intelligence in some areas (I think one example in the program showed how a dog's ability to understand human hand gestures was better than a monkey's despite the monkey being overall more intelligent). I thought it was interesting that over thousands of years, our intelligence trait was able to influence another species' intelligence trait.
