Who Am I: Redux

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 15 years ago

#41

While the atheist scientists are unable to find the intermediary steps in devp of life forms out of non life, the ID theory raises even more questions regarding who designed it all. And if the ID could design it once it could do it again, so was it a one time design or is it a continuous process? At the beginning you had said not to get God into it but if we talk of a intelligent designer than it does point towards something that would be akin to God as commonly believed. Is it supposed to be a single designer or do we have multiple designers? Have the supporters of ID theory said anything about that?

Quote

413342

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: angie.4u
Cant the same thing be said about the other party too? 😊
Moreover the Intelligent Designers dont really explain much other than negating the evolutionary theory as well as abiogenesis.

Anything could be said about anybody. It''s up to us to cross-check the facts and ignore the chaff.

ID supporters are not negating anything. They are just pointing out that there is an intelligent design behind what we observe. I don't see anything wrong in that.

Evolution is a science of gaps. A fossil here and a fossil there isn't gonna cover all the events that occurred between when the earth formed and now. They seem to think that they got enough evidence but they simply don't. They point out simple changes in systems and extrapolate that to cover pretty much every single major biological event.

In any case, the beef has to do with the way Darwinists are trying to muscle their way into academia by subjugating other ideas and theories, as though evolution is the ultimate gospel. The beef has to do with the way they are monopolizing the scientific community.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 15 years ago

#43

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

Anything could be said about anybody. It''s up to us to cross-check the facts and ignore the chaff.

ID supporters are not negating anything. They are just pointing out that there is an intelligent design behind what we observe. I don't see anything wrong in that.

Evolution is a science of gaps. A fossil here and a fossil there isn't gonna cover all the events that occurred between when the earth formed and now. They seem to think that they got enough evidence but they simply don't. They point out simple changes in systems and extrapolate that to cover pretty much every single major biological event.

In any case, the beef has to do with the way Darwinists are trying to muscle their way into academia by subjugating other ideas and theories, as though evolution is the ultimate gospel. The beef has to do with the way they are monopolizing the scientific community.

As I see it there are evangelists on both sides. Evolution may be a science of gaps after all we cant really hope to find the fossils to fill in all the gaps that occured over billions of years .The ID are not just pointing out that there is an ID behind what we observe. They are religious -political grps and not scientists as no scientific explanation is coming forth so far from their side. Our Hindu scriptures would probably give better explanation than these ID supporters.

Quote

413342

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#44

Originally posted by: angie.4u
While the atheist scientists are unable to find the intermediary steps in devp of life forms out of non life, the ID theory raises even more questions regarding who designed it all. And if the ID could design it once it could do it again, so was it a one time design or is it a continuous process? At the beginning you had said not to get God into it but if we talk of a intelligent designer than it does point towards something that would be akin to God as commonly believed. Is it supposed to be a single designer or do we have multiple designers? Have the supporters of ID theory said anything about that?

I meant, let's not get into a God with a personality. As long as we argue about the intelligence (or lack of it) behind life, we are aces.

Like I asked in one of the previous pages: could the structure, sequence etc have come about randomly (including the application of natural selection) or could there be a design?

The day we find that out, we will put so many arguments to rest.

Quote

413342

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#45

Originally posted by: angie.4u
As I see it there are evangelists on both sides. Evolution may be a science of gaps after all we cant really hope to find the fossils to fill in all the gaps that occured over billions of years .The ID are not just pointing out that there is an ID behind what we observe. They are religious -political grps and not scientists as no scientific explanation is coming forth so far from their side. Our Hindu scriptures would probably give better explanation than these ID supporters.

I disagree Angie (that the Hindu scriptures have better explanations than Intelligent Design). It's simple. Hindu scriptures never had the kind of information available to them that today's science has.

In any case, we are coming to the crux of the argument.

Everything we believe depends on who wins at the end. God / consciousness / intelligence on my left and random events + natural selection on my right.

I am going with my left at this point.

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

Rocker

Posted: 15 years ago

#46

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

I disagree Angie (that the Hindu scriptures have better explanations than Intelligent Design). It's simple. Hindu scriptures never had the kind of information available to them that today's science has.

In any case, we are coming to the crux of the argument.

Everything we believe depends on who wins at the end. God / consciousness / intelligence on my left and random events + natural selection on my right.

I am going with my left at this point.

K, we cant be sure about how much information our ancestors had ! I feel they were much more better informed than we usually credit them with (not all of them of course)

btw, you said you would like to go with intelligence - but what is this intelligence? Is it an entity or something else. Is it different from consciousness ? Is intelligence and consciousness separate from God? I m getting somewhat confused at the classification you have made above.

Quote

413342

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#47

^^IMO, consciousness is pure intelligence. God is consciousness with a personality. Dvaitas believe in saguna brahman (God with a personality). Advaitas believe in nirguna brahman (God without a personality).

Quote

Googly

@mind-googling

Voyager

Posted: 15 years ago

#48

Who am I?

A manifestation of some biochemical lochas might be an option.

Quote

413342

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#49

Originally posted by: mind-googling
Who am I?

A manifestation of some biochemical lochas might be an option.

😊 well, for most scientists that is the ONLY option.

Question is, is that all there is to it or is there more to it than meets the eye.

If my biochemical composition is pretty much the same as your biochemical composition, then we might want to look into how my blueprint differs from that of yours. What is my recipe and what is yours? What is my code and what is yours?

And more interestingly (to me), since the blueprints do vary, did the variations come about by chance or did the variations come about by design?

Quote

gopalbhai

@gopalbhai

Voyager

Posted: 15 years ago

#50

Originally posted by: angie.4u
While the atheist scientists are unable to find the intermediary steps in devp of life forms out of non life, the ID theory raises even more questions regarding who designed it all. And if the ID could design it once it could do it again, so was it a one time design or is it a continuous process? At the beginning you had said not to get God into it but if we talk of a intelligent designer than it does point towards something that would be akin to God as commonly believed. Is it supposed to be a single designer or do we have multiple designers? Have the supporters of ID theory said anything about that?

Why is it necessary that there has to be a designer for something. Simple low of nature(physics, maths ,......) can create matter & energy. Einstein's equation has clearly demonstrated that matter can convert to energy(invisible) and similarly under the same law matter can appear out of nothing simply from energy.

In fractal graphics we can experience beautiful graphics as if they are created by some intelligent/experienced artist but we know it is just randomness and still there is mathematics.

I think if we assume the role of a designer, the question is still unanswered as to who designed the designer ; whereas the law of nature can answer anything up to the collapse of the whole universe to size of an egg and repeat the big bang again and again for no beginning no ending aeons.

Quote

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18

Who Am I: Redux - Page 5

Related Topics

Explore Topics