Thread: Expelled

Something that promotes the human condition is hardly something I'd call religious... What's wrong with a model of reality that promotes self?

I'm sorry, but using the human condition to marginalize itself is a completely skewed and contradictory way of going about looking at the world, not to mention altogether ass-backwards...

The observer simply CANNOT discount the observer from the observation. Once you do the observation is without any meaning or purpose, and really ceases to be of any importance, if not cease to be at all. And something without purpose is pointless and useless... impractical if you will

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Something that promotes the human condition is hardly something I'd call religious... What's wrong with a model of reality that promotes self?

I'm sorry, but using the human condition to marginalize the human condition is a completely skewed and contradictory way of going about looking at the world, not to mention altogether ass-backwards...

I'm not really sure what part of my response you're responding to.

Would you mind quoting a sentence or two so I can be sure? Sorry, it's always hard to follow non-linear discussions on forums

I don't see where I've advocated "discounting the observer from the observation", either.

I don't follow linear thought processes well. I read the intent of what is written and respond. It flows much better than choppy text, which is sliced and diced and broken in thought.

You mentioned multiple times in the previous post how ID is bullshit, or ID isn't important. When that's all there is. I simply say, that view of looking at the world, and ultimately yourself, isn't a healthy or productive one... for anyone. It's a self-loathing cynical model of life. Something that life itself doesn't affirm, because life has obviously continued thus far.

I'm sure, that thanks to the seeds of agnosticism that were planted in the minds of the masses by the modern era we live in, will teach us a lesson in humility in the coming years, though. A world without spirit simply isn't a world worth living in which is showing through the bleak future of our industrializing minds. We will see in the coming years, how the current mindset of agnosticism is actually the Thanatos urge, behind the wheel of our collective minds. Once we go off the cliff, those people that survive should wise up, though.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't follow linear thought processes well. I read the intent of what is written and respond. It flows much better than choppy text, which is sliced and diced and broken in thought.

You mentioned multiple times in the previous post how ID is bullshit, or ID isn't important. When that's all there is. I simply say, that view of looking at the world, and ultimately yourself, isn't a healthy or productive one... for anyone. It's a self-loathing cynical model of life. Something that life itself doesn't affirm, because life has obviously continued thus far.

I'm sure, that thanks to the seeds of agnosticism that were planted in the minds of the masses by the modern era we live in, will teach us a lesson in humility in the coming years, though. A world without spirit simply isn't a world worth living in which is showing through the bleak future of our industrializing minds. We will see in the coming years, how the current mindset of agnosticism is actually the Thanatos urge, behind the wheel of our collective minds. Once we go off the cliff, those people that survive should wise up, though.

I know the post is not directed at me but i will try my stab at it. How about it?

I dont like the ID approach, saying that world is to difficult to understand and thus there must be a creator. I know im simplifying it but bear with me. Science is there to question things and it operates on proof, if you tell me bigfoot is real i need absoloute quantafiable proof that bigfoot is real. If you give me some abmiguous photos and some pictures of rather large foot prints and you say see thats Bigfoot! and i will say to you bring proof, bring me some hair, bring me a living specimen.

The idea of god or a creator does not fit well into the spectrum of science. You tell me this is so complicated look at it how can it possibly be like this without a creator which is the equivilant of a person giving me large foot prints and telling me that is absoloute proof of bigfoot. Thats not enough evidence to suggest to me there is a creator in the mix.

Im sorry for the rant i know its hard to understand.. ignore this if you want.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I dont like the ID approach, saying that world is to difficult to understand and thus there must be a creator.

STOP!

STOP!

HOLD THE PHONE!

WAIT UP!

you do NOT understand. at all. you are CONFUSED.

you are confusing intelligent design with some notion that it means we do not understand design. its just the opposite.

you are saying that people believe in intelligent design because we do not understand everything therefore there must be a creator.

take a deep breath. because your view point of ID believers is wrong.

are you ready for the truth?

SCIENTISTS are themselves, believers in intelligent design. all intelligent design means is - the design that we have observed is structured. organized. poetic. 'perfect', 'beautiful' and so on. it is NOT saying that its too difficult to understand. its saying, we understand and we see that this could not logically be created by randomness. And science will always go with the most logical conclusion.

it is saying the idea of randomness, that everything just randomnly happens is the equivalent of saying "God did this" because it stems from a lack of understanding. it stems from a denial of what the evidence is presenting. in this case, the lack of understanding is that the universe has a design to it. it has patterns. and it has a tendency to expand in more ways than one. life expands, and we call this upward spiral of expansion evolution.

man has expanded, and our consciousness has grown. we are more conscious than our former cave men.

to FEAR intelligent design and to stop it, is to stop scientific progress. it is a fear of religion. well religion fears science so the feelings are mutual. but if the other half of scientists are unwilling to see the reality of the universe than they themselves are no different than the very religions they fear. because now they are denying people from asking questions and exploring those questions through the scientific method.

materialistic science is a religion.


now we have spiritual people AND scientists working and sharing ideas TOGETHER. not in opposition. TOGETHER. And we are starting to find real evidence that there is more to life than the cold "life has no meaning, were just an accident" materialistic point of view. REAL EVIDENCE. not wishful thinking.

why are people afraid to allow science to explore reality to its fullest potential? why don't people want science to explore and answer life's greatest mysteries? because they don't want to admit that they could be wrong. The catholic church doesn't want to be wrong so it has tried to stop science. But now we have the flip reversal. The very moment a scientist discovers, that hey - this evidence supports there is more than the scientific community is willing to admit is real - then all of a sudden that scientific community FLIPS.

like the catholic church not wanting to see the world is round. it doesn't want to see or explore the truth. its afraid to be wrong.

well too bad

I am all for science

And I am all for spirituality.

They don't go against each other, they compliment each other. And both, BOTH are about asking questions and continuously seeking truth. I have NO FEAR of science. I welcome it. I want it to explore every question man has asked. But right now the problem is there is this thing called materialistic science, and its afraid.

And I have no fear of materialistic science, because it is a closed off system. In its own little box of self denial very much like the catholic church. And all closed systems decay and fall apart. This we know to be a factual truth.

Originally Posted by juroara

all intelligent design means is - the design that we have observed is structured. organized. poetic. 'perfect', 'beautiful' and so on.

No, that's actually wrong. Intelligent design is a euphemism for creationism. Remember the "cdesign proponentsists"?

Originally Posted by juroara

it is saying the idea of randomness, that everything just randomnly happens is the equivalent of saying "God did this" because it stems from a lack of understanding. it stems from a denial of what the evidence is presenting. in this case, the lack of understanding is that the universe has a design to it. it has patterns. and it has a tendency to expand in more ways than one. life expands, and we call this upward spiral of expansion evolution.

Intelligent design proposes a designer, not just an apparent design. The design we see is seen because we evolved inside of this design, and we evolved to see it. Randomness is not a part of science, unless you go to quantum levels, and even there the existence of true randomness is quite debatable. True randomness means no physical laws.

Originally Posted by juroara

because now they are denying people from asking questions and exploring those questions through the scientific method.

materialistic science is a religion.

No one is stopping anyone from investigating these questions. They are only stopping people from pretending to investigate these while actually using pseudoscience as an excuse to spread their misinformation and religious agendas.

And no, it's f*cking not. So far, it's quite clear that science has been the only effective way to understand reality. This could change, as it's obviously an 'imperfect' human system, however it is the best system for humans to use.

Originally Posted by juroara

now we have spiritual people AND scientists working and sharing ideas TOGETHER. not in opposition. TOGETHER. And we are starting to find real evidence that there is more to life than the cold "life has no meaning, were just an accident" materialistic point of view. REAL EVIDENCE. not wishful thinking.

Cool. Where is it?

Originally Posted by juroara

The catholic church doesn't want to be wrong so it has tried to stop science. But now we have the flip reversal. The very moment a scientist discovers, that hey - this evidence supports there is more than the scientific community is willing to admit is real - then all of a sudden that scientific community FLIPS.

No, not really. Revolutionary concepts aren't generally refused because scientists can't imagine being wrong, but because it usually takes a while to amass enough evidence in support of them to make them serious contenders. No one is 'flipping', they're just 'scoffing' at the pathetic lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by juroara

They don't go against each other, they compliment each other. And both, BOTH are about asking questions and continuously seeking truth.

If your idea of spirituality includes the scientific method (asking questions and checking your answers against reality, basically), then it's really just science. I think your idea of 'science' is much too narrow. It's not just something people in white coats do, it's the fundamental process of inquiry performed by most all humans on a daily basis.

Nice post juroara. I agree. Anything or anyone that is afraid of change or is complacently stagnate with their views on life and the world, has really sealed their own fate. Whatever happened to being open-minded? The arrogance of people that think by figuring some of the inner workings of the world out, that they have somehow gained some insight into the mysteries of life to draw absolutist conclusions like life wasn't intended, is unbelievable in itself.

If people had taken the time to watch some of those videos Jeff posted as opposed to attack each other, they would see some pretty damning evidence. The privileged planet links Jeff posted put forth some interesting discoveries with science that are hard to dispute.

Basically, our position in galaxy and solar system, the position of the moon to the earth and moon to the sun vs the size of each make every criteria absolutely perfect for scientific observation. With just little variations of location and size of things we wouldn't have clear skies to observe stars, no light spectrum visible from solar eclipses, earth rotation screwed up, and the list goes on...

In essence, the one planet with observers is also perfect for making scientific observations...

If anything, they are praising scientists saying that they are doing the universe's work, and science should be the study of the intent of the universe. It had intent enough to bring those scientists that deny all of it, into the world. Such irony, I find highly amusing.

I really wish people would stop walking around in the ego, it doesn't really help spur interesting conversations, at all. The last few pages have essentially just been one giant circle jerk.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Reserve judgement, regarding Ben Stein and the movie, until after you've viewed it.

cdesign proponentsists
Creationism is not science.
Intelligent Design is creationism.
Intelligent Design is not science.

/discussion

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't follow linear thought processes well. I read the intent of what is written and respond. It flows much better than choppy text, which is sliced and diced and broken in thought.

That was my nice way of saying that I didn't feel like you had actually understood what I was saying, and were just making general statements.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You mentioned multiple times in the previous post how ID is bullshit, or ID isn't important. When that's all there is. I simply say, that view of looking at the world, and ultimately yourself, isn't a healthy or productive one... for anyone. It's a self-loathing cynical model of life. Something that life itself doesn't affirm, because life has obviously continued thus far.

Again, I don't feel like you actually processed my last post. ID is bullshit because it's just a cheap way of trying to make creationism a viable subject for science classrooms. Also, 'self-loathing cynical' doesn't matter. Truth does, and the only way to get close to truth which we know to work is science. Refer to my AIDs example earlier.

I don't know how you can't see the beauty of life without having to have a ghost in the machine. You call it 'cold', 'bleak'... I don't think you actually grasp the beauty of it all, the wonder involved with the mechanical interactions themselves, and all of the processes leading to the evolution of sentient life forms. It's much more beautiful and warm than saying "God did it".

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

- Charles Darwin

Two words...

Flagella motor.

/discussion

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't know how you can't see the beauty of life without having to have a ghost in the machine. You call it 'cold', 'bleak'... I don't think you actually grasp the beauty of it all, the wonder involved with the mechanical interactions themselves, and all of the processes leading to the evolution of sentient life forms. It's much more beautiful and warm than saying "God did it".

I don't think a 'God' did it, so much as, it was and continually is an ongoing process of intelligent intention. We are an obvious part of that process. Which is also undeniably intelligent.

I don't think someone atop a throne is making the rules, but the very essence of reality is intelligence and intent. So intelligent design isn't saying a person in the human sense of the word created reality but that which is ingrained into our very essence, is what is the base form of reality... I am no more 'God' than a grain of sand is. But I look at 'God' as the intended moment and everything in it.

There is no way to deny this without denying yourself.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I don't think a 'God' did it, so much as, it was and continually is an ongoing process of intelligent intention. We are an obvious part of that process. Which is also undeniably intelligent.

I don't think someone atop a throne is making the rules, but the very essence of reality is intelligence and intent. So intelligent design isn't saying a person in the human sense of the word created reality but that which is ingrained into our very essence, is what is the base form of reality... I am no more 'God' than a grain of sand is. But I look at 'God' as the intended moment and everything in it.

There is no way to deny this without denying yourself.

Intellegent intention? The intellegent intention had to come from a being, a god if you like. If you dont beleive its gods intellegent intention shaping the universe then what in heavens name is it that is shaping the universe according to yoru beleif?

How can you expect your theory to be taught in school when it is largely intangable and subjective from person to person?

I dont see how this idea can be applied to a school setting. I can see how yoru theory would work in a church or place of worship where that kind of shit flies but in a school? What is your real intention for supporting intellegent design?

My intention for supporting intelligent design is for one to walk with acceptance, pride, faith, and belief in yourself, and your creation as the self-aware universe. You were spawned of the universe which somehow spawned itself. AIDS, starvation, deforestation, and all the other macro and microscopic problems of the world are just an equations way of attempting to balance itself out. Without the Ying, no Yang...and vice versa. Certainly, not a valid reason to deny intent. The darkness found without also resides within. We all have our skeletons we try and cope with and better ourselves from, just as the universe does. I can accept responsibility for all the ills of the world, because they are simply manifestations of the universe's perfecting it's own plight and imperfections. Just as the beholder themselves attempts to perfect their own plight and imperfections.

Inevitably, you'll never be able to truly escape yourself, though. No matter how many times you multiply, subdivide, round off, and carry the integer. The end result of whatever you perceive is simply a mirrored version of your true self.

The micro and macro are representations of themselves...


And, while it's extremely fascinating to read scientists theories into how the nature of the universe came into being, it will never explain why it spawned itself. And a 'how' always comes after a 'why'... an intent. The observer and observation cannot have a how without a why.

Simply writing it off, saying there is no why because you haven't delved deep enough into understanding yourself to find out the why, just doesn't cut it.

Any way you look at reality, the ID can't never be rounded off as an anomaly. It's completely self-defeating, and shows that one is without true intent or purpose to be able to do so.

Reserve judgement, regarding Ben Stein and the movie, until after you've viewed it.