RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (391) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3255
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,02:42   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
Gary, for the sake of discussion let's say that insects are intelligent, and that molecules are intelligent, and that atoms are intelligent. And by 'intelligent' I mean that learned people agree that 'intelligent' is the correct word to describe certain features (or actions/processes) of insects, molecules, and atoms. Now, where, how, and when did the intelligence that ended up in those things ultimately originate?


All of that was already explained in the text of the theory, now being prepared for printing. But it is not about atoms and molecules being intelligent, that's actually very absurd.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
Who or what was/is the original cause (the designer-creator) of intelligence and/or anything else? What tests or research can be done to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause, or to determine whether there was/is an intentional original cause?


The theory does not require tests or research to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause. That was already found to be from the unintelligent behavior of matter, chemistry.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
joe g regularly says that ID is all about origins and in a way he's right, but neither he nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence of the ultimate original cause of anything that he or any other ID pusher claims is caused ('intelligently designed'), nor any evidence of the existence of the ultimate original causer ('the designer'). Unless an ID pusher can show testable, verifiable evidence of the ultimate origin and cause of the universe, life, intelligence, or whatever ID pushers claim was caused ('intelligently designed'), and can show evidence of the original causer (the first 'designer' and the 'cause' of that 'designer'), I don't see what ID has to offer.


You are now confusing science and religion. That is not even allowed in US public school science classrooms.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
One of the things you do is apply the word 'intelligent' or 'intelligence' to particles, organisms, molecules, actions, events, or processes that most scientists would not describe with those words.


That is not what the theory is about.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
In a way that doesn't matter because the labels that humans apply to things are just that, labels.


It very much matters to me. Thatís why Iím properly operationally defining what intelligence is.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
What really matters, at least regarding your claims and the claims of other ID pushers, is how things (like so-called 'intelligence') came about.


Theory already explains as much as can be said about the origin of intelligence, from the behavior of matter.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
For instance, it's one thing to say that humans are 'intelligent' but does that automatically mean that some other 'intelligence' (a designer-god) caused (deliberately created) human intelligence? Is there any testable, verifiable evidence to show that? Is it just a matter of opinion? Should the biased opinions of people who believe in religious fairy tales be taken seriously? If so, which people who believe in which religious fairy tales should be taken seriously?

Does merely labeling something as 'intelligent' automatically make it intelligent (intelligent in the sense that it can consciously think, learn, plan, guess, and/or alter its function, processes, actions, etc.), and does merely labeling something as 'intelligent' show the ultimate origin or cause of that thing or its alleged 'intelligence'? And doesn't it take a lot more than applying a label to something to show that that something was/is intelligently, intentionally designed by some designer-god?


I never mix science and religion in the text of theory like you are now asking me to do. And at this point in time itís the text thatís at the Theory of ID site which needs a good going over, and you are most welcome to review that. But asking me questions that are not even close to what it is about is not helpful when I may only have only one week to get it ready to roll on the high speed sheetfed printing press I have been busy preparing for (at my day job) which will soon be arriving and need a nice job like this for a test run, that in this case I wonít mind giving it for free.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
  11728 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (391) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]