RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jerry Don Bauer

Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,09:23   

[quote=GaryGaulin,Nov. 29 2012,21:40][/quote]

Jerry, before I have to stick a fork into this overcooked forum then call it done, I wanted to let you know that (from what this forum was saying about you) I was impressed by your answers. Earlier on you were discussing quantum mechanics and right away this illustration for showing that relationship came to my mind:

At cursory glance I would have to say that I don't really understand it, perhaps because I haven't studied the terms in details.

As example HOW is the behavior of matter a starting point (what behavior are we discussing..QM??? behave fine as rocks just sitting there doing nothing). How does this turn into molecular intelligence? Sounds a little vague or arbitrary???? Just MHO but I certainly encourage thought and exploration into this kind of philosophy and I try to keep an open mind.

The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Instead what we see is obvious saltation....the almost (relatively speaking, of course) sudden appearance of all kinds of new organisms with no evolutionary history leading up to this appearance and this is noted by several events in the record.

This bothers them. It bothered Darwin, it bothered Eldridge and Gould (a silly punk eek hypothesis to explain saltation was the result),  but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??

Of course not because this is not science, it is a secular humanistic religion and you can show these people all the evidence you care to that would support an intelligent designer and they will laugh it off and redicule you because it violates their religious beliefs.

So, saltations are our beginning point in ID. How did they get there as if someone or something etherally began to scatter new life forms across planet earth?

We will never know because we were not there. But we don't need to hypothesize life morphing from hot ocean vents, birds spewing out dinoaurs or whales magically poofing out legs and crawling out on land to star in an Arnold Swartzenegger movie like the residents in here do every day to get a "theory" of evolution. The public will never buy it (as surveys already show most do not) and it will eventually go away to join the realms of phrenology, water witching and a flat earth.

So, let's cut to the chase of simplicity....What is so hard to envision about a designer creating tissue? There you have the simplicity. We do it every day somewhere in a lab...Ocaam's Razor says run with it>>>>>

Personally, I do not see the “Creator” being intelligent as we are, does not have to be to “create” life. Something intelligent starts off its life knowing nothing at all, has to learn from scratch. Something all-knowing would simply exist.  An always was, and always will be, sort of thing.

If quantum mechanics is the Creator, then it is not human and there could be no IQ test to measure that intelligence from a human perspective.

But it isn't true that life begins knowing nothing at all. Relating this to humans, DNA provides intelligence. A newborn baby knows little, but it is preprogrammed to cry for water and suckle a breast. Birds do not have to train to migrate where they need to be. Seeds receive no instructions to begin laying down roots......

One area I did disagree with is there not being or needing a scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Without it there is no way of knowing who is making more sense. In fact (although I still do not see a coherent theory from elsewhere) I used to be on the other side of the argument parroting “ID is not science” and the other slogans I picked up on the internet. That began to change after I realized that I had what I needed to clinch the theory. After following the evidence with it, I had to admit that it was an excellent scientific challenge.

But we have to be careful about banterring this "theory" concept around or we will be as bad as the Darwinists are on this.

The scientific method dictates that we begin at the hypothesis level. That hypothesis is then subjected to empirical experimentation, if the hypothesis holds up and other scientists can reproduce those experiments, it goes to the theory level.

What experimental evidence do we have that man morphed from an ape-like critter, that whales crawled out of the oceans to form land mammals.....that birds, indeed gave rise to dinosaurs? NONE.

And there is no way any of this could ever be falsified, therefore, there is no such thing in reality as a "theory of evolution" except in the minds of some.

The truth is, there is also NO general theory of ID that has been through the scientific method to show itself a theory...certainly not one that sums up the overall concept.

The theory made me more accepting of Genesis but not religiously, I now see it as an ancient scientific theory that for its day was not that bad at all. Sure better than Greek and Roman mythology. It did not make a church goer though. My wife (a Catholic) goes with friends and/or her mother to the church she was brought up in, while I worked on projects that reconcile science and religion. After starting work on the theory that became my Sunday mission. With my having been brought up a Methodist I was in training to be a religious leader, as opposed to a follower, then when I was older finally graduated. By that time I was glad I didn’t have to go to Sunday School anymore, in part because of the teachings making little scientific sense. I still saw myself as a religious leader but from the science side of the divide that needs reconciling. I’m also still just as doubtful about ritual saving a person’s soul. It’s often used as a way to feel better for another week of being cruel to others, an excuse to do it again. If we keep coming back again (with no memory since intelligence is forced to learn from scratch each time) then it’s possible that we do in fact make our own hell where we in a sense suffer by experiencing the pain we knowingly caused to others, or the effects of change that hurts those who follow.

Religion...for religion's I keep it simple....

1) Can I find anything in science that suggests there is something else of intelligence out there? Yes, I can.
2) Can I find a spiritual side of me? Yup, there is something inside of me that is non-mind.
3) Can I find a higher power? Absolutely.....Anyone can....that higher power may be a higher you.....or a majestic megaverse where QM controls all--or something else.

It then can all then come together and we can attempt to ascertain the qualities of that 'other' dimension of life we all interact with.....

Lighting candles, counting beads, holy water and prayer cloths are constructs of man. And Genesis is exactly what it is....history written by man who understood little about  the universe around him from a scientific perspective....

Some seem to think that Moses should have begun with a quantum singularity in the blackhole of another universe, described the big bang with it's inflationary theory and ended with Boltzmann's math on particle's laughable........

But before I go on all night about my personal religious views: Thanks to the theory I can now say that you are making more sense than your adversaries are. Without intelligence being part of the genetic mechanism there is almost no chance at all that living things could exist. That helps explain why CSI and such also exists, even though the odds of it are nearly zero. But as I earlier mentioned our Creator does not need to be intelligent, just the part of us that connects us to the Creator must be. Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined. But it now seems more scientifically possible than ever, thanks to the insight I gained from following the evidence where it leads, from the Theory of Intelligent Design.

All in all I still have to say I was impressed by your above reply, and later answers. So keep up the good work Jerry!

Thanks...but I would disagree with this: "Whether our Creator is consciously seeing through the eyes of all living things in the universe cannot be determined."

It can be determined through physics experiments that energy will act as a wave or a particle (wave or solid) depending upon whether there is, or is not an intelligent observer in the system.

Yet, we experience both in the real world....We need waves to come from energy when we turn on a light switch and we need our laptop to be a solid when we pick it up to use it.....

What intelligent observer is CAUSING this? What intelligent observer is causing the reality around us to be, indeed, real?

Find this, and you will have found God.

  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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