What is ID?

[Colter]

It is quite obvious so, and nobody claim this to be the case (beside such strawman attacks from the creationist camp). At any rate, I wonder why you feel the need to make this remark.



Perhaps so you can justify this speculative assertions?



Not sure what you mean with "itself". If you mean "sufficient", then yes. If you mean something else, then no. What I said is this; the natural laws make life possible to evolve, i.e. natural laws is sufficient as an explanation to the diversification of life and why it exists in the first place.

This is indisputable true, regardless of what creationists try to say. Creationists just don't like such explanations. However, what you feel about an explanation does not make it less plausible.

Notice, I do not say the natural laws is the whole explanation, I just say they are sufficient as an explanation for why life exists. This is as to say the minimum of what we know. If you want to add something to that, feel free. But in my opinion one then need to start to add from the minimum and be consistent with what we already know when doing it.

Why the natural laws are like they are I have no idea. And like I said, it is fine with me if you want to subscribe this fact to a deity, since I have no way to dispute it and it does not contradict anything I know of. However, unlike you, I see no need to subscribe unanswered question to some kind of deity, or anything else for that sake, unless presented some evidence indicating I would need to.

Do you feel you have some kind of evidence which indicates a deity is behind the emergence and diversification of life? If so, what are they and what do the evidence mean in your opinion?

Science didn't create evolution or life, it just observes facts associated with the reality of things observed. Religion deals with the observer who is apart from the things being observed. Consciousness transcends the material even though it is inextricably linked with the material. "In him we live, move and have our being".

 

[In situ]

The theory of evolution does not attempt or pretend to attempt to replace religion or to affirm or deny that there is meaning to life.

I think it is fair to say people do. People use science to justify their beliefs. While science might support a non-theistic view, and contradict specific, testable, claims made by theists, per see science does not exclude, nor include, the existence of a deity. In that sense science is neutral.

I think some theist, particular the fundamentalists, and many atheist as well, seams to oversee the fact that science is a minimalistic basket, or tool, of knowledge to think about reality, this because they believe science denies, even make it impossible for, any form of deity to exist, while it does not. Science neither confirms or deny the existence of a deity, simply because it lacks any evidence to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

One sided again. Those all cover the meaning of life from their own perspective, you don't want that yet you want to present something that many feel is unproven, that takes the place of that list, but says it's done with no meaning to life.

You aren't being fair.

Ah, you want to control what kids learn in school and assure your God is placed in the middle of all of it and to ignore well evidenced science.

Well, good luck with that.

 

[In situ]

Science didn't create evolution or life

Can you please clarify this? I am not sure what this is supposed to mean or even what you try to say here.

[Science is] just observes facts associated with the reality of things observed.

Incorrect. Science is more than a collection of facts, i.e. observations. Science is not like a stamp collecting activity in where facts are only categorized and cataloged in labeled groups. Science is about explaining the facts as well. Without the theory of evolution we have no way to explain the facts of biology. Biology would be a stamp collection activity without an underlying theory of biology to explain the facts. The theory of evolution is a consistent and coherent scientific explanation all of all the facts in biology. That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution and not the Facts of Biology.

I am not sure what your problem are with this/such explanation?

Religion deals with the observer who is apart from the things being observed.

I am not sure I understand what you mean now. Let me clarify with a question: how do you observe that which is "apart" - not part - of that which is to be observed? If there is any lesson we learned from physics then it is that an independent observer is not possible. If we are to believe physics, you are inevitable part of that which you observe - no such thing as an independent observer exist.

Consciousness transcends the material even though it is inextricably linked with the material. "In him we live, move and have our being".

I fail to see what impact this has on, or why this would invalidate anything, which has already been explained so far by the theory of evolution? If you are trying to go down the path we can not know or be sure of some things because we don't know everything then you are on pretty thin ice.

 

[Colter]

Can you please clarify this? I am not sure what this is supposed to mean or even what you try to say here.



Incorrect. Science is more than a collection of facts, i.e. observations. Science is not like a stamp collecting activity in where facts are only categorized and cataloged in labeled groups. Science is about explaining the facts as well. Without the theory of evolution we have no way to explain the facts of biology. Biology would be a stamp collection activity without an underlying theory of biology to explain the facts. The theory of evolution is a consistent and coherent scientific explanation all of all the facts in biology. That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution and not the Facts of Biology.

I am not sure what your problem are with this/such explanation?



I am not sure I understand what you mean now. Let me clarify with a question: how do you observe that which is "apart" - not part - of that which is to be observed? If there is any lesson we learned from physics then it is that an independent observer is not possible. If we are to believe physics, you are inevitable part of that which you observe - no such thing as an independent observer exist.



I fail to see what impact this has on, or why this would invalidate anything, which has already been explained so far by the theory of evolution? If you are trying to go down the path we can not know or be sure of some things because we don't know everything then you are on pretty thin ice.

Consciousness transcends physics, it transcends the delicate electrochemical platform that mind rests upon.Consciousness of values is supermatetial, not subject to gravity. The moon doesn't observe the earth and declare its beauty, only a value conscious mind capable of contrasting can make such an observation.

Both science and spirituality are incomplete in evolution. Science might interpret facts and draw conclusions but that doesn't mean it's entirely correct.

 

[In situ]

Consciousness transcends physics, it transcends the delicate electrochemical platform that mind rests upon. Consciousness of values is supermatetial, not subject to gravity.

You are good at claiming things, but do you have any evidence to support your claims? That is do you have any reason for why I shall accept your claims?

The moon doesn't observe the earth and declare its beauty, only a value conscious mind capable of contrasting can make such an observation.

The moon interacts with the Earth. As such the Earth and the Moon "observe" each other. The interaction would not be possible otherwise.

Both science and spirituality are incomplete in evolution. Science might interpret facts and draw conclusions but that doesn't mean it's entirely correct.

So you try to go down the path of "since we don't know everything then anything goes" anyway ?

Again, incomplete does not mean incorrect. There are certain thing we can be pretty sure are correct, the theory of evolution is one of them. There is more evidence for evolution than there is evidence for the theory of gravity. But you still accept the theory of gravity, don't you?

 

[Colter]

You are good at ignoring the obvious. The fact that you disagree should be proof that your consciousness is not conditioned by the laws of physics. We are not just machines.

I never said that anything goes. Something is true, not everything man speculates is true.

The moon is not conscious of the earth, it doesn't have mind or personality. As spiritual beings we observe in mind that the moon and earth have a gravitational relationship.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ah, you want to control what kids learn in school and assure your God is placed in the middle of all of it and to ignore well evidenced science.

Well, good luck with that.

I actually thought you all had picked up on the fact, I'm still not buying it. Your "well evidenced science" falls to pieces every time. honestly, I'd be embarrassed to even claim that.

All you have is scientists that choose not to believe there is a God and they delude themselves into believing/assuming their agenda into reality

You make a claim like that, while want your silly nonsense put in the middle of it all so they don't believe in God?...and how is that not control?

I now see why I'm fast growing tired of this thread.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In that sense science is neutral.

As long as there are people (scientists) in the mix, there is no complete neutrality. Once again, science is nothing on it's on, and people can/will read into it, misread it, or whatever. It's nothing more than opinions and assumptions by people. Science is far from perfect because people are far from perfect.

When one says, science doesn't lie, they might as well be saying people don't lie. But alas, I don't think I'm ever going to get that point across, try as I have.

 

[bhsmte]

I actually thought you all had picked up on the fact, I'm still not buying it. Your "well evidenced science" falls to pieces every time. honestly, I'd be embarrassed to even claim that.

All you have is scientists that choose not to believe there is a God and they delude themselves into believing/assuming their agenda into reality

You make a claim like that, while want your silly nonsense put in the middle of it all so they don't believe in God?...and how is that not control?

I now see why I'm fast growing tired of this thread.

Problem is, you rely on science every minute of every day, for a multitude of things you take for granted. The part of science you don't like (evolution) is as well evidenced as those other parts of science, that bring you these everyday conveniences, that you depend on.

Don't worry though, you can still deny the science and practice whatever faith you like, no one is stopping you.

 

[Speedwell]

You make a claim like that, while want your silly nonsense put in the middle of it all so they don't believe in God?...and how is that not control?

So science teachers don't want their students to believe in God? Talk about silly nonsense...

 

[In situ]

You are good at ignoring the obvious. The fact that you disagree should be proof that your consciousness is not conditioned by the laws of physics. We are not just machines.

There is no need to go on the defensive. I merely asked you to motivate your claims. If I would claim something extraordinary would you not ask for the reason why I made such claim?

I am trying to understand the underlying reasons for why you believe as you do, i.e. I am trying to see it from your point of view. However, so far your answer has not been helpful to me. If it is your opinion you have presented something solid then it is a matter of a failure on my behalf to follow your reasoning properly. I tend to "demand" to have things explicitly stated and not relay on silent assumptions. As such I can relate to that you might feel I miss the "obvious", but the fact is I do not presume anything at all.

At any rate. What you claim to be "obvious" is not obvious to me. As I see it, in a sense we are machines, and I don't see a problem with a mechanical description. The mechanical view is a low level description of life but I don't claimed that is all there is to say. For that reason we have high level descriptions such as psychology, but such descriptions has failures on its own, since any high level description need to ignore the details. Therefore it can be hard to understand the relation between the high and the low level description, i.e. the relation between the mind and the "machine".

However, this does not mean a mechanical description is incorrect, or that there is no "mechanical" description of consciousness or that it must be immaterial. Because of these reason I am not prepared to claim anything for certain at all when it comes to consciousness. Of course I have my own ideas what consciousness is, but that does not help me to understand how you see it, and how you think it is related to evolving beings.

The fact that you disagree should be proof that your consciousness is not conditioned by the laws of physics.

I disagree. I my point of view, it is a proof our brains are filled with different information but that says nothing about the possibilities of the laws of physics.

I never said that anything goes. Something is true, not everything man speculates is true.

You did not say it explicitly but, as I see it, it is implied in what you written. However, I agree I put it on a sharp edge, but I did it to stress my point; appealing to an unknown as an explanation for the unknown is not an explanation but a postponing of it. That is what I meant with "anything goes". If this is not what you intended to say, then please clarify.

The moon is not conscious of the earth, it doesn't have mind or personality. As spiritual beings we observe in mind that the moon and earth have a gravitational relationship.

Would you agree that observing is a form of interaction? And if so, would you also agree on that observing is not only limited to consciousness beings?

 

[Colter]

There is no need to go on the defensive. I merely asked you to motivate your claims. If I would claim something extraordinary would you not ask for the reason why I made such claim?

I am trying to understand the underlying reasons for why you believe as you do, i.e I am trying to see it from your point of view. However, so far your answer has not been helpful to me. If it is your opinion you have presented something solid then it is a matter of a failure on my behalf to follow your reasoning properly. I tend to "demand" to have things explicitly stated and not relay on silent assumptions. As such I can relate to that you might feel I miss the "obvious", but the fact is I do not presume anything at all.

At any rate. What you claim to be "obvious" is not obvious to me. As I see it, in a sense we are machines, and I don't see a problem with a mechanical description. The mechanical view is a low level description of life but I don't claimed that is all there is to say. For that reason we have high level descriptions such as psychology, but such descriptions has failures on its own, since any high level description need to ignore the details. So for that reason it can be hard to understand the relation between the high and the low level description, i.e. the relation between the mind and the "machine".

However, this does not mean a mechanical description is incorrect, or that there is no "mechanical" description of consciousness or that it must be immaterial. Because of these reason I am not prepared to claim anything for certain at all when it comes to consciousness. Of course I have my own ideas what consciousness is, but that does not help me to understand how you see it, and how you think it is related to evolving beings.



You did not say it explicitly, but it is implied in what you written. However, I agree I put it on a sharp edge, but I did it to stress my point; appealing to an unknown as an explanation for the unknown is not an explanation but a postponing of it. That is what I meant with "anything goes". If this is not what you intended to say, then please clarify.


Would you agree that observing is a form of interaction? And if so, would you also agree on that observing is not only limited to consciousness beings?

Observations made by a mind don't guarantee that the thing being observed is also a reciprocating mind. I assumed that the anowlogy of the moon and earth was sufficient to demonstrate the obveous that not all matter is conscious. That they are related in a gravitational field is true but neither contemplate the meaning or are concious beings. Man transcends the material in contemplating such observations.


"The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe." UB 1955

 

[doubtingmerle]

Observations made by a mind don't guarantee that the thing being observed is also a reciprocating mind. I assumed that the anowlogy of the moon and earth was sufficient to demonstrate the obveous that not all matter is conscious. That they are related in a gravitational field is true but neither contemplate the meaning or are concious beings. Man transcends the material in contemplating such observations.


"The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe." UB 1955

Ah, there has to be a ghost in the machine, a conscious spirit in the brain. What about chimpanzees? Their brain is similar in genetics and structure to humans. Is there also a ghost in their brain? What about monkeys? What about horses? What about crocodiles? What about snails? What about spiders? What about amoeba? Where is the break between creature that have a ghost in the machine, and those that don't?

 

[Colter]

Ah, there has to be a ghost in the machine, a conscious spirit in the brain. What about chimpanzees? Their brain is similar in genetics and structure to humans. Is there also a ghost in their brain? What about monkeys? What about horses? What about crocodiles? What about snails? What about spiders? What about amoeba? Where is the break between creature that have a ghost in the machine, and those that don't?

Spirit not a ghost. All minds, high and low, are from the creator of mind. All minds are endowed by and are responsive to some phase of the cosmic mind. "Will concious man" can be endwelt by the fragment of the Universal Father and hence capable of salvation. Man is the last link in the chain of the descending Sons of God. Monkeys and horses and spiders are not capable of survival. We are related to animals that's why we act like them.

 

[xianghua]

Ok, I was asking specifically about the horse series. That is obvious from the picture I posted and the specific questions I asked. Do you or do you not think that the modern horse and zebra evolved from an animal like the Hyracortherium?

yes. its likely. so?

Are zebra and hyracotherium the same "kind". You will refuse to answer,

again: i just dont know (if they are shared the same morphological traits they are probably the same kind). why you cant accept "i dont know" as answer?

But if you think they are different "kinds", then one wonders how all those different "kinds" got created over millions of years. Did God make a new "kind" of horse every million years or so from scratch, making it pop into existance out of nothing? If that is what God has kept on doing for many years, how do you know he won't do it again? How do you know that tomorrow you will not suddenly see a new horse "kind" pop into existance out of nothing in front of you?

you are right. its possible. but when we know that the designer exist and able to do this where is the problem actually? so the main point here is the question of the designer existence.

 

[xianghua]

Without the theory of evolution we have no way to explain the facts of biology.

not realy. actually we can explain everything in biology without the evolution theory. give me just one example of something in biology that cant be explain by the design model.

Biology would be a stamp collection activity without an underlying theory of biology to explain the facts. The theory of evolution is a consistent and coherent scientific explanation all of all the facts in biology.

i dont think so. for instance: evolution cant explain how a complex biological system can evolve step wise. evolution cant explain how we have found motors in nature and so on.

In short, evolutionary theory states you cannot escape your past. It states cat remains cats and whatever cats evolves to will still be cats because its ancestors was cats.

so a fish will always be a fish? human is still a fish? a mammal is still a reptile?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Spirit not a ghost. All minds, high and low, are from the creator of mind. All minds are endowed by and are responsive to some phase of the cosmic mind. "Will concious man" can be endwelt by the fragment of the Universal Father and hence capable of salvation. Man is the last link in the chain of the descending Sons of God. Monkeys and horses and spiders are not capable of survival. We are related to animals that's why we act like them.

"Ghost in the machine" is a figure of speech, referring to the idea that there is some sort of spirit inside telling the brain what to do.

I see no answer here to my question as to where you think the divide is between animals with a "ghost in the machine" and those without it.

If we have a "ghost in the machine", why is our brain so much like those animals that don't?

And I do find your comment, "Monkeys and horses and spiders are not capable of survival," to be very odd. I disagree. Horses are capable of survival.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wait, why am I doing this? I said I was done with this conversation. But somehow, I am answering again. Here goes.

yes. its likely. so?

Ok, so after all this circling, you finally agree that horse evolution likely occurred. You now say it is likely that the modern horse and zebra evolved from an animal like the Hyracoterium over millions of years. So you do agree with at least part of the theory of evolution.

And I could ask the same series of questions about the cat series. If horses, donkeys, and zebras evolved from a common horse ancestor, can you also accept that lions, tigers, and leopards could all have evolved from a common cat ancestor? Although we don't have the extensive fossil evidence here like we have for horses, there is evidence that cats also evolved from a common ancestor, most likely from something like the Proailurus that lived 25 million years ago. See Proailurus - Wikipedia . So if the extensive horse family (most of which are now extinct) and the extensive cat family (with 42 living species) evolved from common family ancestors, where did those ancestors come from? If you match the Hyracotherium with the Proailurus, they are not that different. So as the first placental mammal was thought to have lived 80 million years ago, then the evolution from it to the Hyra. and Proail. over 50 million years seems no less likely than horse evolution. And if we put all that together, we can have all mammals evolved from a common ancestor source.

And then...

again: i just dont know (if they are shared the same morphological traits they are probably the same kind). why you cant accept "i dont know" as answer?

"I don't know" is a very, very good answer.

The issue is that, though you now admit that zebra is likely descended from Hyra, there was a time when you appeared to be denying the possibilty.

you are right. its possible. but when we know that the designer exist and able to do this where is the problem actually?

Where is the problem with saying that horses just pop up out of nothing, and it could happen tomorrow that suddenly a new species of horse could pop up out of nowhere? Because that is not reality. It violates all we know about science, such as the law of conservation of matter.

And the problem is that you have been consistently saying "popping out of nowhere" creation is more likely than evolution. Now you reduce that to saying if a designer exists, popping out of nowhere is possible. Sure, and if a great healer exists, it is possible that an amputee will grow back his leg. But I would not go around saying that the evidence says amputees will grow back legs, or that new horses will pop up out of nothing.

so the main point here is the question of the designer existence.

Which is what I have been saying. If you want to argue for the existence of a designer, a case can be made. (And a perhaps stronger case can be made that there is not.) But that is different from saying that there is evidence that the designer uses "popping into existence out of nothing" as his method of creating animals.

 

[xianghua]

And I could ask the same series of questions about the cat series. If horses, donkeys, and zebras evolved from a common horse ancestor, can you also accept that lions, tigers, and leopards could all have evolved from a common cat ancestor?

certainly possible. yes. i never said othehrwise.

So as the first placental mammal was thought to have lived 80 million years ago, then the evolution from it to the Hyra. and Proail. over 50 million years seems no less likely than horse evolution. And if we put all that together, we can have all mammals evolved from a common ancestor source.

no. its a big jump from saying that all cats evolved from a common cat and saying that all mammals evolved from a common mammal.

Where is the problem with saying that horses just pop up out of nothing, and it could happen tomorrow that suddenly a new species of horse could pop up out of nowhere? Because that is not reality. It violates all we know about science, such as the law of conservation of matter.

so lets say for the sake of the argument that god existence is a fact. in this case you will also say that its seems impossible?

If you want to argue for the existence of a designer, a case can be made. (And a perhaps stronger case can be made that there is not.) But that is different from saying that there is evidence that the designer uses "popping into existence out of nothing" as his method of creating animals.

i realy cant see a big difference between the two. if god exist its also means that a soul is real and a lot of others things that even science have problem to explain.