28 Jan 19
@KellyJay
I watched the video, twice now. Meyer surmises that ‘information requires intelligence’, or as I’ve been saying intelligence requires intelligence. So the next logical question to follow is - where did that intelligence come from and how?
28 Jan 19
@moonbus
I’ve brought up ice core samples and the ramifications that knowledge has with a few YEC’s on this forum, I don’t think I’ve ever got a response.
28 Jan 19
@proper-knob saidIf this were search is for intelligence yes, but at the moment what is being discussed by Meyer, is there a need to ask that question in the first place!?
@KellyJay
I watched the video, twice now. Meyer surmises that ‘information requires intelligence’, or as I’ve been saying intelligence requires intelligence. So the next logical question to follow is - where did that intelligence come from and how?
If it is not required the subject can be dropped. Not much different than finding a book, looking at it can we assume an author is required before we figure out who it is?
If the answer is yes this can only occur by design then what can we know by looking at life?
28 Jan 19
@proper-knob saidMy response is age isn’t the real issue for me one way or another. I can be right or wrong about dates it doesn’t change anything for me as it would for your views.
@moonbus
I’ve brought up ice core samples and the ramifications that knowledge has with a few YEC’s on this forum, I don’t think I’ve ever got a response.
28 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidSure thing. Nobody is saying Meyer and the Discovery Institute ID advocates can't ask questions. Ask away, but realise that evidence is required. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
If this were search is for intelligence yes, but at the moment what is being discussed by Meyer, is there a need to ask that question in the first place!?
28 Jan 19
@KellyJay
I'm not buying that Kelly. You've been a pretty staunch advocate for the YEC position as long as i can remember.
@proper-knob saidI am a YEC, as I have even repeated that here. ID people for the most part are not, at least those I've read or seen, but it isn't age in my opinion that matters for reasons I have already said. What would it matter if something that is being argued cannot be done without intelligence period, time wouldn't help that if its completely impossible.
@KellyJay
I'm not buying that Kelly. You've been a pretty staunch advocate for the YEC position as long as i can remember.
If the sophistication of life is so complex beyond the probabilities of random chance, even with natural selection in play, that leaves but one choice not a variety of them, intelligence. Once it is established that there is someone who could handle the specific complexity of in each lifeform we have to acknowledge life itself is just a red flag used to get our eyes focusing on what is around us, there is more!
In my opinion the more daunting and incredible task would be having everything required for life in one spot and the environment to put life in. Life is only possible if the micro and macro issues are tuned to support life. So now it becomes more than just life’s creator and your question about where did intelligence come from gets a little clearer since it isn’t just life we are talking about.
01 Feb 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWas thinking about you today as someone was talking about an eternal universe. The point was brought up if indeed the universe is eternal before, there is now, and the universe is eternal afterwards. How is it we are here in the now? Wouldn't there always be eternal time before now?
Although the universe didn't have a beginning (trust me) I understand why finite creatures like humans feel like there must have been one.
Theists will often say that a finite human cannot comprehend an infinite deity. Well, the same applies to an infinite universe.
02 Feb 19
@sonship
Yes, evolution has NOTHING to do with origin if LIFE. Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with origin of SPECIES.
Two totally separate subjects that you want to FORCE the world to conflate as one and the same.
As much as you WISH for it to be the same, sorry old man, it is not now, was not and never WILL be the same.
Now we see the precursors of life in the clouds around stars in our galaxy, the prebiotic material we are close to proving turns into life from mud or whatever is proven in a hundred years or so.
So you have a limited window of time to poo poo all evolutionary and life origin science, have a ball. It will get the world nowhere in the long run, except show who is so besotted with ancient man made religions they cannot think critically any more and in fact rebound from critical thinking for fear they might figure out for themselves they were totally wrong about EVERYTHING all along and they would not want to chance THAT in a million years so the falsehoods survive to contaminate yet another generation of the duped.
02 Feb 19
2 edits
@sonhouse saidDon't you believe in an evolving universe? If so, what you just said is false. The universe must be perfectly balanced in all the right ways for life to exist and continue. If the universe started in a big bang that means everything flew out from the origin spot, everything would have been blasted out from the point of the singularity. This dispersion away from that point in time would mean the universe had to undergo an evolutionary process. The laws of the universe would have to come into being, then through them form all the macro and micro entities, the planets, stars, comets, moons, gases, liquids, rocks, dirt, and everything else. Not only would they have to be formed, the formation wouldn’t even be the more difficult part of this, even more tricky would be where everything is placed! So that this, the most fortunate point in the universe, would have such balance around it, that all the laws of the universe could maintain life here! You disagree?
@sonship
Yes, evolution has NOTHING to do with origin if LIFE. Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with origin of SPECIES.
Two totally separate subjects that you want to FORCE the world to conflate as one and the same.
As much as you WISH for it to be the same, sorry old man, it is not now, was not and never WILL be the same.
Now we see the precursors of life in the c ...[text shortened]... HAT in a million years so the falsehoods survive to contaminate yet another generation of the duped.
I’ve quoted these before, there were and are brilliant people who think the universe wasn’t formed by evolution. This of course has implications that dispels many other things too.
Sir Isaac Newton quotes
“ The planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolu-tions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws (Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713). ”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. (Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)”
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
02 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidThe present moment exists, despite moments preceding it and following it. An eternal universe doesn't mean all moments are merged into one.
Was thinking about you today as someone was talking about an eternal universe. The point was brought up if indeed the universe is eternal before, there is now, and the universe is eternal afterwards. How is it we are here in the now? Wouldn't there always be eternal time before now?
02 Feb 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo they are fragmented? Explain please, with reasons why you think this could be true!
The present moment exists, despite moments preceding it and following it. An eternal universe doesn't mean all moments are merged into one.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
02 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidNo, they are not fragmented.
So they are fragmented? Explain please, with reasons why you think this could be true!
Currently, you believe that before this moment there were previous moments leading back to the moment of creation. I simply have taken creation off the table.
A moment always has a moment that preceded it. No more complexity than that.
02 Feb 19
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSo you think by saying no, no, no there was no creation that means that there doesn't need to be?
No, they are not fragmented.
Currently, you believe that before this moment there were previous moments leading back to the moment of creation. I simply have taken creation off the table.
A moment always has a moment that preceded it. No more complexity than that.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
02 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidOnly if you think by saying yes, yes, yes there was a creation that means that there has to be.
So you think by saying no, no, no there was no creation that means that there doesn't need to be?