1 edit
@proper-knob saidIf that is what you got from Meyers you don't understand the argument. (not trying to insult, it is just that isn't the argument) It isn't the gaps that are being addressed but from the point of our understanding. Looking at information that guides the processes within life, we see only one source that does anything like that we are aware of, not several different possible sources. That is intelligence, it takes intelligence to write a book, to program a computer, and so on. Random chance will not do that. The arguments are very strong, and worth the time. Even that 4 minute spot I put here will show you that.
@KellyJay
I’m aware of Meyer and the Discovery Insitute, I’ve read snippets of his stuff. He’s just promoting ‘God of the gaps’.
@KellyJay
Let's run with this. If intelligence is required to create intelligence - who created the intelligence?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
@proper-knob saidWhat were your thoughts on them?
@dj2becker
Darwin’s Black Box
The Case for a Creator
@proper-knob saidIt takes intelligence to put together the information that guides the process of life, there are no other possible sources for this type of placement of the various parts. We can find the random placement of the same material; however, there will be no direction to do the work within living systems.
@KellyJay
Let's run with this. If intelligence is required to create intelligence - who created the intelligence?
@dj2becker
It was probably 10yrs since i read those books. From what i recall they were interesting reads.
1 edit
@proper-knob saidIrrelevant to the topic! The only thing being established is can a natural unguided process build this, or is something more required? From there we can see if people’s original assumptions were correct about life beginning or not. Going beyond that is another discussion that has nothing to do with the first. Much like evolution and abiogenesis they are related but completely different topics.
@KellyJay
That wasn't the question i asked.
1 edit
@KellyJay
The role of the intelligent designer is an 'irrelevant topic' when discussing 'intelligent design'?
@proper-knob saidNo but establishing that is required should come first.
@KellyJay
The role of the intelligent designer is an 'irrelevant topic' when discussing 'intelligent design'?
@sonship saidNot everyone does believe that the buck (or the explanation) has to stop somewhere. In Buddhism, for example, whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning is undefined. It is a peculiarity of Judeo-Christianity to think that origins have any special significance.
@Proper-KnobLet's run with this. If intelligence is required to create intelligence - who created the intelligence?
Take it back further if you wish.
Who created creating ?
Do you believe that the cosmic buck has to stop somewhere ?
1 edit
@proper-knob saidNo need to worry about who put the information into life if we can show that it can spring up without someone intelligent doing it. If, however Intelligence is the only way we know it can get there, then the question needs to be asked, who did it? If we worry more about what ID could mean before we look at the evidence and where it is leading us, we have stopped looking at the evidence and instead have only concerned ourselves with the possible ramifications.
@KellyJay
Sorry, you've lost me. Your sentence makes no sense.