Duh! "Intelligent Falling"!!!

[Redleg]

Al Khalifah,

Let me explain. Here's my point when I posited this to Redleg:

Both Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling aren't science, true. But what I'm saying is that if anyone were to reject the principle context and concept of Intelligent Falling, then that someone must rebuff Intelligent Design likewise because they are the same!

If anyone disagrees with this, then what's the difference? (I've asked this so many times....)

Vice versa, if you were to embrace Intelligent Design then you can't call Intelligent Falling a "stupidity".

Myself, I strongly disagree with both, because they are the same bunk idea. One is applied to Evolution, the other to Gravity.

Well it seems that someone choses now to ignore the answer to his question.

[Redleg]

deleted

[Soulforged]

LOL - your assuming that I don't know how religion comes about. Knowledge does not mean one does not have to believe.

Again someone missed the [sarcasm on] [sarcasm off] buttons. But I will say this - is it not hypocritical to attack someone who believes in God for not being able to provide proof. When the theory of the Big Bang as purposed by scientists have no proof to how or why it happened. Only that it was the most likely cause. That is the reason why the on/off switch of sarcasm was clearly placed in the text.

Religion means different things for different people. However to assume because of a satire that Christianity will cause you to believe in absolute Tripe is ridiculous.

It seems that i've a serious problems with your sarcasm...
The problem with explaning to someone that God's doesn't EXIST, that's just an idea, is turning more and more complicated.
Again, going as far as i can tell ok:
- I don't hate religious people, all my family is pretty religious, and i respect them, because i respect everybody (well maybe not yankees . But it's very simple to understand it all. When the human first looked at the stars, probably he believed it was for eating, but he realized that he cannot touch it so he started to saving the image on his memory. Then he imagined a story of beings looking to him in the sky and he draw pictures of it. Later he told this to his partners and planned to tell this to everyone. Telling this to everyone on the society he demonstrated that he could show the creators of the universe to everyone, and so he did, everyone believed it, and praised it, and so praised the man who discovered it. Thus born religion. With the time religion was used to explain everything, being a good influence to education and to the eventual appearing of philosophy and later of science. But when a new true explanation, based on true knowledge and facts, was born to replace the old given by religion, many times this fhought and many times it adapted to the "new world". Some guy (i would not give names because this is a hypothetical parallel to known history) discovered that One god would be invencible in adaptation matters, because, in difference of many gods and deities, you could move him behind everything, saying that he was the creator, and the good, and all that he wasn't was evil, thus creating a new morality almost implacable that lasted for centuries and costed many lives and larger knowledge. So the things came back to what they were. People became the "channels" of God's will on earth, some were just named by the institutions, others showed "evidence", signs that God touched them, some made miracles. In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...). There're things that science cannot explain so people sticks to the metaphysical idea (like all ideas) of God, like death and what comes after it. To finish my little story i will tell this: i know as many scientists (i'm not one, but i only "know", i don't have "faith") that death is not inevitable and that all things in universe have an actual explanation...My point is that this kind of institutions and organizations that mocks on science and have actual power on earthly issues should not exists. And i ask you a question: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do? Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...

"Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation."

I don't think that any body takes the bible literally, just that Christians take some parts of it as literal. The Bible is just like another fictional book partially based on true facts (there's a lot of true facts in the Bible, but this doesn't matter to the faith), those true facts affects only reality not faith or ideality, while the invented facts, like "Jesus makes the water turn into wine", affects perception and ideality. You are intitled to believe that Jesus actually did that, thus proving that he was the son of God (tough othes religions state the same of other "mans", it's a paradox don't?), but the strange thing is that Jesus acts like a "nuts" all the time, like he was high. There's a chapter of "Boston Public" when some guy get's a blow on the head and obviouly goes wacko and starts to act like Jesus, i don't have anything against "different" people, but the fact is that Jesus acted like one, or at least like a fanatic. How can you prove that Jesus did those miracles? Well you can't, is like God itself (or himself?), is like "magic", you just believe in it. I respect some of the believes of Jesus, but that's all, there's nothing that makes Jesus more than a visionary man or a crazy profet, or any other "saint". (Notice that i'm not talking about God himself, that's above, so for starters the most simple explanation is "God doesn't exists, so Jesus for instance is not son of God"). And that's the principal problem with religious people, they believe in a superior being that rules all (then they have no problem to be ruled), and even in a man that rules all.
Anyway this is going to far. Creationism isn't an explanation, is a piece of the past ways in the modern society, it doesn't have any facts that support it and there will never be, unless you actually believe that there's a physical "heaven" and a material "God". I prefer to look for truth, and to be just denpendent of other mans. If you always will need a man to praise for and knee and treat him like the origin of all "good" and the salvation of man then do it, but for humanity's sake don't support creationism and don't buy the Bible, download it from the net in any case. Some people laugh when they see a "wacko" or a guy that believes he does magic and forms a club of mages (with all the reason, but they should help him, not just laugh), but is curious why they don't laugh at their own religion...My opinion is that everybody should look with interest to this obsolete belief and maybe laugh, but keep it like all fantastic stories.

If nobody wanted to read the post i will ask the question again: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do? Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...

[Redleg]

It seems that i've a serious problems with your sarcasm...
The problem with explaning to someone that God's doesn't EXIST, that's just an idea, is turning more and more complicated.

That is the problem with a belief system.

Again, going as far as i can tell ok:
- I don't hate religious people, all my family is pretty religious, and i respect them, because i respect everybody (well maybe not yankees . But it's very simple to understand it all. When the human first looked at the stars, probably he believed it was for eating, but he realized that he cannot touch it so he started to saving the image on his memory. Then he imagined a story of beings looking to him in the sky and he draw pictures of it. Later he told this to his partners and planned to tell this to everyone. Telling this to everyone on the society he demonstrated that he could show the creators of the universe to everyone, and so he did, everyone believed it, and praised it, and so praised the man who discovered it. Thus born religion.

Oh I understand that very well - The concept of a belief system is that it provides you comfort and hope when faced with situations that seem overwhelming to the individual.

With the time religion was used to explain everything, being a good influence to education and to the eventual appearing of philosophy and later of science. But when a new true explanation, based on true knowledge and facts, was born to replace the old given by religion, many times this fhought and many times it adapted to the "new world". Some guy (i would not give names because this is a hypothetical parallel to known history) discovered that One god would be invencible in adaptation matters, because, in difference of many gods and deities, you could move him behind everything, saying that he was the creator, and the good, and all that he wasn't was evil, thus creating a new morality almost implacable that lasted for centuries and costed many lives and larger knowledge. So the things came back to what they were. People became the "channels" of God's will on earth, some were just named by the institutions, others showed "evidence", signs that God touched them, some made miracles.

Again none of this disproves or proves religion.

Sorry to break down your writing into bite size peices - but I am honestly trying to find the natural break point so that I can understand what you are saying.

In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...).

This is all true - and even as a believer in God - I understand that certain religous truthes are now outdated because science has shown it to be true by natural law.

There're things that science cannot explain so people sticks to the metaphysical idea (like all ideas) of God, like death and what comes after it.

Hence the problem - those who believe in God use for the foundation of their belief (well some of us anyway). While the very nature of this those who say that God does not exist can not prove his non-existance. But in the same sense - we who believe in God can not prove his existance to those who dis-believe either.

To finish my little story i will tell this: i know as many scientists (i'm not one, but i only "know", i don't have "faith") that death is not inevitable and that all things in universe have an actual explanation...My point is that this kind of institutions and organizations that mocks on science and have actual power on earthly issues should not exists.

Yes the Religous Organizations should not mock science - I agree with that statement.

And i ask you a question: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do?

Well frankly we know that is not going to happen. But if it does - then those that believe some will have a loss of faith and lose all meaning in their lives - or like I image I will - understand that the belief in God has allowed me to think that I have a higher purpose in life other then just worrying about myself. No harm and no foul to my conscience or my being - since I don't let religion overwelm by understanding what I must do in regards to society and human laws.

Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...

Well again - since man is always questing for answers - I doubt very seriously that science finds the explanation for Everything. Hell science doesn't even understand how the Human Brain functions completely yet.

"Uriel... I agree with you. You are one of the enlightened few who can appreciate that the Bible is not to be taken literally and has lost some integrity in the translation."


I don't think that any body takes the bible literally, just that Christians take some parts of it as literal. The Bible is just like another fictional book partially based on true facts (there's a lot of true facts in the Bible, but this doesn't matter to the faith), those true facts affects only reality not faith or ideality, while the invented facts, like "Jesus makes the water turn into wine", affects perception and ideality. You are intitled to believe that Jesus actually did that, thus proving that he was the son of God (tough othes religions state the same of other "mans", it's a paradox don't?), but the strange thing is that Jesus acts like a "nuts" all the time, like he was high. There's a chapter of "Boston Public" when some guy get's a blow on the head and obviouly goes wacko and starts to act like Jesus, i don't have anything against "different" people, but the fact is that Jesus acted like one, or at least like a fanatic. How can you prove that Jesus did those miracles? Well you can't, is like God itself (or himself?), is like "magic", you just believe in it. I respect some of the believes of Jesus, but that's all, there's nothing that makes Jesus more than a visionary man or a crazy profet, or any other "saint". (Notice that i'm not talking about God himself, that's above, so for starters the most simple explanation is "God doesn't exists, so Jesus for instance is not son of God"). And that's the principal problem with religious people, they believe in a superior being that rules all (then they have no problem to be ruled), and even in a man that rules all.

Actually the last part is slightly incorrect - God rules heaven and earth but has granted man free will.

Anyway this is going to far. Creationism isn't an explanation, is a piece of the past ways in the modern society, it doesn't have any facts that support it and there will never be, unless you actually believe that there's a physical "heaven" and a material "God". I prefer to look for truth, and to be just denpendent of other mans. If you always will need a man to praise for and knee and treat him like the origin of all "good" and the salvation of man then do it, but for humanity's sake don't support creationism and don't buy the Bible, download it from the net in any case. Some people laugh when they see a "wacko" or a guy that believes he does magic and forms a club of mages (with all the reason, but they should help him, not just laugh), but is curious why they don't laugh at their own religion...My opinion is that everybody should look with interest to this obsolete belief and maybe laugh, but keep it like all fantastic stories.

You were making some sense until this last paragraph. Now all I see is someone who wants to critize those who are religous as being "wacko's" or obsolete. So now your attempting to force me into your belief system. Something that I as a Christian have not done to you.

If nobody wanted to read the post i will ask the question again: Let's suppose that in some time in history science finds the true explanation to the Big Bang, or another beggining and what originated it. What will you do? Perhaps believe that the God is behind that and in everyplace. Ok, but let's say that science finds the explanation for EVERYTHING...Then where will you place God in the "existence" of Universe? I'm curious if, when that happens, suddenly there's no more God...(but i wouldn't be surprised). All will come back to the first time that the man viewed the stars and believe it was to eat...

I read it all - and the answer is in the post. Since you asked - I will also ask you two questions, what will you do when science finds they can not discover the answer to how the Big Bang happened? What will you do when faced with a major crisis in your life - and you have absolutely no human being to look to for comfort? (The old saying there are no athiests in foxholes).

[Quietus]

Now to show how as a Christian I knew right off (beside the fact it came from The Onion) and to answer the question posed of

Intelligent Design as you understand it and
Intelligent Falling as presented by the article?

And having had several hours of sleep and time to actually make coherient thought on the subject.

Notice the scripture that was being used to justify the theory in the article.

Matthew 15:14. The author's of the satire purposely misquoted the reference. The Onion Article used only part of the Chapter and verse. Here is what the satire used claiming it to be Matthew 15:14. "'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." The actual scripture taken from the King James version of the Bible - which is what the "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning ," would have used if they truelly existed, states this; "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Its not a parable about gravity - but one of something else. Jesus did not concern himself with earth and man laws - his teachings are about spirtual concerns and God - ie human morals.

If one understands the meaning of the parable being shown - one must immediate reject the teachings of anyone that wishes to pursue an alternative that contradicts the actual testiment.




http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0796-9417.html

That one is long - so I will also link one that is short and to the point.



http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...70917-743.html


Then the satire authors refer to Job 5:7 and again the authors used this chapter verse in an attempt to make claim based upon the satire nature of the article. The authors used "'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards." The King James Version of the Chapter and verse is - states the exact same thing - but the context of the Job Chapter 5 is not talking about earth laws - but the failings of man. Notice the two verse immediately after and before - which places the scripture in the context of the lesson from the bible.

A religious scholar interpation of Job 5:7 -



http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0514-8523.html

Ie Job is talking about other things then gravity. It is refering to the failings of man.


Intelligent Design follows the basic principle of Genesis from Chapter 1: Verse 1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

and futher down

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

The Intelligent Design Theory follows the same pattern as the Genesis Chapter of the Bible.

So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.

Now one can link the Intelligence Design and the Creation from Genesis to the Big Bang with no effort at all. The Big Bang is accept as being the cause of the formation of the known Universe. However scientists can not explain with any scientific proof how the Big Bang happened or what caused it. Alll scientists have are some unproven theories, which they believe to be correct.

Redleg,

I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?

Also, saying God is driving Evolution is similar to saying God is driving the Cars and Gravitational force!!

- Cars are DRIVEN by the driver, the engine, the fuel, the friction between the wheel and the pavement etc.

NOT because God is turning the wheels or pushing from behind.

- Evolution is DRIVEN by random mutation and natural selection.

NOT because of God is picking the animals and molding them.

- Gravity is DRIVEN by Gravitational force which is the function of masses and the distance between the two objects.

NOT because God is pushing them 'down'.

There's no contextual and conceptual difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling!! It's either you embrace both or disgrace both.

And either way, God has zero input in driving cars, driving gravitational forces and driving evolution.

[Soulforged]

I didn't mean to treat any religious people as "wacko" but then you're treating the wackos with disrespect. I only called Jesus a "guy who acted like a wacko or a fanatic". In any case, sorry if i hurt your feelings...and for the last paragraph, well i said it's my opinion, but you can't deny that this story is similar to the "Nibelungenlied", so you can't treat like wackos those that believe that Siegfried killed a dragon, bathed in it's blood and became immortal.
And God granted free will (i've listened to that since i was a child so don't, i don't missed it), but then he sends a son who tells (following the Bible):"Those who live by me will be saved, and those who only live for themselves will be lost" (or something like that, since i don't remember the exact part of the Bible). That was Jesus speaking, so you only find salvation if you follow that moral, and that moral only, again is a way to get power, but it's just to demonstrate that the Bible contradicts itself in many places because of the differences on ages and the interpretation made of it also contradict, many times, as many teachers of my found and didn't have an answer.
Well now to your questions (i like this really ):
To the question about the Big Bang: First i don't know if this teory is right, but as the teory given by Newton it gives practical results and explanation based on facts. The point is that i believe that in teory science can find the answer to every natural fenomenum, but i don't need that to happen to prove my point. The problem is that if that happens then the thing that survived for all that time "the existence of God" will fall, and a superior being that was the creator of everything, the One, will be suddenly what it's, nothing. That's my point and you comfirmed it with your next question, that God's "exists" as long as we've answers then it suddenly disappears...
Your second question is pretty philosophical and a very good one (one that has been asked to me many times), i would say this: if that happens, then i will find myself in a irrational state (an probably i'll try to do anything to save myself even kill, or everything to be with one even kill myself) wich i'll not be surprised if it leads me to believe in a higher being. But in a rational state i would never do that.

[Redleg]

Redleg,

I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?

That is not what I stated - what I stated is that the two passages used in the Satire from The Onion are not about gravity but man's teachings of God, and man's failings or sins. The authors of The Onions Satire used those try to make the theory to poke fun at both sides of the Intelligent Design arguement. It seems that you instead of seeing the Satire for what it is - chose to believe that the concepts are the same - even though anyone who has read the bible knows that the two verses used are taken out of context and even the concept of what they mean in the bible. Not that hard to understand unless of course your baised in your views about religion.

Also, saying God is driving Evolution is similar to saying God is driving the Cars and Gravitational force!!

[sarcasm on] So nature drives cars to - using your logic[sarcasm off].

- Cars are DRIVEN by the driver, the engine, the fuel, the friction between the wheel and the pavement etc.

Actually you would be incorrect - cars are driven more then just what you have mentioned - the power transfer (transmission) which transfers the engine's energy to the axles where a gear transfers that energy causing the wheels to spin (the important piece that you forgot to mention) - which transfers by friction the energy of the wheel to the pavement forcing the car to move forward or backward based upon which direction the transmission is turning the drive train. However the concept of driving a vehicle is not complete without the inclusion of one other additional and just as important mechanism the Steering wheel in the driver hands which goes through a process much like the engine to transfer the human's energy in turning the steering wheel to cause the tires to pivot on the pavement but without the steering mechanism the feat of driving a car does not happen.

NOT because God is turning the wheels or pushing from behind.

LOL - you missed the point of what I stated in the last post. The concept of Intelligent Falling is a Satire - and was not a theory expoused by any religous person. I have already shown how the haox of the Satire is not in line with the teachings of the Bible - so its already been discounted

- Evolution is DRIVEN by random mutation and natural selection.

I know how evolution is conducted - I can also force it by breeding animals of different lines together within the same species. I can create new types of plants by forcing two different plants together.

Man does intelligent Design all the time with several things. The different Breeds of dogs are an example of that - guess how many breeds were created by man. Their are several fruits that are man's creations.

[sarcasm on]
So even here man has altered the concept of evolution being driven by random mutation and natural selection. So using your own logic - science has disproved evolution and has shown that intelligent design is a valid concept.
[sarcasm off]

NOT because of God is picking the animals and molding them.

See above - man does it all the time.

- Gravity is DRIVEN by Gravitational force which is the function of masses and the distance between the two objects.

Oh gravity is a function of more then just mass and distance.

NOT because God is pushing them 'down'.

Seems someone still believes in the Satire of the article.

There's no contextual and conceptual difference between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling!! It's either you embrace both or disgrace both.

Oh there is a conceptual difference - but because you wish to discount religion - you discount the explanation concerning the difference. Intelligent Design is based upon the Genesis Chapter of the Old Testimate. If one looks at the Big Bang as the Creation of the Universe - one can believe that God might have caused it. The Intelligent Falling is a Theory - that is not based even on the teachings in the New and Old testiment verse that the authors used in their satire.

And either way, God has zero input in driving cars, driving gravitational forces and driving evolution.

[sarcasm on] Your assumption - can you prove it.[sarcasm off]

Which I am sure is beyond your ability to understand.

[Redleg]

I didn't mean to treat any religious people as "wacko" but then you're treating the wackos with disrespect.

considering my wife is bi-polar and so is my step-son I doubt very seriously that I treat such people with disrepect.

I only called Jesus a "guy who acted like a wacko or a fanatic". In any case, sorry if i hurt your feelings...and for the last paragraph, well i said it's my opinion, but you can't deny that this story is similar to the "Nibelungenlied", so you can't treat like wackos those that believe that Siegfried killed a dragon, bathed in it's blood and became immortal.

Like I said - I doubt very seriousily that I treat them as wacko's - just like I treat those that follow Islam with respect.

And God granted free will (i've listened to that since i was a child so don't, i don't missed it), but then he sends a son who tells (following the Bible):"Those who live by me will be saved, and those who only live for themselves will be lost" (or something like that, since i don't remember the exact part of the Bible). That was Jesus speaking, so you only find salvation if you follow that moral, and that moral only, again is a way to get power, but it's just to demonstrate that the Bible contradicts itself in many places because of the differences on ages and the interpretation made of it also contradict, many times, as many teachers of my found and didn't have an answer.

Its really rather simple - you either believe or you don't believe that Jesus is the savior - many people don't believe. Which is fine - I chose to believe in God and that Jesus Christ is my savior and that he died for my sins.

Well now to your questions (i like this really ):
To the question about the Big Bang: First i don't know if this teory is right, but as the teory given by Newton it gives practical results and explanation based on facts. The point is that i believe that in teory science can find the answer to every natural fenomenum, but i don't need that to happen to prove my point.

Which is the same dilemnia and situation with someone that believes in God. The Big Bang theory supports Genesis because of the theory.

The problem is that if that happens then the thing that survived for all that time "the existence of God" will fall, and a superior being that was the creator of everything, the One, will be suddenly what it's, nothing. That's my point and you comfirmed it with your next question, that God's "exists" as long as we've answers then it suddenly disappears...

Then you misunderstood my point on that. The belief in God does me absolutely no harm - and futhermore does you absolutely no harm. My statement once again was understand that the belief in God has allowed me to think that I have a higher purpose in life other then just worrying about myself

Your second question is pretty philosophical and a very good one (one that has been asked to me many times), i would say this: if that happens, then i will find myself in a irrational state (an probably i'll try to do anything to save myself even kill, or everything to be with one even kill myself) wich i'll not be surprised if it leads me to believe in a higher being. But in a rational state i would never do that.

Exactly my point - the difference is I chose to belief in God and a higher purpose even in a normal state of affairs. I have faced enough stressful situations in my life, Combat in a foreign land, the Troubled birth of my son who was born 7 weeks pre-mature (and is thankfully 100% normal with only one minor joint issue from the pre-mature birth.), the feeling that I had to get home one night while at work - where I found my wife attempting to commit suicide because of her bi-polar state. If I had of left work at my normall scheduled time - I would of found my wife dead - not in the state that I found her in. Several other minor things that leave me convinced that if God does exists. If this existance is only in my mind and allows me to face life in a manner in which I can function without subcoming (SP) to the pressures of life - what is the harm to the world or myself?

Absolutely none that I can see.

[Soulforged]

Ok you've your belief i've mine. But you've to accept that institucionalized religions leads to problems, especially if it mixes with politics, and that's the harm that i'm worried about. The harm that you do or you don't do to yourself is your problem, and i know that religion can give you hope, in fact i never said anything against it, but i believe in having true knowledge and hope in humanity. And if i pass throught all that you have passed then perhaps i will believe in that idea again (but i doubt it), but that doesn't change the fact that God doesn't exists...

[Quietus]

That is not what I stated - what I stated is that the two passages used in the Satire from The Onion are not about gravity but man's teachings of God, and man's failings or sins. The authors of The Onions Satire used those try to make the theory to poke fun at both sides of the Intelligent Design arguement. It seems that you instead of seeing the Satire for what it is - chose to believe that the concepts are the same - even though anyone who has read the bible knows that the two verses used are taking out of context and even concept of what they mean in the bible. Not that hard to understand unless of course your baised in your views about religion.

So anything in the bible doesn't exist. Eg. Gravity. What is the relationship gravity and your god? (hint: it's not in the bible).

[sarcasm on] So nature drives cars to - using your logic[sarcasm off].

Certainly not god.

Actually you would be incorrect - cars are driven by the steering wheel and the power transfer (transmission) which transfers the engines energe to the axles where a gear transfers that energy causing the wheels to spin - which transfers by friction the energy of the wheel to the pavement forcing the car to move forward or backward based upon which direction the transmission is turning the drive train. However the concept of driving a vehicle is not complete without the inclusion of one other additional and just as important mechanism the Steering wheel in the driver hands which goes through a process much like the engine to transfer the human's energy in turning the steering wheel to cause the tires to pivot on the pavement but without the steering mechanism the feat of driving a car does not happen.

I did say 'etc.' And there is no God there either, which was the virtue of the analogy.

LOL - you missed the point of what I stated in the last post. The concept of Intelligent Falling is a Satire - and was not a theory expoused by any religous person. I have already shown how the haox of the Satire is not in line with the teachings of the Bible - so its already been discounted

Despite it being a satire, the context is similar to Intelligent Design by substituting God for Gravity/God for Evolultion.

I know how evolution is conducted - I can also force it by breeding animals of different lines together within the same species. I can create new types of plants by forcing two different plants together.

Man does intelligent Design all the time with several things. The different Breeds of dogs are an example of that - guess how many breeds were created by man. Their are several fruits that are man's creations.

That's not Evolution at all. God has ZERO input in mutation.

[sarcasm on]
So even here man has altered the concept of evolution being driven by random mutation and natural selection. So using your own logic - science has disproved evolution and has shown that intelligent design is a valid concept.
[sarcasm off]

There's no input from a God in evolution.

See above - man does it all the time.

Mutation is random. There's no input from man or god, it is naturally, inherently and independently random.

Oh gravity is a function of more then just mass and distance.

Mass and distance are the variables.

Seems someone still believes in the Satire of the article.

If you buy Intelligent Design, don't mock Intelligent Falling, because the concept is the same.

I don't buy neither. What I'm saying is buy both or drop both.

Oh there is a conceptual difference - but because you wish to discount religion - you discount the explanation concerning the difference. Intelligent Design is based upon the Genesis Chapter of the Old Testimate. If one looks at the Big Bang as the Creation of the Universe - one can believe that God might have caused it. The Intelligent Falling is a Theory - that is not based even on the teachings in the New and Old testiment verse that the authors used in their satire.

So anyting not in the bible doesn't exist?

[sarcasm on] Your assumption - can you prove it.[sarcasm off]

Which I am sure is beyond your ability to understand.

As sure as you are in your God I am sure.

[Redleg]

Ok you've your belief i've mine. But you've to accept that institucionalized religions leads to problems, especially if it mixes with politics, and that's the harm that i'm worried about. The harm that you do or you don't do to yourself is your problem, and i know that religion can give you hope, in fact i never said anything against it, but i believe in having true knowledge and hope in humanity. And if i pass throught all that you have passed then perhaps i will believe in that idea again (but i doubt it), but that doesn't change the fact that God doesn't exists...

Can you prove that he does not exist?

[Soulforged]

Yes i can. It's an idea. It doesn't actually "exists", it's just the result of the electrochemical work on the brain. Mountains exist, doors exits, love i doubt it very much (unless you refer to the chemical exchange between to beings), God is the same as love, if you want to idealize (create realities from ideas) then do so...Again no harm intended.

[Redleg]

So anything in the bible doesn't exist. Eg. Gravity. What is the relationship gravity and your god? (hint: it's not in the bible).

That is not what I stated now is it?

Certainly not god.

LOL

I did say 'etc.' And there is no God there either, which was the virtue of the analogy.

No the analogy is not correct - A car is a physical thing that man made. In Religous belief - Man is a physical being made by God.

Despite it being a satire, the context is similar to Intelligent Design by substituting God for Gravity/God for Evolultion.

Not even close - the Intelligent Design is based upon Genesis in the Old Testimate. The Intelligent Falling is not based upon any scripture in the bible.

That's not Evolution at all. God has ZERO input in mutation.

Don't be so sure - From Wikipedia

In biology, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations. The common definition of the word in popular science includes the emergence of new species as a product of evolution as well. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles (alternative forms of the same gene) in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.

The clementine is a new species of plant which was formed by joining two different fruits together.

A clementine is the fruit of Citrus reticulata, and may be a cross between a mandarin orange and an orange created by the Algerian priest Pierre Clément in 1902. However, there are claims it originated in China much earlier. Clementines are sometimes mistaken for tangerines, but the clementine has a thinner and more easily removed skin, a sweeter fruit, and very few seeds.

Like all fruits, "clementine" can also refer to the tree.

On dogs

Dog breeds were created by man choosing for select phenotypic traits such as size, shape, coat color, conformation, and behavior. Rigorous phenotypic selection likely resulted in a loss of genetic information. The present study extends previous dog population observations by assessing the genotypic variation within and across 28 breeds representing the seven recognized breed groups of the American Kennel Club (AKC). One hundred autosomal microsatellite markers distributed across the canine genome were used to examine variation within breeds. Resulting breed-specific allele frequencies were then used in an attempt to elucidate phylogeny and genetic distances between breeds. While the set of autosomal microsatellites was useful in describing genetic variation within breeds, establishing the genetic relatedness between breeds was less conclusive. A more accurate determination of breed phylogeny will likely require the use of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

So in essence the scientific community does not agree with you. Man does get involved in causing evolution.

There's no input from a God in evolution.

Mutation is random. There's no input from man or god, it is naturally, inherently and independently random.

Again the scientific community seems to have a different opinion.

Mass and distance are the variables.

Again dont be so sure -

Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles due to their mass. Weight is determined by the mass of an object and its location in a gravitational field. While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. It postulates that mass and energy curve space-time, resulting in the phenomenon known as gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Lets see distance does not enter into this defination of gravity.

Lets try another - just for giggles - it seems scientists can not agree what gravity is either. [sarcasm on] Always changing the concept of a natural occuring thing[sarcasm off]

In this new theory, two things are required for gravity to work. First, two bodies of some energy density to interact with each other, and second, connecting diallel lines which provide not only particle flow between the bodies, but also the flow of photon and gravitational information as well.

http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFie...ry/gravity.htm

If you buy Intelligent Design, don't mock Intelligent Falling, because the concept is the same.

Of course I have not mocked it - I have shown it does not follow the basis of its claim to being - ie the context and the concept of the quotes used from the bible are not discussing gravity but human failings and incorrect teachings

I don't buy neither. What I'm saying is buy both or drop both.

[sarcasm on] Ah trying to tell someone how to think - are we into brain washing now?[sarcasm off]

So anyting not in the bible doesn't exist?

Didn't say that either - the Bible is a book that tells things to people who care to read and learn from it. It has God's message for man in it, and it has the teachings of Jesus in it also.

As sure as you are in your God I am sure.

[Redleg]

Yes i can. It's an idea. It doesn't actually "exists", it's just the result of the electrochemical work on the brain. Mountains exist, doors exits, love i doubt it very much (unless you refer to the chemical exchange between to beings), God is the same as love, if you want to idealize (create realities from ideas) then do so...Again no harm intended.

If that works for you -

[Papewaio]

Yes i can. It's an idea. It doesn't actually "exists", it's just the result of the electrochemical work on the brain. Mountains exist, doors exits, love i doubt it very much (unless you refer to the chemical exchange between to beings), God is the same as love, if you want to idealize (create realities from ideas) then do so...Again no harm intended.

Ideas exist. And I am a scientist.

[Soulforged]

What? Prove it and i'm out of this forum .

[Papewaio]

Which part of my statement?

[Soulforged]

Obviously the part "Ideas exist". I'm not so interested about the second part, and i believe you.

[bmolsson]

Can you prove that he does not exist?

Well, when he knocked on heaven door, a voice said that there was nobody there.......

[Redleg]

Well, when he knocked on heaven door, a voice said that there was nobody there.......

It could be cause he was out solving one of my many problems in life.

[Papewaio]

i·de·a
n.
1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
2. An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.
3. A plan, scheme, or method.
4. The gist of a specific situation; significance: The idea is to finish the project under budget.
5. A notion; a fancy.

Well you have a mind, its not dead, therefore it is active. Proves 1.

Well the opinions in the Backroom proves 2.

TCP/IP is a method of transmitting information on the internet... you are using it, even if you don't know it. So that proves 3.

Key point of a concept is the idea. Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction is the gist of conservation of momentum. Proves 4.

I fancy a chocolate. Enough proof for 5.

[Soulforged]

Well you have a mind, its not dead, therefore it is active. Proves 1.

Well the opinions in the Backroom proves 2.

TCP/IP is a method of transmitting information on the internet... you are using it, even if you don't know it. So that proves 3.

Key point of a concept is the idea. Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction is the gist of conservation of momentum. Proves 4.

I fancy a chocolate. Enough proof for 5.

Nop. That doesn't prove anything. The real thing behind the idea, what supports it is what exist, the idea is just a conceptualization of it. You can't touch an idea, nor sense it in any way. If we look for the concept (again concept) of existence in the dictionary (at least in mine) it sais this:
exist:
1-Having real existence.
2-Have life.
3-To have, to be.

So you have it in the mind, but as always, it doesn't have any real form in the outside world, is like every conceptualization, mental construction,tought, etc... So it doesn't exist. The idea itself doens't have a material form, is a logical contradiction, therefor it's not real, therefor it doesn't exist.

[Papewaio]

So the mind is outside this universe?

You have just proven that God exists as easily as does our own mind...

So your choice : You can have: no idea or God

[Papewaio]

A cookbook is written ideas on how to make food. It is a concept, plan, method, but the food itself does not exist until created.

Words are ideas, that have meaning when parsed by the reader.

The mind itself contains ideas by using neural networks.

Computers use electrical charge, magnetic, physical media all to contain ideas about things.

An idea does not need a physical version of it to exist. Works of fiction are purley ideas with little or no physical real version.

This is a key point about science. It is about having ideas, and seeing if you can find a physical version of it. Or vice a versa, see a phenomena and figure out how it works, the gist of it.

[Soulforged]

A cookbook is written ideas on how to make food. It is a concept, plan, method, but the food itself does not exist until created.

Words are ideas, that have meaning when parsed by the reader.

The mind itself contains ideas by using neural networks.

Computers use electrical charge, magnetic, physical media all to contain ideas about things.

An idea does not need a physical version of it to exist. Works of fiction are purley ideas with little or no physical real version.

This is a key point about science. It is about having ideas, and seeing if you can find a physical version of it. Or vice a versa, see a phenomena and figure out how it works, the gist of it.

I agree with the last, but you're missing the point here. Mind exists outside the universe, yes, it's metaphysical, the universe is physical, all that exists beyond it is metaphysical.
I think this has become the continuation of the discussion in that other thread about communism. Any given idea is a conceptualization, a taking of reality, that performs in your mind as electrochemical fenomenums. Now that electrochemycal activity is real, the idea of idea isn't real, because, again is a logical contradiction. If it's not real, it doesn't exist, because if we say that something not real exists then well ... Again the food and the cookbook exists the idea of that food and the cookbook not. I think that you're missunderstanding the semantics of "exist" and "existence". The ideas have importance, yes, they exist, just as a electrochemical activity inside your brain.

[Quietus]

That is not what I stated now is it?

Question from me: What is the relationship between God and Gravity (hint: it is not in the bible)

LOL

Ok. Enjoy.

No the analogy is not correct - A car is a physical thing that man made. In Religous belief - Man is a physical being made by God.

Man is a machine just like a Car. And both physically respond to the physical world.

It is an apt analogy.

Not even close - the Intelligent Design is based upon Genesis in the Old Testimate. The Intelligent Falling is not based upon any scripture in the bible.

Anything that's not in the bible doesn't exist? Gravity isn't in the bible either. What is the relationship between God and Gravity?

Don't be so sure - From Wikipedia

And? Do you want to elaborate? LOL. I mean you want me to debate Wikipedia. Just to make you sure you actually understand what you are quoting. What's your point?

The clementine is a new species of plant which was formed by joining two different fruits together.

So what? It doesn't change anything. What's the difference in the genetic level?

Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.

On dogs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

So in essence the scientific community does not agree with you. Man does get involved in causing evolution.

Again the scientific community seems to have a different opinion.

And this is supposed to mean what to you? In your own words. Clue: Breeding dogs doesn't change the mechanism of mutation.

Again dont be so sure -

Please, say something, especially in your own words. Be specific if you must.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Lets see distance does not enter into this defination of gravity.

Lets try another - just for giggles - it seems scientists can not agree what gravity is either. [sarcasm on] Always changing the concept of a natural occuring thing[sarcasm off]

Do you want to type anything specific? Or do you want me to debate Wikipedia?

Also, there's no mention of God is there? (which was the original purpose of the analogy).

http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFie...ry/gravity.htm

Write down your arguments, in your own words. Don't just give me links.

Of course I have not mocked it - I have shown it does not follow the basis of its claim to being - ie the context and the concept of the quotes used from the bible are not discussing gravity but human failings and incorrect teachings

If I say 'Rock Star Kurt Cobain told me 1 + 1 = 3'. You can say Kurt Cobain didn't say it because it is dead, and 1+1=3 is wrong. 1+1=3 is always wrong whether Kurt Cobain is dead or not.

Your only argument there is that it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the bible. The idea that God is behind gravity is similar to the idea that God is "behind evolution" in your own words.

[sarcasm on] Ah trying to tell someone how to think - are we into brain washing now?[sarcasm off]

No. It only meant you are biased and inconsistent because you accept the concept that God is behind evolution but God behind gravity is preposterous.

Again, let me ask you, what is the relationship betweeen God and Gravity (hint: it cannot be found in the bible)

Didn't say that either - the Bible is a book that tells things to people who care to read and learn from it. It has God's message for man in it, and it has the teachings of Jesus in it also.

God is behind Gravity. Do you agree or not?

You say NO, because it's not in the bible.

God is "behind Evolution". Your quote, so YES, because it is in the bible.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In little time society begun to fear and respect this "facts" and praised to God in this mans, calling them saints, calling them saviors. Thus religion gained an almost impenetrable position of power in earth society governing from the heavens. All misterious things that human could not explain by science (or that they don't believe that was science deeds) were "explained" by religion (tough technically talking the word explanation can be given to religion in any way). But in the actual world almost all fenomenums that were before "explained" by religion are explained by science, and all people (or almost all) believe that the Earth turns arround the Sun (if they don't belive it, well it will turn anyway...).


This is all true - and even as a believer in God - I understand that certain religous truthes are now outdated because science has shown it to be true by natural law.

What religous truths were taken from the bible. Where does it say the sun orbits the earth? Religous men explained these things not religion or the bible.

Yes the Religous Organizations should not mock science - I agree with that statement.

And science should not mock religion.

Most christains believe all science does is uncover some of gods handiwork. Just because you discover how something works doesnt mean that god didnt design it. As to where god fits in the universe whos to say thats all there is? Our universe could be no bigger than an atom in the greater scheme of things for all we know.

[Redleg]

Well Quietus it seems you just want to hate religion and are baised in your views toward it. The initial article was satire and a work of complete fiction. However you bought it hook, line, and sinker because it fits into your belief system about religion. This arguement has shown that.

Futhermore you have shown by your own words that you don't really understand how evolution works or the man's involvement in selective breeding of animals to create new types of dogs is indeed evolution also, which is a forced mutation of the animal.

The same can be said for almost all domestic animals. Man has been forcing small mutations on animals for years. It would take many pages and a complete thesis to show you how incorrect you are, but even then you will try to counter it with some attempt that really only digs you deeper into the false premises you have about evolution, mutation and selection.

Okay I am done being polite and will point out very clearly how little you know of evolution. For examble mutation is not Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.

Mutation can be forced by man. It can be forced by nature based upon the change of environment.

Some scientific studies on selective breeding and how it relates to evolution.

Here is the Wikipedia reference about artifical selection and how it relates to evolution - a term that was initially coined by Darwin himself. You might want to actually read some of what Darwin wrote - since he posulated exactly what I have been saying in regards to selective breeding by man of animals to force mutations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection

the theory of evolution, artificial selection is the process of intentional or unintentional modification of a species through human actions which encourage the breeding of certain traits over others. When the process leads to undesirable outcome, it is called negative selection.

Charles Darwin originally coined the term in order to contrast this process from what he called natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.

[sarcasm on] Oh wait just in case you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a source of information - here is another [sarcasm off]

http://www.biofact.com/cloning/

Natural Selection
Natural Selection is nature's own form of genetic engineering. The most fit organisms survive through natural selection. The rate of evolution of new species through natural selection is incredibly slow, but methods have been discovered by which nature has optimized the process.

The entire genome (all the genes) of higher animals and plants are broken up into functional components known as exons and separated by regions called introns. Special genes known as transposable elements serve to mix and match functional components of genes in an effort to maximize the likelyhood of creating better genes and organisms. There is some evidence that bacteria, one of the simplest organisms, had introns and exons in some past era, but lost them in favor of efficiency and other means of acquiring new DNA.

Selective Breeding
Selective Breeding or "Unnatural Selection", is man's most basic effort at genetic engineering by creating our own selective pressures. Many conventional farm animals, domesticated dogs and cats were likely created ages ago by selectively breeding animals together with desired traits. Gregor Mendel helped to establish the rules of genetics through his work selectively breeding plants in the 1800's. Selective Breeding has worked well for engineering animals and plants, but it can take whole human lifetimes to bring about small changes in a species.

Through unnatural selection certain attributes and characteristics can be enhanced by selectively killing all organisms that do not have the desired traits. This has been suggested by some as a viable option for genetically engineering humans. Parents could produce a large number of fertilized eggs through in vitro fertilization. Each could be grown for a while in vitro and then be tested for desired traits. Only an egg with all the traits desired by the parents would then be implanted in the mother. There are obvious drawbacks, not the least of which is the large number of fertilized eggs that are not selected. This option is not a viable alternative for many couples for religious reasons.

Another drawback is that selecting for a very large number of traits is close to impossible. Each gene desired at least doubles the number of fertilized eggs required. Certain traits are the result of many genes acting in concert, which could inflate egg requirements very quickly. Last of all, fertilized eggs must have one copy of each gene from each parent. Even with an infinite number of eggs a bad gene cannot be totally eliminated if one parent has two copies of that gene.

To put it simply man has been practicing intelligent design on evolution for many years prior to Darwin coining the phrases about Natural Selection and Mutation of animals causing evolution.

You might want to try reading this particlur site - notice how the two scientists talk about the issue.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html


And now to the gravity arguement - it has become obvious that you don't want to ackownledge one simple fact. The Intelligent Falling theory is what I have been talking about - not gravity and how it relates to the creator. For instance where have I stated that God did not create gravity. Again notice what is actually written verus what you percieve to be written. Here is what I initially stated.

So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.

Which is the answer to your orginial question and assumption that there is no difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling. Something that you seem to refuse to ackownledge - and instead of addressing the answer - you chose to go on a tangent now saying this

I'm speaking of context and concept. You seem to be saying that because Gravity wasn't mentioned in the bible, then Gravity doesn't exist . What is the relationship between God and Gravity then?

Now this is nothing other then an attempt of redirection from your orginal arguement. Which is fine - however I have not answered that question for the simple fact - that you have not concided the initial point - you are attempting to avoid where it.

Oh I played around there alittle bit in the discussion around the gravity issue - purposely not answering the question because I was being applying sarcasm to your arguemetns. However its obvious that you did not catch the sarcasm on and sarcasm off notations.

However when you address the intial point of the difference between the two theories is that "Intelligent Design" is based upon the teachings, in both context and concept of The Old Testament - Genesis; While the "Intelligent Falling" theory is just satire based upon an out of context and out of concept teachings of two different verses, one verse out of the Old Testament and one out of the New Testament.

Then I will explain how God and Gravity are related - I will give you a hint it is also in Genesis of the Old Testament.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[KafirChobee]

Which part of my statement?

"Science is not just a collection of laws, it is a catalogue of unrelated facts. It is the creation of the human mind, with its freely invented ideas and concepts."
Albert Einstein
"Great is the power of misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure."
Ken Smith, on Darwinism & the origin of species

Regardless of how one perceives the working of the brain, or the intent of an idea or concept; they all have a purpose. Whether the purpose is to debunk accepted theories or to provide further evidence to support them. Rellegating the brain to a flashpoint of chemical reactions, and man as being a respondant being trapped in his own environment of learning or teachings - is simplistic at best or foolish in its own selfindulgent view of what we are. (my own included, though I am willing to listen to honest arguements, versus contrived ones that support mythes over facts).

I add these as fun. The first has a number of mythical explanations on creation; the other is just so you can pick your own quiz.

http://www.pbs.org/quiz/quiz10.html

http://www.pbs.org/quiz.html

[KafirChobee]

OOOOPS!

http://www.pbs.org/now/quiz/quiz10.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/quiz/index.html