the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

[zarathustra]

The 'totality is conscious'--- Kevin, is there any evidence for that? Or is it just a belief thing?

z

[Kevin Solway]

The 'totality is conscious'--- Kevin, is there any evidence for that? Or is it just a belief thing?

I argue that it is not conscious, and that there is no possibility that it can be.

[Jamesh]

Anna,

Well, who are you, then?

A judgemental person.

Your judgement seems harsh. If I disagree on a scientific point, I suddenly don't understand the nature of reality?

Well, you do understand reality a lot more than most, but relative to some people here it is not a harsh judgement.

That really doesn't follow.

It actually does follow. A person may have all the ingredients to prepare a meal, but not know how to put the ingredients together so that the dishes are perfect.

To me evolution, in its broadest terms, and based on all I have seen, is an absolute truth. Natural selection also is an ultimate truth, when abstracted down to the realm of opposing and synergistic forces. This being the case, I cannot make any other judgement other than that you have not put all the pieces together as yet, your understanding of reality is disconnected.

And it leaves out utterly the chance you could be wrong.

Yep. Admittedly though, I haven't got the recipe quite right yet, however the degree of remaining mystery involved is quite small.

It really continues to sadden me how harsh people are when there is disagreement.

Many wars were about fickle or petty little things, because those whom are led into war are fickle and petty minded.

Freedom of speech does not seem to coincide with human nature.

Huh? It is human nature to contest. Being harsh is a method to break defences, and works until the opposition is acclimatised to such abruptness. Haven't you been around forums long enough not to care about politeness anymore?

I agree we cannot fully disprove interference from other alien forms of life, but I just don’t see any evidence or need for same.

Let me guess: you haven't read up on it.

Nope, and don't intent to. Never experienced it myself, and there are far too many people with vested interests in the paranormal fields of imagination for me to bother. I have not seen any articles or doco's over the years that have given clear evidence of aliens.

I mentioned that. But I think that in the evolution of humans in particular, there was interference, and it could clear up some confusions.

The archaeological and historical information I've seen does not point to that. One cannot place faith in say old cave drawings that give an appearance of aliens, as one does not know if they were done from spiritual imagination as should be expected, or from actual events.

Your pride in the superiority of human race is misplaced. We are not so far different to other primates. Superior yes, but too dumb, for the most part, to be considered fully separate creatures.

I personally don’t regard the evolution of a human mind or any form of consciousness as being of a different process to the evolution of any form of matter or thing. E=Mc2, Mc2=E. If matter can devolve into energy when destroyed by a nuclear blast, then energy can evolve into matter.

Well, I agree to a point but I am not sure consciousness is something that evolves or is just a given, underlying property of reality/God/universe.

Consciousness evolves even after one is born. A one month old baby has little consciousness, as its ego has not yet developed. Other than some instinctual basics, it does not know how to react or what to make of what it emotionally feels.

What consciousness does, when generalised to the most abstract concept possible, when generalised to what is common in all things, is a underlying property of reality. Awareness evolved because there is something fundamental that "unconsciously seeks" expansion. Were it not to seek expansion then life and consciousness would never have developed in the first instance.

However, this certainly does not mean that the first self-replicating pattern of existence, was in any way conscious of what it was doing. No merely chemical reactions developed (by causal chance), that were able to constantly take in and convert other chemicals from the surrounding environment. Some of these had internal chemical reactions that caused the chemical structure to split into parts and each of those parts continued the process of eating external chemicals. It is just chemistry and physics as a structural process.

Neither chemistry nor physics works without power, and this power is simply differing degrees of expansion or contraction, constantly at war with each other. Things gain mass from the surrounding domain where the contracting force is stronger than in the surrounding domain, planetary gravity pulls little bits in from the surrounding space, and the object grows. We do the same, we eat, drink and breath, from the surrounding domain. It is just that through complexity of an evolved structure, we are aware of a "desire" to grow, whereas a planet is not. Its structure does not require a life force to hold its dominant form, as life does, and it does not have the feedback mechanism of an ego that would allow it to be aware of itself.

[Edit: By life force, I just mean electromagnetic flows of information to coordinate chemical reactions that enable structural integrity by stimulating maintenance and building activites, not some sort of life spirit]

It's an interesting thought and at least you have some of your own...but I question whether we are more complex, really, since a cell is the most complex thing of all, and origin of the simplest cell is the biggest puzzler for the Darwinists.

If a cell is the most complex thing of all, then something that consists of cells would be more complex by default.

The origin of cells is of no mystery to me, not in literal scientifically proven sense, ass i have not read enough theories about same, but in a logical sense. When the causal circumstances were right it occurred. I imagine there were literally trillions upon trillions of almost rans, that did not form a viable cell. Billions probably even lasted a billion or so divisions. One (or a few) however did not die out and that one has now evolved to all life that exists on earth today. In terms of "or a few", it may be that some parts of a cell have different life streams. Some complex self-replicating animo acid strings, will have been caused to be encircled by larger self-replicating cellular structures, and one in a billion of those may have found a synergistic existence, where the chemical intake of the cell was commensurate with the replication requirements of the encircled animo string.

Now, while the above may be inaccurate in terms of the names and numbers I've applied to things, I am certain that the general process or something very similar occurred. Mind you except in terms of its basic parts, a cell would likely have somewhat changed, and divided into many hybrids, eg the cells walls of a human cell verus a one celled creature would be a lot different chemically.

We have more things gobbed together, but our cells aren't more complex,

Our cells are definitely more complex than the original one-celled entity.

and it is funny that some creatures have way more chromosomes than others.

Quantity does not imply quality. Structure is equally important. I would rather drive a car, than try and drive the disassembled parts.

Many species could be genetically older than us, and in being so they would have undertaken many mutational shifts. Many of these could have resulted in additional DNA streams, even perhaps through viruses or the like. Where an entity has been more successful than others, its success would be because of its adaptability to changing environments due to that within its existing structure that is carried forward through successful mutations. Significant DNA mutations may have been less successful and they died out. Primates are one such stream that did not, but we are newbies to the scene. I jsut made that up, and I am not sure this paragraph is that sound, but I'm sure if I read up on it I would find reasons that made sense to me (though it sounds as if you would reject them).

A one-celled organism, since that's all it's got, has proto-organ systems and such that our cells don't have.

I’ll bet they are not structurally complex.

Mind you, this is a fair way from “some sort of innate intelligence or consciousness within life”. I do not presuppose some form of cosmic intelligence or consciousness causes the start of a tree of life (including the tree of life of your imagined God). I’m certain that such a thing does not exist, but my certainty comes from logical deduction, not science. Science can only prove something exists not that it does not, whereas at the level of the totality, logic can do both. My certainly comes from examining the concepts of fundamental causes and the nature of finiteness and infinity.

That is interesting. Feel free to elaborate. Tell me how you have logically concluded there is no God.

Sorry it would take me too long. I don't hold it in my head all ready to sprout out like the QRS do, my memory is crap, but have to reinvent it all the time. Subconsciously I know I've given at least a dozen logically consistent objections to God before.

There is however, one issue I am not certain of, which is – if the universe is infinite, and evolution results in the potential for more and more complexity, then at some stage the probability is an entity will evolve to be a god of the universe. Where is this God?

Hmmm, a god, or God? Only the source of existence qualifies as God, in my logic. So a superevolved being would be just that.

Ok, we agree then - only the source of existence qualifies as God. Now it is just a question as to whether that God is conscious or not.

Maybe, Or maybe that godlike entity has not made herself known to you. Why are you so big for your britches?

For such a God to be in any way active in the universe, and no part of the universe is separated from another, means that God is the universe as it must affect the whole universe at once. If God is everything then what does it affect, itself? If it effects everything, then how could one ever see the hand of God?

Thats enough for now, might finish the rest, might not.

[zarathustra]

Kevin, I get it...read it wrong. So if the totality is not conscious,it would also not be 'unconscious', but something else. The problem with that is, if you eliminate consciousness and its antithesis - what are you left with? Further, if you haven't witnessed, felt or experienced the mysterious whatever you're left with - how do you know? When the whatever is beyond what makes life life i.e consciousness. I mean, how can consciousness be conscious of something beyond consciousness?

For me existence is a puzzle. Why are we here? Why were we born? Why do we die? When I look at religion and the answers it provides, my only response is how pathetic. Surely we can come up with something better than that! It amazes me that people still believe - and genuinely believe all that crap. But the problem for an atheist like me, is that it seems highly unplausable that we are born and die and that's it.

So when it comes to evolution, at least, on one level, it makes sense by demonstrating - albeit imperfectly - that humanity is on some mysterious journey, that we have left tracks in the sand. Such a theory is also fused with 'mystery' and contains many unanswered questions, but it is NOT an affront to my intelligence and reason: it grounds them both in experience, and I tell myself, that what we don't know today we will learn tomorrow. And if the theory of evolution is eventually toppled, it will be by the same tools that raised it up: intelligence and reason..

z

[Kevin Solway]

So if the totality is not conscious,it would also not be 'unconscious', but something else. The problem with that is, if you eliminate consciousness and its antithesis - what are you left with?

The All.

Further, if you haven't witnessed, felt or experienced the mysterious whatever you're left with - how do you know?

Logic indicates what its nature must be. And logic can't be wrong.

Also, it wouldn't be correct to say that I haven't experienced what its nature is, because when you drop false conceptions of what its nature is, its real nature automatically becomes apparent - since it is all around, as it is everything.

When the whatever is beyond what makes life life i.e consciousness. I mean, how can consciousness be conscious of something beyond consciousness?

It's not beyond consciousness.

If you can realize that the All is not a thing that could be either conscious or unconscious - because it is not a finite thing - then your consciousness is close to being aware of it.

For me existence is a puzzle. Why are we here? Why were we born? Why do we die?

All these things are caused by what happened in the past. That's essentially all we will ever know.

But the problem for an atheist like me, is that it seems highly unplausable that we are born and die and that's it.

That's what happens to everything else in Nature, so why would we be any different? A rock, for example, comes into existence for a period of time, and then eventually it crumbles to dust, or it is molten, or suchlike, and then no longer exists in that same form. All things are like this.

It may be that all life on this planet becomes extinct, and our only mark left on the universe will be the transmitted episodes of David Letterman that are still making their way across space.

So when it comes to evolution, at least, on one level, it makes sense by demonstrating - albeit imperfectly - that humanity is on some mysterious journey, that we have left tracks in the sand.

We are only on a journey only if we decide we are on a journey.

It may have been that some intelligent alien lifeform seeded life on this planet with the intention of eventually producing a crop of intelligent humans (either for use as slaves, or for food, or to help spread wisdom, etc). But even if there were aliens who set us up on a mission, we don't have to go along with their wishes, since they can't control everything we do.

[Iolaus]

David,

In general, people disagree with Darwinism when they have religious beliefs they want to protect. Darwinism is not a theory that can be easily disproved on scientific grounds because it is broad enough to cope with a wide diversity of evidence. So it is mainly on religious grounds that it receives its objections.

This is not really true, except perhaps in absolute numbers. Since there are many millions of religious people, and since most people haven't the interest to really look into matters for themselves. But on the other side, most believers in evolution also haven't the interest to look at matters for themselves and accept it passively. I guess you have to pick your battles.

As far as I know, scientists aren't arguing whether evolution occurred, but how it occurred.

Except for those who are.

But again, most believers in intelligent design believe in evolution - but not an undirected one.

Although natural selection provides the the backbone of the theory, there is still some dispute as to how much other factors come into play, such as sexual selection, cultural selection, etc.

No one disputes any of those things. Natural selection is obvious and necessary to maintain gene pools' viability.

It is comments like the following which make me think that you haven't really grasped what the mainstream theory of natural selection is all about:

I haven't actually read that particular book, but there are whole books that talk about chance and what it can and can't accomplish with time. Dawkins is also the author of the tediously common religious accusation (I consider Darsinism a religion in many cases) that someone is talking from 'personal incredulity.' In other words, someone says, that is so far-fetched, I just can't believe it could happen that way. And they come back at you with this supposed insult about your personal incredulity. It's supposed to be a mark of ignorance. But I value my personal incredulity highly, I keep it polished and I think half of humanity's problem is their extreme gullibility. So when Dawkins, like any other religious zealot, tries to drown out people's personal incredulity, it sets off my suspicions.

[Iolaus]

Kevin,

That's right. Without consciousness of duality ("things") there is no consciousness.

Perhaps no thought would be possible. It might be aware of its existence.

James,

You area being coy, as to who you were before.

To me evolution, in its broadest terms, and based on all I have seen, is an absolute truth. Natural selection also is an ultimate truth, when abstracted down to the realm of opposing and synergistic forces. This being the case, I cannot make any other judgement other than that you have not put all the pieces together as yet, your understanding of reality is disconnected.

Natural selection is pretty obvious in the setup here, yet I would not have considered it an ultimate truth. At any rate, you admit to having investigated these topics not at all, yet you are sure that not only am I wrong, but that it is a philosophical problem. Yet I have informed myself, apparently, many orders of magnitude more than you have. You seem like a nice person, but I cannot respect your approach. I find it lazy and dishonest.

This is the reason I think it's a mistake to delve into this topic.

Just a note, it's odd you consider space travellers to be in the realm of the paranormal.

Your pride in the superiority of human race is misplaced. We are not so far different to other primates. Superior yes, but too dumb, for the most part, to be considered fully separate creatures.

Despite the frustrating dumbness of people, it is nonetheless obvious that we are very different from primates, even physically we have departed from them in many odd ways. Just because people are capable of stupidity does not negate that we are unique and set apart from all other animals.

Another odd thing is that I find few who respect animals, including their minds, as much as me. Yet you will accuse me of having some emotional repugnance toward having chimps as ancestors, or some such nonsense.

Most people, and for some reason the religious are no different than the nonreligious, elevate humans by denigrating animals. I do not find that necessary.

Consciousness evolves even after one is born.

It evolves out of a basic bedrock substrate of awareness.

If a cell is the most complex thing of all, then something that consists of cells would be more complex by default.

The gap between nonlife and a functional cell is the biggest gap in biology.

The origin of cells is of no mystery to me, not in literal scientifically proven sense, as i have not read enough theories about same, but in a logical sense. When the causal circumstances were right it occurred. I imagine...

The sad thing about the human condition is that people don't know the difference between fact and imagination. Of imagination, there is no lack.

Our cells are definitely more complex than the original one-celled entity.

Well, I made that assumption but I'll look into it.
For example:
"Specialization supports a complexity trade-off: the individual elements become simpler and the orchestration of these simpler elements becomes more complex. Some of the complexity that single-cell organisms maintain in order to respond to a wide range of environmental conditions is no longer necessary when cells can rely on the whole organism to adapt to changing conditions via a multicellular response. "

Sorry it would take me too long. I don't hold it in my head all ready to sprout out like the QRS do, my memory is crap, but have to reinvent it all the time. Subconsciously I know I've given at least a dozen logically consistent objections to God before.

A lot of times people object to an anthropomorphized God.

Ok, we agree then - only the source of existence qualifies as God. Now it is just a question as to whether that God is conscious or not.

Yes, that's pretty much it. But I find certain items that I cannot penetrate with my logic or intuition and that is Life, Existence and Consciousness. Are they the same thing? Different things?

For such a God to be in any way active in the universe, and no part of the universe is separated from another, means that God is the universe as it must affect the whole universe at once. If God is everything then what does it affect, itself? If it effects everything, then how could one ever see the hand of God?

Yes, God is everything. If you're a panthesit, God is immanent, but perhaps God is also transcendent. The western traditions emphasize the transcendent to the point of total separation.

Yes, God would affect itself.

If God affects everything than how am I to see the action of God as opposed to no action from God. Does God interfere?
The only way I can make sense of some aspects of this question, is that God is both the one and the many, and being the many is divided into many subsets of forces and energies, one of which may be a mind.
Many of us mystic types feel that we are helped by some outside entities, but that is not necessarily God. What I do feel I am in contact with is an energy of God, the Great Spirit. I have always considered it impersonal. But I am personal. It's like sunshine or rain falling on a little plant. The rain is impersonal and distributed all around; it is we who make use of it to increase our personhood and cleanse it.
I believe your question is more in line with a God on high who speaks...I don't think God ever speaks.
Really, your question is more than I can give a quick response to and I have to go to work...

Try thinking in terms of one unified ball of wax - maybe you don't see the hand of God as an action here as opposed to nonaction there. This is why scripture somewhere says that we 'live and move and have our being" IN God.

God in you, you in God. You're part of something bigger than your ego-self. Expand into it.

You can't see God by looking for that which is not-God.

[Dan Rowden]

You can't see God by looking for that which is not-God.

Nor for that which is.

[David Quinn]

Iolaus,

I haven't actually read that particular book, but there are whole books that talk about chance and what it can and can't accomplish with time. Dawkins is also the author of the tediously common religious accusation (I consider Darsinism a religion in many cases) that someone is talking from 'personal incredulity.' In other words, someone says, that is so far-fetched, I just can't believe it could happen that way. And they come back at you with this supposed insult about your personal incredulity. It's supposed to be a mark of ignorance. But I value my personal incredulity highly, I keep it polished and I think half of humanity's problem is their extreme gullibility. So when Dawkins, like any other religious zealot, tries to drown out people's personal incredulity, it sets off my suspicions.

I agree that Dawkins has his faults, particularly in his later works. But I do recommend his earlier works. "The Blind Watchmaker", in particular, is a good book which tackles this very issue of chance in evolution. It sticks mainly to the science and there isn't much religion-bashing. He shows how chance plays a far lesser role in evolution than its critics assume.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Dawkins is also the author of the tediously common religious accusation (I consider Darsinism a religion in many cases) that someone is talking from 'personal incredulity.' In other words, someone says, that is so far-fetched, I just can't believe it could happen that way. And they come back at you with this supposed insult about your personal incredulity. It's supposed to be a mark of ignorance. But I value my personal incredulity highly, I keep it polished and I think half of humanity's problem is their extreme gullibility. So when Dawkins, like any other religious zealot, tries to drown out people's personal incredulity, it sets off my suspicions.

You don't seem to understand the point made by the term "argument from personal incredulity". It's not about personal skepticism; it's about people, some of them scientists who should know better, offering their incredulity as tantamount to an argument. It's a popular rhetorical device amongst the Behes of the world.

A nice refutation of Intelligent Design's poster boy - Irreducible Complexity - and its trusty side kick - the eubacterial flagellum - can be found HERE

[tooyi]

A nice video about the mating habits of clocks:

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

[Iolaus]

Dan,

A nice refutation of Intelligent Design's poster boy - Irreducible Complexity - and its trusty side kick - the eubacterial flagellum - can be found HERE

You have shown me that you have not read Behe's works. I have read that refutation, in fact I have a copy, all marked up, and a copy of the answer to it. As usual, Miller's famous Flagellum Unspun barely even discusses the real points, and is a totally lame attempt to refute Behe, who never argues from personal incredulity.

In fact, I have read a whole lot more than just that on the bacterial flagellum alone.

And, on a pro-evolution site, where the arguers all told me how unqualified I was and how much greater their education was than mine, and how several of them actually are biologists and evolutionists and work in the field, and why didn't I ever read the right stuff - I said OK. let's deal with the Flagellum Unspun. I'll go through it point by point, and I'll also answer from my own ideas as well as the Dembski answer to it and show you how well refuted that silly essay is, and how completely it fails to answer the problem of irreducible complexity.

And you know what? No one had the time but me!!! And you know what? NO ONE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE ANSWER TO MILLER'S ESSAY BUT ME!!!!!!!!!!!! And you know what else - no one stayed with me and read the points I brought up of my cut and pastes were a little long like half a page or so - no one could keep up with the fucking argument!!!

And you have the nerve to use pejorative terms about Behe and praise that idiotic article but you're talking out of your ass! 'Cause you're ignorant and you don't care. What is my definition of unconsciousness? When you're ignorant and don't know it when you should.

Sorry to be so insulting but I just can't respect it when people don't understand when they are informed and when they are not!! I read that fucking thing 2-3 years ago!

Nobody actually gives a damn about getting at the truth! They just want to prop up their goddamn worlviews and the leaders who hold it up for them!

[zarathustra]

Michael Behe's "Irreducable Complexity" Theory, and the "ID Trial", Behe's argument:

"Irreducable Complexity" is something that Evolution "CAN'T explain",... Basically, any precursor to an irreducably complex organism is, by definition, non-functional; and would not be produced by evolution, and if the precursor can't be produced, then the end product can't be arrived at either; therefore evolution is WRONG and it must have been designed, and if it was designed, then it must have been created. That's Behe's arguement. There are SEVERAL problems with Behe's claims and several counter examples to his which show that his theory is NOT universal, and is flawed. He makes reference to "evolutionary studies", stating that it is now "something we can observe very clearly and SEE the evolution of irreducably complex objects. ...using evolving digital organism, where essentially you have little computer programs, little viruses, that self-replicate, radomly mutate their code, and are naturally selected, can be observed to evolve complex traits"! This was from a specific study to test some of Darwin's ideas about how complex organism could arrise. They were trying to see if Darwin's hypothesis about this could be observed and confirmed, and in fact found that they "could" see them....


reference:
The above is based on information presented by a speaker in a lecture series from the University of California, San Diego: 'A convocation on Intelligent Design Creationism'. Presented, November 14, 2006, by Robert T. Pennock, Professor of Science adn Technology Studies and Philosophy,Michigan State University Author, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism"President, Michigan Citizens for Science, and Expert Witness, Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board... (the ID trial)..

z

[Dan Rowden]

And you have the nerve to use pejorative terms about Behe and praise that idiotic article but you're talking out of your ass! 'Cause you're ignorant and you don't care. What is my definition of unconsciousness? When you're ignorant and don't know it when you should.

If you have some specific arguments, make them, Anna.

[Iolaus]

Dan,

It is fine that you don't take a deep interest in this topic. Very few people have this weird little hobby. We can't even begin to get into specifics when one of us is so far behind the other. My specific argument is that the article you presented is worthless, and that I am very familiar with it.

My specific argument is that even people I talked to who do spend a lot of time on this have no idea that they are praising a worthless article because it comes from one of their ra ra boys, but they have never actually examined it to see how it stands up to scrutiny. And that I just can't respect.

And my specific argument is, that being the case, we must look to other motives than just objective inquiry for this behavior.

You go read for a couple of years, or at least spend a couple of months on the flagellum alone, and then we'll talk specifics. But again, there's no reason for you to really want to do that just to prove a point. I'm just telling you that you and Z are following propaganda and believing crappy parodies.

There is a worldview and funding at stake here, either one alone are proven to cause irrationality and persecution among human beings. The public is being used just as the American public is used when we're fed 911 propaganda.

[zarathustra]

Because a theory is popular doesn't mean it's false. Even if the theory of evolution is wrong, this doesn't make intelligent design right. The point: you can't, scientifically speaking, PROVE intelligent design or creationism. And THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE...

To prove intelligent design, scientifically, the question you'd have to answer SCIENTIFICALLY is WHO OR WHAT DESIGNED THE DESIGNER? It can't be done...thus Intelligent design = quackery.

z

[divine focus]

It is fine that you don't take a deep interest in this topic. Very few people have this weird little hobby. We can't even begin to get into specifics when one of us is so far behind the other.

I don't think you meant it to be, but your language is funny.

[Jamesh]

At least Birdy is in fine company, namely Ann Coulter.

Why anyone would pay any attention at all to what the ultra-devious Discovery Institute puts out is way beyond me.

Popular writing
Behe has written editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, "tutored" Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[27] Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism".[28]

Birdy is another example of the way women rote learn and allow emotions to fuck up their potential rationality. Betcha the first things she learnt about evolution were written by anti-evolutionists and she is stuck on the same emotional impressions learnt back then.

[divine focus]

...Speaking to the fellas as if she weren't here...

[Carl G]

To prove intelligent design, scientifically, the question you'd have to answer SCIENTIFICALLY is WHO OR WHAT DESIGNED THE DESIGNER? It can't be done...thus Intelligent design = quackery.

Then, by the same argument QRS philosophy is quackery. Every thing is caused but not Everything. There is no prime cause.

[Iolaus]

Z-

Because a theory is popular doesn't mean it's false.

No, it doesn't.

Even if the theory of evolution is wrong, this doesn't make intelligent design right.

No, it doesn't, does it? Although, there are really only two choices I can think of. Either evolution required no intellgient input to occur, or it did. Can you think of any other choices?

To prove intelligent design, scientifically, the question you'd have to answer SCIENTIFICALLY is WHO OR WHAT DESIGNED THE DESIGNER?

No, you don't. You just have to show that random processes cannot reasonably produce certain results. We infer intelligent design all the time, without knowing the specifics of who did it. That is what the SETI research is based on. They are looking for patterns of information that would look deliberate, language-like, non-random.

In fact, if intelligent design hung on the ability to identify the designer of the designer, it would mean that intelligent design was already false, having no evidence of its own. It's the evidence in the artifact that tells us whether or not it was designed. The question is, can we tell the difference between something produced by random processes and by intentional ones? The designer, or the designer of the designer, might have died and left no trace. Would it then be quackery to infer that the artifact was intelligently produced?

At least Birdy is in fine company, namely Ann Coulter.

Oh, dear, now he's mad.

Birdy is another example of the way women rote learn and allow emotions to fuck up their potential rationality.

What makes men pathetic, is that they are able to pretend to themselves that they are not emotionally motivated, and that emotions are not the true agenda driving their opinions. This makes them the ultimate liars.

I only wish I learned by rote! I can't remember a tenth of what I should.

[zarathustra]

Carl, QRS's philosophy is philosophy, not science. He can believe what he likes, which doesn't make it varifyable according to scientific method. Its not the job of science to speculate about the existence of god or whatever, but to test hypotheses according to scientific method, and from that (the evidence) draw conclusions.

z

[Carl G]

You mean logic is not scientific?

[zarathustra]

When applied to metaphysics - no.

z

[Iolaus]

Carl said,

Then, by the same argument QRS philosophy is quackery. Every thing is caused but not Everything. There is no prime cause.

And Z answered,

Carl, QRS's philosophy is philosophy, not science. He can believe what he likes, which doesn't make it verifiable according to scientific method. Its not the job of science to speculate about the existence of god or whatever, but to test hypotheses according to scientific method, and from that (the evidence) draw concl
usions.

Nonetheless it is a gaping hole in their understanding of reality. One finds in David's book about the infinite, that existence itself is causeless and a mystery. Also, their philosophy is not supposed to be about belief, but logic.