Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[FIGJAM]

...doesn't that mean I am committed to standards of proof no matter what anyone says?

It's the standards of proof that require empirical observation in every instance that caused Kant to write a couple of books on it.

You are limiting what can be known by putting the burden of proof into someone else's hands.

Kant is right, that pure empiricism is bunk, yet if you think that my arguments consist of "we can't put the astral plane in a test tube ipso facto, it's bunk" then you're wrong.

We can't put 'the astral plane' in a test tube, but The Monroe Institute is just one organisation whereby there were many scientific tests on it. Successful ones.

It is all dismissed with prejudice by skeptics as being doctored. The power of "how things should be" shapes our end reality and "scientific" conclusions.

Anyway, you're claims that your spiritual planes are proven are as silly as the scientist who says he can prove god's non existence via the scientific model.

It is proven in terms of it being a psychological phenomena. Even the card carying materialist Susan Blackmore has studied it!

 

[evo]

I've listened to quite a few interviews with Dr. Blackmore,Fig. I never get the impression she is a materialist.

I would say she most likely subscribes to Sunyata.As do i

Which always makes me laugh when someone calls me a materialist

 

[FIGJAM]

Blackmore says unequivocally that consciousness or awareness will not, does not and can not exist outside of the brain. She is a dyed in the wool materialist and a skeptic.

As for your or her belief in Sunyata, you cannot know what it even refers to without intensive meditation. You cannot intellectualise what the Shakyamuni Buddha was teaching. You need to follow the Eightfold Path to the letter.

 

[Qsaint]

As for your or her belief in Sunyata, you cannot know what it even refers to without intensive meditation. You cannot intellectualise what the Shakyamuni Buddha was teaching. You need to follow the Eightfold Path to the letter.

The eightfold path is only 1 path

 

[Richo83]

It's the standards of proof that require empirical observation in every instance that caused Kant to write a couple of books on it.

You are limiting what can be known by putting the burden of proof into someone else's hands.

And you think I rely on empirical observation figgy? You're the one who quotes all these physicists and psychologists to prove your point, you're the one who relies on observation and experience, two of the principles of scientific processes, you're the one who is even willing to quote psychology to claim something figgy. Don't call me empirical materialist fig.

We can't put 'the astral plane' in a test tube, but The Monroe Institute is just one organisation whereby there were many scientific tests on it. Successful ones.

It is all dismissed with prejudice by skeptics as being doctored. The power of "how things should be" shapes our end reality and "scientific" conclusions.

You don't get it fig. You're thinking that I'm some Dawkian materialist when I'm more likely to quote Freddy, or heck Kant than any scientist. I shouldn't be scolded by spiritual "gurus" for focusing more on the process philosophical side to things rather than going out and "feeling things", afterall, if people find interest and insight in such things, it does no harm. New age gurus prance around singing the praises of planal experience, not realising that people who decide to place ideas of consciousness within the brain and within thought, instead of touching electricity, may not be interested in your "knowledge", nor may they cherish your assurances of truth.

It is proven in terms of it being a psychological phenomena. Even the card carying materialist Susan Blackmore has studied it!

Kant was right, psychology is the study of the soul. By the way, not every psychologist believes in "astral planes".

 

[evo]

Blackmore says unequivocally that consciousness or awareness will not, does not and can not exist outside of the brain. .

That doesn't seem to me a very good test of whether one is or isn't a materialist.A materialist (philosophically) believes that 'reality' can be reduced purely to the physical(matter).

What you seem to be describing is 'cosmic consciousness' or pansychism,or whatever name you would like to give it.

Are you saying everyone who isn't a pansychist is therefore a materialist?

What would you categorize say Spinoza as?

 

[TheBloods]

Blah blah blah - what does any of this have to do with evolution or ID?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Blah blah blah - what does any of this have to do with evolution or ID?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[skilts]

I was thinking the same thing.

Including the "Blah, blah, blah" bit? If you want to take adopt joint ownership of that, who am I to dissuade you?

 

[Fire Storm]

There are a number of observed examples. There is hard evidence. You show your ignorance when you state otherwise.

I've studied evolution. It's rubbish. No proof.



How about YOU come up with some, Chief?

 

[TheBloods]

I've studied evolution. It's rubbish. No proof.

There is a clearly more evidence for evolution than for ID.

 

[Schism]

I've studied evolution. It's rubbish. No proof.



How about YOU come up with some, Chief?

I suppose you can link me to the abstract of your thesis on arxiv.org?Pretty please!

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I've studied evolution. It's rubbish. No proof.



How about YOU come up with some, Chief?

Who are you? I am intrigued.

By the way skilts, I do not take joint ownership of the 'blahs'. I respect what evo and FIGJAM are discussing, but thought it was slightly off topic.

 

[Fire Storm]

All talk. Still no proof.



And how many 'cheif's' do we have?

 

[TheBloods]

By the way skilts, I do not take joint ownership of the 'blahs'. I respect what evo and FIGJAM are discussing, but thought it was slightly off topic.

The 'blahs' weren't meant to be derogatory to the participants of that conversation. I've seen many of their discussions on such topics before and they are often interesting, but not really relevant to this particular topic.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

The 'blahs' weren't meant to be derogatory to the participants of that conversation. I've seen many of their discussions on such topics before and they are often interesting, but not really relevant to this particular topic.

It's all good. I agree 100%.

Fire Storm, what evidence are you looking for?

 

[Fire Storm]

Pawtucket. Cut the bull. The longer you go on, the more embarrasing it'll be.

 

[TheBloods]

All talk. Still no proof.



And how many 'cheif's' do we have?

That you call for 'proof' really does undermine your posts somewhat...

But the simple 'proof' is that all organisms are born of other organisms and simple organisms existed before complex organisms, and thus the only way for complex organisms to now exist is through an evolutionary process.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Pawtucket. Cut the bull. The longer you go on, the more embarrasing it'll be.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing....html?sid=6e64906a-5d8a-4091-b719-50f8a98b3eb5

 

[Fire Storm]

That you call for 'proof' really does undermine your posts somewhat...

But the simple 'proof' is that all organisms are born of other organisms and simple organisms existed before complex organisms, and thus the only way for complex organisms to now exist is through an evolutionary process.

So ah.....where did these 'simple organisms' come from? Not the same 'simple organisms' that scientists have proven can't happen by chance because they don't happen by chance?

Like the 'soup' that couldn't produce anything?




And Darwin's 'finches' was proven to have nothing to do with evolution. Only that like most living things - plants, animals - there can be variety.


Not evolution at all. Finches from the beginning. Still finches. Always will BE finches. No change into anything else.




Never proven. Never will.

 

[Richo83]

Firestorm, evolution answers the question of how organisms were developed, not how the first organism came about. Btw, there are many theists who believe in evolution seeing the answer that god planted the first seed and watched it grow (and other answers) so your question of where these simple organisms came from is largely a red herring.

 

[TheBloods]

So ah.....where did these 'simple organisms' come from? Not the same 'simple organisms' that scientists have proven can't happen by chance because they don't happen by chance?

Like the 'soup' that couldn't produce anything?

Where the first organisms came from is irrelevant to a discussion of the possibility of evolution.

And Darwin's 'finches' was proven to have nothing to do with evolution. Only that like most living things - plants, animals - there can be variety.

Not evolution at all. Finches from the beginning. Still finches. Always will BE finches. No change into anything else.

There is evidence of speciation.

Never proven. Never will.

Again, I don't think you understand the concept of scientific theory...

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

So ah.....where did these 'simple organisms' come from? Not the same 'simple organisms' that scientists have proven can't happen by chance because they don't happen by chance?

Like the 'soup' that couldn't produce anything?




And Darwin's 'finches' was proven to have nothing to do with evolution. Only that like most living things - plants, animals - there can be variety.


Not evolution at all. Finches from the beginning. Still finches. Always will BE finches. No change into anything else.




Never proven. Never will.

A key characteristic of science is the falsifiability of hypotheses. You do not 'prove' things in science, but rather search for 'supporting' evidence.

By the way, where is the evidence for ID?

 

[Fire Storm]

That's no answer. Nor is how 'simple organisms' - mathamatically impossible to happen by chance of course - turned into some of the most complex things in the universe. There IS no proof of that ever happening. Then or now.






Hell, I've never seen a 'simple' mouse trap made by ANYONE. I fully believe it happened by chance and that my tv sprang from it.



Honestly. I do. 100%. In fact i read a book by a scientist that said so. So it must be true.

 

[Fire Storm]

Where the first organisms came from is irrelevant to a discussion of the possibility of evolution.

There is evidence of speciation.


Again, I don't think you understand the concept of scientific theory...

Irrelevent? Ooops. Bad call.


Scientific theory? yeah. It's called making something up 'cause we don't want to believe in a God.