Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution or .... what?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'd like to post a follow on for Blizz, to maybe clarify what I tried to say. There is a logical fallacy, I forget the name, that says "the sun doesn't rise because the rooster crows." It is easy to suggest that because the rooster crows at dawn, that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.

Post hoc ergo proter hoc. After this therfore because this.

[juantoo3]

Thank you, Jaiket! That's the one!

[intrepidlover]

Originally Posted by soma

The oneness of everything in pure consciousness manifest itself into many in matter and then returns back again to the unity of pure consciousness to complete the cycle of evolution.

That is a teaching of Hinduism, and that to me is the most reasonable and logical explanation.

Sorry everyone for disappearing from the discussion. I subscribed to it, but was notified of only two posts and thought the discussion was still-born.

Here is a poem I wrote on that theme, about 40 years ago. I use the word "God" in the sense of an intelligence innate in the universe.



LIKE, WOW !

The unformed essence filled the universe
And this was God, the absolute
The essence stirred
And little eddies formed
And shaped in patterns mathematical
And their vibration was very, very high

And the patterns became more complicated
And joined together
Forming objects with a purpose
And as they became more complex
The particles vibrated slower
And their form was no more recognized
As the pure primordial essence
From which they came

And on the process went
Until there formed a man
And in the man were particles
Of every vibration
From the highest to the lowest

And man started to become conscious
But at first he was conscious
Only of that part of him
That vibrated slowest

And this was his carnal nature
And its vibration was the same
As the earth in which he lived

And he was unaware
That he had come
From the pure primordial essence
But it was still a part of him
And in its different vibrations
It made up all of him

And man experimented with his carnal self
And learnt to understand it a little
And then he became aware
That there was more to him
Than food and lust
He had a mind

And he played with his mind
And got very confused
Because he only knew a part of it

And this part thought independently
Of the higher parts
And thought it knew everything
But it didn’t

Man’s destiny lies far ahead
In timeless aeons
He must become aware of all of him
Little by little
And when he knows it all
He will know that he is God
And God will know himself

For God made man a mirror of himself
And His consciousness is man’s
And man’s is His

For there is no division in creation
All is one

But man in incomplete awareness
Thinks the little that he knows is right
And all the rest unreal

But all is real
And all is God
And God is all
And man is God
And God is man
And everything is moving on with meaning
And a goal
The goal is God’s awareness of Himself
Through man and all creation
The reason?
There is none that I can see
It just happened
And we are part of it
And we are stuck with it
And we must make the most of it
And one day we’ll be glad
We persevered
And got to know ourselves
For we are sons of God
And God is all
And we are all
And all is all
And all is life
And life is love
And man, what a gas !

[intrepidlover]

Originally Posted by wil

And we have another race? another type of human?

I was referring to Australian aboriginals. However a theory as to why there are different types of humans has been given in a more recent post.

[intrepidlover]

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.

I know about endorphins and serotonin. I have suffered anxiety/depression for many years and use medication to markedly reduce the symptoms. The antidepressant gives me a positive attitude.

Before I was put on the antidepressant about 6 years ago, I was a chocaholic. Now I very rarely eat chocolate. So much for chemical matters.

But the actual feeling of being in love is quite different altogether. I should know -- I have been in love a number of times during my life. No chemical -- created by the body or otherwise -- can come remotely close to the real thing.

[BuzzLY]

Intrepid, You probably just haven't tried the right (or rather wrong) chemicals yet.

Of course all of this is a rather moot point. Just because your subjective experience is real yet unprovable does not mean that "intelligent design" is real. It's just kind of dumb to make that kind of assumption.

I don't know what it is called but I am sure there is a word in the logical and critical thinking lexicon for that kind of faulty argument.

[intrepidlover]

Originally Posted by BuzzLY

Intrepid, You probably just haven't tried the right (or rather wrong) chemicals yet.

I think you are trying to be funny. Ha, ha, ha.

Originally Posted by BuzzLY

Of course all of this is a rather moot point. Just because your subjective experience is real yet unprovable does not mean that "intelligent design" is real. It's just kind of dumb to make that kind of assumption.

I think you must be on the wrong chemical as I have not made any such statement.

Originally Posted by BuzzLY

I don't know what it is called but I am sure there is a word in the logical and critical thinking lexicon for that kind of faulty argument.

I doubt that there is any word in any lexicon that describes your post.

[BuzzLY]

Originally Posted by intrepidlover

I think you are trying to be funny. Ha, ha, ha.



I think you must be on the wrong chemical as I have not made any such statement.



I doubt that there is any word in any lexicon that describes your post.

Yawn.

When you're ready to have an intelligent conversation let me know.

[Paladin]

Buz,

I think you might have accidentally reframed Intrepids argument from," my subjective experience tells me love is beyond mere chemical stimulation" to "My subjective experience tells me ID/creationism is real"
If this is the case you would have inadvertantly created a strawman fallacy


Peace
Mark

[BuzzLY]

Thanks Paladin but I think that if you go back early enough in this thread you'll find that I got the jist of it right. Why else would they be discussing those matters in this thread?

Assuming I am correct what would you call Intrepids argument?

[Paladin]

Sorry Buz, but I went back over all the posts as you asked me to do to find no definitive statement by Intrepid. At best, and it is a stretch, I could say that Intrepid "suggests" that subjective experience or even belief leads him to think there is an intrinsic intelligence behind all that is and will be. Still a far cry from a logical fallacy though.

Perhaps you could copy and paste the statement in contention? That would be most helpful I think.

Peace
Mark

[BuzzLY]

My mistake. I thought Intrepid was trying to support an argument made by JuanToo3.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by BuzzLY

My mistake. I thought Intrepid was trying to support an argument made by JuanToo3.

Actually, it seems to me that intrepidlover was addressing Blizzardry's Petitio Principii, or "begging the question" argument.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Buzz!

Originally Posted by BuzzLY

When you're ready to have an intelligent conversation let me know.

Likewise, I'm sure. Looks to me like you're off to a bit of a rocky start...

Originally Posted by BuzzLY

My mistake. I thought Intrepid was trying to support an argument made by JuanToo3.

Ahhh, are you certain you wish to drag me into this?

If so, be certain of what it is I *did* say, what my position really is (not what you imagine it to be), and what proof / evidence I have offered in support.

Look really, really close...I have not supported intelligent design openly (as in "top down") either. All I have done to this point is note the errors and fallacies in the reasoning of those who deny the possibility of something like intelligent design.

[juantoo3]

:d