Posted on 10/10/2009 9:32:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
How do you include an undefined and unknown possibility?
Use your common sense! The moon is NOT a light. It is a cold, dead moon.
Are you referring to her post where she gave three links 'to show that the moon didn't revolve around the earth' and EVERYONE of them said it DID revolve around the earth!
One had it is the FIRST sentence!
Your defeat is acknowledged.
“How do you include an undefined and unknown possibility”?
Ummm by not shutting down debate and suing people to keep quiet...?
For starters.
This is what kills me about evolutionists...THEIR process is open-ended, we’re supposed to just wait around for another ga-jillion years or whatever it takes.
But any and every idea outside of the cult just can’t be so much as considered, for whatever reason. And any reason is good enough.
You seem right lively for being dead.
“How do you include an undefined and unknown possibility?”
I don’t think we should. Information-from-intelligence is not undefined or unknown. We are all familiar with it. That is why I would include it as a potential cause whenever we observe information.
Information-from-intelligence is a misnomer. You've seen people create information. They utilize their intelligence to do that. They also expend energy in the process. The intelligence is no more a direct cause of the information than the energy was.
What's required is an intelligent entity.
I don’t really understand your point, I guess. I have used “intelligent agent” and “intelligence” sort of interchangeably. I would agree that an intelligent entity, whatever its form, is necessary. I don’t know why that distinction is important when discussing the origin of information. But still, it is because the entity is intelligent, not because it is human, that it can originate information - at least that is what has been observed.
The difference between "intelligence" and "intelligent entity" is that an entity is discrete. It has an identity. When you posit a discrete entity as being a cause, you have to identify it. What are you going to call it?
“The difference between “intelligence” and “intelligent entity” is that an entity is discrete. It has an identity. When you posit a discrete entity as being a cause, you have to identify it. What are you going to call it?”
No, I don’t think I have to call it anything other than an intelligent entity.
Then it seems to be unknown and undefined.
“Then it seems to be unknown and undefined.”
Agreed. But we can assume “it” is there based on our current knowledge of where information comes from. And we can keep looking for it, or for further evidence of it.
If "it" is there and is indeed the cause, the investigations should eventually lead to it, or produce more evidence that it exists whether you started of specifically looking for it or not.
“If “it” is there and is indeed the cause, the investigations should eventually lead to it, or produce more evidence that it exists whether you started of specifically looking for it or not. “
The fact that “it” is the only known source of information observed to date, together with the lack of any credible naturalistic explanation, is pretty strong evidence, at least to me. Things may change, but my only point in this whole discussion is that we have observed to date where information comes from (intelligent agents and only intelligent agents) and this should be on the table. It is our best “known” explanation anytime we see complex, specific information.
I assume that complex, specific information is what SETI is looking for and assuredly if they find it, we would acknowledge an intelligent source even if we could not define or identify it. Yet this would be considered scientific and would surely be on the table as proof of extraterrestrial intelligence.
You know, it's nice to find such candor.
So many Darwolaters strike this pose that it's all about the science and the facts; that nobody with a degree questions Darwin; that if degreed people made factual cases, why, they would be perfectly open-minded and tickled pink to consider other views, and yada yada yada.
But none of that crap for you. It's your religion, facts are irrelevant, and nothing will change your mind.
Well-done! I hope others follow your example!
Sure. They've posited the existence of extraterrestrial life, and developed a methodology to search for it.
Do you have a methodology to look for the "intelligent agent"?
“Sure. They’ve posited the existence of extraterrestrial life, and developed a methodology to search for it.
Do you have a methodology to look for the “intelligent agent”? “
Yes, I look for complex, specific information. When I find it, I conclude intelligence. Bascally same as SETI.
Having concluded intelligence, what do you propose to do with that information?
Accept it as reality. Keep my eyes open for other data that would support or reject my conclusion and adapt and change accordingly. Tell it to others. Be a little humbled that other intelligence exist. Support studies and science that seeks to understand more about how such an intelligence could do such a thing - maybe we can too, then.
The questions are getting a little off-topic. Thanks for the discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.