Wormwood

Could you point to your specific problems? Are there instances of people teaching Christian doctrine or anything like that? As far as politics go, the movement is the same to some degree though they don't agree on specifics. Could you please demonstrate how they are different? ID as a political movement is just pushing the idea that it is possible that these factors which we are indocrinated to think of as random, are in fact not random, but the design of something greater, and they want that to be taught in school along with the idea that the universe and life occured randomly. Is there something inherantly abhorant about this that I am missing?

^^^ How are you making the distinction between instinct and reflex on the smiling example? Wouldn't a smile be a response to a certain stimuli? It's not that you willfully create the gesture of the smile, it is reflexive when you are happy.

It doesn't, with the exception perhaps of strong anthropic principle. The universal constants from Dickes coincidence are just the building blocks for AP and don't imply a designer directly, but there is certainly that possibility in the periphery of this idea. That is why I said AP supports ID but is not synonymous. Certainly if AP were shown to be true, then that would lend credence to the belief that the universe was specifically designed for human life through ID. Do you agree?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement about IDers wanting it taught a certain way. I am sure there are some instances of this, but can you point to any known examples to clarify? As far as I know, proponents of ID want it taught to counter what they consider to be the nihilistic veiw of Darwinian evolution, but I have never heard of people wanting specific Christian doctrines taught. I quoted the first two I believe, as those are usually the most common. I also gave you a definition from the New Yorker. See What I mean? The first paragraph of the wiki ID page clearly says: How can you reconcile this glaring inconsistency from the same source? Seriously? It is faulted because anyone can just write whatever they want in wiki regardless of if it's true or not. I could go enter myself as the supreme ruler of the universe right now, but would that make it true? To an extent. I don't think it was the brilliant plan of social engineers or anything, but I do think that it was a strategically conceived theory and that's why secular people don't like it. It is general enough to be inclusive, but also to avoid being shown as unscientific or being debunked due to making too many specific claims and was designed specifically to counter the atheistic views of evolution. Well it's also Wiki vs the New Yorker. I am going to go with the one that at least has professional writers and editors. http://community.schemewiki.org/?csw-content-issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error There is also a tendency towards bias in these factually incorrect entries. The section about ID was obviously written by a person who did not believe in it or understand it in an unbiased way. I'm not saying this because it disagrees with me, I'm saying it because it's obvious. There are so many factual errors in the first paragraph that there isn't much point in reading on. ID proponents don't say or imply that it is the God of Abraham that they are talking about; in fact they refuse to speculate about the nature of God within this theory. ID proponents don't all belong to the discovery institute. Etc. It's rehtoric. Just use any source other than Wiki and I'm sure you will see that the idea is actually quite general.

This is a distinction that is only made from your side of the debate though. I was saying that the actual definition is ambiguous and that it's my guess that this is intentional. Most of the people polled said they believed in ID because most of the people polled believe in God. I don't see a contradiction here except for the arbitrary distinction of if God still interferes or if he is simply the clock maker God of the deist. As for the scientific discussion I think I am right on as I have quoted the definition and am consistent with that definition. In the political area, I am being too ambiguous, but I think this is the point. I think this idea as a political ideology was designed to include as many people as possible, thereby lending more credibility to the idea through consensus. In a sense, but science is only interested in certain materialistic evidence. For example, an atheist scientist looks at some data about anthropic principle. He is more likely to utilize the many universe theory that is pretty much the only way to sidestep design. A proponent of ID would look at the same evidence and see design. There is nothing different in the physical data, only the interpretations and implications. One side wants to see one outcome, and the other wants to see the other outcome. Both sides are therefore suspect, but worth a serious review. Just do a "define:" in google. Wiki is the worst, most biased resource that exists, but it is convenient, I'll give you that. Yes, the distinction you are making is with creationists who choose to ignore scientific facts. The problem is that you can not separate the two groups. This is what I have been saying about intentional ambiguity. One group (fundamentalist types) uses the facade of majority support for their minority view. Most people do believe that the way our universe is right now, is due to some sort of design though this design played out over billions and billions of years. This is why ID is so popular, and this is also why broad generalizations about ID do nothing but further polarize the two sides. Once you start denouncing the group as a whole, everyone that thinks God had a hand in the universe starts getting defensive. Again, I don't think this is an accidental feature of the theory. All I am really trying to say is this: sure there are people who will use the blanket term of ID to justify any archaic bronze aged idea they might have about the universe, and indeed these people seem to be the loudest political proponents of ID, but that does not mean that this was the original intention of the idea, or even how most of it's supporters feel. Check this out: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact The issue seems to revolve around abiogenesis more than evolution. It does raise an interesting question about life evolving from non-life through random natural selection, but I don't see this as wildly unscientific or religiously extreme any more than the alternatives.

Yes, because that is the definition of ID in the weakest sense. Many people will take it further stating that evolution is a guided process, but the only true requisite is that you believe an intelligence is in any way, responsible for the way we and our universe manifested. The proponents consider it like forensics. By that I mean they search for accumulated evidence after the fact and try to build their theory on that. Because they believe human beings were the intentional product of God's plan. Some think that random natural selection takes away from this possibility. What you are describing is the anthropic principle, which is very similar to ID in some ways, but not the same. ID is a blanket term, and this seems to be intentional. ID ranges from deist, to Fundamental Christian. If you believe that the design of the universe is due to an intelligence,and this design included human beings in any way, then you believe in ID by definition. Again, this is the anthropic principle you are describing. I think you are actually referring to "Dicke's Coincidence" here which was the precursor to AP. Anyway, that is not the same as ID, merely supporting evidence.

Here is the real life version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77nD5xmL0kU

I'm not sure if you are an embalmer or what, but paraformaldehyde becomes usable as formaldehyde when you boil it in phosphate buffered saline and stir it. If it were my first time to embalm someone, I would be much more worried about packing the anus to prevent leakage then I would about the formaldehyde.

I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, so just to clarify for everyone involved:

This is simply incorrect. MOST Christians are Catholics, and Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation. Further, the "literal" interpretation you speak of is often based more on tradition than the actual text. A majority of people who believe in a 6 day creation, are dispensationalists; and dispensationalism is a tradition, not a formal doctrine.

"What you have become is the result of what you have thought." - Buddha The idea that thoughts shape the world around you and your experience is very old. I'm not sure of what type of studies would give definitive answers on a subject like this. How can a clinical trail know if you were already going to have good luck, or if it was the result of your positive thinking? There is no reliable control in this method. Knowing this, all we have is anecdotal evidence which may vary in reliability. Having said that, I have seen the effects in my own life and I have to conclude that there is something to it for me personally. I had the same problem with implementing this new way of thinking too. I constantly talked myself out of it. You have to retrain the mind in at least two different ways. First, as another poster said, you have to interrupt negative thought patterns as they occur. This has several effects like getting used to breaking the bad mood manually, but also if you continue to disrupt the undesirable mood, your cells will eventually develop less receptors for the messenger proteins utilized by the hypothalamus. This means your body will be less addicted to the bad moods, and your subconscious will set up fewer situations to allow that mood (in theory). Of course there will still be bumps in the road, but you will be in a better place to deal with them, and less addicted to the feeling meaning you will not continue to perpetuate the situation with bad responses once it has began. The second way to train the mind is to start generating positive thought patterns. You said that you tell yourself that everything is great, and then you question yourself, asking what is so great about it. What I do in this situation is think of the things I am grateful for. I am healthy, I have a place to live, I eat everyday, I have wonderful friends, I have functioning eyes to read this screen, etc etc. I also find that it helps to put yourself in the situation you want to be in. By that I mean, if I want to be happy I think of a time when I was happy. I remember every single detail about how I felt, and try to falsely recreate that feeling using my imagination. It doesn't take long for the body to catch on and try to mimic the mood I'm creating. In my experience, it takes time and practice, but it definitely works.

I might have misread the OP and if so I apologize, but it seems as if you think that a phenomenon must be measured in a proper sense to collapse the wave function. A phenomenon must simply be observed, not measured; though measurement is a type of observation. Does that help at all? Also Tom, I think by "classical states" the OP just means realized potential states; or states where the wave function has been collapsed into one definite phenomenon. Again, if I have misread anything I apologize.

He guessed IBS because you have visceral hypersensitivity to water. If the hypersensitivity also occurs with warm water, then you probably don't have IBS. If you get virtually the same response to any temperature water from any source, then you might have a general hypersensitivity to water, or a bacterial infection. My instinct tells me it could be something with your ability to utilize electrolytes or sodium. All of the other drinks you mentioned would do at least something to replace the sodium or electrolytes that would be required to digest the liquid. Water would only dillute those levels, and thus could cause localized cramping. Just a thought.

It probably has nothing to do with size as even electronic measuring devices will suffice as consciousness to collapse a wave function. Also, it was actually observable evidence that led to this belief that consciousness is needed to collapse a wave function in this first place. Check out the double slit experiment: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Double-Slit.pdf (or see if you can find something about the original double slit from the 60's, the site above just shows that intention doesn't effect the experiment) It isn't that consciousness is constructing reality so much as consciousness allows reality to be validated as real. It's like movement; movement can only be validated as movement when it is in relation to something else. So the mind doesn't have to know the outcome to cause the event, it simply has to be present to cause one set event (which is usually the reasonable or expected outcome) to occur. I know it is sort of divergent, but this universal need for consciousness sort of explains the necessity of the anthropic principle. That a given universe will always work toward conscious life because consciousness is needed to make it exist seems like a reasonable proposition given the realm of discussion.

I'm new here, so maybe this is the norm, but I can't believe you guys are actually arguing about this. What's wrong with one poster agreeing with what another poster already said? Can that ACTUALLY be construed as something to argue about, or is this just a demonstration for the jerk conversation? Anyhow, though it may be taboo at this point, I agree with the other posters that said being a jerk was just a part of human nature. In my life I have been powerless, and empowered and both conditions have certain psychological effects. As a person who is powerless, or surrounded by people that are more powerful/strong/intelligent whatever, it creates a certain group dynamic that can be seen in most primates or pack animals. Weak people naturally take subservient positions. This is not to imply that weak people will automatically be obedient slaves to someone stronger or more socially apt, just that weakness creates a situation of being softer, milder, and more agreeable. People who are the weakest in any group, usually have the least say in what goes on and to some extent take grief from other members of the group. If you have even seen multiple dogs try to eat out of the same bowl, there is usually a pecking order that can be determined with little to no physical violence; this is because social animals can pick up on social cues. Inversely, being empowered (being the alpha, or high up on the social order of your group) can create certain feelings of assertiveness and social aggression. People will only treat you how you let them treat you. If a weak person goes to an alpha from a position of weakness, they are inviting trouble because in a sense, they are asking to be treated poorly whether they know it or not. From the alpha perspective, especially in younger males, the bullying and ridicule can be methods to help the weaker and less socially desirable members of the group catch on to social norms which they may be missing out on. If a nerdy kid was in class being picked on by the jocks he tried to hang out with, it could simply be that the jocks are trying to inform him that physical weakness and letting your mom dress you are not socially desirable traits. I have also noticed that from a position of power, weakness seems really annoying. To use the dog example again, you can make an otherwise peaceful unfamiliar dog angry and vicious, just by running from him. In other words, by taking on the position of weakness, you elevate a normal dog to an aggressive alpha position. Outside of a group dynamic, this phenomenon still occurs. If you project yourself as too weak/mild/agreeable you are inviting trouble from every would be alpha out there. We are not so far removed from other primates as we would like to imagine. As a species, we value physical prowess, coordination, and assertiveness, and as long as we value those things, people that have those attributes will always be held above those that don't; and people without those traits will be looked down on as a less fit specimen. Since we value assertiveness in most other contexts, in this context I think it would be fair to say that someone is being a jerk simply when they are disproportionately more assertive than the person they are interacting with, or when one person senses weakness on another person and tries to elevate himself to the status of alpha by asserting himself socially or physically at the expense of the other party involved. Just my opinion for what it's worth.