|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design == Human Design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: This was your final statement in your opening post. Intelligent design proposal's simply say " The universe was created and designed by an intelligence". Its not Science like say, cosmology. or anthropology. It is not a whole new science. It's a proposal to accept the variable of intelligence and a creator. Instead of random actions from a undefined start with many teaching that it was a random consequence of dumb luck interactions. My argument is to show why the variable of God created is valid to teach as a variable when dealing with the beginning of all things. A question Ive often asked is: What would this change in science as a whole? or, What difference does it make to science? And without a good outcome, my efforts would be abandoned. I believe that the changes made to science as a whole would be this: the question WHY, or, For what purpose? should be added to the scientific method for any scientist who accepts ID. If scientists wish to attempt further proof based on the definition of God in ID, they would be able to get funding to do so. And what experiments? Experiments to attempt to discover the connection between emotions and thoughts, and the physical world. If There is a way to communicate to the defined "God", Experiments to discover and research a "how can we communicate with God" on scientific terms. Where does religion fit with God? what religions seem to fit the scientific definition, if any? Stuff like that. Who knows. but it would also let God believing scientists breathe without feeling like they are going against their religion to follow science if they feel science has an anti God position. Mostly i continue my argument because its what the data of science Say's is there by the laws and observations science has called definite. So..if that's what it says, and that's what we see, then just like gravity it should be accepted. I cant figure out personally why science is so against accepting what their science shows. i mean c'mon.chaos theory for sub atomic particles? that's worse than godidit. why didn't the scientist just say : hell, i dunno why sub-atomic particles are so unpredictable, i guess were missing a variable or something. nooooo. too easy. they have to dream up chaos theory that teaches ordered structures are based on chaotic completely absent of order particles that could just fly apart or turn green and 10 feet tall at any random rare moment. At the same time as saying : oh well we don't really mean "chaos" when we say chaos what we really mean is " apparently chaos". well duh...I'm uh..duh i dunno but uh..everyone else is reading CHAOS! > At any rate, to answer your initial post; ID is a variable and not a completely new science. IMO. To answer your last comment: i have attempted to remain true to answering and debating the reasons i feel ID is valid in science. most scientists already accept ID anyways. so. ah well. Thanks for such a wonderful topic to debate =) Edited by tesla, : half my post didnt post? odd.. Edited by tesla, : ingle teperi Edited by tesla, : final comment. Edited by tesla, : arg. Time for bed. niterz keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: I never said that. The evidence ive offered is empirical data.
quote: Science is not going to progress without addressing issues of thought , emotion and other things that DO exist. It has to be understood how the "spirit/supernatural" Ties in and can be measured. Ive said many times and youve read where i have said "supernatural is only the difference between what you do understand, and what you do not. things are only supernatural because you fail to understand it. but its all natural. you just do not understand. Thats the work of science : to understand.
quote: Then lets take the evident fact that we exist inside of an energy that evolved from a singularity and had nothing to interact with but itself to evolve. a constant singular source cannot evolve without intelligence. there is no other variable possible. lets take that FACT and introduce it to science another way. But lets not ignore the truth of what our own senses and reliable data say. It tells us: no area is absent of energy. Why? if an area is absent of energy it does not exist. it will never be measured, there is nothing there. No area is absent of the forces of light, gravity, or radiation and other forces. The area in space the vacuum considered the least point of energy : it has been said that the energy in one cubic meter of space could boil the earths oceans. it tells us: T=0 is the starting point of our expanding universe. and all that is has evolved from a singular point. this discovery was made useing the most reliable math in physics that expalin our heavens so well we landed a man on the moon. if Our science says Gods there, why ignore it? call it the "God factor" call it whatever you want, but don't ignore it. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: It seems even scientists are confused as to the nature of science. The evidence supports God is. It's empirical data backed up by reliable math and laws. If no one likes ID, then call it a variable or another name. but don't ignore it. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: No. Scientology and the like institutions do that. I'm not sure what will be done when the truth of the data is accepted. i just see the data and know it should be accepted. you accepted gravity. I'm not sure what will come of it, but i know it will progress science. because its the truth by all data. if science ignores its own findings, how can it progress? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: The dover trial was a farce. scientists tried to prove God without the proper evidence The judge was ignorant and the scientists unprepared with there arguments because they KNEW they didn't have the proper data and were appealing to the logic that something as intricate as life and matter doesn't make sense to just poof from nothing and evolve. BUT: I'M showing you data that is backed up by YOUR science. and your ignoring it. do you think a judge who was NOT ignorant, yet was open minded enough to examine my data would be so quick to ignore it? ID then..lets say its bad science. but what Ive offered is true science. definite science by laws of science and empirical data. It is outright STUPID to ignore that data. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: surly you jest. we must then define energy. energy is a generic term applied to all that does exist. matter is energy in a conservative state. matter does not evolve? have humans evolved? are they not comprised of matter=energy in a conservative state? If you take light and pass it through a dust cloud does it not change color tone and depth because of the contents in the cloud? isn't evolution in its most simple definition simply change? did the light change? Did we not evolve the use of electricity to be able to change its frequencies to make computers viable? i could go on and on. How can we NOT exist inside of energy? is gravity energy? does the gravity exist inside of us and not us inside of it as well? is there energy in space? do we NOT exist inside of it? you mean to tell me our universe is expanding inside of absolutely nothing?
quote: exactly. the "start" i remember you teaching that start. you said you cant go any more north than the north pole. it is a constant because its there and there is nothing else there. yet all that is now started from it. that single point is inevitable. its the start.
quote: you said this concerning no area absent of energy. how can that be trivial or bizarre? it demonstrates the overlooked obvios that this universe we exist in is expanding inside of something. you can not get something from nothing, and neither can an area expand inside of nothing.
quote: The evidence Ive shown Say's contrary. although science has ignored my data, which is THEIR OWN data. so science DOES say God is there and i have only shown the definition and how i arrived at it. will you ignore it also? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Dover trial analysis: you cannot prove God with biology.
quote: That is your argument? You cant find any fault with the science so you resort to just saying " your stupid" for an argument? look again. Ive quoted science law, explained the basis for physics math, and pointed out unrecognized empirical data that's been ignored. I'm quoting physics LAW and RELIABLE physics math. If your calling me stupid for doing that you are actually calling the physicists and greatest scientists of this age morons. Edited by tesla, : fixed quote box. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: What are it's follies? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
ah. i loved coyote's response better. check out my reply to him.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
you gave me nothing to to quote! lol i love you though.
From this information i can only conclude that ID as it is proposed needs to be abandoned. however, the proof of God and its definition as found by science law and empirical observation should not be abandoned, but further scrutinized. And if the evidence Say's God is as defined, then it should be accepted by science, and science continue to refine itself with observations that lead to a greater understanding of what we call "supernatural". I stand by the premise that God is natural. All things are natural. and the only difference is what we do understand, and what we don't. Perhaps the topic of this debate was correct to consider Intelligent Design a human design. But Just because ID was written stupidly, does not mean creationism is wrong by the definition that all was designed and created to behave by the set properties that govern the conditions in which we exist for a greater purpose than we can currently see. Science backs up That the first change is only possible with intelligence as a factor. There are no other variables at T=0. No environment. No other possible interactions but a self directed act. That is significant. It should be explored, not ignored. In august i start college for an industrial chemistry degree. my orientation is on the 10th at Austin peay. This observation will not go away. It must be explored and examined, and i promise you, i will reach as far as i can in my attempts to do exactly that. i appreciate all those who have debated with me, and will continue to debate with me, who have done the research to see the truth of my words. i am screaming for evidence. For variables to research. For evidence to further refute or accept. No one person can hold all knoledge. It is only by working together with our strengths complementing the weakness of others that have progressed mankind. i alone can do nothing. but with the right cooperation between the sciences, i would only expect a growth of knoledge unlike ever before known. It is when the findings of a science field collaborate their knoledge of an object with the knoledge of another field that the object can be discerned. IE: the human body is as much a physics equation as it is a biological one. since the human body is composed of the same elements as is found on the planet outside of biological life. My greatest question is how do you proceed with a truth when the agenda's of individuals get in the way? christians don't like atheists or buddhists and buddhists don't like scientologists or whatever the choice of religion you choose to lead your life is first in your life. Would the christian God ask you to forget knoledge that is true? if in the christian bible God was quoted as saying " you have rejected knoledge of me" There is one singularity. one God. In science we should be concerned with the definition that science shows of God. Because it DOES show one. choose your religion, but if science law and observation and math say God is. Then accept God is. We will still need to cooperate regardless of how you choose to observe God For science to flourish. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: ID= God in science. That's how it was relayed to the public. The question being answered was does God have a place in science or only in religion, and the Dover trial decided their was no scientific basis for God meaning it was religion. The proof at the trial was mostly biological evidence of its "complexity". But from your posting , even if i sat down and went over the trial line by line you'd still argue how smart you are and how dumb i am regardless of the truth.
quote: Yes, i am being so well ignored you HAD to put in your say.
quote: then either a: you did not read anything Ive posted. or B: your too uneducated to get it.
quote: I'm not being egotistical. I'm pointing out the data I'm showing is not my own research, but the accepted research of science today. That's why it is so difficult to argue against. its already accepted data from the greatest scientists of this age. Where i differ is examining the empirical data of the vacuum of space, and the area that must be present for the universe to expand, and the singularity having SOMTHING that can be said of it. If i was a genius i wouldn't waste time replying to the likes of you who sound smart to call others stupid yet have nothing valid to offer, oh no, if i was a genius I'd be at the science boards showing them the math and data. If you want to spew crap go ahead. but the only ones who are going to think your smart are the people too uneducated to tell the difference. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other.
Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
quote: You have some papers i can read where other scientists agree with your assessment? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: i watched some of the Dover trial. and the argument of what i saw was about a biological specimen supposedly impossible to have evolved, but had to have been created. the argument did not hold. But I'm not arguing the Dover trial. I'm arguing the place of God in science and whether or not we are in a created existence, or a randomly formed one. I do not claim to have all the answers. i do claim to have some questions concerning the answers we do have and what they signify. If you would like to debate that evidence i would love to in a great debate with you. but its mostly physics and cosmology. as far as this thread, we both already agree that ID as it is proposed does not fit science. But the proposal that we live in a created universe and that God IS, i believe is relevant to science and should be taught based on the evidence i have found. UNLESS; contrary evidence can be provided to prove the current data of physics and cosmology wrong. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: I am not contradicting myself. If the science of physics and cosmology are true, then it points out this definition when dealing with the universal beginning: singularity= all the energy of the universe in a singular state. now ask, how can it evolve with nothing to interact with? probability math: T=0 =inevitable. T=0 evolution impossible. fact: T=0 evolved how? self directed act. t=0 = singularity. singularity= first existence/existence. self directed act = intelligence. definition: Existence = energy first before all things that was intelligent and evolved by its own direction based on faith that it existed. existence=God. __________________________ So to me its a natural thing that God exists based on this science. i do not consider God supernatural, nor thoughts, nor aliens or psychic phenomenon. i consider it all natural and misunderstood. so when i say God, i do not mean in a supernatural sense. i mean it in a natural sense. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: LOL Yeah i see how you did that. thats not what i'm doing. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024