|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design == Human Design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi Tesla. Still having trouble dealing with reality I see.
The dover trial was a farce. scientists tried to prove God without the proper evidence Very few actual biologists gave testimony for the school board. But as you say, they failed to provide any scientific evidence for their "designer". The trial went against them. Where is the farce?
The judge was ignorant The judge reached his decision based upon the evidence brought before him. If some vital piece of evidence for the ID side was omitted, that is not Judge Jones' fault, it is the ID movement's fault.
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. To be fair to Professor Behe, his argument is slightly more sensible than that. Not much, I grant you, but even Behe isn't that bad. If the ID side didn't have the science that is their problem. They didn't have the science. The decision went against them. Where's the beef?
BUT: I'M showing you data that is backed up by YOUR science. and your ignoring it. No you're not Tesla, you're just raving borderline-insane, semi-literate gibberish at us. You are not behaving like a scientist, you are behaving like an internet nut case. If you want to make a contribution to science, go study for a degree.
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? I think that any judge, any scientist or indeed, anyone who was scientifically literate, who read your output with an open mind would think the same thing; that you are nuts, that you can barely compose a comprehensible sentence in your own language and that you know too little about the science you presume to challenge to even deserve an opinion on the subject. I know that's not what you want to hear, but I'm not going to waste my time by lying to you. You are out of your depth here. Go back, read a biology textbook, try again.
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. You haven't presented any data and the fact that you think you have is nothing more than a symptom of your detachment from reality. Give it up Tesla. You are never going to revolutionise evolutionary science or any other kind of science, because you are simply not knowledgeable or intelligent enough. You are wasting your time. Find a new hobby. I'm sorry to be such an asshole to you, but all you are displaying on this board is a delusion of grandeur and I'm not going to play along. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes:
I don't ignore ID. I laugh at its follies.
If no one likes ID, then call it a variable or another name. but don't ignore it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 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 1624 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What are it's follies? Start with "cdesign proponentsists" as a classic example. The story is here.
quote: Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
tesla writes:
The commitment to a God of the gaps, and the self delusion involved in that commitment.
What are it's follies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 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 1624 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Dover trial analysis: you cannot prove God with biology. Dude, that wasn't what the trial was supposed to determine. The trial was intended to determine whether ID was science, fit for science classrooms, or whether it was a form of religious apologetics. The conclusion was that ID was not science and that it was religious. Now you seem to pretty much agree with that, yet you describe the trial as a farce. You seem confused.
That is your argument? You cant find any fault with the science so you resort to just saying " your stupid" for an argument? I wouldn't put it like that. If I wanted to belittle your intellect, I would say "You're stupid.". Y'know, with an apostrophe and everything. If you want to be taken seriously, it might help if you wrote in your own language at something resembling an adult level. For the record though, I don't think that the problem is that you are stupid. I think the problem is that you have over-estimated your own knowledge and intelligence as well as the contribution that you have to make to science. You talk as though you are an unrecognised genius, unjustly ignored because your views are too controversial. This is a delusion. You are not an unrecognised genius. You are not any kind of genius. You are being justly ignored because you have no valid contribution to make to science. This is because you don't know as much about science as you think you do. The solution though is at hand. Stop theorising, start learning. Crack open a textbook or two and start from scratch instead of arguing with things you clearly don't understand.
look again. Ive quoted science law, explained the basis for physics math, and pointed out unrecognized empirical data that's been ignored. Please could you remind me where you did this? I would love to see what you think constitutes "unrecognized empirical data". All I see through most of this thread is your usual brand of stream of consciousness gibberish.
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. Crap. The fact that you seek to associate yourself with the "greatest scientists" only underlines how deluded and egotistical you have become. You haven't shown us any math. All you have done is waffle incoherently. Apparently, you can't tell the difference. that does not bode well for your being taken seriously any time soon. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to revolutionise things you don't understand. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Fell victim to Skitt's Law. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
surly you jest. Not at all, and don't call me surly
we must then define energy. Yes! That is a very good idea. If you did that, you would not make such silly statements about energy. You are not alone - most popular science makes exactly the same mistakes.
energy is a generic term applied to all that does exist. Yes, incorrectly applied by those that don't understand what they are writing. This is NOT the definition of energy.
matter is energy in a conservative state. Nope, as I continually stress at this site. Matter is a field. Energy is an attribute of the field. Oops, late for something - got to go...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 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 1624 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2361 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
tesla, now that you've been "referring back" to all the "evidence" you've been showing us, I have to point out that your dozens of posts on this thread are actually showing direct evidence of something about you in particular: you fail to grasp the implications of your own statements, and you appear to be unaware that you are contradicting yourself. Case in point:
tesla writes: 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. So far as I'm able to tell, you've said that sort of thing twice now in this thread. The first time you said something like that (way back at Message 13), I myself responded to you in a very positive and supportive way (here: Message 22), and I meant what I said. Now that you've said it twice, I interpret your statement in both cases to be talking about people who hold beliefs in supernatural entities and causes. The statement does not apply to people who take a purely scientific or objective view of the things they do not know or understand, because the scientific, objective approach is simply to acknowledge that you don't know or understand something, and you don't bother trying to assert any supernatural cause or purpose for the matter at hand, because doing so doesn't really improve knowledge or understanding in any objective sense. Rational people understand your statement as saying that the attribution of supernatural causation is just a stop-gap, a place-holder, an ersatz "answer" to fill a space that can't be filled on the basis of careful and replicable observation. In other words, asserting "God" as a cause is actually just an admission of ignorance. And yet, in the very same post quoted above, you conclude by saying:
if Our science says Gods there, why ignore it? call it the "God factor" call it whatever you want, but don't ignore it. This bit all by itself would qualify you as a nut-case. Science does not -- cannot -- say "God's there"; ignoring supernatural explanations is in the very nature of doing science, for very good and essential reasons. Taking this bit in combination with your other statement above, which expresses the true relationship between science and supernatural explanations ("once you understand something objectively, it is natural, not supernatural"), the only conclusion I can draw is that you yourself do not understand at least half of the things you are saying. Perhaps you are using some sort of "internal" language, where you've invented your own meanings for words like "God" and "science" and "evidence". Whatever the problem is, I'm sorry to say you've failed at coherent communication. Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor punctuation fix autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
ID= God in science. I sort of agree with you. ID is an attempt to crow-bar religion into science. It's main proponents would (dishonestly) argue against that of course. Just to be clear though; the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was that ID is religious in nature. You seem to agree with that, so perhaps the trial was not as farcical as you thought.
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. No. That is completely wrong. The trial was about whether ID materials could be taught in classrooms. Since religious materials are excluded from science classes, the trial sought to establish whether ID was scientific or religious in nature. The result was that ID was religious, therefore could not be taught in schools. Here is Judge Jones' conclusion;
quote: Source; Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
The proof at the trial was mostly biological evidence of its "complexity". The complexity of what exactly? What are you talking about? Would you like to borrow a noun?
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. I never said I was smart. I am quite able to accept that scientists don't listen to me because I have nothing important or original to say. When you accept that this is also true of yourself, you will be better off.
then either a: you did not read anything Ive posted. or B: your too uneducated to get it. It's "you're too uneducated" or "you are too uneducated". Is this really so hard? Look, I'm not going to sit here and berate you all night. You'll either listen to my advice or you won't. But I promise you, this is the best advice you're going to get all week; stop expecting to be take seriously when you start theorising about subjects that you blatantly don't understand. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024