Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 31 of 62 (564408)
06-10-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by tesla
06-10-2010 8:09 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
Again you infer religion anytime you see "God" in an argument. God can be discussed without inserting religion.
That's how the creation argument should be discussed within science.
Really, now, tesla.
Gods and creationism are religion. There is no separating them.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 8:09 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:00 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 32 of 62 (564410)
06-10-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by tesla
06-10-2010 8:09 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
Again you infer religion anytime you see "God" in an argument. God can be discussed without inserting religion.
That's how the creation argument should be discussed within science.
Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 8:09 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2010 4:08 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 37 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 6:57 PM Taq has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 33 of 62 (564444)
06-10-2010 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
06-10-2010 10:54 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?
Hmmm...let's find out.
F=(dp/dt)+God
p=mv
F=(dmv/dt)+God
F=m(dv/dt)+God
dv/dt=a
F=ma+God
From empirical experiment we know that:
A 1,000 kg object accelerated to 0.5 m/s/s yields a force of 500 newtons.
1000(0.5)+God=500
500+God=500
500+God-500=500-500
God=0
Well there you go. God is nothing.
Apparently, adding god to newton is very accurate indeed.
Edited by AZPaul3, : error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-10-2010 10:54 AM Taq has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 34 of 62 (564467)
06-10-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:34 PM


Re: science and tentativity and trust
Hi, Tesla.
I'm curious as to how you reconcile these two positions:
tesla writes:
Its our misunderstandings that make science flawed. The dynamics of the universe are perfect. we are not.
Message 5
tesla writes:
But i do disagree that all science is tentative. some things are objectively true.
Message 17
Objective truth is not science: objective truth is the thing science is hoping to find.
Science itself is the search for objective truth. And, since that search is carried out by imperfect people, it will always fall short of perfect, and we can never really be sure that we’ve found that objective truth.
That’s where the tentativity comes from. And, all science has it.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:34 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 6:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 35 of 62 (564474)
06-10-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
06-02-2010 8:22 PM


Theory of Everything
Hi, Fiver.
Fiver writes:
Originally, Intelligent Design was presented as an opposing viewpoint to the Theory of Evolution, suggesting that it was a hypothesis within Biology.
I would be careful interpreting this too far, for two reasons:
  1. Evolution is just the buzzword: I’m not convinced that they ever actually presented it as an alternative just to Darwinian evolution.
  2. Even if they had originally presented it as an alternative just to the Theory of Evolution, given that it really isn’t (and never really was) an alternative just to the ToE, it seems like it was entirely appropriate for them to change their minds and present it differently.
-----
Fiver writes:
So what is it, I.D. proponents? What is Intelligent Design about? Is it an area of Biology? Or of chemistry? Or of physics?
Is there a problem with it being all of these?
If God really made all of those things, shouldn’t they all be explained by the same theory?
Isn’t that what creationism/ID is? A theory of everything?
Edited by Bluejay, : wrong slash

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 06-02-2010 8:22 PM Fiver has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 36 of 62 (564496)
06-10-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blue Jay
06-10-2010 5:21 PM


Re: science and tentativity and trust
without objective truths existing; science would have no base to begin tentative analysis.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 06-10-2010 5:21 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Blue Jay, posted 06-20-2010 7:52 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 37 of 62 (564499)
06-10-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
06-10-2010 10:54 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
quote:
Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?
maybe.
You first need a scientific definition to understand the "what" of God and his/its relation to man.
With this understanding their "may" be a way to tie mathematical equations better together.
For instance, IF the math we have now is true, yet missing a key component ( such as a ball's path being a three second launch off the ground starting at T=0, yet on the return path you accrue a negative number because you didn't have the ground in the return eqation) Then you may build years of study and math explaining dynamics by that math and waste years of potential growth because of an overlooked variable.
If God IS and IS in a physical and real sense, then its a definite variable That should not be overlooked.
Of course I'm adding much in speculation, though its True to speculation, we first must examine the truth of what we DO know to further support or refute current theory as we continue to grow in knoledge of our existence and what we exist in.
We have alot more data now, overwhelming data piling in. I believe we are behind in examining that data because of breakdowns in communications between the sciences. My opinion of course.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-10-2010 10:54 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-10-2010 8:35 PM tesla has replied
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 06-11-2010 10:28 AM tesla has replied
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 06-12-2010 1:52 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 38 of 62 (564502)
06-10-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by AZPaul3
06-10-2010 10:39 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
yes really. God IS is a statement beyond religion. If you believe it truly then God is as real as the air you breathe. and a small mind cannot comprehend that because its supernatural and not natural. God is natural to me as the earth is natural to you.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2010 10:39 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2010 11:06 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 39 of 62 (564506)
06-10-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by bluescat48
06-10-2010 10:32 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
No.
Your missing mine. God is beyond religion. Religions explain God. as a man of science and religion, i divorce the religious contexts (since they also vary on large degrees) and examine God in a scientific perspective.
You cannot do that unless you see God in a natural sense as i do, which the definition i have for God is :
existence: the energy that was first before all things, that created all that is from itself, based on faith that it was.
this definition means that we exist inside a universe that exists inside of the initial energy of t=0. that this universe began expansion inside that body, and space has an edge we cannot see; that marks our existence inside of that first energy. the same way as a child exists inside of a mothers womb.
With this definition religion need not be a part of enquiry for scientific analysis. however, with this definition being accepted ultimately it would be tested against religions for any evidence of a religion that actually supports the definition. But scientifically the definition and what the math says to support or refute the idea is relevant to science.
for instance, if there is a body we are expanding in and space has an edge, the edge could be guessed by the shape, and the big bang scenario would look different because the energy would not condense into infinite density, but rather be returned to the body it is coming from. again, much like a baby's growth in the womb being reversed and the energy being returned to the mother.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 06-10-2010 10:32 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 06-10-2010 11:10 PM tesla has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 62 (564529)
06-10-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by tesla
06-10-2010 6:57 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
tesla writes:
someone else writes:
Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?
maybe.
You first need a scientific definition to understand the "what" of God and his/its relation to man.
With this understanding their "may" be a way to tie mathematical equations better together.
For instance, IF the math we have now is true, yet missing a key component ( such as a ball's path being a three second launch off the ground starting at T=0, yet on the return path you accrue a negative number because you didn't have the ground in the return eqation) Then you may build years of study and math explaining dynamics by that math and waste years of potential growth because of an overlooked variable.
If God IS and IS in a physical and real sense, then its a definite variable That should not be overlooked.
Of course I'm adding much in speculation, though its True to speculation, we first must examine the truth of what we DO know to further support or refute current theory as we continue to grow in knoledge of our existence and what we exist in.
We have alot more data now, overwhelming data piling in. I believe we are behind in examining that data because of breakdowns in communications between the sciences. My opinion of course.
Way to go on obfuscating the matter by interjecting a bunch of conjectures to answer a question that requires essentially a yes or no answer.
Can you name a single instance where adding god into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add god into newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?
Don't beat around the bush.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 6:57 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:33 PM Taz has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 41 of 62 (564545)
06-10-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by tesla
06-10-2010 7:00 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
God IS is a statement beyond religion.
Sorry, tesla, but god = religion by definition. You do not get to change that no matter how hard you believe.
If you believe it truly then God is as real as the air you breathe.
Same for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
a small mind cannot comprehend ...
You have shown us that repeatedly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:00 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 42 of 62 (564546)
06-10-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by tesla
06-10-2010 7:10 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
You cannot do that unless you see God in a natural sense
How can you see a supernatural entity in a natural sense? Anything that involves the entity "god"is beyond the capabilities of the natural world and exists only in the minds of indoctrinated individuals. Whether there is a god or not has nothing to do with the natural world of which is where science is. God = religion not matter how one slices it.
Edited by bluescat48, : typo

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 7:10 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:30 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 43 of 62 (564619)
06-11-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by tesla
06-10-2010 6:57 PM


Re: It's the evidence...
You first need a scientific definition to understand the "what" of God and his/its relation to man.
With this understanding their "may" be a way to tie mathematical equations better together.
Shouldn't you figure this out first before insisting that God be included in science?
For instance, IF the math we have now is true, yet missing a key component ( such as a ball's path being a three second launch off the ground starting at T=0, yet on the return path you accrue a negative number because you didn't have the ground in the return eqation) Then you may build years of study and math explaining dynamics by that math and waste years of potential growth because of an overlooked variable.
But why would this missing variable be God? A good example is Newton's Laws of Gravity. As it turned out they were wrong. They were missing a variable. Newton's Laws of Gravity could not explain the observed precession in Mercury's orbit. That missing variable was not God. The missing variable was the warping of spacetime, a completely natural process that does not require any reference to any deity.
If God IS and IS in a physical and real sense, then its a definite variable That should not be overlooked.
If that were so then you should be able to show how including God improves science. You haven't been able to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 6:57 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:28 PM Taq has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 44 of 62 (564712)
06-11-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by tesla
06-10-2010 8:05 AM


Re: It's the evidence...
Here's what I said:
quote:
People who believe that the creator of the universe takes an active interest in ... their prayers, must either maintain a "wall of separation" between their religious faith and their objective/science-like activities, or else fail pretty badly at science.
and here's what tesla says:
tesla writes:
I do believe in prayer.
and, near the beginning of the thread:
telsa writes:
There will be no conflict between the truth of God, and true science. because God established all things, so then what we do study in science speaks for God.
QED.
Honestly, tesla, all you are doing is equivocating about the term "God", making it ultimately meaningless. All your other circumlocutions about how scientists are "ignorant" because they are not talking about stuff that is "supernatural" (which to you means "natural" somehow, because only you understand this) yield the same result.
I've seen you say, in another thread, words to the effect of "when something is not understood, people tend to view it as supernatural; then, when they come to understand it, they see that it actually is natural". I have no problem with that sort of statement. I think it's quite accurate and astute. But for reasons I can't understand, you apparently extend it to mean that scientists need to acknowledge "supernatural" causes in their research, and that everything we understand to be "natural" is really "supernatural". That's meaningless.
So what sorts of divine, supernatural interventions to you look forward to as a result of your prayers? Are the results always as you would intend? Do you tend to wait a long time for expected results, or do you tend to ask for results that have a reasonably good likelihood of happening anyway?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 8:05 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 5:25 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 45 of 62 (564728)
06-12-2010 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by tesla
06-10-2010 6:57 PM


Would the Concept of Intelligent Design Outlaw Engineering
tesla writes:
quote:
Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?
maybe.
You first need a scientific definition to understand the "what" of God and his/its relation to man.
This should prove interesting.
With this understanding their "may" be a way to tie mathematical equations better together.
Mathematical equations fitting better together????
I am not a mathematician yet I have had enough post-Calculus math to know we are dealing with a subject that by its very nature is pure deductive reasoning based upon a few postulates.
The postulates may vary, such as Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry, but the logic does not. How could any supposed 'god' reconcile the fifth postulate of Euclid, which states parallel lines never meet with the spherical geometry of meeting at the poles?
The very term "fitting better together" betrays an ignorance of how mathematics works. There are simply different conclusions based upon different postulates using exactly the same formal rules of logic.
{yes, math people, I know this is an oversimplification, but I'm referring to normal mathematics, not some postmodernist stuff that has no apparent real life application, and by that I mean the oxymoron irrational logic, not irrational numbers}
For instance, IF the math we have now is true, yet missing a key component ( such as a ball's path being a three second launch off the ground starting at T=0, yet on the return path you accrue a negative number because you didn't have the ground in the return eqation) Then you may build years of study and math explaining dynamics by that math and waste years of potential growth because of an overlooked variable.
What on earth are you talking about?
The trajectory of balls, particularly cannonballs, was of extreme interest to Galileo, Da Vinci, and many pre-Newtonian 'physicists.' The Newtonian equation that covers the ideal trajectory of a given cannonball is a matter of first semester college physics. Yes the ball goes up as F=ma first overcomes gravity, but gravity overcomes such an initial force unless it can achieve escape velocity such as a rocket launching a satellite. Naturally a cannonball goes up at first which is usually denoted by a positive sign in the equation, and then goes down, which is generally denoted by a negative sign in the equation.
So what are you trying to argue needs negotiation and reconciliation, gravity or minus signs?
Also notice the term ideal. There are other forces that can affect such a trajectory that modify (not override) such a trajectory. Wind resistance, humidity, and relative air pressure are some that immediately come to mind.
You have actually provided a perfect example of why a belief in ID would mean the death of further inquiry.
You just suggested that we use 'god' as a variable in any mathematical equation where objects do not act exactly in accordance with some simple ideal model that describes the flight of a ball.
To say that goddidit would mean no one would investigate the effect that aerodynamics, air pressure, even humidity would have on such a trajectory. Modifications to the ideal that are usually within the province of that human endeavor known as engineering.
Now one may argue that such modifications are so slight as to be unnecessary, however this would not sit well with the artillery units in the US Army who, using computers and such modifications to the ideal equation can achieve a virtual perfect accuracy with their munitions far greater than was available in WW2 or Vietnam.
Indeed, if I were an astronaut, I would sure be troubled if someone said my trajectory was based in any part upon the variable known as faith.
So, do you have a problem with the concept of engineering, or the military, because they do not use your 'god' as a variable in their calculations? How would such a variable work anyway? Is your faith a more accurate predictor of where a given object will land than the best that science, engineering and fast computers can offer?
We have alot more data now, overwhelming data piling in. I believe we are behind in examining that data because of breakdowns in communications between the sciences. My opinion of course.
I think the breakdown is because of your lack of education more than any lack of communication between the sciences.
But of course that is just my opinion as a managing and primary reference librarian with degrees in science, engineering, and technical communications.
Edited by anglagard, : replace 'as an' with 'if i was' for accuracy.
Edited by anglagard, : were not was, if i'm gonna brag, best have clean boxers

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by tesla, posted 06-10-2010 6:57 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by tesla, posted 06-13-2010 9:08 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024