Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
Because the difference between a Godless dynamic and a God dynamic, is that rules can change if God IS, which makes God a very important variable.
Which rules, and what evidence do you have that they have been changed?
The fact God is a possability is foolish to ignore considering we do not understand the plane of thought and emotion.
We aren't talking about Possibility Class. We are talking about Science Class. In science there are these things called evidence, hypotheses, experiments, and theories. For some reason you need something other than possibilities for science.
Consider this: a man who accepts what he does not know, has the opertunity to know more.
A man who ascribes supernatural magic to things he does not know will never know more.
It should be included because its a potential truth. Science cannot afford to be in the buisness of ignoring potentials.
Then do the science and show that it is more than a potential. Only then is it appropriate for science class.
You EXIST. And have NO idea why. what more evidence is needed?
For my existence? None. I exist. Wow, whopper of a conclusion.
All you have offered is hot air. No evidence. No research. Not even a testable hypothesis. Nothing. This is why ID does not belong in the science classroom. It isn't science. It is religious indoctrination.
You can't find evidence your not looking for.
I would assume you are looking for it, and you still can't tell us what this evidence is. You can't even tell us what experiments we can run to test ID "theory". You can't point to a single peer reviewed research paper that contains original ID research. You can't point to a single scientist who is seeking funding based on ID research. And yet, you want ID taught in SCIENCE class even though ID has produced ZERO SCIENCE. Cart before the horse?
I see all the time the same argument: show me ID science. As if somhow that ID means there is some specific new dynamics to science that should appear like magic. ID is a variable, not a new type of science.
I didn't say that ID is a new type of science. What I am asking for is a hypothesis, null hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion dealing with ID. You know, SCIENCE!!! Why is that so hard to understand?
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
The athiest chooses to ignore a potential. Accepting your digging through somthing designed by somthing intelligent means you look alot deeper than if you believe the forces are random and were not directed and designed to operate with the properties it has for a purpose. Key word: purpose. If you explore all of an items properties, Yet dont ask Why would it exist, and for what "purpose"; Then you can miss a ton of stuff you might actually find IF you asked the question. But there is no reason to ask the question if you are an athiest and believe God an impossability.
That makes the thiest a better scientist. He finds more because he isnt looking for somthing random, he's looking for its defined created purpose.
Tesla, you reply as though scientist were never theist. Newton infered god, Copernicus infered god, Kepler infered god...even Darwin infered somekind of intelligent agent. They all did so because they reached a limit in what they had evidence to prove and simply went to the defacto position of 'god-did-it'. So we came from that school of thought.
Nature was always approached with god in mind. It is only in the past 100 years that god as the ultimate answer has been removed, but only because no single shred of evidence points to there being a need for a causal agent. All that means is that how galaxies, planets, solar systems, etc., come to be is understood to happen naturally.
It is your own ignorance on the subject that forces YOU to propose a god. But if it were so, then all of cosmology would agree with you. And they used to. They just don't anymore. People with your same opinion of god had a long time to prove it, and failed. Don't get defensive now and claim we should resort back to that thinking. Prove it somehow, aside from incredulous rethoric, and maybe some people in science will begin to agree with you.
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote: Newton infered god, Copernicus infered god, Kepler infered god...even Darwin infered somekind of intelligent agent. They all did so because they reached a limit in what they had evidence to prove and simply went to the defacto position of 'god-did-it'.
Think about this oni: All the greatest scientists believed in God.
See what scientists today do not understand is the REASON. many choose to believe that its because they reached a limit. Look a little deeper you'll find they had better reasons. Einstein for instance believed in God, and after life, because " energy cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.
The scientists of today are ignorant of why the greatest minds of mankind believed in God, and choose to believe it is because they did not have the ability to figure out all the secrets of the universe. The truth is, they did not have access to the data we have today, or they would have added a lot more. and perhaps PROVED God.
They did not choose their beliefs because they were dumb. they chose to believe because they were smart.
Edited by tesla, : added "it is" after "believe".
Edited by tesla, : had changed to have.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
Oh, I'm sorry, I was hoping you understood it. Perhaps I gave you too much credit.
(oh, btw, we don't debate bare links around here. If you can't understand the topic of your link enough to explain it in your own words, don't bother posting it)
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
quote: oh, btw, we don't debate bare links around here. If you can't understand the topic of your link enough to explain it in your own words, don't bother posting it)
You did not ask for my words. You asked for thiers.
you said:
quote: Please do explain (with passages from their works, mind you) how you came to this conclusion.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
So you've resorted to pulling abstract quotes from famous scientists mentioning god. Appeal to authority much? Your original quote:
Look a little deeper you'll find they had better reasons.
You kind of need to show this if you are to assert it. I fear you only know about these individuals what you have learned at creationist websites. Have you read any of their books?
You did not ask for my words. You asked for thiers.
you said:
quote: Please do explain (with passages from their works, mind you) how you came to this conclusion.
Quite right, I did. However, a good debate is one where the opposition interprets the meaning. We can sling quotes back and forth all day, however, we will get nowhere if no context is provided.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote: You kind of need to show this if you are to assert it. I fear you only know about these individuals what you have learned at creationist websites. Have you read any of their books?
Yes. But not all of the scientists mentioned. It would take weeks to ensemble an adequate list of quotes and reasons from their many works. the web is a tool. you can easily verify what that site is quoting.
As far as context, The answer is as varied as their works.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
I didn't say that ID is a new type of science. What I am asking for is a hypothesis, null hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion dealing with ID. You know, SCIENCE!!! Why is that so hard to understand?
Ive answered all the question's you just asked in this debate already. Science is observation. I can't figure out why that is so hard to understand. Do you do experiments and not observe the results?
Edited by tesla, : post=debate
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
your link writes:
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Aww, too bad Newton only came to this conclusion AFTER he had exhausted his resources. Neil deGrasse Tyson demonstrates this rather well:
I jumped right to Newton because I knew your creo babble site would tout it. Whaddya know, they are wrong.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
I've already watched this. Neil is a great scientist. But he is human and trusts his own intelligence too far.
At the same time as accusing that Newton decided to believe in God because he didn't discover more; He also Say's Newton was the greatest intellect of all time.
I find this odd, because if he is going to admit that newton was more intelligent than him, why then ignore God even as a potential when smarter people than him believed?
His accusation against Newton and other scientists is based on his opinion and not what those scientists he accuses actually chose to believe in God for.
Show me were newton said: " i cant figure anything else out so i guess goddidit"
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
tesla writes:
Show me were newton said: " i cant figure anything else out so i guess goddidit"
Have you read Principia? Where does Newton mention god? In the beginning? Throughout? Or at the end? Does he invoke god to do his studies? From Wiki:
Newton also gave theological argument. From the system of the world, he inferred the existence of a Lord God, along lines similar to what is sometimes called the argument from intelligent or purposive design. It has been suggested that Newton gave "an oblique argument for a unitarian conception of God and an implicit attack on the doctrine of the Trinity",[18][19] but the General Scholium appears to say nothing specifically about these matters.
tesla writes:
At the same time as accusing that Newton decided to believe in God because he didn't discover more; He also Say's Newton was the greatest intellect of all time.
I find this odd, because if he is going to admit that newton was more intelligent than him, why then ignore God even as a potential when smarter people than him believed?
You have a real problem with appealing to authority, don't you?
At any rate, we are a bit off topic. If you would like to quote mine some more famous people in your appeal to authority, start a new topic.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
What field and what were your contributions?
™ Version 4.2
(1)