Intelligent Design == Human Design?

You should take this statement to heart. You, my friend, are in the science section. Why you are still allowed privileges is beyond me. There you go with that "true" again. How's about some evidence? Maybe some studies? Stop asserting shit. Give us some facts to work with. Thing is, you've provided no data. You've provided assertions.I'll tell you what: don't respond to me until you have some evidence for this "god" fella. Until then, stfu.

---

quote:

---

You've proven yourself dishonest thus far. You've shown you just pull crap off creo websites without sourcing it for yourself. If you want to actually have an honest debate, let me know.

---

Where have i been dishonest?You quote Einstein. I quote Einstein. If what he Say's of himself is contradictory; How then can we know?You asked where Newton put it. I told you : where he felt it should be. Did he not put it at the end, because his science was first?The Debate is:Intelligent Design : science or no? And i say it is because The data of science says God is a mathematical necessity.

---

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

Prove it then.

---

quote:

---

I'll tell you what: don't respond to me until you have some evidence for this "god" fella. Until then, stfu.

---

//EvC Forum: Intelligent Design == Human Design?Do you remember this?

---

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

See post 23.

---

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

I said evidence. Not you just saying shit. I responded to Message 23 and you didn't respond. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

I do. Your point?

---

Hi,The topic about an argument for or against the existence of God, but rather if Intelligent Design contains the basic requirements of a scientific hypothesis, regardless of wether God exists or not.So you two could stop throwing one-liners and try to get back on topic a bit more. The issue of past scientists could be continued, but from the point of view of wether they were scientifically justified to posit God as an explanation at the point they did it. Was it a simple ''God-did-it'' or a more refined logical and psychological process ? How does this relate to the original post on the proposed scientific/unscientific nature of ID ?Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.

I don't think there is such a thing (unless you are actually talking of relative pressure - relative to the surroundings). That's not what people usually mean by "vacuum". You can have pressure gradations without any need for boundaries. An example would be the gradation of pressure from the earth's atmosphere to the vacuum of outer space.

No it is not. Science is a method.Observations are observations. Science is a method by which you construct an hypothesis (and an accompanying null hypothesis), construct an experiment that will test that hypothesis, and then make observations. Science is not "Well, this is a possibility". If the single requirement for teaching something in science class was that it is possible then we would be teaching all sorts of solipsistic nonsense. We would also have to teach Last Thursdayism, as one example. Do IDers do experiments which test ID hypotheses? If so, what are they?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This makes no sense and doesn't follow what you originally said. You said today's scientist don't know why all the great minds belied in god. You said they think it's because they were limited in their knowledge. You then said for them to look a little deeper and the real answer will be there.So, as you can see, you are claiming to know. You'll have to be more clear here. No he didn't what? What equation wasn't finished?What I explained above is fully accepted Einstein history. Its what's even shown on the History Channel or other cable tv shows about Eintstein. Einstein's physcis replain Newton's. Newton's didn't fully explain gravity, Einstein's did. Newton envoked god for the source of gravity, Einstein didn't. This is common knowledge, I don't know what you're even trying to say here. God is a made up term by humans used to explain phenomena. It is magic in the sense that it doesn't explain how anything is done it just introduces an invisible entity that is capable of doing anything because men claim that this entity has special powers. Special magical powers beyond anything natural. So you're saying that all of the scientist throught the world are not doing their job properly? Who do you think should re-examine the evidence when scientist work every day dealing with the evidence? Yes they were. Are you ignoring the trail of Galileo? The issues Kepler had with the church? I wrote this in the last post, I gave you evidence to support what I said, and you reply with "Oh hell no"...?I'll refrain from getting rude with you and wait for your next response, but try to deal with the factual evidence and don't just give me your opinion. These men, for the most part, did not believe in any biblical god. They, if anything, believed in an intelligent designer. Not god.The reason they chose to introduce a designer is because they were limited in their knowledge and had no other answer.- Oni

quote:

---

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.

---

This statement is a misrepresentation of what most atheists believe and in my experience as a lurker around here what most of the creationists here say.Most of us don't believe God is an impossibility any more than we believe that Brahma or, as previously mentioned, "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" are an impossibility. There just isn't any evidence pointing to the existence of such beings. Believing in them in the absence of evidence is no different that believing in monsters under your bed.Provide evidence that a god being exists and you would likely find that many former atheists are pretty devout.

quote:

---

This statement is a misrepresentation of what most atheists believe and in my experience as a lurker around here what most of the creationists here say.

​

Most of us don't believe God is an impossibility any more than we believe that Brahma or, as previously mentioned, "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" are an impossibility. There just isn't any evidence pointing to the existence of such beings. Believing in them in the absence of evidence is no different that believing in monsters under your bed.

---

You choose to place God in the realm of mystical (IE: spaghetti monster), When as an atheist you should be looking for God in a natural aspect. (IE: trees, grass, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe..and beyond?)No atheist is going to be seriously looking for a spaghetti monster. But if one landed in your lap. well fine. there's your proof huh? What can i say to you? All that exists, exists. That fact alone is hard to analyze if you have the depth of mind and strength of mind to actually truly examine. Existence.
All things that exist, exist naturally. psychic phenomenon such as Edgar cayce. or UFOs. Or anything for that matter, are not really mystical. it just is not understood. You cannot find evidence of God looking for the things that might or might not be : IE (spaghetti monster) You discover God by examining the things you know are.

quote:

---

Provide evidence that a god being exists and you would likely find that many former atheists are pretty devout.

---

I have (what i can find) In message 23. No one person can tackle so large a task. We all have strength's and weakness's. It is when we cooperate we are strong enough, smart enough, to discover.The thing is, No one, (church included) Is ready to accept the definition the laws of science, and the observations of the universe, show.Until a definition of God is established by scientific evidence, there is little hope of finding more evidence. The evidence Say's he's there. But how can anyone find proof if they don't look? YOU examine message 23. YOU decide. I have decided: Until contrary science shows or proves those laws and math wrong, I'm going to accept it.

---

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

quote:

---

I said evidence. Not you just saying shit. I responded to Message 23 and you didn't respond.

---

What did you give me to respond to? I gave you laws of science and reliable math that YOUR science accepts. You keep saying "God is a mythical creature". And I keep telling you, God is natural.Why don't you answer ONE question? What is the universe expanding IN?Seriously. instead of saying " OMG! Science is all Tentative you fool! It could be the fairy godmother!"Why not ACTUALLY Think about what that means. Because yes, science is full of tentative Data. But It also has reliable math and laws.

---

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

your complicating things that are not complicated.we observe the world around us with tools and gadgets and whatever means possible and interpret the data to use the knoledge to exploit the way things work for the greater gain of mankind or our own pockets.we do experiments, we follow methods, we write laws based on what we observe. then we do more experiments and OBSERVE the results to define what the observation implies, again, to exploit the way things work for our gain.you can go through scientific methods and then biology then chemistry then astronomy and tell all the details of the tools science uses. but bottom line: science is observation.

---

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