Intelligent Design == Human Design?

quote:

---

Energy does not "evolve". We do not exist "inside" of energy. Energy does not "interact".

---

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:

---

What is "a constant singular source"? The singularity of Big Bang cosmology is not constant - it exists at a single point in space-time.

---

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:

---

This is just a mixture of trivial facts and bizarre claims - is it supposed to demonstrate something?

---

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:

---

We certainly won't ignore it. But there is NOTHING in science that says a "god" is there, whatever this "god" is

---

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

Hi Tesla. Still having trouble dealing with reality I see. 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 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. 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? 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. 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. 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

I don't ignore ID. I laugh at its follies.

quote:

---

Hi Tesla. Still having trouble dealing with reality I see

---

Dover trial analysis: you cannot prove God with biology.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

I don't ignore ID. I laugh at its follies.

---

What are it's follies?

---

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

Start with "cdesign proponentsists" as a classic example.The story is here.

quote:

---

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.

​

The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The commitment to a God of the gaps, and the self delusion involved in that commitment.

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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 SurviveEdited 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

Not at all, and don't call me surly 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. Yes, incorrectly applied by those that don't understand what they are writing. This is NOT the definition of energy. 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...

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Yes, i am being so well ignored you HAD to put in your say.

quote:

---

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.

---

then either a: you did not read anything Ive posted. or B: your too uneducated to get it.

quote:

---

Crap. The fact that you seek to associate yourself with the "greatest scientists" only underlines how deluded and egotistical you have become.

---

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

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:

---

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.

---

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, 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: 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: 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.

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. 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:

---

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

​

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

​

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

​

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

​

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

​

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

​

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

---

Source; Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3 The complexity of what exactly? What are you talking about? Would you like to borrow a noun? 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. 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