|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design == Human Design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined:
|
To have any wisdom, and gain any ground, I personally must accept what I do not know.
There is more proof in favor of an intelligent directed design, in my opinion, than proof against it. The misunderstanding that acceptance of God; limits Human advances, further limits human advances. Again, in my opinion. The greatest proof I have discovered being my belief of God, is simply that no singular energy with ZERO variables to interact with, can become more than what it is, or evolve, without intelligence to direct ordered structures to form from disorder. Or, that the first energy was ordered and evolved, needing again, intelligence as a variable to change, since there are no other variables available. The data that has led me to this conclusion is: Observations of "living" things: a living organism is comprised of living organisms. those living organisms aid and maintain the functions nessecary for the greater living creature to exist. ie: bacteria in your bowels break down food. from the perspective of the bacteria, its area is infinite. the bacteria is unaware of its greater purpose, yet does its work based on its own desire to exist. more data: The data that the big bang theory is based on say's T-0 is inevitable, and at that point all the energy of all that is existed singularly. there is no environment at T-0. yet it DID evolve. with nothing to interact with. now many arguments to or for my observations have been passionatly discussed. and anyone who accepts true science will come to the conclusion: There is much yet to learn. and God, being neither proven, nor disproven, remains a potential Truth. I discuss and debate for the sake of all, that one day the truth will be known. however, it is difficult when possitions get in the way of individuals accepting or finding new ways to explore data that might lead to the understanding of the universe we inhabit, and the bodies we exist inside of. The atheistic argument is just as foolish to argue as the christian argument, since it is based on belief and not scientific observations of the universe we inhabit. If the debates truly are to seek the truth between intelligent design, and random evolutions, the choice of our belief should be overlooked in discussions concerning the data and research possabilities to credit or discredit one or the other for the sake of true science. That whatever the belief of the individual, if the discovery is that God IS, it will be accepted by the atheistic community, just as God IS NOT should be accepted if undeniable evidence to support it were found. and never have i seen such evidence to support evidence of no God. the opinions are what i see argued. and who is wrong? what does the data of all we observe show? let that be the work of science. and God or atheism a work of our own. that if God IS, let those who believe and work to the blessing of God. and to those who choose God is not, let them live by their law and bless themselves. But whatever the personal choice, the work of science should remain true to its goal of advancment of the human race for the truth of our existence. Though it is not proven now, perhapts in time it will be. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. Edited by tesla, : no spell check, blast my spelling. *searches for a dictionary* Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: It is possible. Although my reference to the bacteria was to show how living things are structured to feed other living things. such as a cow eats grass and feeds the carnivors. the bacteria has very little intelligence next to man, yet without it, man could not survive. and its size being so tiny, finds its area inside a man or beast to be infinite.In this way, im simply pointing out that the purpose of mankind in the earth could be beyond our sight. and the earth and its purpose,. or the universe and its purpose, could all be a part of a greater body we cannot comprehend or see. There is no proof against ID. Only opinions. same as any atheistic approach bearing the opposite opinion, that since there is no proof God is, they reject God as a possability. The truth is: God is a possability. and one that should not be ignored. Especially if it turns out to be true.
quote: Given the very limited capabilities of human observation, and the size of the universe we inhabit, and how small a part of it this earth really is; Keeping intelligent design out of the classroom is a very foolish and arrogant act. Only when there is proof there is no God, should ID be rejected. Without that proof anyone who rejects ID is doing so purely for the sake of a biased opinion based on NO facts. Edited by tesla, : typo keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: 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. If God was proven, then perhapts there is a method for more direct communication that could lead to acts in favor of humanity. If that is, we discover what God likes or dislikes. and of course the purpose of mans existence. which is not apparent in the way the infrastructure of the rest of the planet; which feeds the other dynamics for thier existence . There is way more unanswered questions than answered. The fact God is a possability is foolish to ignore considering we do not understand the plane of thought and emotion. phsychic phenomenon and the like. which i'm sure is natural and would compliment the physical planes of existing if we can somehow figure out where the link is. Consider this: a man who accepts what he does not know, has the opertunity to know more. IF all that is was a directed creation for a purpose, then we are no longer just looking at what can possibly happen at random within natural understood laws and dynamics. We are then seeking to understand how something intelligent put it together. and its going to take alot more brain power to disassemble and reasemble an alien spacecraft then it is going to be to discover how two objects of matter can melt together to form a new element.
quote: It should be included because its a potential truth. Science cannot afford to be in the buisness of ignoring potentials. if it is a potential, its a variable. Science not built on truth is useless science. until the truth is known as a FACT, it needs to be taught so the younger new generations can hopefully take the data we discover, discover more, and answer the questions. advance science. If you don't teach the probability, and a bright mind sees science ignoring possabilities, then it could discourage the faith of the new potential scientist in the work of science. This could be a great loss for a scientist to abandon science as a tool and become a pastor because science would be following an agenda instead of the work to advance mankind by understanding the truth of how everything works, and for what purpose.
quote: You EXIST. And have NO idea why. what more evidence is needed? If science was built on asking questions about somthing already proven, what could have been discovered?
quote: You can't find evidence your not looking for. 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. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I won't quote you, please refer to your post if you need. You asked alot and i will try to deliver.
Assertion : God is a possability. If God is, we have an undefined purpose. We have no idea What God, if IS, can or cannot do, will or will not do. If God is, then all the dynamics we now know could change at his whim, since he made it. The improvment that could change science forever would be linking non physical planes mathmatically. ie: thought and matter. If linked with relativity, understanding that connection would revolutionize physics, and explain psychic phenomenon. Remember; somthing is only supernatural until you understand it. Then its natural. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: C'mon larni. You have high enough reading comprehension to understand what is being said. T-0 is an inevitable point in spacetime. its the point scientists do not want to talk about because there is no two points to measure from for mathmatical evaluation. It is simply a singularity in which all that is, exists as a singular energy.
quote: If you really do not understand, It would be futile for me to try to further explain it to you. Edited by tesla, : added a comma so the reader will not be confused. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Are you any better ? to teach God is not? show me the proof there is no God. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: Your confusing religeon with God. Intelligent Design does not choose one's interpretation of their Idea of God. Intelligent design admits the potential of God. a scientific definition of God needs to be found first. The definition can only be based on scientific data. True hard science. I get that. But im ticked off at science because a definitioon based on scientific true observations IS available, and is being ignored. Now, since i already KNOW your going to ask for it, i'll give it to you now: law: second law of thermodynamics. truth: T-0 is inevitable, and the math used to find this point is the most relied on and trusted math in physics. truth: we exist, have actuality and being. definatly. at T-0 there is only a singular timeless energy. This energy changed/ evolved with zero environment. zero available interactions. any change would have to be self directed. how did it exist at all? it was the only thing that existed. anything else that exists can only be INSIDE that energy, based on that energy, and a part of that energy. i KNOW that somthing can NOT come from nothing. there is no area absent of energy. This would place the scientific definition of God as: God= Existance: The energy that was first before all things. that was intelligent, and decided to evolve. and created everything that is based on Faith that it was. End of explanation. Now since i KNOW your going to NOT get any of that; If you really care to further assess it: Look up the info from scientists concerning what i have said. The LAWS of science. You'll see what the laws say...define it yourself. Anyone can ask somone else to interpret the data. But whats YOUR opinion after learning the data and deciding what it signifies? Cause i already know what i say wont matter. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
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. 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. As far as the rest of your post:No Two individuals carry the same exact belief system. You are choosing a horrible definition of the behaviors of thiest, while chooseing a beutiful description of an athiest. There are good and bad in both. i could describe athiests who kill/ rape/steal and live by the laws of anarchy. But the point being made, why discuss that further? You have a great mind. I dont want you to limit that. Even if you remain athiestic, at LEAST start examining your science (If you are a scientist): And add " For what purpose" to your scientific method. And see what you find. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Just read The two posts before this one. It says all i can really say.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: I certainly hope your not a scientist. Or that if you are, your a mathmatician. It would explain why you didn't understand a word i said. let others read and decide. Possition, or truth. Your life. Your science. As you wish. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: http://www.godandscience.org/...iencefaith.html#028B1TanxtnK keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
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: You did not ask for my words. You asked for thiers. you said: quote: Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1593 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024