Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design == Human Design?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


(1)
Message 4 of 196 (559586)
05-10-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
04-17-2010 3:14 PM


a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 04-17-2010 3:14 PM Fiver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-10-2010 10:55 PM tesla has replied
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 05-13-2010 8:31 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 6 of 196 (559671)
05-11-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Otto Tellick
05-10-2010 10:55 PM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
That seems comparable to: water carved the Grand Canyon. The water is unaware of its greater purpose (creating the beauty of the Grand Canyon)...
Was water intelligently designed? Was the Grand Canyon intelligently designed?
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:
In any case, your references to God in the context of trying to argue in favor of ID serves to reinforce the common perception that ID "theory" is simply an attempt to push religious dogma into science classrooms.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-10-2010 10:55 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-12-2010 12:37 AM tesla has replied
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-12-2010 12:04 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 12 of 196 (560060)
05-12-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
05-12-2010 12:04 PM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
Why should we include God in science and our description of how life works and has changed over time?
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:
Why should ID be included in science education? Which scientists are using ID to do original research? Can you point to one scientific peer reviewed paper where a scientist has used ID to design experiments and refine conclusions? Can you point to a single clinical trial of a new drug that was developed using ID? Can you name a single scientist that has submitted and NIH research grant that includes methodologies used for testing ID? What use, other than religious indoctrination, is there for teaching ID in the science classroom or in scientific research?
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:
False. Only when there is evidence of ID should it be considered. You are using a negative argument which is a logical fallacy.
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:
Assertions made without evidence can be rejected without evidence. That's the way science works.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-12-2010 12:04 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 05-13-2010 1:13 AM tesla has replied
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 05-14-2010 10:33 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 13 of 196 (560062)
05-12-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Otto Tellick
05-12-2010 12:37 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-12-2010 12:37 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-13-2010 11:22 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 18 of 196 (560197)
05-13-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Larni
05-13-2010 8:31 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
Word salad. You need to explain your terms! 'Singular energy'?
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:
Again, this is gibberish. What are you trying to say?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 05-13-2010 8:31 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 05-13-2010 6:44 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 19 of 196 (560199)
05-13-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by hooah212002
05-13-2010 1:13 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
You are welcome to your "ID science" type stuff all you want. You do, however, need SOME evidence.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 05-13-2010 1:13 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by hooah212002, posted 05-13-2010 6:47 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 23 of 196 (560249)
05-13-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by hooah212002
05-13-2010 6:47 PM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
Surely you jest. Why is it up to me to prove YOUR brand of god does NOT exist, in light of all of the other sky fairies out there? How about YOU prove my god, The FSM does not exist. You are an atheist aren't you? You don't believe in His Noodly Holiness. Looks like it's stale beer and diseased strippers for you.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by hooah212002, posted 05-13-2010 6:47 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by hooah212002, posted 05-14-2010 1:16 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 24 of 196 (560254)
05-14-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Otto Tellick
05-13-2010 11:22 PM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
Actually, consider the following: the difference between a theist and an atheist is that when they encounter and think about the things they do not understand, the theist attributes these things to the will of a supernatural entity (a deity), while the atheist tries to determine what additional knowledge would be needed in order to understand these things.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-13-2010 11:22 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2010 12:13 AM tesla has replied
 Message 30 by hooah212002, posted 05-14-2010 1:25 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 33 by onifre, posted 05-14-2010 1:16 PM tesla has replied
 Message 72 by jallen04, posted 05-17-2010 2:50 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 25 of 196 (560256)
05-14-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by hooah212002
05-13-2010 6:44 PM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 05-13-2010 6:44 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 27 of 196 (560261)
05-14-2010 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
05-14-2010 12:13 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
Perhaps you should let scientists determine for what purpose they are doing science, and leave your particular approach--which is the antithesis of science--where it belongs, in the realm of theology, scripture, "divine" revelation and other squishy subjects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2010 12:13 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2010 12:35 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 05-14-2010 4:07 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 34 of 196 (560413)
05-15-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by onifre
05-14-2010 1:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by onifre, posted 05-14-2010 1:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 3:58 AM tesla has replied
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 05-15-2010 10:19 AM tesla has replied
 Message 53 by onifre, posted 05-15-2010 12:24 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 36 of 196 (560442)
05-15-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by hooah212002
05-15-2010 3:58 AM


Re: a scientific approach to the intelligent design issue:
quote:
I am waiting with baited breath my dear boy. Please do explain (with passages from their works, mind you) how you came to this conclusion.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 3:58 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 9:23 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 38 of 196 (560444)
05-15-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by hooah212002
05-15-2010 9:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 9:23 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 9:31 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 40 of 196 (560446)
05-15-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by hooah212002
05-15-2010 9:31 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 9:31 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by hooah212002, posted 05-15-2010 9:45 AM tesla has replied

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


Message 41 of 196 (560448)
05-15-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
05-14-2010 10:33 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 05-14-2010 10:33 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 05-17-2010 9:24 AM tesla has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024