Intelligent Design == Human Design?

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

quote:

---

I have worked as a scientist and I can't fathom what you mean.

---

Awsome What field and what were your contributions?Edited by tesla, : fixed quote field.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

It's a debate and you asked for quotes.

quote:

---

Where does Newton mention god? In the beginning? Throughout? Or at the end?

---

He put it where he felt it should be. His main objective was his science.

---

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

quote:

---

In the other case I knew that my colleague regularly attended Church, and was the organist there. A bunch of people in the coffee room were talking - I am not sure what was the general topic. I remember throwing out the rhetorical question "what do you call an atheist who regularly attends Church?" Without hesitation, my colleague replied "The organist."

---

Hypocrisy is a recurrent theme. Christianity and God have been used by many many many people over the years to meet personal objectives. Child molesters and the like.But a religious fanatic chooses their fanaticism apart from truth.There are those who also use science in a similar way: promoting their own objectives instead of complimenting and improving knowledge. This is done again both ways.In order to debate a topic such as this i personally have to choose evidence over opinion. henceforth, my beliefs. Anyone with an open mind has the potential to change their beliefs with the right information. The information i have gathered so far promotes God. All arguments against it are ignoring the laws that i trust: The things i can say definitely about this place we exist in. theories abound; But what does the data say? What do the laws say?Its difficult here not because there is opposition; Its difficult because the opposition has no desire to ignore their positions to truly examine data.IE: can a vacuum exist without edges. NO would be a significant discovery because it would prove the universe as we know it Finite, yet because of expansion it would be expanding inside an "apparently infinite" area. That to me is significant data. and it could aid the right scientist in better explaining expansion and other area's of issue in the BBT.I'm practically begging for DATA. not Opinion. but all the debates Ive been in rush to opinion with little data to support it. (Unless you count other scientists opinions also based on data with no verifiability such as WHY newton believed in God etc.)You now should know my motivation. I'm searching for the truth and i have accepted my beliefs based on the evidence i can verify enough to accept.Edited by tesla, : mouse is acting crazy, deleted unnessecary quoteing.

---

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

quote:

---

So I ask again, as opposed to what?

---

As opposed to examining data. He does not accept what he does not know. He is suggesting he knows another persons reasoning when he never met the man.

quote:

---

"Divine" revelation or some such? 3,000 year old scripture?

---

Your making the mistake of others when debating God with me on scientific grounds. your talking religion, I'm talking God. view my other posts on this debate where i show the laws of science that have led me to my definition of God.I can only debate the scientific evaluation of God. Not religions and interpretations based on divine inspiration.There are other forums here to discuss religions interpretations.Edited by tesla, : repaired quote box.

---

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

quote:

---

CBT and service improvement for the nhs.

---

Oh cool I saw where one hospital owner decided to use a checklist at surgeries that reduced deaths from malpractice by 40%. He also saw a huge improvement at his own hospital. That surprised him because he considered his hospital top of the league.He had gotten the idea from aviation. when the pilots started flying two engine aircraft there was too much for one pilot to keep up with. So they implemented a checklist for the one pilot.I thought that was cool anyways.

---

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

quote:

---

See what scientists today do not understand is the REASON.

​

I'll assume that you feel you do understand why, yet the greatest minds of today don't understand why?

---

No. I'm saying i will not claim to know what no one can know.

quote:

---

But along comes Einstein and changes everyone's understanding of physics with his new field equations. He explains what Newton could not explain, and by doing so, Einstein removed god from the equation. Not by choice, he didn't choose to remove god. The equation simply didn't require magic anymore. The questions that Newton had were answered.

---

No he did not. The equation was never finished.
God is not magic. Nothing is magic. Its all natural we just do not understand its parameters because our senses are too limited.

quote:

---

My friend, it's the data of today that has removed god from the equation

---

No. It's the interpretation of that data. It needs re-examined and advanced.

quote:

---

They were raised in societies where the had to believe in god.

---

Oh hell no lol. In that day there was never a more crooked and corrupt place than the church. people had to go. They didn't have to believe.These scientist's chose to believe, Knowing the church was a corruption.

---

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

Can a vacuum exist without edges?

quote:

---

That's not evidence. That's a question, though poorly punctuated. As written, it is a meaningless question. You would have to precisely define what you mean by "vacuum" and what you mean by "edges", before anybody could make sense of it.

---

Ok.
1: vacuum : Negative pressure.2: edges : Having a boundary or a borderI sometimes take for granted we all speak the same language. Too bad its so poorly defined. These are the definitions for how I'm using these words.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : i really need a new mouse.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

quote:

---

Yet you want it to be taught as if we DO know.

---

I want people to accept the obvios. And i want to accept what IS true. Just because i do not like something doesn't mean i should ignore the data. There is some data that is trustworthy.One mans observation means nothing until It is verified. This data has to be examined for its truth or falsity. Of the observations that lead to my definition of God; Which ones are reliable? What are the odds on it being false? (odds: as a mathematical term.)I come here because I'm hoping someone here is smarter than me. If they are, they can explain to me where my data is wrong. or, they will agree with the data, and progress what it implies.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

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

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

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