Intelligent design

[Verthaine]

Its interesting how atheist, I may start calling them “concept of god haters” always want to steer intelligent design theory into religion and god. Pure ID theory merely puts forth the concept that some form of intelligence is behind us and what we perceive as reality, a “god” is not part of the theory, can’t you atheist concept of god haters get that through your minds?I swear you Darwinist are worse than any bible thumper or Jehovah Witness that ever knocked on my door.
Try this link if you dare,Origins of Life

As a taoist my biggest problem with ID is not the theory itself, it is with Christian Creationists who have hijacked the theory to say,"see, that proves that God as we Christian Creationists believe it to be is correct".

I gave an alternate definition of God (and the only one to even attempt to give any definition of what they mean by "God")


Now if you wish to define "God" the way I and plenty of other Taoists view "God" as "being every particle and force in the universe being interconnected and influencing every other particle and force in the Universe (and possibly an infinite amount of Universes) throughout time and space (thus the Taoist and Buddhist saying "All Is One") in a way that we do not quite understand at this moment,that contains both intelligence and life within it, obeying a set of fundamental rules that we are only just beginning to discover, then yes there is plenty of evidence to support that.

Nobody seems to have a problem with that definition.

I keep asking people here "what is your definition of "God"" and no one has EVER answered that question since I've been asking it?

I cannot answer for any atheist,since I am not one my self,but I suspect that many atheists don't actually have a problem with a "concept of God" (since pantheism is also a concept of god) itself,rather they,like I have a problem with the "concept of GOD meaning "some gigantic Omnipotent white guy who lives in the cloud,who wears a beard,a robe,and sandals,who lives in the clouds with a bunch of winged entities,who sits on his throne with His Son at his right side who is constantly pissed off at humanity"

What I have a problem is with people who behave as if they and only they own the concept of God.
and that only their concept of god is valid

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Verthaine I actually like your concept of god.

 

[Paschendale]

Life on other planets. unexplained paranomal activity, new energy, man one day visiting differant planets or even differant galaxies, as well as demensions. all fall into te unknown factor are all to be consiidered "PROBABLY NOT".

That's the thing. We can and do investigate all of those things. We have found signs that could mean life on other planets, without physically travelling there ourselves. We have investigated paranormal activity, and found it to be false. I don't know what you mean by "new energy", but we have the means to observe and study all kinds of things. The observable universe is actually rather uniform. And it would take something drastic, like a portion of space where the fundamental laws that govern all of observable reality no longer hold, for the universe to hold any surprises for us on a macro level. Most of scientific advancement now is refining details. Even string theory is just about figuring out how to reconcile other theories that are almost a century old.

The thing is, not only do we know what we know, but what we know also helps illustrate exactly what we don't know. We can find the gaps in our own theorems. What we don't know may be a very long list, but it is a list of little details that flesh out the larger truths we already understand. I don't mean this to sound like current scientific understanding is perfect, or that we lack an appropriate form of humility. There is much yet to understand. But the vast amount that we do shows us where the gaps are. And we know enough to know that god is not in those gaps. And every single thing we do know points to a consistent and unmysterious universe.

The issue with ID is that there is literally ZERO evidence for it. At all. There are no remnants of any kind of creator ever recorded by anyone. Ever. And the second issue is that it is used to justify social views based on the religious ideas of some groups. From a scientific perspective, it is possible that some creator is out there. It is not, however, possible that this creator has told us what kinds of sex we are or aren't allowed to have.

 

[Verthaine]

Verthaine I actually like your concept of god.

Thank you.
Now,as I've stated before,I can't speak for the atheists on this forum,(or in general I may add) but according to my wife,who is an atheist,she doesn't have a problem with the "concept of god" itself rather it is this ideology that certain Christians have (and try to force upon others) of "if you do not totally believe in and worship what I believe in and worship,and do not believe and worship who I tell you to believe and worship and what the long dead authors of this 2000+ year old book tells you who and what to believe and worship,then when you die you will suffer an eternity of the most horrific tortures you cannot even begin to imagine,and if you still refuse to believe then you will have deserved it".

You never really hear of Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus saying stuff like that.

No offense to any Christians out there but that's kind of the reason why I'm a Taoist and not a Christian.
Growing up in a strict Pentacostal household made my childhood living nightmare.

My wife grew up Southern baptist and she didn't have it any better.
My wife and her/my friends who are atheists have never given me a hard time for my spirituality or my beliefs.
They love and accept me right away.

When I became a Taoist my entire family disowned me.
That is until I opened up my second and third restaurant, opened my own catering company, and became far more well off financially then any of them,then all of a sudden they wanted my back into the family.

I've hear plenty of stories just like mine from people who are atheists.
It's not the "concept" of God that turned them away,it was the people who hold the above ideology.

That is why I constantly ask people on this "what exactly do you mean by God?"

Because I suspect quite a number of people on this forum actually subscribe in that above ideology that I wrote but they don't have the guts to come right out and say it.
That's why no one has yet to answer that question.
Because there are some people on forum that I suspect are not really here to debate in the first place,they are here to proselytize andconvertpeople into Christianity or at least their form of Christianity.
They'll lie,misquote,misdirect,take things out of context,refuse to listen to reason,until you agree with everything they say.

Discordians have a saying:
To convert someone is to ram words into someones ears until it start to automatically come out of their mouths.

 

[atrasicarius]

Its interesting how atheist, I may start calling them “concept of god haters” always want to steer intelligent design theory into religion and god. Pure ID theory merely puts forth the concept that some form of intelligence is behind us and what we perceive as reality, a “god” is not part of the theory, can’t you atheist concept of god haters get that through your minds?I swear you Darwinist are worse than any bible thumper or Jehovah Witness that ever knocked on my door.
Try this link if you dare,Origins of Life

Oh look, it's a transitional fossil.

 

[The Rev Kros]

First, one should point out that not all scientists are atheists. Many Christian scientists denounce intelligent design. We're not "closed off" to an alternative theory. That would imply that we haven't considered the arguments put forth by ID theorists... We have, and we've found that they have failed to meet their burden of proof.

ID revolves mostly around Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument which basically says, "I can't think of how this evolved, therefore it must be designed." Even if we didn't know anything else about the theory we could dismiss it just from that alone. That is an argument from incredulity. Arguing from one's own ignorance is not a good start.

Moving on from there he gives examples like the bacterial flagellum. Dr. Ken Miller (who is a Christian by the way) has done a terrific job of showing how the bacterial flagellum came about through evolutionary means.

Taking this information and adding to it what we learned in the Dover case, that "intelligent design" and "creationism" are completely interchangeable in text books (Google a book called "Of Pandas and People") and you have three huge strikes against ID theory.

Scientists aren't closed off to other theories, but evolution is a fact that has been experimentally proven time and time again. From fossil records, to geographical distribution, to DNA. It plays a daily role in our lives with the production of immunization shots and numerous other medical breakthroughs. To uproot that proven reality would take an extraordinary amount of evidence from the ID theorists. They have failed to meet that burden of proof.

Also, to respond to others on this board that are attempting to disprove evolution, if you can... you should not be speaking to us. You should be writing a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed and proven true. After you do that go pick up your Nobel prize and come back here and rub it in our face.

Until then....

If you haven't seen it, Nova has a wonderful program about the Dover trial called "Intelligent Design on Trial."
It is available to stream from their site.
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

I highly recommend that everyone watch it.

 

[marduc]

sawyerloggingin, did you take a look at the video that I mentioned and posted here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/104348-intelligent-design-6.html#post1059659412

Are you willing to examine the counterpoint to the claim that there is "No missing link", or is this thread every bit of what it appears to be: nothing more than a bait thread?

 

[SlackMaster]

Oh look, it's a transitional fossil.

You beat me to it. I was going to post this video, which is a clip from the documentary that The Rev Kros posted a link to. It is a great documentary that everyone should watch.

Intelligent Design has been proven in a court of law to be creationism repackaged. That's why you see a lot of atheist/scientist/biologists dismissing it out right. As I've stated before, the argument for ID itself is based on personal incredulity.

Regarding "open mindedness" you all should check out this video.

 

[presluc]

Well, apparently I don't have a problem replying to Verthaine. I guess you're just special, presluc.

That's my bad luck I'll shall try again today.

 

[presluc]

I've stated numerous times that I "believe in God" and on post#55 I stated:

"Now if you wish to define "God" the way I and plenty of other Taoists view "God" as "being every particle and force in the universe being interconnected and influencing every other particle and force in the Universe (and possibly an infinite amount of Universes) throughout time and space (thus the Taoist and Buddhist saying "All Is One") in a way that we do not quite understand at this moment,that contains both intelligence and life within it, obeying a set of fundamental rules that we are only just beginning to discover, then yes there is plenty of evidence to support that."

And no one on this thread (or even on this this entire forum) has ridiculed me about it or told me I was foolish to believe the way I dr even said I was wrong.

Atrasicarius was the only one on this thread that made the statement:
"We don't absolutely know there is no God. We assume there is no God in the same way we assume there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I believe he's talking about what atheist believe and assume.
As is his right to do so.
But what I do have to say to Atrasicarius is:
"Please do not lump the Flying Spaghetti Monster with Santa Claus,the Tooth fairy and Preslucs God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is waaaay cooler then them."
But that's just my opinion

I've been asking you for quite some time what are your views and beliefs about god,and I am still waiting for an answer.


Wahh,wah,wah,people are making fun of my beliefs,wah wah wah.
Wahh,wah,wah,people are making fun of my god,wah wah wah.

If Your God doesn't like it ,let Your God do something about.


So how exactly was the universe created.
Magic?
Ooohhhhh ooooga boooga Grok not understand ooooga boooga.

To paraphrase both Issac Asimov and Lex Luthor in the movie Superman Returns, "To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic". ...

Please enlighten us as to how the universe was created and the method you use to achieve that conclusion.



Didn't I already anwer that question?
Well what do you know,I did,
Post #51

The big Bang is not the exception to the rule.
Scientist do not know what was before the Big Bang or why it happened.
Only that apparently according to their ability to interpret all the evidence they have been able to review that's what how it appears to have happened .
Like I've asked you a number of times before,if you have anything better then the Big bang theory please by all means present it here for review.

Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
"Biology 101 living organisms evolve into living organisms
Itellectual Biologist rule
Eception to the rule, abiogenesis.

Your kidding me right?
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the methodby which life on Earth arose."

It is not "the exception to the rule".
No one knows how life arose from inorganic matter.
I've already stated that.
We already know that life comes from life.
We just don't know the how and why it happened in the first place.[/I]
Again I am going to ask"if you have anything better then the Big bang theory please by all means present it here for review".


Well then the answer now becomes obvious:
PROVE "YOUR" GOD EXISTS"

Gee,that should be easy,right?





You right,there is no scientific theory of creation at this moment.
Any book on astro physics will state that it is currently impossible to determine what went on 10-43 of a second before the big bang.

I will ask YOU this question

Exactly how did this Universe come to existence and what method do YOU use to determine it.

You ask me to define God as I believe , I take it that's what you mean.
It is my faith that God exist it is my belief that God is not a being not an old man flying around in the sky not some fat guy on a mountain.
It is my belief that God is a force like the wind or rain or fire or a high surf.
What I beleve after that is personal.
I have said many times I ask nobody to believe as I do be an individual believe as you choose.
However individuals may have a choice I choose not to back up for anybody unless that present proof without a shadow of a doubt.
So far nobody's done that including you vertain or whoever your posting for, ATRI-something wasn't it.
As for me I try to answer myown post.

Sorry kid I did not go waa waa waa I mearly retaliated.

For of truth if my faith in God is lumped in with Santa Clause and te Tooth Fairy.
Then Scientific theory is lumpted in with magic tricks or slight of hand or illusions.
Posters that know science should know scientific law .
For every action there is a reaction.

Unfortunatly I can not enlighten you on how the universe was created?
I only have a belief or a faith on what might have happened maybe you consider that a guess , that's ok by me for I have no proof or no facts.
Now you might try some other post on this thread they seem to know for sure how the universe came to be.
Maybe you can get the facts and proof from them ,all I got was theory and observation

No scientific theory of creation huh?
You should really read more post omn this thread.eace

Finaly got through oplogies for any thing said out of content.
Iwill humbly retract anything from my last post for I was wrong, I made a mistake
However I did not lie I tried 5 times to respond yesterday tat is true.

 

[SlackMaster]

I got was theory and observation

No scientific theory of creation huh?
You should really read more post omn this thread.eace

This is going to sound mean, but it's honestly not meant to. I think you're misunderstanding what a "theory" is in science.

You can read here for a more in depth discussion, but basically..

"Theory" in science is a model that best provides an explanation for a set of observed and confirmed facts.

In regards to evolution (the theory) explains what we see when we look at DNA evidence, transitional fossils, geology, biology, etc.

Sometimes people confuse "theory" like, "Hey... I've got a theory... what if mars is made of cheese?" "Theory" in this sense is just a hypothesis, which evolution is not.

Gravity, is a scientific theory. Plate tectonics, is a scientific theory. These aren't just scientists sitting in a room somewhere speculating on what they think this is. It's all fact based.

 

[presluc]

Oops,my bad.

I got called away for a bit and I hit reply without realiziing that this part was still left and that I wasn't finished.(when the missus call's I've learned to see what she wants really quick.Love ya babe)



If a or a group of Athiest/ scientist/ biologist said that without providing the evidence to back that claim up they would be wrong to do so.
If you are trying to imply that every single Athiest/ scientist/ biologist on this planet has said that without providing the evidence to back that implication up,then you are wrong to do so.



Can you provide any links to any scientist that does say thatso that I can say that they are wrong right here on this forum



Who the hell is saying that?
Again I just checked and Occam's Razor never said that.
Stop deliberately misquoting people.




O.k. what exactly is your point?

Every avenue and every possibility should be explored.

Not "every avenue and every possibility should be explored except the ones that presluc doesn't like,makes him feel uncomfortable,or may prove his beliefs to be false"

And don't even think of trying to spin that above statement as meaning that "I said you said".

This is too easy, a simple question with a yes or no answer. I'll even use big letters, consentrate on the word EVERY.
IS EVERY AVENUE AND EVERY POSSIBILITY BEIGN EXPLORED?eace

 

[presluc]

See, there's this little thing called evidence. Evidence is things you can observe in the natural world to support your theory. I can point to a rather large amount of evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution. Can you point to evidence for God? If not, then comparing it to other things with no evidence, such as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is entirely fair.

Golly why didn't I think of that, evidence you say?

So you have observed the Big Bang didn't think you were that old???

Unfortunatly to get evidence you must base your foundation on facts not theory.

When you have facts proving without a shadow of a doubt that creation and evolution is based entirely on science.
Come back I'll give up my faith until then keep observing.
Tip; observation + theory = unproven fact, an old but proven law of science.

 

[presluc]

This is going to sound mean, but it's honestly not meant to. I think you're misunderstanding what a "theory" is in science.

You can read here for a more in depth discussion, but basically..

"Theory" in science is a model that best provides an explanation for a set of observed and confirmed facts.

In regards to evolution (the theory) explains what we see when we look at DNA evidence, transitional fossils, geology, biology, etc.

Sometimes people confuse "theory" like, "Hey... I've got a theory... what if mars is made of cheese?" "Theory" in this sense is just a hypothesis, which evolution is not.

Gravity, is a scientific theory. Plate tectonics, is a scientific theory. These aren't just scientists sitting in a room somewhere speculating on what they think this is. It's all fact based.

No problem I have thick skin I been there done that but I have tried to remain civil to those that are civil to me those that are not, WELL?

First in response to your question of me not knowing what "theory" means in the scientiific relm.
I would ask a simple question a yes or no question.

Is any and all scientific theory to be considered fact?

For if this is true would not the "theory" become fact?
I know that's two questions but both are yes or no answers.

Although it is as you say some theories are bsed on fact.
This is where the line between fact and theory becomes shall we say blured.
For we have gravity that is fact, we have plate tectonics that is fact
Now I don't know who came up with the idea to call gravity a theory but if it was not a fact the people of earth would fly off ergo fact, As for Plate tectonics check the Andras plates "check spelling" anyway they are there they shift to much you got a problem called an earthquake that is fact

Now these are theories that became facts because they were based on facts.

When a scientist says on one hand you can not have an explosion without energy or matter and on the other says I believe THE BIG BANG THEORY started the universe on the other.
I have to question that. I would ask where the matter and energy came from

When I tell anybody that God helped to start the universe that is my belief anybody might question that, is this not a theory too?
For they would say prove that your God exist, and where did he come from.

As for evolution being a theory this is another area of scientific reserch that becomes contratictory for first scientist say mankind has evolved which I agree with but it is still a theory.
Why is not evolution considered a process for unless all living creatures have stopped they continue to evolve.eace

 

[presluc]

I'm not hiding
I'm right here!!!!
Can anyone else see post #69?
Maybe this means you need a new computer.
May I suggest one with a spellcheck feature?

Because an "ignore" (if there even is a feature like that on this site,and if I even knew where it was,which I don't) button would only prevent the person from seeing posts made by the person they pressed it against.
It wouldn't prevent you or anyone else from responding.

I wouldn't be able to see your responses,but everyone else should.
I've been begging you answer these questions for a while now.
And yet you are still trying to avoid doing so.'
So who's the one hiding?
You've been bobbing weaving and dodging like "Sugar Ray" Leonard on amphetamines.

I've actually enjoyed ripping apart your arguments like Freddy Krueger at an Elm Street teenage slumber party.


Do you even know how to "cut and paste"?

Since it is obvious you saw my post (#69) there is nothing to really prevent you from answering the questions (that I made sure everyone can see) that I posted.

The only reason it seems you have is your unwillingness to answer them.
In my opinion that makes you a coward.

How about this?

Can I please ask anyone who is viewing this thread to cut and paste the questions that I asked on post #69 onto a post of "your" making so that presluc can answer you?
Thank you

I have admited I was wrong already I have ask for your opologies I have stated that I would retract all statements from post# 70.
All save one I tried to respond to you 5 times yesterday that is the truth you have my word
When I am proven wrong I will admit it and take what comes

I have answered some of your post to the best of my ability while trying to answer others

If you have any other questions ask.

AS I HAVE SAID I FOLLOW AN OLD RULE FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION
ASK AND IF POSSIBLE YOU WILL RECIEVE.

 

[SlackMaster]

Is any and all scientific theory to be considered fact?

No. Facts are verified and proven observations.

For if this is true would not the "theory" become fact?

No, you have that backwards. Scientific theories are made up of thousands (hundreds of thousands, maybe more) facts.

In science theory does not mean "thing I'm not sure about". It doesn't mean "guess" or "here's what I think is happening". Theory is what we call the overall idea, the thing that encompasses all of the facts and observations that we have discovered.

For we have gravity that is fact, we have plate tectonics that is fact
Now I don't know who came up with the idea to call gravity a theory but if it was not a fact the people of earth would fly off ergo fact, As for Plate tectonics check the Andras plates "check spelling" anyway they are there they shift to much you got a problem called an earthquake that is fact

Evolution is just as much of a fact as those things. We have just as much evidence for evolution as we do for gravity.

Now these are theories that became facts because they were based on facts.

Again... "theory" in science doesn't mean the same thing as the way you're using it above. It would be more accurate to say that "these are hypotheses that have become facts after we've performed experiments."

When a scientist says on one hand you can not have an explosion without energy or matter and on the other says I believe THE BIG BANG THEORY started the universe on the other.
I have to question that. I would ask where the matter and energy came from

... and that's a great question to ask. Science thrives on questions. The start of the universe though, has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is only the model that explains the diversity of life that we see here on the planet. Evolution says nothing about how life first got started or where the universe came from. Those are separate fields of science.

When I tell anybody that God helped to start the universe that is my belief anybody might question that, is this not a theory too?

It's not a scientific theory. It would only become a scientific theory if you were able to use facts and evidence to support your claim. Then I would have to be able to repeat the same experiments you did and get the same results. In order for it to be a scientific theory, it has to have explanatory value.

For they would say prove that your God exist, and where did he come from.

As for evolution being a theory this is another area of scientific reserch that becomes contratictory for first scientist say mankind has evolved which I agree with but it is still a theory.
Why is not evolution considered a process for unless all living creatures have stopped they continue to evolve.eace

Regarding the rest of your post, I'm afraid I don't follow. I can say that you are correct, evolution is still taking place today. Evolution has not stopped.

 

[Locke and Load]

I've stated numerous times that I "believe in God" and on post#55 I stated:

"Now if you wish to define "God" the way I and plenty of other Taoists view "God" as "being every particle and force in the universe being interconnected and influencing every other particle and force in the Universe (and possibly an infinite amount of Universes) throughout time and space (thus the Taoist and Buddhist saying "All Is One") in a way that we do not quite understand at this moment,that contains both intelligence and life within it, obeying a set of fundamental rules that we are only just beginning to discover, then yes there is plenty of evidence to support that."

And no one on this thread (or even on this this entire forum) has ridiculed me about it or told me I was foolish to believe the way I dr even said I was wrong.

Atrasicarius was the only one on this thread that made the statement:
"We don't absolutely know there is no God. We assume there is no God in the same way we assume there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I believe he's talking about what atheist believe and assume.
As is his right to do so.
But what I do have to say to Atrasicarius is:
"Please do not lump the Flying Spaghetti Monster with Santa Claus,the Tooth fairy and Preslucs God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is waaaay cooler then them."
But that's just my opinion

I've been asking you for quite some time what are your views and beliefs about god,and I am still waiting for an answer.


Wahh,wah,wah,people are making fun of my beliefs,wah wah wah.
Wahh,wah,wah,people are making fun of my god,wah wah wah.

If Your God doesn't like it ,let Your God do something about.


So how exactly was the universe created.
Magic?
Ooohhhhh ooooga boooga Grok not understand ooooga boooga.

To paraphrase both Issac Asimov and Lex Luthor in the movie Superman Returns, "To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic". ...

Please enlighten us as to how the universe was created and the method you use to achieve that conclusion.



Didn't I already anwer that question?
Well what do you know,I did,
Post #51

The big Bang is not the exception to the rule.
Scientist do not know what was before the Big Bang or why it happened.
Only that apparently according to their ability to interpret all the evidence they have been able to review that's what how it appears to have happened .
Like I've asked you a number of times before,if you have anything better then the Big bang theory please by all means present it here for review.

Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
"Biology 101 living organisms evolve into living organisms
Itellectual Biologist rule
Eception to the rule, abiogenesis.

Your kidding me right?
Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the methodby which life on Earth arose."

It is not "the exception to the rule".
No one knows how life arose from inorganic matter.
I've already stated that.
We already know that life comes from life.
We just don't know the how and why it happened in the first place.[/I]
Again I am going to ask"if you have anything better then the Big bang theory please by all means present it here for review".


Well then the answer now becomes obvious:
PROVE "YOUR" GOD EXISTS"

Gee,that should be easy,right?





You right,there is no scientific theory of creation at this moment.
Any book on astro physics will state that it is currently impossible to determine what went on 10-43 of a second before the big bang.

I will ask YOU this question

Exactly how did this Universe come to existence and what method do YOU use to determine it.

I will present my thoughts and responses to the questions on post #69 since its been requested..., it will be long so please bear with me or don't start reading if you aren't going to finish. Please keep in mind these are one person's humble opinions.

Let's start with the big bang theory. (Which by the way, does NOT explain the ORIGIN of the universe, merely how the universe got into it's present state after conception)

From Big Bang Theory

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."


As you can see from the above paragraph, the big bang theory does not explain where the universe came from, nor how it got here. In reality and based on definition, there will likely never be a "scientific" law or theory that proves where the universe came from. This is because science is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. " (dictionary.com), so basically it is knowledge about the NATURAL world. Since the appearance of the singularity that created our universe is also the start of the natural world and time, than anything outside of that would be outside of nature as we know it, therefore outside of scientific explanation or understanding. By definition it would be supernatural. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that the universe had supernatural origins.

Also, immediately after the universe started, it expanded outward (very rapidly) but also had a TREMENDOUS amount of heat. Heat is a form of energy (thermal energy). By the law of conservation of energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transformed) that energy had to have come from somewhere, because it could not have created itself into existence. And this isn't taking into account where all of the actual matter came from.

Therefore, from the above, I have personally concluded that the universe has supernatural origins, and my own faith has led me to believe that the this supernatural force is my own christian God. Now, this does not prove ID because it does not explain the origin of life itself, however if I accept that God created the universe, it makes sense that he would have been around to help life start as well. Notice I did not say God's divine hand came down and started life. After creating the natural world, I believe it to be perfectly plausible that God could have manipulated events within the universe he created to make it possible for life to start. (Which we all know that based on pure probability, the chances of life A) starting in the first place B)going from single-celled asexually reproducing bacteria to the current state of life and C)actually survivng long enough to do all that is outrageously small, not even comprehendible.)

It could also be that God started the early stages of human's who then evolved into what we had today. Merely because I believe in God does not mean I do not believe in evolution, because I think (and hope I have explained my reasoning well) that both God and evolution can be true and bring us to our current state of today.

I didn't touch heavily on why I believe in christianity or much on evolution/the possibility of life evolving without God. If anyone wants me to I would be happen to debate and explain my reasons to you, I figured that this post was getting a little too long.

(Again the above are only my humble thoughts on the issue)

 

[Verthaine]

Geez,another "banging your head against the wall thread" on the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum.

If the level of denseness gets any greater on this subforum,it is going to collapse due to it's own gravity into a black hole,sucking the entire planet into it.

Now that being said let my fully admit that I missed your post (#58) on page 6 and for that I fully and sincerely apologize

Post # 58
It is as you say I can not answer for anybody but me, although I have a theory.
It is my belief that God can not be described for no one knows they speculate an old man flying around in the sky or a budda atop a mountain ect.
As for me I think of God as a force kinda like the wind or a high surf but with intelligence.

"Now if you wish to define "God" the way I and plenty of other Taoists view "God" as "being every particle and force in the universe being interconnected and influencing every other particle and force in the Universe (and possibly an infinite amount of Universes) throughout time and space (thus the Taoist and Buddhist saying "All Is One") in a way that we do not quite understand at this moment,that contains both intelligence and life within it, obeying a set of fundamental rules that we are only just beginning to discover, then yes there is plenty of evidence to support that."

And no one on this thread (or even on this this entire forum) has ridiculed me about it or told me I was foolish to believe the way I dr even said I was wrong.
So from what I can gather you are stating that you view god basically the same way I do
If any one here has ridiculed you for your beliefs on this forum they are wrong to do so and they should apologize.

Post #58

I do not thing God created the universe or man I think he just gave a push to start the universe and a few living organisms to start the evolutionary procress.

As a taoist I personally see no problem with that belief.
If that is what you believe than that is what you believe.
That is your right.

I and others may not agree with that,but that is our right.
There is no evidence to suppport or disprove it in any way,so arguing about it is a moot point.

Post #58

As far as my views of if God helps mankind?
To me that is a personal point of my belief., but it is said God works in mysterious ways.

I don't know what this has to do with this conversation,but umm o.k.?

Post #58

Another point of interest to me has been the afterlife some say it's heaven in the sky, maybe?.
I have a theory that it is another demension.

So do I.
I also believe in reincarnation.
That is both our rights to believe.

Just don't state it as a FACT and there will be no problems.

Post #58

Perhaps my beliefs are not acceptable to you.

Whether or not your beliefs are acceptable to me is beside the point.
I am under no obligation to accept your beliefs.
I am, however, under obligation to accept that you have the right to have your beliefs.

Post #58

That will not change my core belief, for your beliefs are acceptable to me

1-Have I ever asked you to change your beliefs?
If so where,and if so I apologize.

2-Whether or not you accept my beliefs is beside the point,what truly matters is recognizing that I have the right to have them just as I recognize the right for you to have your beliefs.

Post #58

I would not ridicule or critisize your beliefs as long as my beliefs are left without too much ridicule.

You can criticize and ridicule my beliefs all you want if I am stating my beliefs as FACTS without providing the evidence to back that claim.

Post #58

Has for the theories of CHAOS and BELL'S never being proved wrong that is correct but where have they been tested save EARTH?

I have stated this numerous times before and I will state this again:
The best that any scientist can say is that "as best as we as a human being can understand and interpret the evidence we are able to observe it is our best guess that this is what the experiment appears to prove or disproves on THIS planet and at THIS moment".

The phrase "Anything is possible" is a central creed to both Taoism and Discordianism (both of which I subscribe to) and it is a phrase I fully believe.
So I really don't know what more you want?

Post #58

Although I may not live to see it , it has always been my belief that in the furture mankind will reach other planets and eventualy other galaxies with other life forms who may have a differant set of never proved wrong theories that exclude these theories.eace

I also believe that we as a species will travel to other planets and may discover other lifeforms,and may discover regions of space or even other universes where the Laws of Physics are different.

So what.
Until we do so we humans have to work with what we have at this moment on this planet.
And even if tomorrow we discover evidence that totally proves that a theory that is accepted today is totally wrong,so freaking what.
Either scientists accept the evidence as it it and accept a new scientific paradigm and explore it's implications,or continue to cling to the old model and risk being labeled a crackpot and a laughing stock.


Now on to your next post (# 85)

You ask me to define God as I believe , I take it that's what you mean.
It is my faith that God exist it is my belief that God is not a being not an old man flying around in the sky not some fat guy on a mountain.
It is my belief that God is a force like the wind or rain or fire or a high surf.
What I beleve after that is personal.

already answered that.
See above

"Now if you wish to define "God" the way I and plenty of other Taoists view "God" as "being every particle and force in the universe being interconnected and influencing every other particle and force in the Universe (and possibly an infinite amount of Universes) throughout time and space (thus the Taoist and Buddhist saying "All Is One") in a way that we do not quite understand at this moment,that contains both intelligence and life within it, obeying a set of fundamental rules that we are only just beginning to discover, then yes there is plenty of evidence to support that."

If any one here has ridiculed you for your beliefs on this forum they are wrong to do so and they should apologize.

I have said many times I ask nobody to believe as I do be an individual believe as you choose.

And no one on this thread had stated otherwise.
If anyone on this thread is telling you what to believe, (which they have not) then they are wrong to do so.
[/quote]

However individuals may have a choice I choose not to back up for anybody unless that present proof without a shadow of a doubt.
So far nobody's done that including you vertain or whoever your posting for, ATRI-something wasn't it.

And I have already stated that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that at this moment it is totally impossible for ANYONE to say with 100 PERCENT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY anything.

The best that anyone has ever offered (including myself) is evidence that we have at this moment.
If you choose not to accept the evidence that is on you.
I really don't know what more do you want.
You want me to say that you are right.
Fine.
You Are Right
You satisfied now?

As for me I try to answer myown post.

Sorry kid I did not go waa waa waa I mearly retaliated.

For of truth if my faith in God is lumped in with Santa Clause and te Tooth Fairy.
Then Scientific theory is lumpted in with magic tricks or slight of hand or illusions.
Posters that know science should know scientific law .
For every action there is a reaction.

First- I notice that science is only valid when it suits your purposes.
Second- "Belief in God" and "Evidence That A Being Called God Exists" is two entirely different things.
You stated that you believe that "God" is " A Force" not " A Being".
Why should you care if "God As A Being" is being lumped in with Santa and the Tooth Fairy" unless you are lying about your belief of 'God being a "Force" and not "A Being"
Like I stated before that our beliefs about God are quite similar(unless of course you are lying about your beliefs about God)and that no one on this thread has ridiculed these beliefs or said they are wrong.
To retaliate against someone who posted something that has absolutely nothing to do with you or your beliefs (Atrasicarius' Post #61)

We don't absolutely know there is no God. We assume there is no God in the same way we assume there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you take that post as a personal attack on your beliefs then you are being childish.'Wahhh,Wahh,Wahh.
Third You first state"StatingThen Scientific theory is lumpted in with magic tricks or slight of hand or illusions." and then immediately follow it with the statement
"Posters that know science should know scientific law .
For every action there is a reaction."
May I point out that the statement "For every action there is a reaction"is itself a scientific theory.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't say scientific theory is lumped in with slight of hand and then use a scientific theory to try to prove your point when it suits your purpose.
That's very childish to do so,wahh,wahh,wahh.
Finally I am 50 years old,hardly a kid.

Unfortunatly I can not enlighten you on how the universe was created?
I only have a belief or a faith on what might have happened maybe you consider that a guess , that's ok by me for I have no proof or no facts.
Now you might try some other post on this thread they seem to know for sure how the universe came to be.

Please state the name of the person who has done so and the numbered post they said it on.

Maybe you can get the facts and proof from them ,all I got was theory and observation

That's all I and everyone else on this thread has been saying also.
But you don't seem to want to accept that.

What more do you want.

No scientific theory of creation huh?

" A difference that makes no difference is not a difference"
"A Theory that provides no observable evidence is not a theory,it is a hypothesis"
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
As plenty of people on this thread have said,Intelligent Design provides no evidence to back it up,so it is rejected as a theory.

You should really read more post omn this thread.eace

I have, and the post that I missed of your's I already admitted to,apologized for,and answered above.

Finaly got through oplogies for any thing said out of content.
Iwill humbly retract anything from my last post for I was wrong, I made a mistake
However I did not lie I tried 5 times to respond yesterday tat is true.[/QUOTE]

Apoplogies accepted,don't do it again.

Now on to your post 87

This is too easy, a simple question with a yes or no answer. I'll even use big letters, consentrate on the word EVERY.
IS EVERY AVENUE AND EVERY POSSIBILITY BEIGN EXPLORED?eace

Stop trying to be cute and funny,you are not very good at it.
This is a very underhanded tactic you are trying to pull and I am not going to stand for it or fall for it.
This is a debate on a internet forum not a criminal court.
I am not on trial,and you are not the prosecuting attorney.
I am under no obligation to answer the question in the way you wish it to be answered.

Now MY answer to this questian,and I will size it up for you so that everyone can see

I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST ON THIS PLANET SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO STATE EXACTLY WHAT RESEARCH IS GOING ON AT THIS VERY MOMENT.
AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO USE CHEAP TACTICS LIKE THIS AND OTHERS YOU'VE BEEN USING THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD I AM GOING TO ASK EVERYONE TO BOYCOTT YOUR POSTS ON THIS THREAD.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

sawyerloggingin, did you take a look at the video that I mentioned and posted here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/104348-intelligent-design-6.html#post1059659412

Are you willing to examine the counterpoint to the claim that there is "No missing link", or is this thread every bit of what it appears to be: nothing more than a bait thread?

Marduc forgive me but I use an air card and looking at you tube is nearly impossible for me. I barely get a connection that may be my problem.Could you perhaps put it into words?

 

[atrasicarius]

Golly why didn't I think of that, evidence you say?

So you have observed the Big Bang didn't think you were that old???

Unfortunatly to get evidence you must base your foundation on facts not theory.

When you have facts proving without a shadow of a doubt that creation and evolution is based entirely on science.
Come back I'll give up my faith until then keep observing.
Tip; observation + theory = unproven fact, an old but proven law of science.

Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go. You want to present your evidence for creation now?

 

[marduc]

Marduc forgive me but I use an air card and looking at you tube is nearly impossible for me. I barely get a connection that may be my problem.Could you perhaps put it into words?

Fair enough, my first thought here was that the video covers a ton of ground, and there would be no way I could put it as well as it is done there. Luckily there was a link to the script of the video in the description box at you Youtube.

There is a lot of video images he uses as supporting evidence, unfortunately you will be missing out on that this way -and it is a lot of information, but here is the link to the script:

1stFFoC

As is the same with the video I recommend you read the whole script, it covers a lot of material, but if you do not read the entire thing, the pertinent part to the "missing link is still missing" question is ironically enough just below the colored text that says "“By the way, the missing link? It’s still missing!”

 

[Locke and Load]

I'd like to weigh in on a few things here if I may. Keep in mind this is only one person's humble opinion.

First off, I am a Lutheran Christian, thus believe in God and creation, and I hope to explain my reasoning on this to you all without using a religious/bible-based argument.

So, the Big Bang. Contrary to popular belief, the big bang does NOT explain the ORIGIN of the universe, merely the expansion of it.

(really good overview of the big bang theory here -Big Bang Theory

In essence it says this- According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density...Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

So we have this singularity that suddenly popped into existence right? And according to science, this was the start of time and the natural universe as we know it. But where did it come from? For that, I believe there will never be a "scientific" answer or theory, based on definitions. Science is based on a systematic body of knowledge on the NATURAL world through observation or experimentation. However, since this particular singularity started the natural world, wherever it came from must be OUTSIDE of our natural world right? Therefore the actual ORIGIN of the universe would not be natural, it would by definiton be supernatural, and thus outside of the realm of science.

Secondly, after the universe expanded it had a TREMENDOUS amount of heat. Heat is a form of energy (thermal). However, the law of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transformed or transferred. So where did all of this energy come from? It certainly couldn't have created itself, thus it had to have been put here. This doesn't even take into account where all of the actual matter that makes up our universe came from.

Therefore, from the above, I have personally concluded that the origin of the universe is from a supernatural force, and my christian faith has led me to belief that is God.

I'm not going to touch upon the creation of life, evolution, or why I believe in christianity in this post because I feel it would get too long, however if someone wishes to debate/discuss any of my above points/topics I am willing to do so.

(Again, this is just my humble opinion working off of what I know of science and what I believe of religion.)

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Interesting link marduc.It makes the case for Darwinism very well. Reminds me of a lawyer in his summation at the end of a long trial. I would be interested to hear some other lawyer make his summation picking apart lawyer number ones points. One thing I noticed was the missing link thing that the guy was so adamant about. It's news to me that it has been definitely found. I think that may be opinion not fact.

 

[SlackMaster]

Interesting link marduc.It makes the case for Darwinism very well. Reminds me of a lawyer in his summation at the end of a long trial. I would be interested to hear some other lawyer make his summation picking apart lawyer number ones points. One thing I noticed was the missing link thing that the guy was so adamant about. It's news to me that it has been definitely found. I think that may be opinion not fact.

I haven't seen the video yet, but the whole "missing link" thing is horrible. It only adds confusion.

Evolution is like a photo album of a boy growing into a man. Every day a picture is taken from birth until he is 30. Go into the album and show me the one picture where he went from being a boy to being a man.

There is no ONE "missing link". Evolution is a slow and steady process. We have what we call "transitional fossils". Imagine that we have a picture from the album of him when he was a baby and another picture of him when he's an adult. Some would make the argument that it's the same boy, others would say it's a different boy. Then we find a picture of him when he's 13, same facial features, bone structure, etc. We would call that a "transitional picture". Does it "prove" it's the same boy, no... but it lends credence to the theory. Then we find one when he's 7, another when he's 16, etc. Slowly the story starts to fill in and we start to see gradual change from infant to man. Each picture that matches bone structure, facial features, etc adds to the theory and makes it strong.

Once we have enough evidence we can start making predictions. "I predict the next picture we find will show that he looks like "X" and will have "X" bone structure, etc. Each time those predictions are proven correct, the theory gets strong.

Nowhere in there though is a "missing link".

 

[BayToBay]

"Now if you wish to define "God" the way I and plenty of other Taoists view "God" as "being every particle and force in the universe being interconnected and influencing every other particle and force in the Universe (and possibly an infinite amount of Universes) throughout time and space (thus the Taoist and Buddhist saying "All Is One") in a way that we do not quite understand at this moment,that contains both intelligence and life within it, obeying a set of fundamental rules that we are only just beginning to discover, then yes there is plenty of evidence to support that."

And no one on this thread (or even on this this entire forum) has ridiculed me about it or told me I was foolish to believe the way I dr even said I was wrong.
So from what I can gather you are stating that you view god basically the same way I do
If any one here has ridiculed you for your beliefs on this forum they are wrong to do so and they should apologize.

Why should they apologize?

Taoists do not believe in God but the Tao. The Tao has many qualities that are like those of God. If you wish to claim that the Tao is God then your position is quite ridicolous. That definition of God is vague and meaningless nonsense.