Intelligent design

[marduc]

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.

First off the term Darwinism (and evolutionist/ism is too) is a ridiculous product of propaganda - it automatically projects an aura of being woefully misled/misinformed upon you when it used.

Anyhow, as far as the "missing link", If it is predicted that there should be a transitional form (link) at time y with a specific set of characteristics x, and then they find x at time y, then there you go that is the "missing link", so yes, it is fact - you are entitled to your opinion though. They have found numerous transitional forms, and they match what is expected of them, they verify the predictions. The puzzle piece fits as it should and where it should, it fulfills every reasonable definition of the term missing link (and there are unreasonable definitions and expectations such as the infamous crocoduck, or as covered in what you read the half man half ape.) So, yes it is fact, and not opinion, they say there is missing evidence here (link), and then they find that evidence (link) as predicted. As an aside your pronoun usage is wrong as has been pointed out in a post above, there is no "it" there is "them".

There is a clear and distinct path, as covered int he video, there are almost to many trail markers now, we are not sure which branched off shorty from the path and died out, or possibly branched off from the path for a bit and then reconverged (such as neanderthal, where analysis of its DNA shows that it is extremely common in people with non-African descent). Both a minor split, and a reconvergence are perfectly consistent with decent with modification which is what evolution is.

ok.. moving on, I think I found the video for the Hartmann/Luskin exchange you are referring too (was it ~7 or 8 minutes long?), here it is:


I have got to run, I did wztch it though, two things jumped out from it. The first is Hartmann was way out of his league, and kept trying to pin Luskin on the whole "what you are really promoting is ID" avenue (which it is.. but Luskin is too well versed in his arguments to get pinned down that easily). The second is that Luskin used quite a few weasel words.. such as "some scientists say", another was his slip up when he used the oxymoron "random selection" before correcting himself. I have to run, so I will let others take a look at that video and have a go at refuting it.

 

[Verthaine]

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.

Never claimed the TAO IS GOD.Nor have I stated that all Taoists believe in God.
Are you Taoist yourself?.
Are you an aknowlegded Taoist Scholar?
If so i humbly apologize.
I have been a member for 20 years of the the American Taoist and Buddhist Association (one of the only legally recognized Taoist Churches in North America in NYC and the only one In) in New York City and my teacher (and the Temples Director) Hsien Yuen sees absolutely no problem with the definition I provided.
Please give me enough credit and give me the benefit of the doubt that I may know a bit about my own beliefs.
Unless of course,You are an Acknowledged Taoist Scholar and again I humbly apologize.

What I specifically said was""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."

1-In this universe,every particle is interconnected and influences every other particle in the universe in ways we do not yet understand.Experiments on proving Bell's Theorum has proven that countless times.We can detect photons from distant stars that have traveled for billions of years.
2-This planet is part of this universe,and it contains both life and consciousness.Thus the universe contains both life and consciousness.
I never said the Universe IS alive and conscious.

The Tao by it's very nature is "vague"
In the 4th chapter of the Tao Te Ching states:
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Taoism is not dogmatic on how to view the Tao.

Every one has the right to have their own beliefs.
It is not nice to ridicule someones beliefs unless that person with the beliefs is trying to force it upon others or state that their beliefs are the "True representation of Reality" without evidence.
It is my opinin that they should.
That is all I stated.
They "should" not "they have to".

Like I stated above I never claimed the Tao is God,only one way some Taoist believe it to be.

If you find my definition of God to be vague and meaningless than that of course is your opinion.
One which is your right to have.
Others may have a different opinion.

 

[BayToBay]

Never claimed the TAO IS GOD.

You may not have meant to but you did.

"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."

Your definition is of the Tao and you claimed that you defined God as the Tao, therefore you claimed the Tao is God.

Are you Taoist yourself?.
Are you an aknowlegded Taoist Scholar?

Are you? Are you implying I must be an acknowledged scholar to comment on it?

I have studied Taoism and all forms of religion. Not in a formal setting, but not just from one book either. I have read several secondary sources the Tao Te Ching and some of Chuang-tzu.

As far as my belief in it, no. I reject it because the supernatural mumbo jumbo is unnecessary and I have yet to come across anything that it explains with any clarity. It is much closer to my views than any other but that is largely because it fails to make any real claims.

There is no need to believe that there is some interconnectedness between all things. You could be affected by a rock at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean, but you probably will not be. Everything that exists exists and shares that existence in common is not all that earth shattering and really does not explain anything.

I do very much like their acceptance of knew information which makes them less dogmatic and does not cause them to reject science. Still, the conception of God you made is worthy of ridicule.

If so i humbly apologize.
I have been a member for 20 years of the the American Taoist and Buddhist Association (one of the only legally recognized Taoist Churches in North America in NYC and the only one In) in New York City and my teacher (and the Temples Director) Hsien Yuen sees absolutely no problem with the definition I provided.
Please give me enough credit and give me the benefit of the doubt that I may know a bit about my own beliefs.
Unless of course,You are an Acknowledged Taoist Scholar and again I humbly apologize.

My statement was a little unclear and should read... Taoist believe in the Tao, not necessarily God. Some people call it God or argue that it is the same as God, others reject that.

What I specifically said was""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."

1-In this universe,every particle is interconnected and influences every other particle in the universe in ways we do not yet understand.Experiments on proving Bell's Theorum has proven that countless times.We can detect photons from distant stars that have traveled for billions of years.
2-This planet is part of this universe,and it contains both life and consciousness.Thus the universe contains both life and consciousness.
I never said the Universe IS alive and conscious.

The Tao by it's very nature is "vague"
In the 4th chapter of the Tao Te Ching states:
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Taoism is not dogmatic on how to view the Tao.

Every one has the right to have their own beliefs.
It is not nice to ridicule someones beliefs unless that person with the beliefs is trying to force it upon others or state that their beliefs are the "True representation of Reality" without evidence.
It is my opinin that they should.
That is all I stated.
They "should" not "they have to".

Like I stated above I never claimed the Tao is God,only one way some Taoist believe it to be.

If you find my definition of God to be vague and meaningless than that of course is your opinion.
One which is your right to have.
Others may have a different opinion.

Of course, it is vague and meaningless. God is everything. Everything is God. Great! Now what? It is a non starter.

 

[presluc]

No. Facts are verified and proven observations.



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.



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



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."



... 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.



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.



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.

Facts are verified and proven observations
Your words right?
So these scienific theories made up of thousands hundreds of thousand facts .
Tell me are all these thousands and hundreds of thousands of facts verified and observed?

In your little circle defining theory I see observation , prediction, experiment, design, preform, modify.
I do not see the word verify or fact, because it is not fact yet right?
So in science thery can be an overall idea without proof but looking for proof
Kinda like faith an overall belief without proof but looking for proof.

If in fact the scientific theory of the creation of the universe is a hypotheses that have become fact after we preformed the experiment , I would say somebody missed the experiment.

Never said evolution wasn't fact said it was a process to evolve and proceed is based on fact not theory.
That is unless you think all living creatures just stoped evolving or proceeding?

Where I am a loss in your theory and I use the term losely.

Is the point I've been trying to make on this and every other thread.

Most athiest when confronted with the question of creation and evolution atomaticly turn to science nothing else.
Just as organized religion turns to God nothing else.

The problem I see in dealing with unkown factors you sart eliminating possibility perhaps the truth grows further away from you.
Perhaps just perhaps it's neither religion or science that started the universe and evolution of living creatures on this 3rd planet from the sun of 1 tiny little solar sytem.
Perhaps it's something not yet known ergo the unknown factor.

Both athiest/ scientist and religions of all kinds have accused each other of being closed minded about new ideas.

Organized religion I know won't change.

Just how open of a mind is athiest do they seek to know the real truth leaving all possibilities open, or are athiest/ scientist just another shade of organized religion who's idea is my way or not at all?eace

 

[Verthaine]

You may not have meant to but you did.

"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."

Your definition is of the Tao and you claimed that you defined God as the Tao, therefore you claimed the Tao is God.

If I choose to define God to be The Tao, Glen Danzig, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster that is well within my right to do so as a human being.
That is between me and the Tao.
And personally, I don't think the Tao would care at all how I define it,as long that I accept that I am apart of it.
In no way,shape or form have I demanded that anyone else on this forum accept that definition.
I am not telling you or anyone else what to believe,so please do not tell me how to believe.


Are you? Are you implying I must be an acknowledged scholar to comment on it?

I have studied Taoism and all forms of religion. Not in a formal setting, but not just from one book either. I have read several secondary sources the Tao Te Ching and some of Chuang-tzu.
[/quote]
You can comment on it all you want.
That is well within your right to do so is .
I study religions also. Not just one source either,as you say,but many.
Not just the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu,but the Hua Hu Ching,the I Ching,The works of Leih Tzu,the works of Meng Tzu,and various others.
You read a few books,I live my life as a Taoist.
Let me ask you something,If you were a cook in a resturant for 20 years,would you really be impressed with someone who's never really worked in a resturant and but has read a couple of cookbooks?

As far as my belief in it, no. I reject it because the supernatural mumbo jumbo is unnecessary and I have yet to come across anything that it explains with any clarity. It is much closer to my views than any other but that is largely because it fails to make any real claims.

Good for you,That is your right to do so.
I and nobody else on this forum are under no obligation to adopt your views,just as they are under no obligation to adapt mine.

There is no need to believe that there is some interconnectedness between all things. You could be affected by a rock at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean, but you probably will not be. Everything that exists exists and shares that existence in common is not all that earth shattering and really does not explain anything.

I do very much like their acceptance of knew information which makes them less dogmatic and does not cause them to reject science. Still, the conception of God you made is worthy of ridicule.

If that is the way you feel,then that is the way you feel.
Ridicule away.
All I see is just some words on a computer monitor.
That is all.
It is not going to change what I believe or effect my life an any way.
It is not going to pay my mortgage or put food on my table.
This is only the internet.
I know that my wife and daughter still love me,and that is way more important to me then what someone on a internet forum thinks of my beliefs.

So if you want to ridicule my belieifs go right ahead.
I'll be a bigger man then that and not ridicule your beleifs

My statement was a little unclear and should read... Taoist believe in the Tao, not necessarily God. Some people call it God or argue that it is the same as God, others reject that.

I am not disputing that.
I fully agree.


Of course, it is vague and meaningless. God is everything. Everything is God. Great! Now what? It is a non starter.[/QUOTE]

 

[presluc]

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



"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.



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.



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




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.



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.



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.



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.



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?


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)




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.


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.

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?


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)

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.



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

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.


" 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.


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



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.[/QUOTE]

You had me going for awhie there, but lets look closer.

First of all YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY I'M RIGHT OR WRONG OR IN BETWEEN.
I take it you are an adult and an indivividual are you not?

First go back through the post on this thread , how many hasn't been about science
Scince is only valid when it suits my purpose?
THAT IS BULL**** FOR SCIENCE NO MATTER HOW YOU TWIST IT OR WORD IT EXIST AND ON THIS FORUM I'VE ANSWEERED MORE THAN MY FAIR SHARE OF SCIENTIFIC THEORYS, .

You forget a couple ofl details, the name of the thread for one thing the discussion of the post for the other.

You pay ing attention I believe that God is a force like a wind or fire or a surf.
I'm not going to explain that to every new athiest I meet so I'll just say God.

I have been retaliateted against as well from other posters I was not talking to remember Atri- what's his name
What's sause for the goose ?

Well if you are as you say 50 you should know if one slanders a belief there will be retaliation and since this poster has dragged you into it I'd like to know why?
What he get you as a defence attorney
I can say that scientific theory ican be lumbed with magic slight of hand just as easily as your boy can say god is lumped with Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy.
That is called a reaction to an action scientific theory remember?

You know I told myself that statement would cost me try to ask fir somebody to be cilvil is definatly a sign of weakness.
Oh well, NO MORE MR. NICE GUY.

Finally mentioned Intelligent Design huh?

NOT BEING CUTE ASKING A QUESTION.
IS EVERY AVENUE AND EVERY POSSIBILITY BEING EXPLORED?
That's a yes or no questionif you need help I can provide a guide.

You need not boycott my post if more that twenty poster ask me t leave I will leave .
Then you can have a forum full of people that say YES, I AGREE, YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. YEAH .
But I thought this was DEBATE forum not YES MAN forum?

Oh FYI try just try to make your post shortereace

 

[Mach]

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.

Including that statement? Including the principle itself?

There is no god.
You can believe in god based on faith, all day, every day, write hymns, worship at his altar, do things in his name, etc. It has nothing to do with science, never have, never will. Can't you just be happy to worship in peace? Peace out.

 

[Verthaine]

Including that statement? Including the principle itself?

Um Mach, I just want you to know that was actually me who made that quote about Heisenberg,not Presluc.

As a Matter of fact everything between that line and the large size lines stating " I don't know" are all actually mine.


Presluc is apparently incapable of using the spell checker function,Knowing how to use bbcode correctly,knowing how to the press "preview post" button before he presses the submit button,and knowing how to properly quote someone and forming a coherent sentence.

Presluc has a very bad habit of misquoting,taking things out of context,deliberately ignoring things that have been clearly written numerous times,attributing false quotes to people,twisting words around, and other underhanded tactics.
I am not the only person on this forum he has pulled this crap on.

He has shown himself to be a outright liar.
He cries about being slandered even when it was shown numerous times that no one on this thread has put down and ridiculed his beliefs.
He constantly over generalizes and lumps all atheists and scientists into one category.

Deal with him at your own risk.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Actually Darwinism and intelligent design could mesh together quite nicely. One theory doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

 

[SlackMaster]

Facts are verified and proven observations
Your words right?
So these scienific theories made up of thousands hundreds of thousand facts .
Tell me are all these thousands and hundreds of thousands of facts verified and observed?

In your little circle defining theory I see observation , prediction, experiment, design, preform, modify.
I do not see the word verify or fact, because it is not fact yet right?
So in science thery can be an overall idea without proof but looking for proof
Kinda like faith an overall belief without proof but looking for proof.

If in fact the scientific theory of the creation of the universe is a hypotheses that have become fact after we preformed the experiment , I would say somebody missed the experiment.

Never said evolution wasn't fact said it was a process to evolve and proceed is based on fact not theory.
That is unless you think all living creatures just stoped evolving or proceeding?

Where I am a loss in your theory and I use the term losely.

Is the point I've been trying to make on this and every other thread.

Most athiest when confronted with the question of creation and evolution atomaticly turn to science nothing else.
Just as organized religion turns to God nothing else.

The problem I see in dealing with unkown factors you sart eliminating possibility perhaps the truth grows further away from you.
Perhaps just perhaps it's neither religion or science that started the universe and evolution of living creatures on this 3rd planet from the sun of 1 tiny little solar sytem.
Perhaps it's something not yet known ergo the unknown factor.

Both athiest/ scientist and religions of all kinds have accused each other of being closed minded about new ideas.

Organized religion I know won't change.

Just how open of a mind is athiest do they seek to know the real truth leaving all possibilities open, or are athiest/ scientist just another shade of organized religion who's idea is my way or not at all?eace

I'm sorry, I've tried to explain the scientific process and the difference between "scientific theory" and the common use of "theory" to the best of my ability. If you would like to learn more, you're going to have to Google it or read a third grade science text book.

Regarding Atheists automatically dismissing supernatural claims...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm open to all claims, but I will not accept them as truth until you've provided evidence to support your claim.

One who doesnt believe in fairies isn't in disbelief because of a dogmatic view that "fairies do not exist" they don't believe because the people claiming that fairies do exist have not met their burden of proof.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. If you show me that say... Homeopathy works, I will change my mind, I will spin on a ****ing dime. I will run through the streets saying, it's a miracle! Take physics and bin it. Water has memory; and while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo its had in it. You show me that it works, and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my c***!" - Tim Minchin

 

[Paschendale]

There is no god.
You can believe in god based on faith, all day, every day, write hymns, worship at his altar, do things in his name, etc. It has nothing to do with science, never have, never will. Can't you just be happy to worship in peace? Peace out.

As soon as religious folks are happy to worship in peace and not foster racism against Middle Easterners, incite prejudice against Muslims, murder gays, relegate gays to second class citizenship, fight against science and the advancement of knowledge, censor free speech, oppose equality and freedom for women (this includes, but is not limited to abortion rights)... The list goes on. Feel free to live and worship how you want... just stop trying force your ideals on the rest of us. And no, none of us are trying to change your life. At all. Even if every single thing I put on that list changed, nothing about the life of a devout religious person would change. And everyone else would be much happier.

 

[presluc]

Including that statement? Including the principle itself?

There is no god.
You can believe in god based on faith, all day, every day, write hymns, worship at his altar, do things in his name, etc. It has nothing to do with science, never have, never will. Can't you just be happy to worship in peace? Peace out.

UMM, let me get this straight your statement quoteing now correct me if I am wrong.

"THERE IS NO GOD".

Ok so I take it you have searched every inch of the universe , in black holes and eliminated the possibilty of other demensions to back your claim.

Don't think so ;you are on one planet in one solar sytem in one galaxy and from this 3rd rock from the sun you can say. in all the universe "THERE IS NO GOD".?

Pretty impresive for a species that can even find an alternitive fuel to oil or maned space travel to another planet.

Sorry but I just can't take your word on that try another poster you'll probably get somebody to agree with you.

As for me I deal in proof or facts.
I said I believe and have faith in God didn't say I absolutly know if that were true I'd have facts and proof but for now it is how do you say ....a "theory" a work in progress a reserch until something better is submited with proof and factseace

 

[Verthaine]

UMM, let me get this straight your statement quoteing now correct me if I am wrong.

"THERE IS NO GOD".

Ok so I take it you have searched every inch of the universe , in black holes and eliminated the possibilty of other demensions to back your claim.

Don't think so ;you are on one planet in one solar sytem in one galaxy and from this 3rd rock from the sun you can say. in all the universe "THERE IS NO GOD".?

Pretty impresive for a species that can even find an alternitive fuel to oil or maned space travel to another planet.

Sorry but I just can't take your word on that try another poster you'll probably get somebody to agree with you.

As for me I deal in proof or facts.
I said I believe and have faith in God didn't say I absolutly know if that were true I'd have facts and proof but for now it is how do you say ....a "theory" a work in progress a reserch until something better is submited with proof and factseace

To be technical you have a "hypothesis".
You won't have a "theory" until you present physical evidence that backs it up.

 

[presluc]

I'm sorry, I've tried to explain the scientific process and the difference between "scientific theory" and the common use of "theory" to the best of my ability. If you would like to learn more, you're going to have to Google it or read a third grade science text book.

Regarding Atheists automatically dismissing supernatural claims...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm open to all claims, but I will not accept them as truth until you've provided evidence to support your claim.

One who doesnt believe in fairies isn't in disbelief because of a dogmatic view that "fairies do not exist" they don't believe because the people claiming that fairies do exist have not met their burden of proof.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. If you show me that say... Homeopathy works, I will change my mind, I will spin on a ****ing dime. I will run through the streets saying, it's a miracle! Take physics and bin it. Water has memory; and while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo its had in it. You show me that it works, and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my c***!" - Tim Minchin

I can not understand your meaning you post a definition of theory I ask yes or no questions and you say sorry I can't explain.
Very well that is your porogitive.
I don't expect questions answered that are not likable questions.

I would ask more questions , based on your uhh discussion of the supernatual claims.

1 . Is there such a force as paranormal activity on the planet earth?

2. Is there documented proof from alien beings visiting earth?

3 Is it a fact that everything that happens on this planet can be explained by scientific means?

4 Are these to be dismised because they do not have the extraordinary evidence that is needed?

5 in fact are all avenues and possibilities to dismissed save science?

For when asked if the big bang happened some athiest scientist say yes some say no some say they don't know.
In short no scientist discussing the Big Bang theory have met the burden of proof kind a like people that believe in faries as you said.

For if any scientist had actual proof or fact they would present it publish it and win the scientific award.eace

 

[Aderleth]

For when asked if the big bang happened some athiest scientist say yes some say no some say they don't know.
In short no scientist discussing the Big Bang theory have met the burden of proof kind a like people that believe in faries as you said.

For if any scientist had actual proof or fact they would present it publish it and win the scientific award.eace

There are many pieces of evidence in support of the big bang theory. I've provided a link to a pretty decent overview of that evidence. I've noticed that you keep trying to argue that science is on the same plane as religious belief, at least with respect to the origins of the universe. That is simply not true. The big bang theory may not have been proven conclusively, but has been extensively supported by physical evidence. By contrast, a supernatural explanation has not been, and almost certainly cannot be proven or even supported by physical evidence.


Evidence for the Big Bang

 

[presluc]

Um Mach, I just want you to know that was actually me who made that quote about Heisenberg,not Presluc.

As a Matter of fact everything between that line and the large size lines stating " I don't know" are all actually mine.


Presluc is apparently incapable of using the spell checker function,Knowing how to use bbcode correctly,knowing how to the press "preview post" button before he presses the submit button,and knowing how to properly quote someone and forming a coherent sentence.

Presluc has a very bad habit of misquoting,taking things out of context,deliberately ignoring things that have been clearly written numerous times,attributing false quotes to people,twisting words around, and other underhanded tactics.
I am not the only person on this forum he has pulled this crap on.

He has shown himself to be a outright liar.
He cries about being slandered even when it was shown numerous times that no one on this thread has put down and ridiculed his beliefs.
He constantly over generalizes and lumps all atheists and scientists into one category.

Deal with him at your own risk.

presluc does this presluc does that.

TSK TSK resluting in Gossip now. if that is how you discuss a debator it is your choice .

As for me,.Mach I would say that Verthaine is one of the most worthy adversaries and best debators on this forum.
I realy mean that.even if I do get boycotted.eace

 

[presluc]

To be technical you have a "hypothesis".
You won't have a "theory" until you present physical evidence that backs it up.

Well, where is the physical evidence of the big bang theory, or the string theory, or the cold fusion theory, need I go on.

You did say "physical" evidence did you not?eace

 

[presluc]

There are many pieces of evidence in support of the big bang theory. I've provided a link to a pretty decent overview of that evidence. I've noticed that you keep trying to argue that science is on the same plane as religious belief, at least with respect to the origins of the universe. That is simply not true. The big bang theory may not have been proven conclusively, but has been extensively supported by physical evidence. By contrast, a supernatural explanation has not been, and almost certainly cannot be proven or even supported by physical evidence.


Evidence for the Big Bang

Look I don't care if you want to put science on a differant plane than religion, the supernatural or the paranormal or not.
Hell you can take aout a restraining order and have anybody talking about religion , the supernatural or paranormal remain 50 or a 100 ft away from you ., however this is a debate forum not a science only chat group

As for me I seek to know the unknown I will use science, religion, supernatural, paranormal and anything else I can find.
For it is what I do not know, that is what I want to find out, not what I think may sound right: or may be agreeable to go along with the so called trrend setters of Organized religion and Athiest.org.eace

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well, where is the physical evidence of the big bang theory, or the string theory, or the cold fusion theory, need I go on.

You did say "physical" evidence did you not?eace

You need not go on. He gave you a link to the evidence of the Big Bang two posts before your one asking for it. Did you miss it intentionally, or purposely?

 

[Aderleth]

Look I don't care if you want to put science on a differant plane than religion, the supernatural or the paranormal or not.
Hell you can take aout a restraining order and have anybody talking about religion , the supernatural or paranormal remain 50 or a 100 ft away from you ., however this is a debate forum not a science only chat group

As for me I seek to know the unknown I will use science, religion, supernatural, paranormal and anything else I can find.
For it is what I do not know, that is what I want to find out, not what I think may sound right: or may be agreeable to go along with the so called trrend setters of Organized religion and Athiest.org.eace

Use whatever you like, but if you want something like intelligent design to be taken seriously by anyone, you probably ought to see if you can find some actual evidence for it.

 

[Verthaine]

presluc does this presluc does that.

TSK TSK resluting in Gossip now. if that is how you discuss a debator it is your choice .

As for me,.Mach I would say that Verthaine is one of the most worthy adversaries and best debators on this forum.
I realy mean that.even if I do get boycotted.eace

No,this is what I do to debaters who deliberately misquote,takes things out of context,attribute false quotes to other debaters,uses cheap courtroom tactics,and outright lies.

 

[Deuce]

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and therefore does not belong in a science classroom . . . . blah blah blah



It would be good for the evolution "scientists" to catch up with the ID scientists ..
their fear of the conclusion keeps them from being honest with the evidence ..
when man is dishonest with natural revelation ..
he will never be trusted with special revelation

​

Several pages back, but here is where the problem lies. Some people seem to think that this somehow constitutes evidence. It's also the standard red herring of ID/creationists. Here's a news flash:

Evolution does not propose that everything occurs randomly.

 

[SlackMaster]

I can not understand your meaning you post a definition of theory I ask yes or no questions and you say sorry I can't explain.
Very well that is your porogitive.
I don't expect questions answered that are not likable questions.

I would ask more questions , based on your uhh discussion of the supernatual claims.

1 . Is there such a force as paranormal activity on the planet earth?

2. Is there documented proof from alien beings visiting earth?

3 Is it a fact that everything that happens on this planet can be explained by scientific means?

4 Are these to be dismised because they do not have the extraordinary evidence that is needed?

5 in fact are all avenues and possibilities to dismissed save science?

For when asked if the big bang happened some athiest scientist say yes some say no some say they don't know.
In short no scientist discussing the Big Bang theory have met the burden of proof kind a like people that believe in faries as you said.

For if any scientist had actual proof or fact they would present it publish it and win the scientific award.eace

 

[presluc]

No,this is what I do to debaters who deliberately misquote,takes things out of context,attribute false quotes to other debaters,uses cheap courtroom tactics,and outright lies.

My compliments if that is what you wish. if I did that my post would be much longer.eace

 

[presluc]

You need not go on. He gave you a link to the evidence of the Big Bang two posts before your one asking for it. Did you miss it intentionally, or purposely?

No sir I did not.

I like theories on what may have happened in evey avenue or possibility.

As for me people may say I'm wrong or I have no consept of the real meaning or just crazy.
That does not bother me, for I search for knowledge in any form

However,I do not like to discourage people I do not know from seeking knowledge in their own way.

Since you have ask though I will respond.

Evidence of the Big Bang , no evidence of how or why it started no evidence of where the matter and energy came from "which according to physics" you must have to have an explosion.

If there was in fact hardcore evidence of the big bang what about after I mean eventualy you have evolution coming into the picture so scientificly or nature you pretty much have to have a foundation of where these living tissues came from.
Now I'm not saying this is bad or that this is good.

Some people are asking me where does your God come from , what does your God do, where is the evidence.
All questions, some what similar to the ones I just ask.

I kinda like things simple so
Where does my God come from? DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT

What does your God do?
I am not God's secretaru so don't know that either

Where is the evidence the evidence is more of a question than an answer.

For indeed we live on a planet 3rd from the sun , spinning at exactualy the right speed to keep us on this planet.
Ok gravity got it I'll give you that.

However the living beings on this planet have the most complex organism for just everyday actiivities.

Human beings have the most complex computer known to any human , the human brain, no person on earth has figured just exactly how it works.

Then there's the differant kinds of humans all biped but all differant all unique

The differant animals and differant plants I won't get into it would take too long, but consider the Platypus, or the Venus flytrap

Exatly the right amounts of hydrogen and oxygen and what do you have WATER., but it has to be the exact amounts.

I have to ask myself could all of this everything that mankind " now thinks " be an accident or God or Intelligent Design ???

Are we as a small species on a small planet in a small solor sytem to stop and say "NOW I KNOW" or are we to keep searching and keep asking question , keep looking for answers?

Are we to say no that can't be part of the answer, simply because it doesn't sound right????eace