Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Any moderately intelligent person is fully aware of the tactic of attempting to silence an opponent because of an inability to defend a position. What you all should be wondering is why this tactic even exists in science. One can understand why you can't go into a Baptist church and state Jesus didn't exist, but it doesn't make sense within the context of what science is supposed to be that a faith based idea (the universe is not an intelligent design because no sentient intelligence exists) with no logical scientifically accepted way to prove it is used as a litmus test for what is defined as science. That is religion my friends.The existence or non existence of a creator is a religious faith based idea, and no one denies you cannot prove the non existence of a creator..SO neither preconceived notion has a place in science! We let the chips fall where they may, where the evidence leads, and the evidence leads us overwhelmingly to an intelligent design in all scientific disciplines. 8 minutes ago, Strange said: I suppose it is easier to attack science using the straw man of popular science articles, instead of the actual science. But it just makes you look silly. It doesn't even say there was a singularity. (This is one of the ways we know you are ignorant of the science.) That is entirely consistent with the Big Bang model. And there are several versions of the Big Bang model that say the universe has always existed. You are, of course, free to believe that. But it is not (yet) supported by science. EDIT: cross-posted with swansont - feel free to delete/trash ... I am not attacking REAL science or any real scientist in history., I am denying atheistic pseudoscience is science or that preconceived religious faith based ideas have a place in science. "it doesn't even say there was a singularity"-Hmmm, interesting
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: SO neither preconceived notion has a place in science! Exactly. Science assumes nothing about a creator. If evidence appeared for a creator, then science would accept it. (I imagine some people would be unhappy about that.) If evidence shows that the universe has always existed and no creator is necessary (which seems very likely) then science will accept that. (And I imagine some people would be unhappy about that.) 10 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: I am denying atheistic pseudoscience is science or that preconceived religious faith based ideas have a place in science. But the "atheistic pseudoscience" that you cite is NOT science. It is popular journalism. I agree that much of that is of poor quality. But I have no idea what percentage of journalist are atheists.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Strange said: Exactly. Science assumes nothing about a creator. If evidence appeared for a creator, then science would accept it. (I imagine some people would be unhappy about that.) If evidence shows that the universe has always existed and no creator is necessary (which seems very likely) then science will accept that. (And I imagine some people would be unhappy about that.) But the "atheistic pseudoscience" that you cite is NOT science. It is popular journalism. I agree that much of that is of poor quality. But I have no idea what percentage of journalist are atheists. Personally I can't prove to myself the existence of a creator one way or another and I don't think anyone can. What I personally believe is intelligence is an inherent property of the universe itself and that it is an intelligent arrangement. The universe IMO has always existed and time is simply a construct of human consciousness. There is no need to explain its origin and any attempt to do so will ultimately fail. We as humans tend to think in terms of everything having a beginning and an end and yet we see endless examples of where the so called end is a new beginning of a new cycle, that is we seldom actually observe the 'end" of anything and we do it's not really an "end", it's just a transformation or end of a cycle.. I think the evidence tends to support the idea that the universe is currently in a cycle of expansion which will eventually reverse. I don't believe the concept of an infinite singularity simply because it defies rational thought and there is no reason to believe such a thing exists, but I do believe the universe will contract to a point where it will no longer be capable of further contraction and the result be an energetic expansion. Edited September 12, 2017 by Anonymous Participant
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: The universe IMO has always existed And maybe (probably?) science will show that to be correct in future. Presumably, then you will stop saying that science is some sort of atheistic conspiracy and instead proclaim it as a marvellous thing revealing the "truth" (i.e. your beliefs) to the world.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Strange said: And maybe (probably?) science will show that to be correct in future. Presumably, then you will stop saying that science is some sort of atheistic conspiracy and instead proclaim it as a marvellous thing revealing the "truth" (i.e. your beliefs) to the world. You are very confused about my beliefs concerning science. I simply deny religious beliefs and the constraints they have on intellectual thought have a place in science, and that includes atheism
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said: You are very confused about my beliefs concerning science. I simply deny religious beliefs and the constraints they have on intellectual thought have a place in science, and that includes atheism So what do you understand by Intelligent Design then? Edited September 12, 2017 by Silvestru
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Silvestru said: So what do you believe by Intelligent Design then? I simply acknowledge the reality that the universe is an intelligent arrangement and there is an inherent intelligence evident in everything about it. I am not sure of the origin of the intelligence but suspect it has always existed and the way we perceive it is a result of our own conscious interpretation. I also think anyone who calls themselves a scientist who denies the universe is an intelligent arrangement is delusional about one or the other.
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Anonymous Participant said: there is an inherent intelligence evident in everything about it. Can you please provide such evidence? I do not see it's evidence. Only if you are referring to the laws of nature as this intelligence.
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: You are very confused about my beliefs concerning science. I simply deny religious beliefs and the constraints they have on intellectual thought have a place in science, and that includes atheism And you don't understand that religious beliefs have no role in science. (Not even atheism, if anyone is stupid enough to think that is a religious belief.)
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Silvestru said: Can you please provide such evidence? I do not see it's evidence. Only if you are referring to the laws of nature as this intelligence. What have you got? You can't say because bad things happen that there is no intelligence in the universe. I see a lot of so called scientists who do not understand the concept of duality and balance that are evident in all things and prove intelligent design I mean what particular scientific fact do you know of that does not have an intelligence inherent in it? You will find when you look at it objectively that science is the study of the intelligence of the universe. It seems nonsensical to call yourself a scientist and deny the universe is an intelligent construct. 1 minute ago, Strange said: And you don't understand that religious beliefs have no role in science. (Not even atheism, if anyone is stupid enough to think that is a religious belief.) Interesting. Rationalization. Common to religious fanatics. Religion is defined as beliefs concerning the existence or nature of a god. Believing no god exists is a belief concerning the existence of god, it IS a religious belief and it is irrational because it cannot be proved.
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: I mean what particular scientific fact do you know of that does not have an intelligence inherent in it? The Laryngeal nerve. 1
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Silvestru said: The Laryngeal nerve. WOW! The same example I hear over and over. What vestigial organs and non-functional tissues in organisms that have no use or purpose to it in it's current state prove is that a process of evolution exists. I can't think of any more intelligent process than evolution, organisms evolving and adapting to new and variant environments automatically IS an exceptionally intelligent design, and intelligence is reflected in the genetic code itself, it is in fact intelligence in it's purest form.
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: Believing no god exists is a belief concerning the existence of god There is a big difference between "believing not X" and "not believing X". It seems that this distinction is lost on those of a religious mindset.
Area54 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 @Anonymous Participant You still have not defined what you mean by intelligence. Perhaps you have had limited exposure to it.
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: I can't think of any more intelligent process than evolution, organisms evolving and adapting to new and variant environments automatically IS an exceptionally intelligent design There is no need for intelligence for this. The whole point about evolution is that "it just happens". Do you think that stuff falling to the ground requires intelligence as well, because it is really the same sort of thing. But maybe you are using the word "intelligence" to mean something else? Maybe to you it just means "amazing" or "efficient"
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Strange said: There is a big difference between "believing not X" and "not believing X". It seems that this distinction is lost on those of a religious mindset. You can rationalize all you want but atheism is a very specific religious belief without a doubt.. 2 minutes ago, Area54 said: @Anonymous Participant You still have not defined what you mean by intelligence. Perhaps you have had limited exposure to it. I'm sure not having much exposure to it through you
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 @Anonymous Participant I think your beliefs cannot survive a collision with real science. "If you have so little faith in your faith, so little belief in its strength and beauty and inner radiant truth that you don't believe it can deal with, oh, say the real world ... then exactly what the hell kind of religion are you following anyway?"
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Strange said: There is no need for intelligence for this. The whole point about evolution is that "it just happens". Do you think that stuff falling to the ground requires intelligence as well, because it is really the same sort of thing. But maybe you are using the word "intelligence" to mean something else? Maybe to you it just means "amazing" or "efficient" Just now, Silvestru said: @Anonymous Participant I think your beliefs cannot survive a collision with real science. "If you have so little faith in your faith, so little belief in its strength and beauty and inner radiant truth that you don't believe it can deal with, oh, say the real world ... then exactly what the hell kind of religion are you following anyway?" Atheistic pseudoscience? Think about it.
Strange Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Anonymous Participant said: Atheistic pseudoscience? Think about it. OK. Done that. It is still a ludicrous idea based on your ignorance of science.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Strange said: OK. Done that. It is still a ludicrous idea based on your ignorance of science. Wrong, it is an observation based upon my knowledge of science and the fact that the most noteworthy contributors to science have all believed the same thing I do. It is only very recently in the past 100 years that atheism and psuedoscience have merged to become a new religion that falsely proclaims itself science.
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said: my knowledge of science *ignorance towards 1 minute ago, Anonymous Participant said: the most noteworthy contributors to science have all believed the same thing I do Can you give a few examples so we can give arguments against this statement please? I am sure you will say Newton and I will give you a God of the Gaps argument.
Prometheus Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said: It is only very recently in the past 100 years that atheism and psuedoscience have merged to become a new religion that falsely proclaims itself science. So basically you don't like that scientists will change their beliefs based on new evidence? Says it all really.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Silvestru said: *ignorance towards Can you give a few examples so we can give arguments against this statement please? Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must seem humble. _Albert Einstein Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton 2 minutes ago, Prometheus said: So basically you don't like that scientists will change their beliefs based on new evidence? Says it all really. What evidence? All that has changed is science has been throttled around the neck by an agenda of secular humanism and atheism
Silvestru Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 @Anonymous Participant Let's be honest. It's your very attitude that partially dismisses your argument. If I would ask members of this forum to provide evidence for a real science experiment or observation I would be provided with research papers and documentation and patience (as I experienced many times) not with: "trust me I know better" arguments for your ID beliefs.
Anonymous Participant Posted September 12, 2017 Author Posted September 12, 2017 Just now, Silvestru said: @Anonymous Participant Let's be honest. It's your very attitude that partially dismisses your argument. If I would ask members of this forum to provide evidence for a real science experiment or observation I would be provided with research papers and documentation and patience (as I experienced many times) not with: "trust me I know better" arguments for your ID beliefs. Don't put words in my mouth and claim I made claims I didn't MMkay?
Recommended Posts