Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol you have nothing verifiable fella...nothing lol again.

EDIT
"God did it" PMSL! x

I provided verifiable observation, it is also repeatable, objective, testable and reasonable.

EDIT
'Nothing did it' (laughing, but with a degree of bladder control)! x

a reply to: chr0naut

Behave, you have nothing aside from speculation lol

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Behave, you have nothing aside from speculation lol

That was a quick change, or perhaps you are wearing a nappy?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Woodcarver

Haha yes!!
It's a good one isn't it, like a get out of jail card in monopoly, lol I'd definitely have something like that in my cult's scriptures.
Same as well I'd get 'em young, like at school or even pre-school, easy to shape young minds.

Maybe make up a nice place that they get to go to if they are good and do what i say.

Maybe tell them there is a bad place they’ll got to if they don’t.

a reply to: chr0naut
"God did it" Lol

a reply to: whereislogic

Kill me! you could have just asked if i did intend to say what i said or maybe i wasn't clear enough on what i intended to say.

Thanks for the lecture oh good wise sir, i'll go continue to be ignorant fool somewhere else

До связи

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.

There is a review process but all the reviewers are limited by their senses. The entire human race grows at least to a pre college and most likely pre doctorate degree with their senses as what create the foundation beliefor system. If you were genetically altered to also see like a bee you would have a new perspective, meaning when you come up with theories about what the data means you would have more insight to provide explanations.

The use of computers helps but again computers are designed by people bound by the anthropic principle.

If you read cosmological papers. The good scientists understand this and are very careful with words.

Cosmology for those that don't know use philosophy quite a bit. Physicists work with philosophers to help understand the meaning of data.

Data is the data but knowing what it means is entirely different. Partial understanding of a physical concept is similar to a half truth.

Evolution is not cosmology. Evolution is not even part of cosmology. It's biology.


Tha majority of the Abrahamic faiths do not take genesis literally. It's a relatively new phenomenon.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut
"God did it" Lol

Loss of bladder control can affect us at any time.

I recommend perineal excercises.

I have heard that some Yogi's have developed such bodily control that they can carry a full mug of coffee with their perineal muscles alone (but I wouldn't suggest it for viewers at home).

I am glad that it seems you have now overcome your issues, for the moment, in this last lot of humour.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: chr0naut

Nice to see my favorite Christian philosopher scientist enter the debate. Someday I would love to debate you on the other side. But it seems I am always trying to explain the actual arguments that philosopher Christians make. Then people assume I am arguing my point.

I say I hope to debate you someday just so people can see it isn't about ahuh nuhuh yeah uh nohuh....

It's about actually listening to the argument of your opponent understanding it and rebuttals from understanding. Not I gotcha.

I really think that Christianity has a strong history of philosopher scientists. We are a part of a continuum of scientific and philosophical inquiry.

... but thank you, I take it as quite a compliment.

Of coarse they do. Mendel, Newton, Decartes, John Locke, Laimatre, probably the greatest philosopher in modern history Kant, Aquinas, Anselm, it goes on and on.

The big bang came from a priest.

People just buck up and can't listen.

I don't use the bible at all in design or cosmology when trying to explain the premise of God and people seem pretty clueless as to what the philosophers are getting at. It goes directly over their heads.

I don't find the arguments compelling enough to be a true believer but I certainly don't say they are trivial, without merit, or not true.

It's a sad time we live in where people can't consider this in a deeper form of thought than a newspaper headline.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.

There is a review process but all the reviewers are limited by their senses. The entire human race grows at least to a pre college and most likely pre doctorate degree with their senses as what create the foundation beliefor system. If you were genetically altered to also see like a bee you would have a new perspective, meaning when you come up with theories about what the data means you would have more insight to provide explanations.

The use of computers helps but again computers are designed by people bound by the anthropic principle.

If you read cosmological papers. The good scientists understand this and are very careful with words.

Cosmology for those that don't know use philosophy quite a bit. Physicists work with philosophers to help understand the meaning of data.

Data is the data but knowing what it means is entirely different. Partial understanding of a physical concept is similar to a half truth.

Evolution is not cosmology. Evolution is not even part of cosmology. It's biology.


Tha majority of the Abrahamic faiths do not take genesis literally. It's a relatively new phenomenon.

You would have to publish a paper in a known science journal to know how the review process works. The most important aspect of any research publication is whether it's repeatable. If other researchers get the same results for the same experiment, then that verifies the experiment. If they don't, then questions are asked.

Again, if you've never published a serious scientific paper, it would be hard to understand how the process works.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.

There is a review process but all the reviewers are limited by their senses. The entire human race grows at least to a pre college and most likely pre doctorate degree with their senses as what create the foundation beliefor system. If you were genetically altered to also see like a bee you would have a new perspective, meaning when you come up with theories about what the data means you would have more insight to provide explanations.

The use of computers helps but again computers are designed by people bound by the anthropic principle.

If you read cosmological papers. The good scientists understand this and are very careful with words.

Cosmology for those that don't know use philosophy quite a bit. Physicists work with philosophers to help understand the meaning of data.

Data is the data but knowing what it means is entirely different. Partial understanding of a physical concept is similar to a half truth.

Evolution is not cosmology. Evolution is not even part of cosmology. It's biology.


Tha majority of the Abrahamic faiths do not take genesis literally. It's a relatively new phenomenon.

You would have to publish a paper in a known science journal to know how the review process works. The most important aspect of any research publication is whether it's repeatable. If other researchers get the same results for the same experiment, then that verifies the experiment. If they don't, then questions are asked.

Again, if you've never published a serious scientific paper, it would be hard to understand how the process works.

I completely understand the review process. Papers are overturned so the process works. But often it takes decades. In medicine about 50 percent of papers make it through the review process and then decades later are found to have been false or are not able to be replicated. The machinery is often patented. However theoretical physics is even more obscure. Limited equipment. Limited experience with the subject etc...

My wife is a research professor. She is highly sought after which is why we have moved so often. I am not going to provide proof of this Soni feel bad even saying it in this context but I don't really need an ats member searching her out and there are some strange birds here (not you).

Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?

Falsifiability sometimes isn't even possible on the tip of theoretical physics..we could be hundreds of years away from some of those epiphanies...yet the answers to cosmological questions already exist in the cosmos. We are just limited by our knowledge, understanding, and observational capabilities.

Well. What I am basically on about is that I am in the midst of an episode of major depression. I shouldn't even come around here when it's on, but here I am.

These sorts of things don't seem very hard to me.

Science is a method of inquiry. That's all it is. Spirituality is a method of inquiry. That's it. Let's stop pretending that either one is pure in any real sense these days, or that either has a monopoly on truth. They get tied in with commerce, with warfare, etc. Religion is a means of control crafted by narcissists, conmen, charlatans and sociopaths. Webster won't tell you that, but it's what I think and I'm not alone. I know a Mennonite pastor who will tell you the same.

I believe in God in the way that Ralph Waldo Emerson believed in God: an abstract force, not an embodied one. I've had many experiences that I consider to be numinous. But the hubris of now-trite "sky fairy" slandering gets just as old as the hubris of biblical hardliners. Don't you think both are hideous? Don't you think our inability to even try to understand each other is astounding? That's why "I hate this place". And by "this place", I don't just mean ATS, I mean anywhere there are people talking about pretty much anything.

a reply to: luthier

Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?

If that's the case and you have no confidence in the system, then don't be a scientist. If your wife has published, then I assume she knows the drill. You assume that everyone has limited abilities. Well so does your wife and every scientist who publishes a paper. Join the club. If you're looking for perfection, you're in the wrong business. Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. It's a process of building blocks and not every block is going to be a perfect fit. That's why we have universities and research centers.

If your wife is a scientist, then I'm sure she realizes that nothing is set in stone. What she publishes today may be challenged five years from now, fifty years from now or 5 weeks from now. Maybe it will be discarded as irrelevant. Maybe she'll get the Nobel Prize. That's how it works.

The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot), assesses the protocol of the research and determines whether it's a credible piece of research. The research may not cure cancer or tie QM to classical mechanics once and for all. But it should be a contribution. However, big, however small - that's what it is - a contribution to your area of science.

So criticizing the process and assuming that no one knows more than the researcher who submitted the paper, is a fool's game. You accomplish nothing. The most obscure research that no one sees may be uncovered one day as a critical piece of work. On the other hand, it may disappear in the archives and no one gives a damn about it.

This is the way it works. If it didn't work, airplanes would crash every day, your dishwasher would be dead on arrival, vaccines would kill you, cancer therapies would be worthless - and the entire body of scientific research would be worthless. Research projects are reviewed, verified and either thrown out or put in the fast lane. Nothing is perfect. Some things will be missed. But if you can't accept the process or make it better, then you have no business being in the profession.

Look up "no go" in physics. It might give you some insight.

a reply to: Phantom423

I think you miss my point.

One the anthropic principle most likely limits the ability to understand actual reality.

Two cosmology does not always have current testable falsifiable tests other than math.

Three I trust the process but understand human limitations and thus leave the ego at the door that we are really capable of understanding the entire cosmological model in our current biological form.

We aren't talking about making a laser or treating cancer. This is an infinite regress issue.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

I think you miss my point.

One the anthropic principle most likely limits the ability to understand actual reality.

Two cosmology does not always have current testable falsifiable tests other than math.

Three I trust the process but understand human limitations and thus leave the ego at the door that we are really capable of understanding the entire cosmological model in our current biological form.

We aren't talking about making a laser or treating cancer. This is an infinite regress issue.

Yes, I see your point. I think most theoretical physicists would tell you that hard evidence is where the rubber meets the road. The numbers, the math, the theories lie in wait for experimental evidence.

But where I disagree is that humans do not have the capability of developing the technology to investigate the biggest questions in science. Humans have a history: given a problem, we will work like hell to solve it. It's an inherent feature in our biology. Which is a good thing otherwise no progress would ever be made.

I wouldn't put humans into the trash heep of history yet. We still have a long way to go.

Just look at recent journal articles - not just from Nature or Phys Letters, but some of the other journals out there. Humans have a huge capacity for creativity and ideas. We're always thinking - you're thinking, I'm thinking. It's an evolutionary process. The challenges and the questions are what motivates us to get up at 4 am and get in the lab and go to work. I can say that was the best time of my life - every day no matter how boring the outcome was an opportunity to discover. Now I'm on the theoretical side of the road, learning how to think like "them" as we used to call them.

Don't despair, especially if your wife is actively involved in research. It's not so much about optimism as it is about drive. The drive to get the job done, whatever it is.

Good conversation. I wish your wife the best of luck in her endeavours. I understand the drill all too well.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

Can you explain to me how a human limited by their senses and capabilities could extend past that? How a group of people checking with limited abilities compared to the knowledge necessary could see what the data means?

...

The review process rules out fraud (i.e. a Creationist crackpot),

...

See that bit just up there? Look at what you did.

It is a prejudicial and purposeful misdefinition of what 'fraud' means.

The creationist crackpot may even be right and you have no way of knowing it. Yet there you go, presenting your opinion as fact.

And you would have rejected the truth, not based upon evidence or fact, but based upon your personal opinion of your understanding of the belief system of the one who said it? How skewed is that?

Isn't misrepresenting the truth, as you would have done, the definition of 'fraud'?

If you truly had an open mind, you'd have to agree that when neither side has the absolute answer, you don't go with any position, nor do you reject any position.

The point of view that you cannot reach a conclusion is a balanced and 'scientific' point of view.

Taking a particular position on the basis of imperfect data when offered two conflicting theories is not open mindedness, you have closed your mind to one of the possibilities.

There is no default position/argument except to say that there is no default position/argument while the data is incomplete.

a reply to: chr0naut

God did it lol

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Woodcarver
Same as well I'd get 'em young, like at school or even pre-school, easy to shape young minds.

Why Evolution Should Be Taught to Younger Kids - Newsweek

And that just after Barcs' whole psychological projection comment and TerryDon's demonstration of what Barcs was 'complaining' about concerning:

"The evidence is provided and then is either ignored completely or excuses are made to not read it or falsely claim it doesn't count and to change the subject away from the evidence. It happens like clockwork here."

The evidence that TerryDon ignored (or talked past as if it doesn't count just because I made another comment as well and he jumped into the thread some pages later) when responding to my comment with "Have you got any evidence of a creator...?" is in my first comment in this thread. Now let's see some of those wonderful excuses that are made to not read the linked articles or observe the videos that discuss and demonstrate the relevant facts) and dismiss it by falsely claiming it doesn't count because it's just a 'god of the gaps'-argument or argument from ignorance, or filling in the gaps in science with God, it's not peer reviewed, it's not science, it's "subjective mythology quotes and presumptive assumptions...and a myriad of other fallacious arguments are used, but not a single thing based on testable evidence or that can actually be verified in any way whatsoever", etc. That last part is even more ironic than the rest in terms of turning the situation upside down as per Isaiah 5:20,21 and the concept known as psychological projection. Or the "excuse" that it's "religious propaganda" or "More words and opinion, but no evidence of a sky fairy." Standard dismissal with below the belt ridicule in the form of a straw man sky fairy, a deliberate misrepresentation of the attributes of a Creator, of God, who does not live in the sky* and neither is concluding he exists from the evidence available akin to believing in fairies. *: btw, omnipresence is a false religious doctrine, it's not what the bible teaches about the subject, but this is not the time to get into that now.

You guys aren't having a serious discussion about anything useful.

The evidence I presented was pretty much ignored by the others commenting here as well including yourself. And that comment of mine was a direct reply to your thread, your OP. See below. It's been 11 pages of commentary since then. Mostly bickering as usual around these parts with a lot of snide remarks. For some people who find this entertaining or humerous, they might actually just think of it as banter, the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks. But that would be somewhat misleading if they think it's "friendly", "playful" or funny for that matter. It's just sad, closedminded and counterproductive to figuring out the truth of the matter and then dealing with reality, acknowledging or accepting it and being honest about it afterwards. Counterproductive to being honest with oneself as well.

originally posted by: whereislogic
A Chemist Finds Powerful Evidence of Creation

How Can I Defend My Belief in Creation?

Creation Reveals the Living God

The apostle Paul provides one reason why we can be convinced that God exists, even though we cannot see him. Regarding Jehovah, Paul wrote: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Rom. 1:20) How might you help someone who doubts the existence of God to see the truthfulness of Paul’s inspired words? You could consider some of the following evidence from creation that reveals our Creator’s power and wisdom.

GOD’S POWER EVIDENT IN CREATION
...
GOD’S WISDOM REVEALED IN NATURE
...

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

If I remember correctly, each of the article links also contain specific examples (someone 'complained' about a lack of specific examples). The first link is zooming in on a specific example. But this thread contains a nice demonstration of what's mentioned in the video below about the claim and argument that 'there is no evidence for God' and all variations (likewise, keep in mind that the phrase 'that's been debunked' that the person in the video below mentions can be phrased differently as well, see my previous comment and quotations from Barcs for example or the response to that phrase by rephrasing it to "what you're arguing are just wordgames and philosophical ..." around 4 minutes). No need to watch beyond 6:38. Keypoints at 3:07-3:34 and 6:08-6:38.

Keep in mind regarding wherever he says "atheist(s)", that the behaviour, way of thinking and arguing that he's describing isn't exclusive to the atheists he's talking about, others do it as well (as I mentioned when I said this thread contains a demonstration of it).

a reply to: whereislogic

Oh yay!

More links to a cult that accept child rape and molestation.