Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 25
28
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


There is so much that is simply wrong in your science.

Let us start with big bang theory for creation of Universe. Tell me what is the basis of this theory.

Science should be based on observations and measurements, not some wild imagination. When you do that, you are no different from belief system that you are attacking. You simply forget that fact.

Tell me what observations and measurements you have taken to support "big bang theory". And remember, I am going to trap you in each of your argument. So better be logical.



You could have just done a 2 second Google search and you would have found the evidence for a big bang:

www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
www.astro.ucla.edu...
etc etc etc...

So far for denying ignorance...You've seemed to trap only yourself.

I would love to hear your version of what "Red shift" and "cosmic background radiation" is then,
and why the universe is expanding. Just let me strap in here...








edit on 4-2-2014 by XyZeR because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


SuperFrogWell, do you just discredit all of his work just because he does not mind to tell what he thinks about religion, belief and answer to all those trying to promote religion as science. My guess that you kind of lost focus at who is doing what - Richard - protecting science, religious fanatics - promoting religion as science, claiming that earth is 6.5 thousands years old, and trying to push their agenda into school as equivalent to evolution and archeology.

I don't discredit his work- but quite honestly I'm distracted more by his rhetoric than what he's actually done. It seems his work these days {books/lectures} is geared more toward forwarding his scientistic/atheistic views.



It is interesting that no scientist ever said to hold all answers, but we will try and learn, while arrogant are the one who claim that they have all answers, written in book 2K years ago, that from start is very much against any science and based on NO FACTS. Rest of your post - yeas, good forum for it - it is conspiracy of scientist community to hide truth...

Are you speaking for all scientists now?
And if you read more intently to what I'm getting at- it's not about what scientists are necessarily saying, although that is part of it. It's the attitude. Also I'm not suggesting that religion is not guilty of this attitude either; just that science has embraced a similar attitude. I see two sides of the same coin.



Late Christopher Hitchens used to say that religion should be ridiculed for what really it is. There is no witch hunting anymore, but good point, if you remember how religion used to deal with science and those who would dare to think for them selves. Childish nonsense - guess what those 2 words really well cover in my language.

Witch hunting in the physical sense- No of course not. But in the ideological sense. Yes, perhaps just a bit. And again I'm not giving religion a free pass here. It's a flawed system that historically has been responsible for a lot of bad in this world.




Again, it is not science that has problem, but religion, as all scientific results point to religion to be wrong. Scientist really don't care, but I guess religious people got kind of offended. There is no such a thing as parapsychology, if that is what you trying to point. You can view my other discussion about it. At least so far no one was able to prove it. There is no secrets there, but there is lots of charlatans, huge industry that works on tricking people...

Please don't try to sell anyone on the premise that scientists don't care. That's entirely false. There are scientists out there who are hell bent on doing the work not for the objectivity of it, or for the new mind blowing discovery, but more to shut the creationist group up. It's an agenda. And you can start once again with Dawkins. Do you truly believe that this guy doesn't care, or that he doesn't have some ulterior motive to promote a certain system of thinking and worldview? Let me ask you now, are you serious?

Evolutionary Theory, while widely accepted by the scientific community, still has some gaps in it. Granted it's the best thing we have, that is not creationist, as an explanation for the changes we perceive in life. But make no mistake, it's a consensus acceptance based on inter-subjective opinion, like all science. And if you want to be written up in a journal, or you want funding for your experiments, you're going to want to adhere to that paradigm, instead of sharing a new idea on how things work. It's a suppression of thinking. I often wonder how much force fitting of puzzle pieces goes on. I wonder how many leaps of faith scientists take... I bet more than anyone would be prepared to admit.


Again, asking you - are you kidding? Not sure who is insecure and why. Me believing that earth is 4.5 billion years old, life on earth 3.5 billion years or your book that tells its 6.5 thousands years old.

No, I'm not kidding. Your refusal to acknowledge that there is an agenda to promote certain scientific ideas and views tells me all I need to know about where your flag is permanently planted.

I say- Let science have its view and let religion have it's own. Each can be taught in schools- and let the student decide for him/her self what is or isn't. I think most educated people will not adhere to a creationist view of the age of the world. But ID may very well present some other interesting ideas to at least ponder. Give the opportunity to question the alternative view instead of gobbling it up because science/religion says so.

I don't know the nature of what is being taught in the religion classroom. I don't know if when teachers teach the Bible or some other religious text that the creation lesson is spoken from a literal sense. I would say that it should not be. Clearly these texts are allegory and should come with that pretense.

And I would think that science understands as much, than to have to go on rants about how wrong/crazy it is to believe in a religion. This is why is say there is an insecurity. What are they worried about?

Spirituality, the basis for religion, is not a bad thing. It does positively affect people mentally, and physiologically as well. There's something to it. If science feels they will find all the answers, then speak from a position of knowledge. Educate. Maybe Dawkins can instead say- "Hey, we're looking for God, we just haven't found it yet. But here's what we have found that you might find interesting."

Science should be about the discoveries, not about promoting agendas or belief systems. Because engaging in the latter makes it no different than a religion.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


A very reasonable reply.
I commend you.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


if your statement were self-evident everyone would have no choice but to believe it

example

1+1 = 2 holds up any place you

intelligent design , just sounds like the same stuff the ancient aliens theorists are trying to sell . religion is a warn nice story to tell people who are afraid of what comes after death , don't be afraid it will be ok , i promise



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

XyZeR

GargIndia
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


There is so much that is simply wrong in your science.

Let us start with big bang theory for creation of Universe. Tell me what is the basis of this theory.

Science should be based on observations and measurements, not some wild imagination. When you do that, you are no different from belief system that you are attacking. You simply forget that fact.

Tell me what observations and measurements you have taken to support "big bang theory". And remember, I am going to trap you in each of your argument. So better be logical.



You could have just done a 2 second Google search and you would have found the evidence for a big bang:

www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
www.astro.ucla.edu...
etc etc etc...

So far for denying ignorance...You've seemed to trap only yourself.

I would love to hear your version of what "Red shift" and "cosmic background radiation" is then,
and why the universe is expanding. Just let me strap in here...

edit on 4-2-2014 by XyZeR because: (no reason given)


You need to consider your style of replying. You give references - no problem, but please give your arguments in your post.

I can discuss the arguments you give in the post, as it is impossible for anybody to discuss a reference in a format like this website.

You talk about "red shift" and "cosmic background radiation". Very well. Please relate this to "big bang theory". You need to provide the logic in your post. Your references are for support of your argument, not the argument itself.

When you throw a couple a terms at me, and then give a reference, I have no idea if you are even capable of discussing these terms, or is it just the first couple of things that hit you in an internet search.
edit on 4-2-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

PhotonEffect
I don't discredit his work- but quite honestly I'm distracted more by his rhetoric than what he's actually done. It seems his work these days {books/lectures} is geared more toward forwarding his scientistic/atheistic views.


Well, it is his own decision to fight ignorance, superstition and enemies of reason. For that I can just thank him, on top of all his work on evolution. It seems to me that a lot of things he proposed, people would easier accept here in USA if - only IF he was not atheist.




PhotonEffect
Are you speaking for all scientists now?
And if you read more intently to what I'm getting at- it's not about what scientists are necessarily saying, although that is part of it. It's the attitude. Also I'm not suggesting that religion is not guilty of this attitude either; just that science has embraced a similar attitude. I see two sides of the same coin.


Not sure how often you had a chance to talk to scientist, or watch scientist answering questions, and answer "I don't know" or 'We don't know". It is quite common, especially if questions are about for example - what was before Big Bang or for example about consciousness. Just tonight we had a chance to listen Bill - the science guy say those words, followed at - we hope to learn it, and giving emphasis on next generation of scientist - without them science will not progress. Give example for that 'attitude' and bear in mind what kind of lunatic today science has to deal in for example USA - where someone believes literarly in bible. Take a look at other side...



PhotonEffect
Witch hunting in the physical sense- No of course not. But in the ideological sense. Yes, perhaps just a bit. And again I'm not giving religion a free pass here. It's a flawed system that historically has been responsible for a lot of bad in this world.

Something we agree on...



PhotonEffect
Please don't try to sell anyone on the premise that scientists don't care. That's entirely false. There are scientists out there who are hell bent on doing the work not for the objectivity of it, or for the new mind blowing discovery, but more to shut the creationist group up. It's an agenda. And you can start once again with Dawkins. Do you truly believe that this guy doesn't care, or that he doesn't have some ulterior motive to promote a certain system of thinking and worldview? Let me ask you now, are you serious?

Any group that is trying to sell belief under science, or what tonight Ken calls 'historical science' (new word for me, meaning someone learning science from bible - book that does not include any science at all) should be shut down bu all scientist because this, call it disease like Father George in Religious (movie about religion made by Bill Maher) should never come close to children in public education.

Of course all scientist care about future generations of scientist, those willing to ask question, rather then find all answers in bible.



PhotonEffect
Evolutionary Theory, while widely accepted by the scientific community, still has some gaps in it. Granted it's the best thing we have, that is not creationist, as an explanation for the changes we perceive in life. But make no mistake, it's a consensus acceptance based on inter-subjective opinion, like all science. And if you want to be written up in a journal, or you want funding for your experiments, you're going to want to adhere to that paradigm, instead of sharing a new idea on how things work. It's a suppression of thinking. I often wonder how much force fitting of puzzle pieces goes on. I wonder how many leaps of faith scientists take... I bet more than anyone would be prepared to admit.


What gasps? What are you talking about? Evolution is based on opinion?



PhotonEffect
No, I'm not kidding. Your refusal to acknowledge that there is an agenda to promote certain scientific ideas and views tells me all I need to know about where your flag is permanently planted.

Yes, you are kidding.


PhotonEffect
I say- Let science have its view and let religion have it's own. Each can be taught in schools- and let the student decide for him/her self what is or isn't. I think most educated people will not adhere to a creationist view of the age of the world. But ID may very well present some other interesting ideas to at least ponder. Give the opportunity to question the alternative view instead of gobbling it up because science/religion says so.

ID is not based on evidence or science, but belief. Those should be offered in Sunday schools for those kids that have parents that don't believe in science. It is actually very simple...

And that is bit of all your post - THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN ID, and actually all scientific evidence points against it. Bible is fictional book, not historical book.



PhotonEffect
I don't know the nature of what is being taught in the religion classroom. I don't know if when teachers teach the Bible or some other religious text that the creation lesson is spoken from a literal sense. I would say that it should not be. Clearly these texts are allegory and should come with that pretense.

And I would think that science understands as much, than to have to go on rants about how wrong/crazy it is to believe in a religion. This is why is say there is an insecurity. What are they worried about?

Spirituality, the basis for religion, is not a bad thing. It does positively affect people mentally, and physiologically as well. There's something to it. If science feels they will find all the answers, then speak from a position of knowledge. Educate. Maybe Dawkins can instead say- "Hey, we're looking for God, we just haven't found it yet. But here's what we have found that you might find interesting."

Science should be about the discoveries, not about promoting agendas or belief systems. Because engaging in the latter makes it no different than a religion.


I had religion in university as class, and that is imho proper age to show all religions, evolution of them, history and what people believe. At that age, people can reason what is real and what is made up story. Before that, I would have to agree with Dr. Krauss - it is child abuse.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Whenever the discussion turns to "religion", it goes in the wrong direction. The reason is quite simple. Religion has been misused by political authority for several thousand years. The books of religion have been turned into books of law rather than books of knowledge.

So you attended the "religion" class, but you studied already distorted forms of religion. So it is natural you developed a distaste for religion. I studied basics of several religions and came to the same conclusions.

However assuming that whatever is branded as "science" today as gospel will be your biggest mistake.

It is good that some scientists say they don't know about certain things. But do they know for sure what they say they know?

The idea of "big bang" at start of creation of Universe has come from "Veda", which is an ancient book. However your scientific "big bang theory" has several differences from the account in the "Veda". So you steal an idea and change it to suit your political preferences. Neat.

I invite a frank and factual discussion on "big bang theory", rather than rhetoric.

Let me tell you one more time - very clearly - Science must be based on scientific methods. And scientific methods are observation and measurement. If a theory is not based on scientific methods, you go in the area of "belief systems" or "cult".



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Asserting something is a fact or "self-evident" does not make it so.

Since Belief and Faith is all that is required to accept the Bible as true and unerring, why do Creationists even feel the need to debate science at all?

When Religion attempts to cross over into science, it must then conform to the rigors of the Scientific Method. "Evidence" and "Proof" are real, definable terms and not subject to interpretation.

As SOON as Religion tries to play in "Science's" sand-box it immediately falls apart.

And it doesn't have to. Just stick to Faith and Belief and you are unassailable. The flip-side is to try and engage in a debate with real scientists and get so thoroughly and profoundly defeated in a real debate that is embarrassing to watch.

Faith is a wonderful thing, quite trying to use science to prove it exists...you don't have too
edit on 10-2-2014 by Leonidas because: God made me fix a mistake in my post. sorry
edit on 10-2-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


What matters is "truth".

Neither science nor religion matters.

'God' is not the same as religion. If you follow science with 'honesty' then you will realize that there is a superior power which science does not understand, which your instruments cannot observe but seems to dictate how things work.

A real scientist deals with dead ends more often than you would like to believe.

There are two things - one is real science that is setting up experiments and observing; and then there is "science narration" or what gets into text books.

You need to tell me what kind of scientist you are - the one that reads or the one that performs the experiments.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 




What matters is "truth".

And...of course, you know the "truth". And...of course, the "truth" you know is the real "truth."

Tell us, how do you know that?

Is it because the book says that the book is the "truth".

That's very logical.
edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Firstly, tell you the truth, I was not sure should I even try to reply to your messages. You are avoiding to answer all questions, trying to demote science into pure belief and lastly, trying to prove that vedas hold so called 'truth'. I see that you are also mixing terms and still trying to figure out what is 'my', 'yours', 'ours'...



GargIndia
 

Whenever the discussion turns to "religion", it goes in the wrong direction. The reason is quite simple. Religion has been misused by political authority for several thousand years. The books of religion have been turned into books of law rather than books of knowledge.

Discussion did not turn 'into' religion, but as we are talking about ID, ID being idea from religion, it is kind of hard and meaningless not to talk about religion itself. Religion was political authority itself, it was used as power to control and all religion books are rather very basic sets of rules and laws. I would be careful before calling them 'books of knowledge'.




GargIndia
 

So you attended the "religion" class, but you studied already distorted forms of religion. So it is natural you developed a distaste for religion. I studied basics of several religions and came to the same conclusions.

I did not study distorted forms of religion, I just studied history behind religions, from oldest little known to current monotheistic religions. I never said that I took class to become religious, it was just interest of mine, among other things. Please note that you came short to mention what was your conclusion.



GargIndia
 

However assuming that whatever is branded as "science" today as gospel will be your biggest mistake.

Science, gospel, what are you talking about?



GargIndia
 

It is good that some scientists say they don't know about certain things. But do they know for sure what they say they know?

Yes, pretty sure about it... otherwise they would say "we don't know".


GargIndia
 

The idea of "big bang" at start of creation of Universe has come from "Veda", which is an ancient book. However your scientific "big bang theory" has several differences from the account in the "Veda". So you steal an idea and change it to suit your political preferences. Neat.

Care to point in vedas where Big Bang as explained by science is explained as 'creation of universe'. How old is universe acording to Vedas? How long was human life in all 4 different time periods according to Vedas? Please answer those questions, then we can incorporate 'your' ideas. In this post you said that I have stolen something from vedas, yet facts in age and start of universe is very different from what vedas states.



GargIndia
 

I invite a frank and factual discussion on "big bang theory", rather than rhetoric.

Discussion is when you say what you think, when you give some evidence in what you are saying. So far I have not seen that here.



GargIndia
 

Let me tell you one more time - very clearly - Science must be based on scientific methods. And scientific methods are observation and measurement. If a theory is not based on scientific methods, you go in the area of "belief systems" or "cult".

Still unclear what do you mean. Only thing that is clear is that you don't grasp science completely. (Or at least you think you do, but you are showing us here otherwise)




GargIndia
 


What matters is "truth".

Neither science nor religion matters.



Really, what truth? Your truth?



GargIndia
 

'God' is not the same as religion. If you follow science with 'honesty' then you will realize that there is a superior power which science does not understand, which your instruments cannot observe but seems to dictate how things work.

'Our' instrument can observe many things, but only 'real' things. Even as small as parts of an atom or big as IC 1011 galaxy! Guess what... no signs of ID there...



GargIndia
 

A real scientist deals with dead ends more often than you would like to believe.

If you refer to breakthrough, sure, they are rare in some fields, but still happen. I am not sure what do you mean by 'dead ends', care to elaborate? Too broad statement. (It rain more often... not much of a statement if you can't compare it to something, place or time)


GargIndia
 

There are two things - one is real science that is setting up experiments and observing; and then there is "science narration" or what gets into text books.

Just in your head. Science is science, either in book, paper, experiment itself. It does take a time to update books, it is more ongoing thing, but new technology makes it easier.



GargIndia
 

You need to tell me what kind of scientist you are - the one that reads or the one that performs the experiments.

I believe I have already provided you with info that even reading scientific papers is 'scientific work'. For example, in recent debate Bill Nye used many arguments, but he himself was not involved in any of those experiments. Reading and understanding scientific papers is science as well.

What's going on? Can't find better way to discredit someone in discussion?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by GargIndia
 




What matters is "truth".

And...of course, you know the "truth". And...of course, the "truth" you know is the real "truth."

Tell us, how do you know that?

Is it because the book says that the book is the "truth".

That's very logical.
edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


1. You are in no position to say what the book says. So let us leave that. The book can not be a subject of discussion here, as that needs both parties to have the knowledge of the book.

2. Do I know the truth? This is what you can question.

And there is an answer to that. Everybody finds truth by EFFORT. One has to make effort and one has to learn from somebody who knows the truth. I have made a lot of effort in my life.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

GargIndia

2. Do I know the truth? This is what you can question.

And there is an answer to that. Everybody finds truth by EFFORT. One has to make effort and one has to learn from somebody who knows the truth. I have made a lot of effort in my life.


Ahhhh so your truth is avoidance then. Because the most effort I've seen from you in this thread is in not actually answering questions. It's all riddles. Like Golem.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Your decision to reply is your own. I did not force you to reply. So let us start from that point.

1. "Discussion did not turn 'into' religion, but as we are talking about ID, ID being idea from religion, it is kind of hard and meaningless not to talk about religion itself."

First of all, there are several religions. Every religion has a different idea of creation. You cannot "generalize" religion. It is fine if you want to talk about religion but then your point of reference should be clear.

My point is simple. If you want to say creation of life happened artificially without intervention of some "God" or a superior intelligence (as compared to humans), you need to offer conclusive proof to support your claim. However you can always says that you do not want to offer proof as "religion" does not offer any proof. But when you say that, you are in the same category as religion.

If you want to prove your claim scientifically, you have to adopt method of "observation and measurement". Because if life could have started artificially at some point in history, it can very well do now. What changed? Create the conditions in lab and show us.

2. "How old is universe acording to Vedas? How long was human life in all 4 different time periods according to Vedas? Please answer those questions, then we can incorporate 'your' ideas. In this post you said that I have stolen something from vedas, yet facts in age and start of universe is very different from what vedas states."

Please make your statements clear and straightforward. I have no interest in interpreting.

You seem to know something that you want to confirm.

Human life is stated as 100 years IN ALL PERIODS in Veda. I think you are referring to "yuga" when you are referring to periods.

As for age of Universe, you tell me first of what you know there is in Veda. Then we shall take from there.

3. Where did "big bang theory" come from? What is the basis. You answer this question first and then we will take it further.

4. "Still unclear what do you mean. Only thing that is clear is that you don't grasp science completely. (Or at least you think you do, but you are showing us here otherwise.)"

Show me that you understand. We shall see what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

peter vlar

GargIndia

2. Do I know the truth? This is what you can question.

And there is an answer to that. Everybody finds truth by EFFORT. One has to make effort and one has to learn from somebody who knows the truth. I have made a lot of effort in my life.


Ahhhh so your truth is avoidance then. Because the most effort I've seen from you in this thread is in not actually answering questions. It's all riddles. Like Golem.


Which question you asked that I did not answer or answered in riddles??? Please refresh my memory.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   

GargIndia
2. "How old is universe acording to Vedas? How long was human life in all 4 different time periods according to Vedas?


You might as well be asking 'how old is the Universe according to The Cat in the Hat?'.

The correct question is 'how old is the universe based on observation and testing?'.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


You obviously cannot read.

Read carefully to see who asked the question.

Since you answered a question with a question, you need to give the answer yourself.

What did you observe? What did you test?
edit on 15-2-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus
You might as well be asking 'how old is the Universe according to The Cat in the Hat?'.

The correct question is 'how old is the universe based on observation and testing?'.


That was my question that GI avoided to answer, of course it is not hard to figure out why.

Current science model places universe @ 13.8 billion years.

From calculations of Vedas, universe is 155.522 trillion of years old.






top topics



 
28
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join