Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

reply to post by neoholographic


Wow! You & a few others really have a way of turning Science into religion then believe yourselves huh? Like the person questioning a partner, " Who'd you see when you went to get mail? " other says," No one at all." you keep asking till the other is fed up & says," Well MAYYYBE I caught a glimpse of Joe Blow but mayyyybe I didn't see clearly." you then say & ask," I knew you HAD to have seen someone! So what did Joe Blow have to say? other says," Nothing, I SAID maybe I caught a glimpse of him but wasn't sure so had I talked with him I would've been sure." you say Joe Blow MUST'VE said something!' other keeps saying no but you keep pushing & so begins another useless yet somehow vicious twisted circle till you THINK you heard what YOU WANTED to.....

Cogito, Ergo Sum

GargIndia
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

"We can be anything we want on the internet."

It sums up everything about you.

Just go read my posts. I have said everything about myself in my posts. Who I am. Why I post?

Go search my posts on ATS.

Honest people with good intentions do not need to hide.

You are ashamed of who you are and what you are trying to be. Not me.

I have made no claims.

I don't care who you are.

I don't care why you post.

I also don't care about your education or qualifications.

You could be Einstein, Newton and Mother Theresa rolled into one, but this is irrelevant to the discussion. Odd that you wouldn't understand this.

I asked you to back specific claims of "science" that you made and experiments promised.

You failed to do this.

It's that simple.

Instead you wish to engage in some sort of slanging match instead.

Doesn't quite cut it.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.

You posted your experiment to test my knowledge. You did it before I posted my experiment.

Why you did not wait for me to post my experiment?

That means you are too sure of yourself.

If you are, why don't you answer the questions in a scientific way. Why are you running away.

Who is being dishonest here?

Let us discuss your experiment first. Once this is done, than I shall post my experiment too. You have beaten me to 'posting the experiment' match by posting yours first.

I need to be sure where you are coming from.

Pardon?

GargIndia
reply to post by Pardon?

 

"I'm guessing you put that line is as a get-out clause to answering the question he's asked you to answer several times now."

No. I am staying with this discussion if a "scientific discussion" is taken up in a "scientific way".

And we're all waiting with bated breath for you to actually supply some science rather than utilising the link below to form the content of all of your replies...
Random Phrase Generator

Stop dodging.

My reason is very simple and given earlier. Are you capable of discussing a 'scientific' experiment?

Let us see that first.

GargIndia

Pardon?

GargIndia
reply to post by Pardon?

 

"I'm guessing you put that line is as a get-out clause to answering the question he's asked you to answer several times now."

No. I am staying with this discussion if a "scientific discussion" is taken up in a "scientific way".

And we're all waiting with bated breath for you to actually supply some science rather than utilising the link below to form the content of all of your replies...
Random Phrase Generator

Stop dodging.

My reason is very simple and given earlier. Are you capable of discussing a 'scientific' experiment?

Let us see that first.

I'm more than able.
My doubt is whether you are.

You could have easily stopped these posts by answering his question but no, you choose to fanny around so you wonder why you're being questioned?

If you can answer the question by return it will show that you have a willingness to continue with this.
If you keep posting thinly veiled excuses then the thread is over.

reply to post by Pardon?


Oh! you are.

Please answer the following questions, posted earlier as well:

1. What is input to the experiment?
2. What is output of the experiment?
3. What are you measuring and with what accuracy?
4. What are the assumptions?

And while you are at it, you can also explain how this experiment is measuring time dilation? Your input is not controlled, as it is something coming from space. The particle is not carrying a 'clock' which can measure time while it is in transit? Explain in a clear understandable language.

GargIndia
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Oh! you are.

Please answer the following questions, posted earlier as well:

1. What is input to the experiment?
2. What is output of the experiment?
3. What are you measuring and with what accuracy?
4. What are the assumptions?

And while you are at it, you can also explain how this experiment is measuring time dilation? Your input is not controlled, as it is something coming from space. The particle is not carrying a 'clock' which can measure time while it is in transit? Explain in a clear understandable language.

Since you continually refuse to answer the question put to you it's obvious that;
a: You don't have an answer and
b: you will continue to obfuscate any attempt at presenting science with nonsensical pseudo-mystical sayings.

Thank you for ending the thread.

reply to post by Pardon?


You are no scientist.

You are just a paid poster.

You have no answers except quoting from Internet.

Be a man and answer the questions about the already posted experiment.

What would you know about "my experiment" when you do not know about "your experiment".

How do you claim to understand any science at all?

GargIndia
My reason is very simple and given earlier. Are you capable of discussing a 'scientific' experiment?

Let us see that first.

GI, let us see your 'reason' first - can you point to what you show 'earlier'.

Your discredit of everyone because you are incapable to discuss and cover your claims is rather hilarious.

GargIndia
reply to post by Pardon?

 

You are no scientist.

You are just a paid poster.

You have no answers except quoting from Internet.

Be a man and answer the questions about the already posted experiment.

What would you know about "my experiment" when you do not know about "your experiment".

How do you claim to understand any science at all?

Thank you.
Your second line says all I need to know about your mindset.

Have a wonderful day and say Hi to your chakras from me.

pff "Intelligent" design... It really baffles me when people totally disregard and fail to see the clearly "unintelligent" design that also surrounds us, right next to where they claim they found intelligent design...Religion is like a blindfold in that regard. Stagnant, it becomes a box, out of which you cannot think cleary anymore.

Heck if it wasn't for science they would not be able to use the PC they are using to spread totaly ignorant outdated idea's.

If you believe in "intelligent" design, then i suggest you stop using modern medicine
the next time you get sick, and just "pray" to get better, stop going to hospitals, ...

If we didn't "evolve" but were created or intelligently designed,
then that implies that men cannot have belly buttons (since Adam wasn't born out of a female)
we are all born out of incest (adam and eve)

And then there's the true important question: If something indeed intelligently "designed" us, then what or who designed that designer?


Edit to add:
I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box.
Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is of a bear.
The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear.
Dogma begins to get more and more upset. "I don't know why you're bothering, it's obviously a unicorn!" he chortles.
Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it's almost unmistakable.
Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece. Religion shrieks with glee at this. "See?! You put that piece in the wrong place! Your wishful thinking that it's a bear made you make a mistake! Since you're wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!"

"But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can't you see by the rest of them it's obviously a bear?" replies Science.
"You just don't want to admit it's a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!" screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle.

reply to post by XyZeR


Science is a religion by a different name and cloak.
You're kidding yourself if you think its not a dogmatic system

PhotonEffect
Science is a religion by a different name and cloak.
You're kidding yourself if you think its not a dogmatic system

You can't be serious....

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Of course because scientific exploration is a human endeavor it comes with all the flaws of humanity: ego, short-sightedness, corruption and greed. But unlike a "belief system" such as religion untethered to an objective truth, science is over time self-policing; competing scientists have a strong incentive to corroborate and build on the findings of others; but equally, to prove other scientists wrong by means that can be duplicated by others. Nobody is doing experiments to demonstrate how Noah could live to 600 years old, because those who believe that story are not confined to reproducible evidence to support their belief. But experiments were done to show the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

* Source - www.huffingtonpost.com...

by dogmatic standards, yes Im serious

PhotonEffect
by dogmatic standards, yes Im serious

edit on 1-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

Some who practice science may in some philosophical sense be considered quasi-religious but science in itself and by definition cannot be.

reply to post by Pardon?

Pardon?

PhotonEffect
by dogmatic standards, yes Im serious

edit on 1-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

Some who practice science may in some philosophical sense be considered quasi-religious but science in itself and by definition cannot be.

My attack is not against science as the practice, per se, but more against those who use science as a tool to promote their own agendas and ideas (and yes, even belief systems) while stifling others who may not adhere to the current "system". Richard Dawkins is a prime example. Does Science really benefit from a man like him speaking on its behalf? He draws an unnecessary ire to the entire community. What is it that he's so worried about, defending science (and attacking religion) in the manner that he does? People who believe in an invisible man in the sky? really? Isn't there a higher road to take here? Or is he that insecure in the knowledge (or lack there of) he and his brethren possess about the universe? Or perhaps it might be because those with different ideas of how things work actually carry some merit? I do wonder....

There is an arrogance that has pervaded the scientific community as if it's unlocked the answers to all of the universe's greatest mysteries. And under this current paradigm of thinking, anyone who dares go against it, or dares to think outside the iron clad box will feel the wrath of scorn, and will be ridiculed or adorned the proverbial Scarlett letter of "P", for pseudoscientist or "W" for WOO. Even those sporting the same branded Ivy League Phd's and doctorates as their opponents are spared no consolation. We witness a version of this attitude on a daily basis here at ATS. It's a bunch of mini Dawkins' screaming and yelling and degrading people. And we reward such behavior with stars!

The poster above offered nothing but two words of his own in response to me, then links to an article in the huffington post of one mans opinion on the matter (whom Ive never heard of quite honestly). Yet he receives all of this recognition (in stars) as if he just linked us to the source of free energy. Really? I had no clue that blog contributors to HP carried such weight around here. Or perhaps my statement struck a chord? It would've been nice if the poster posted some of his/her own original thoughts on the matter. I mean, even a monkey can google, then copy/paste someone else's opinion as representative of their own. (no offense to the monkey)

I digress- My point here is that with this type of arrogance, and self-righteousness (which prompted my response to this post in the first place) it seems like we may be turning the clock back, in a sense, to a pre-modern age of dogma and secular witch-hunts, or dare I say obscurantism. Shouldn't we be progressing? Isn't that what science is/was/should be about? I've always considered the scientific community as being above all this childish nonsense. Or at least more modest with all this knowledge they supposedly harbor. Those with all the answers shouldn't need to behave in such ways...

I thought science was supposed to be a tool for exploring the natural world in an attempt to provide us with better understanding. To live alongside religion. It was never meant to pour scorn upon religion; scientists were overwhelmingly religious believers back in the day (as many still are; although quietly I imagine). However, in more modern times science has given rise to "scientism", this "belief" that it can answer all the questions of human existence. (The last I checked we still have no clue how this thing we've dubbed the universe even started. And it's no wonder, given that our physical senses only allow us to perceive 4% of what's out there.) And it is this belief (faith) in itself and it's ideas, which are being force fed on people, that I liken to a religion or a cult even. Especially when you have zealots like Dawkins championing the current paradigm and proclaiming the scientific doctrine as if it's some creed we all need to bow down to...

It's a real turn off, and wreaks of insecurity something awful.

PhotonEffect
My attack is not against science as the practice, per se, but more against those who use science as a tool to promote their own agendas and ideas (and yes, even belief systems) while stifling others who may not adhere to the current "system". Richard Dawkins is a prime example. Does Science really benefit from a man like him speaking on its behalf? He draws an unnecessary ire to the entire community. What is it that he's so worried about, defending science (and attacking religion) in the manner that he does? People who believe in an invisible man in the sky? really? Isn't there a higher road to take here? Or is he that insecure in the knowledge (or lack there of) he and his brethren possess about the universe? Or perhaps it might be because those with different ideas of how things work actually carry some merit? I do wonder....

Well, 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. (Flintstones as documentary ) BTW, just got his last book.

PhotonEffect
There is an arrogance that has pervaded the scientific community as if it's unlocked the answers to all of the universe's greatest mysteries. And under this current paradigm of thinking, anyone who dares go against it, or dares to think outside the iron clad box will feel the wrath of scorn, and will be ridiculed or adorned the proverbial Scarlett letter of "P", for pseudoscientist or "W" for WOO. Even those sporting the same branded Ivy League Phd's and doctorates as their opponents are spared no consolation. We witness a version of this attitude on a daily basis here at ATS. It's a bunch of mini Dawkins' screaming and yelling and degrading people. And we reward such behavior with stars!

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...

PhotonEffect
The poster above offered nothing but two words of his own in response to me, then links to an article in the huffington post of one mans opinion on the matter (whom Ive never heard of quite honestly). Yet he receives all of this recognition (in stars) as if he just linked us to the source of free energy. Really? I had no clue that blog contributors to HP carried such weight around here. Or perhaps my statement struck a chord? It would've been nice if the poster posted some of his/her own original thoughts on the matter. I mean, even a monkey can google, then copy/paste someone else's opinion as representative of their own. (no offense to the monkey)

I just got tired of repeating myself. Text that I posted is well put together and I completely agree with it.

PhotonEffect
I digress- My point here is that with this type of arrogance, and self-righteousness (which prompted my response to this post in the first place) it seems like we may be turning the clock back, in a sense, to a pre-modern age of dogma and secular witch-hunts, or dare I say obscurantism. Shouldn't we be progressing? Isn't that what science is/was/should be about? I've always considered the scientific community as being above all this childish nonsense. Or at least more modest with all this knowledge they supposedly harbor. Those with all the answers shouldn't need to behave in such ways...

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.

PhotonEffect
I thought science was supposed to be a tool for exploring the natural world in an attempt to provide us with better understanding. To live alongside religion. It was never meant to pour scorn upon religion; scientists were overwhelmingly religious believers back in the day (as many still are; although quietly I imagine). However, in more modern times science has given rise to "scientism", this "belief" that it can answer all the questions of human existence. (The last I checked we still have no clue how this thing we've dubbed the universe even started. And it's no wonder, given that our physical senses only allow us to perceive 4% of what's out there.) And it is this belief (faith) in itself and it's ideas, which are being force fed on people, that I liken to a religion or a cult even. Especially when you have zealots like Dawkins championing the current paradigm and proclaiming the scientific doctrine as if it's some creed we all need to bow down to...

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...

PhotonEffectIt's a real turn off, and wreaks of insecurity something awful.

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.

Dr. TIm Minchin explains religion in USA the best...

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.

SuperFrog

PhotonEffect
Science is a religion by a different name and cloak.
You're kidding yourself if you think its not a dogmatic system

You can't be serious....

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a "belief system" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Of course because scientific exploration is a human endeavor it comes with all the flaws of humanity: ego, short-sightedness, corruption and greed. But unlike a "belief system" such as religion untethered to an objective truth, science is over time self-policing; competing scientists have a strong incentive to corroborate and build on the findings of others; but equally, to prove other scientists wrong by means that can be duplicated by others. Nobody is doing experiments to demonstrate how Noah could live to 600 years old, because those who believe that story are not confined to reproducible evidence to support their belief. But experiments were done to show the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

* Source - www.huffingtonpost.com...

I fully support the scientific methods - that is forming an opinion based on observations and measurements; rather than believing somebody said so.

However modern science has over-stepped its mandate in many many areas. Falsehood is being spread through incorrect scientific experiments and incomplete observations cloaked in obfuscation and lies.

Science has become a cult. It started very well but it is no longer so. The reason is science has got entangled with power structures. And those in power are only worried about continuance of their power rather than the truth.

reply to post by GargIndia


And there is another joke... 'my science', 'my theory' of big bang... Don't get me started, might need piano for it...

You made many claims in last 2 posts, without any supporting evidence... and to change how we discuss things, let's do this :

I will ask you what do you know about 2 things and after you answer, then we can talk about the big bang.

Questions:

1. What is CMB?

2. What is Hubble's Law?

PhotonEffect
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Pardon?

PhotonEffect
by dogmatic standards, yes Im serious

edit on 1-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

Some who practice science may in some philosophical sense be considered quasi-religious but science in itself and by definition cannot be.

My attack is not against science as the practice, per se, but more against those who use science as a tool to promote their own agendas and ideas (and yes, even belief systems) while stifling others who may not adhere to the current "system". Richard Dawkins is a prime example. Does Science really benefit from a man like him speaking on its behalf? He draws an unnecessary ire to the entire community. What is it that he's so worried about, defending science (and attacking religion) in the manner that he does? People who believe in an invisible man in the sky? really? Isn't there a higher road to take here? Or is he that insecure in the knowledge (or lack there of) he and his brethren possess about the universe? Or perhaps it might be because those with different ideas of how things work actually carry some merit? I do wonder....

There is an arrogance that has pervaded the scientific community as if it's unlocked the answers to all of the universe's greatest mysteries. And under this current paradigm of thinking, anyone who dares go against it, or dares to think outside the iron clad box will feel the wrath of scorn, and will be ridiculed or adorned the proverbial Scarlett letter of "P", for pseudoscientist or "W" for WOO. Even those sporting the same branded Ivy League Phd's and doctorates as their opponents are spared no consolation. We witness a version of this attitude on a daily basis here at ATS. It's a bunch of mini Dawkins' screaming and yelling and degrading people. And we reward such behavior with stars!

The poster above offered nothing but two words of his own in response to me, then links to an article in the huffington post of one mans opinion on the matter (whom Ive never heard of quite honestly). Yet he receives all of this recognition (in stars) as if he just linked us to the source of free energy. Really? I had no clue that blog contributors to HP carried such weight around here. Or perhaps my statement struck a chord? It would've been nice if the poster posted some of his/her own original thoughts on the matter. I mean, even a monkey can google, then copy/paste someone else's opinion as representative of their own. (no offense to the monkey)

I digress- My point here is that with this type of arrogance, and self-righteousness (which prompted my response to this post in the first place) it seems like we may be turning the clock back, in a sense, to a pre-modern age of dogma and secular witch-hunts, or dare I say obscurantism. Shouldn't we be progressing? Isn't that what science is/was/should be about? I've always considered the scientific community as being above all this childish nonsense. Or at least more modest with all this knowledge they supposedly harbor. Those with all the answers shouldn't need to behave in such ways...

I thought science was supposed to be a tool for exploring the natural world in an attempt to provide us with better understanding. To live alongside religion. It was never meant to pour scorn upon religion; scientists were overwhelmingly religious believers back in the day (as many still are; although quietly I imagine). However, in more modern times science has given rise to "scientism", this "belief" that it can answer all the questions of human existence. (The last I checked we still have no clue how this thing we've dubbed the universe even started. And it's no wonder, given that our physical senses only allow us to perceive 4% of what's out there.) And it is this belief (faith) in itself and it's ideas, which are being force fed on people, that I liken to a religion or a cult even. Especially when you have zealots like Dawkins championing the current paradigm and proclaiming the scientific doctrine as if it's some creed we all need to bow down to...

It's a real turn off, and wreaks of insecurity something awful.

edit on 3-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

I realised what your post was getting at which is why I qualified my response as such, splitting individuals from the actual discipline.
I'm in full agreement with you about the likes of Dawkins et al.
And I completely agree with you that he and his ilk have given the impression that science knows everything when that's far from the truth.
The vast majority of credible scientists would completely disagree with that dogma.
In truth, the fact we don't know everything is the reason I love science but at the same time all hypotheses need to be tested and when you get individuals hypothesising something which is completely out of the box and then providing no way of testing it, just relying on belief, that stops being scientific and as such deserves to be dismissed.