You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from kjkent1:
I'll tell ya what, you define the issue, just like you would in an appellate brief: by stating a single succinct question for the court, and then I'll be happy to argue the facts with you. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
This was your chronological response to my statements a few days ago.
Today I read a new response to a post that had already been addressed by you.
I was wondering was this some sort of glitch. What happened. why would KJ make a new out of sequence response. I think I know what happened. Your world view is under attack from top sceintists. You are losing your composure. Instead of responding to the statements made by scientists you had a better idea.
Thinking I was away and that I would be unable to respond in a timely manner, you spewed tired unsubstantiated misrepresentations about science and then you spewed some insults in my direction.
Your less than honorable tactics reveal flaws in your analysis and your lack of desire to have an intellectual exchange.
I guess in a way you have achieved your victory. You have silenced the person contributing science in the name of agnosticism.
Quote from kjkent1:
There's no point in my having a discussion with someone who apparently believes he's a philosopher who's been dead for over 2,000 years.
Don't believe I'm dead, nor a dead philosopher. Willing to discuss with someone who believes he's a lawyer who is a alive.
Jesus
Quote from stu:
Forgive myself for something you have expressed. "Why" ?
Because you cannot be separate from equality with God. It's not possible you can make him vain, conceited, insane, or non-existent, without making the same of yourself.
The meaning of the plank in the eye is that it also is not possible to see in anyone else what you do not already see in yourself.
Whatever I can "see" about you, I have already forgiven. And in so doing, have forgiven myself.
Jesus
Scientists are not math...ookay,, but please... this is not going to be one of your "H20 becomes water" moments is it?Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
No formula itself reaches a conclusion. Math is just a tool, it is not self directed to any particular conclusion or opinion.
Scientists reach conclusions, they draw conclusions, they make guesses, they expound their beliefs, they use the tools of math...but they are not math.
So you want to see the math for which, E=mc2 or an Intelligent Designer Creator God ? Only one set of math actually exists. Guess which.Quote fromZZZzzzzzzz:
So what you are doing is not in any wayshowing math, you are professing the opinions of other who actually did the math in support of their conclusions.
You are making that appeal. No one else is. Well except jem of course. Scientists have to back up their math their conclusions and their guesses. Even then it is all up for improvement change or replacement should another back up their math their conclusions and their guesses with more evidence.Quote fromZZZzzzzzzz:
Why you shrink like a baby turtle's head when it comes to the admission that there is in fact an appeal to the authority of scientists demonstrates your duplicity.
You can't do any of that. You have no math, no back up and only pre-conclusion and guesses. Be careful when swinging that Duplicity sword around , it is two edged and you have just cut yourself....again.
You still do not appear to have read back your own advice. Look again It was you who did that in what you describe as God. Not I.Quote from I am...:
Because you cannot be separate from equality with God. It's not possible you can make him vain, conceited, insane, or non-existent, without making the same of yourself.
That must be very self-gratifying for you . Go around forgiving everyone for things that you express yourself, and then forgive yourself. How very convenient. Let's see , you could forgive yourself say ...murder, genocide and atrocities against humanity doing that.Quote from I am...:
The meaning of the plank in the eye is that it also is not possible to see in anyone else what you do not already see in yourself.
Whatever I can "see" about you, I have already forgiven. And in so doing, have forgiven myself.
Jesus
stu
H2O becomes water?
LOL, you really are as dumb as you write...
Your appeal is to scientists, which is an appeal to authority.
Why you shy away from that, is beyond me.
LOL, you really are as dumb as you write...
Your appeal is to scientists, which is an appeal to authority.
Why you shy away from that, is beyond me.
Quote from stu:
Scientists are not math...ookay,, but please... this is not going to be one of your "H20 becomes water" moments is it? So you want to see the math for which, E=mc2 or an Intelligent Designer Creator God ? Only one set of math actually exists. Guess which.
You are making that appeal. No one else is. Well except jem of course. Scientists have to back up their math their conclusions and their guesses. Even then it is all up for improvement change or replacement should another back up their math their conclusions and their guesses with more evidence.
You can't do any of that. You have no math, no back up and only pre-conclusion and guesses. Be careful when swinging that Duplicity sword around , it is two edged and you have just cut yourself....again.
Quote from jem:
This was your chronological response to my statements a few days ago.
Today I read a new response to a post that had already been addressed by you.
I was wondering was this some sort of glitch. What happened. why would KJ make a new out of sequence response. I think I know what happened. Your world view is under attack from top sceintists. You are losing your composure. Instead of responding to the statements made by scientists you had a better idea.
Thinking I was away and that I would be unable to respond in a timely manner, you spewed tired unsubstantiated misrepresentations about science and then you spewed some insults in my direction.
Your less than honorable tactics reveal flaws in your analysis and your lack of desire to have an intellectual exchange.
I guess in a way you have achieved your victory. You have silenced the person contributing science in the name of agnosticism.
Short vacation. ~12 hours.
I asked you a direct question, which you didn't answer. If you had answered the question, we could have proceeded from there. Instead, you play endless games, because you don't know what you're talking about on this subject.
If you doubt my conclusion, then I suggest that you visit www.randi.org, where there are forums comprised of people who can "do the math," and who routinely discuss this sort of subject matter on a much higher intellectual level.
Open a thread with your position and then try to defend it. I believe you'll have your head cut off in no time flat. If not, then I'll applaud your intellectual supremacy.
In this forum, however, the entire idea of discussing anthropic principle and cosmological theories is a spectacular joke. I'm just playing with you, because you want to argue and I'm bored.
Nothing is ever learned as a result of conversation in ET. It's just jacking off into space for everyone involved. At least I recognize this as reality.
Do you?
Quote from kjkent1:
The fact is, you have no idea what I believe, other than to accept what I say. It may be difficult for you to comprehend that I don't care whether or not a supreme creator exists. But, the fact is that I don't, so you'll just have to get over your disbelief, if you want to have a discussion with me.
First let me clear something up. I don't find it difficult to comprehend that you don't care as you say. And you are right, I can only go by what you say, because I don't know you. But regardless of my understanding of your current position, I was basing my statement on the last thing you said to me. IMO, most people who so adamantly insist that there is no God, are in denial, which is fine if it gets you through the night.
However, I also notice that most of those same people spend much of their time constantly having to prove that claim to themselves by trying to prove it to others. Thus a forum like this is born. Again, I have no problem with you, or your position. Your choice is yours to make, which is the freedom of free will given by God, so I'm not going to deny you right to choose what you choose. I'm not attempting to convert you, because I am well aware that that is not my job.
In your last statement, you acknowledged your awareness that "if God exists" the probability existed for you to get judged due to your denial of Him. You were willing to accept that judgement under the "if" scenario, because of your current choice to reject Him. It is that awareness that caused me to respond the way I did, because if you truly didn't believe in His existence, why would you believe it might be possible that you would get judged? Why wouldn't you believe (as most self-centered people do - no offense) that He wouldn't just accept you as you are... imperfections and all...rejection of Him considered? That was what made me believe that you don't really think He doesn't exist. Peace.
Quote from stu:
Only when one bothers to read their stuff does it become apparent how much these religious zealots rely upon a common theme of idiocity to make nonsensical argument .
to get from this...
to this...
...by ignoring what is actually said, mutilating words and meaning in order to make yet another dreadfully tedious and contorted post in defense of things invisible and unknowable. Why would anyone want to misconstrue that way? Well maybe to help jem get back on track.
But why anyone would want to be on the ZZzz'ism track beggars belief.
Then there's Jem who will always just deny and deny again, ignore and ignore again, anything that doesn't fit with his own personal selected description and interpretation of what he states scientists say. Even in the face of them haing already confirmed on radio they don't mean what jem says they do, over and over again he will repeat the same fallacious argument blanking out all response which shows he is obviously misrepresenting.
to get from this....
to this ...
...Ether64 who first makes an incoherent rambling full of inconsistency about "logic", then in the worst kind of illogicality, arrives at his erroneous conclusions by purposely , ignorantly or conveniently or all three, disregards the conditional 'If'.
In that way Creationism would hold everyone in a state of imbecility by asserting nothing more than the absurd, in denying science (whilst taking everything creationists want from it) , denying knowledge, denying meaning which doesn't meet with their own, denying honesty, denying integrity, just as so long as ID'ers can insist at any cost, there must be a creator God.
Without any compunction they would willingly put absurd and derisory arguments into schools and turn children into idiots too, and for what?. For nothing more than some make-believe ideas and medieval imaginings of God.
The same nonsensical arguments on one hand rely on physics, science and scientific explanation to assertain any facts or information, such as there is actually a cosmological constant , something never known about through any other means, then comes the contortion of that observation, to deny and obscure any physics science and all scientific explanation so as to magically conjure up a tale all about a creator.
By applying the same idiocity, the nonsensical arguments for Creationism and Intelligent Design failing, creationists would take everyone for being a mug under another pseudonym - Teleology.
First, I am not "ignoring what is actually said, mutilating words and meaning in order to make yet another dreadfully tedious and contorted post in defense of things invisible and unknowable. "
âIfâ you checked my post, every definition I gave of logic and it's sub definitions came straight from Wikipedia.com. So if there was mutilation in your opinion...you might want to contact them.
As to the defense of things invisible and unknowable...you must be stone. Surely...you cannot see the wind, but you know its there, right? Invisible, but not unknowable. Just because you can't see something with your natural eyes, does that mean it does not exist?
All the theories spouted in here were all invisible at one point in time, until some scientist concocted some variables, and threw them into a pot called theory. That is why technology is exploding in this day and age. Our ancestors didn't have the resources available for the variables now in use in current research and study. Therefore, their theories were different, based on the knowledge or lack thereof, they had at the time.
If you were blind, would you even believe the world around you, as you know it now still exists? Sure it would be different, because your perspective without sight is different, but that doesn't mean it won't exist. And what happens when someone becomes blind. Their other senses increase, including their faith. They may not be able to find their way about as quickly, or as well at first, until they become re-familiarized with their environment, but they are always learning, adjusting and walking in faith, because they can't see what's ahead.
Even the scientists you are so quick to defend...use faith in their research. They "believe" that certain variables and theories can be integrated into one area or another as the basis for some other idea or theory they choose to generate. They utilize a set of rules for these variables that they set up themselves. They claim that these theories are factual, because they set up the whole thing, and must justify what they are doing.
It seems to me that this⦠âdenying knowledge, denying meaning which doesn't meet with their own, denying honesty, denying integrityâ¦â has more to do with the position you hold true to, ââ¦just as so long as ID'ers can insist at any cost, there must beâ¦â an explanation other than a creator God. You who believe that physical sight must be the basis for beliefâ¦still cannot prove what you say to be the truth, because the scientists you support are forever changing their theories of how it all happened, and disproving each other. There is no constant in what they say, and has never been. That is why they are constantly trying to re-prove it. That is why the theories keep changing. And all they are really trying to do is figure God out, and how He did it so they can have more control over their own destiny and lives. The reason they have to keep trying to prove He doesnât exist is a simple control issue. Nothing more.
Since you are so interested in supporting âscienceâ as a wholeâ¦why havenât you looked into the âphysics, science and scientific explanation to ascertain any facts or information, such as there is actually a cosmological constant, something never known about through any other meansâ before you accuse anyone of contorting it âto deny and obscure any physics, science and all scientific explanation so as to magically conjure up a tale all about a creator?â The constant of which you speak is the creator, and such science does exist. And it is some of the top scientific institutions and leaders who have disproven the theories you are still clinging to. If you are such as seeker of the truth, why not look at all the âscienceâ you hold so dear, including that which supports what you oppose and get both sides of the coin?