didn't look at all the posts (dont have all night) but this questions is and has always vexed our minds. In the infancy of our species making up gods was the only thing we could do to understand and feel comfortable.

Now it would seem that these questions are the realm of the theoretical physicist.

I agree with rob in that saying "we dont know" is better than making things up.

One thing to remember at least in my mind is that at the end of it all there may be a designer but in no way do i think that said designer wants me to give up my critical thinking that was (if you believe in creation) given to me.

What a powerful thing for the lowly human to stive to understand reality.

I think i'm near quoting Galliao.

(October 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree .  what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts . we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing

What you clearly don't understand is that some opinions have more reasoning and evidence in support of them than others do.

Probably because your opinion is bereft of support from reason or evidence.

It's great that you're an expert on your own opinion. You need to explain to me and others why your opinion is relevant. Absent reasoning and evidence, your opinion is devoid of any gravitas; yours is one small voice railing against reality with your own wishful thinking leading the way.

Thanks, but no thanks.

(October 30, 2015 at 12:40 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 12:36 am)robvalue Wrote: People disagree. That doesn't mean that in each case, each opinion is worth the same. If it were, we'd have to seriously consider every lunatic unfalsifiable opinion. Or even falsifiable ones.

If someone disagrees with a well established scientific theory, but cannot present adequate evidence for why they disagree, then their opinion is worth squat. Especially if they are unable to show they even understand what the theory says.

You know what just happened? Me an' Rob for the two-man tag team Chainsaw of Logic Takedown™!!

Haha! You bet Thanks for starting off my day with a big laugh!

There one more thing I'd like to highlight, which is crucial in deciding what is science and what is not.

A scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions. This means it is not merely describing observations that have been made, it is demonstrating a level of understand sufficient to know in advance what other observations will be. It must do so in a very precise way, so that there is a clear success and failure criteria. Then these predictions are tested. Only when the model is shown to be consistently correct over many rigorous tests is it promoted to being a theory.

Intelligent design is not a theory. It's not even a scientific hypothesis. It makes no testable, falsifiable predictions whatsoever. If it did, they would falsified immediately. This is the trick every bit of religious pseudo-science plays, along with religion in general. Because it makes no predictions, it cannot be demonstrated to be true, and it is of no practical use to anyone. Instead it uses the argument from ignorance that it can't be proved false as justification for being true. This is bullshit.

(October 29, 2015 at 9:22 pm)pool Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Do you understand my other objections?

Objections against my points?
I'm not sure you understood my points in order to argue against them? :/

Quote:I don't believe in a God. As a matter of fact I have no clue what a God is. As you can see, I believe in Ignosticism.
Come to think of it though, "This is how particles interact with each other, period." - Do you really think that this is not designed? I mean like, that sentence in and of of itself is what a design kind of means, don't you think?

As I said earlier, It's almost as if someone set a base as a sort of design and the universe kind of built itself on top of this base.
Now, I'm not capable to built a formal proof as to why I'm right(aside from the fact that the reason I'm right can be observed in everyday life.) but until such a time comes when someone makes a proper argument as to why I can't simply be right; I probably am right.

I understand your points. I'm unconvinced that they're meaningful, considering the fact that you are asking from the scientific inquiry an answer to purpose. That indicates to me that you don't really understand science.

It also makes me think that you don't understand purpose.

(October 29, 2015 at 10:29 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: yes ill learn more about evolution im not sure why some people are convinced that learning more about evolution is going to convince me that evolution was not intelligently set up i think it would only increase my belief that it could only be intelligently organized to see actually how complex it actually is but thats ok .

In short, you're admitting that discussing this matter with you is useless; you're not here to exchange thoughts, but rather, to natter on about your own beliefs without regards to the views of others.

Why should anyone here bother trying to discuss anything with you any more? You've declaimed here, in this quoted post, that you will not change your mind no matter what. You're not interested in learning. You're not interested in discussing.

You're interested in waving your vapid beliefs around no matter what anyone else says.

Fuck off, I say.

Sceptics often get called closed minded. Ironically, it's this kind of attitude which is actually completely closed minded.

Sceptics are prepared to change their mind when presented with new evidence. This is being open minded.

You've decided beforehand what conclusions you will likely draw, before having any idea what you're going to actually read.

Jen, google youtube on vistigial organs and endogenous retrovirus.

These 2 are absolute deal breakers as far as ID goes.
They are 100% proof of us evolving from an ancient primate.

No-one here minds that you believe in god or anything. We're not the thought police.
But we do object and speak out when people are ill informed, or illogical, whether intentional or otherwise.

Please also note: The word "theory" as used in theory of gravity or theory of relativity, or theory of evolution, etc are not to be used in the same context as I have a "theory" on 9/11.
see here:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry1...theory.htm

Why do you think people "claim" that god exists. Why isn't it the law of god or the theory of god or a hypothesis? Because it doesn't and has never had one spec of "anything" in its favour to warrant a second look.

I think people have a hard time understanding me because I just give out the answer and not how I arrived at it. I sort of have to lead them to the answer the same way I did in my "What is god?" thread, one which I failed to do in my "Do you have the right to be an atheist?" thread because I just gave the answer and expected others to accept it.
If anyone is interested we can start by you answering a simple question:

Why does a stone come down when you throw it up?

(October 30, 2015 at 12:40 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You know what just happened? Me an' Rob for the two-man tag team Chainsaw of Logic Takedown™!!

Wait a minute... is that a chainsaw with a V-8? o.O

(October 30, 2015 at 3:31 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Fuck off, I say.

But she's adorable.

Pool: why does a stone come back down? Because that's how things work. We can't ever know any more than that, and science doesn't even attempt to deal with such questions.

If you're asking why are things like that, you're assuming that there is a reason. There may be no reason. If there is one, we have no way of finding out what it is.

I don't think you addressed my question: you claim design; I say design implies an intelligence. Do you agree? If so, wherever that intelligence is, were the rules of that place designed too?