Is intelligent design the biggest argument for the existence of a higher being?

[GPBear]

Basically the dating they use in geology is based on random activity in nuclei that are assumed to have a fixed start date

that has never been proven IE when does a uranium atom become a uranium atom. They cannot and never answer something like that because mass and energy can be converted. This means if an atom undergoes fission or fusion it cant be assumed that has only happened once.

So if I have a hydrogen atom, I can really assume its always just been a hydogen atom. If fusion and fission happen it means that same atom could have been many things. Thus if you had radioactive carbon in a rock and said clearly this rock is 400million years old due to halflife analysis. It would assume it was fused/fissioned once.

Its a logical fallacy. Either matter can be created and destroyed OR matter cannot be created or destroyed. So that concept of dating matter is a shaky and ultimately broken idea. That doesnt stop scientists from sticking with it. Basically if they all agree to believe in deep time they can keep their jobs.

A great deal of it is nonsensical if you consider the underlying measurement system used (also applies to astronomy with measuring light at great distances)

breh basic astronomy classes describe how the cores of suns convert hydrogen into higher elements tf you talking about

That's why hydrogen and helium are the most abundant element in the universe, but things like carbon or iron is less common, gold is even rarer, but things like uranium (which only happens in events like merging of neutron stars, when all the more common elements had already been fused) are much more rarer than that.

@bold are you implying the universe isn't ~14 billion years old and was all created in 6 days ~6000 years ago?

 

[GPBear]

The big bang theory is just that, a theory. Cacs think they can explain everything. Even though they have nothing to substantiate it when they came up with it. Just like Charles Darwin and his bogus theory of evolution. We didn't come from no damn apes.

Hell, when you look at the theory of evolution chart with the ape gradually forming into a Caucasian white man who do you think the ape is actually supposed to be representing?

Something to think about.

It's representing all the thousands of hominid fossils that have been throughout the continent of Africa over the last 150 years

Cacs explicitly *didn't* want evolution/anthropology to be correct, because it means all human beings evolved out of Africa, which undermined racist theories of non-African supremacy. The irony of you saying 'We didn't come from no damn apes.' is that's exactly the same argument cacs used 100 years ago at the Scopes Monkey Trial.

 

[MMS]

breh basic astronomy classes describe how the cores of suns convert hydrogen into higher elements tf you talking about

That's why hydrogen and helium are the most abundant element in the universe, but things like carbon or iron is less common, gold is even rarer, but things like uranium (which only happens in events like merging of neutron stars, when all the more common elements had already been fused) are much more rarer than that.

@bold are you implying the universe isn't ~14 billion years old and was all created in 6 days ~6000 years ago?

thats only a theory, not a fact

furthermore, they use multiple self-references (@Ducktales ) in producing their "beliefs" about the origins of the elements of the universe

in other words, they use the theories of nuclear fusion (something not proven to occur on earth) which are derived from fission (something that has happened on earth) to make inferences about something they cant objectively measure.

However, they just stuck with these assumptions and built everything on top of it. There is a reason relativity is specifically called a theory and not law. High school and college got people not understanding science from a foundational level sadly

 

[GPBear]

thats only a theory, not a fact

furthermore, they use multiple self-references (@Ducktales ) in producing their "beliefs" about the origins of the elements of the universe

in other words, they use the theories of nuclear fusion (something not proven to occur on earth) which are derived from fission (something that has happened on earth) to make inferences about something they cant objectively measure.

However, they just stuck with these assumptions built everything on top of it. There is a reason relativity is specifically called a theory and not law. High school and college got people not understanding science from a foundational level sadly

First you said nobody had explained how higher elements were created (in the core of stars).
Now you're saying nuclear scientists, who have been harnessing nuclear power for 100 years, that they don't know how nuclear physics works. While saying fission doesn't occur on earth (it does, it's the major source of heat that moves the tectonic plates).
Well I guess we're lucky we haven't blown up half the world because apparently we've just been guessing.

If you wanna criticize science for being self-referential, that same argument (Fideism) applies to religion. You can't criticize religion from the outside, only from within.
The difference is science is verifiable, repeatable, and based on experimental/empirical evidence; whereas religion is not any of those things. You're never going to repeat the burning bush, so we just have to take the word (which has been translated multiple times) of people living thousands of years ago and what they wrote down. Just like science, trusting what other people write down, the difference being in science it's able to be replicated and personally verified.

And there are many laws in science, like the laws of thermodynamics for example.
Relativity isn't a 'law' because there hasn't been an agreed upon way to merge macrocosmic and microcosmic physics, but the 'theory of relativity' has still produced many predictions that were verified (seeing light bend around the sun during an eclipse, gravitational waves, etc.) which is more than can be said for religious predictions
edit: I got it backwards. You said fusion doesn't occur on earth, my bad.

 

[Spiritual Stratocaster]

yo if Jesus knew brazillian jiu jitsu those romans woulda never been able to crucify him

shyt for all we know he handed out fades when he took control of the temple during passover and kicked the money grabbers and such out .

 

[MMS]

First you said nobody had explained how higher elements were created (in the core of stars).
Now you're saying nuclear scientists, who have been harnessing nuclear power for 100 years, that they don't know how nuclear physics works. While saying fission doesn't occur on earth (it does).
Well I guess we're lucky we haven't blown up half the world because apparently we've just been guessing.

If you wanna criticize science for being self-referential, that same argument (Fideism) applies to religion. You can't criticize religion from the outside, only from within.
The difference is science is verifiable, repeatable, and based on experimental/empirical evidence; whereas religion is not any of those things. You're never going to repeat the burning bush, so we just have to take the word (which has been translated multiple times) of people living thousands of years ago and what they wrote down. Just like science, trusting what other people write down, the difference being in science it's able to be replicated and personally verified.

science means to study, a religion is just a set of mans ways or habits. Whether his religion is to God or himself, or something else it makes no difference...thats all religion is.

with those in mind, the study of math is not the same as the study of ethics. Or the study of physics is not the same as the study of geology (there is the study of geophysics but that is actually separate from geology)

IE you can study immunology and understand DNA and RNA but that is different from animal sciences

point im making is science houses many theories and problems that are actively being researched but that doesnt make it a fact bank. It just makes it a theory bank. Not all theories stand the test of time (see newtonian physics)
trust me when I say to you, Ive seen a burning bush
We are living in a world of illusion

 

[GPBear]

science means to study, a religion is just a set of mans ways or habits. Whether his religion is to God or himself, or something else it makes no difference...thats all religion is.

with those in mind, the study of math is not the same as the study of ethics. Or the study of physics is not the same as the study of geology (there is the study of geophysics but that is actually separate from geology)

IE you can study immunology and understand DNA and RNA but that is different from animal sciences

point im making is science houses many theories and problems that are actively being researched but that doesnt make it a fact bank. It just makes it a theory bank. Not all theories stand the test of time (see newtonian physics)
trust me when I say to you, Ive seen a burning bush

Science doesn't claim to be a storehouse of facts or 'the truth', per se, it's just a method that produces hypotheses, evidence, conclusion, etc.

I'm just saying, if @Sccit agrees with you, you're probably wrong.

 

[Nick Barnes]

lol at believing some sky wizard snaps his fingers and creates the universe.

 

[LV Koopa]

You have to be a retard to believe that this universe and solar system came from a big explosion right?

How could such organisation come from chaos. A perfectly placed ball of energy with a magnetic field with planets rotating at the right positions at the right time. I mean cmon.

Give me an example in daily life where an accident causes the creation of order.

emergent systems. Exists in everything. All you need is a few, simple rules to hold and complex systems can form. Would have figured this out with 10 minutes of actual reading.

 

[MMS]

lol at believing some sky wizard snaps his fingers and creates the universe.

We are living in a world of illusion

it would be something peculiar I agree

Science doesn't claim to be a storehouse of facts or 'the truth', per se, it's just a method that produces hypotheses, evidence, conclusion, etc.

I'm just saying, if @Sccit agrees with you, you're probably wrong.

yes but you and I both know that due to the way its taught (textbook and regurgitation) it gets turned into a fact bank to later rely upon

im not lying when I say I worked with nuclear radiology, plastics rubbers and adhesives, and paper. In the field we can measure and predict what comes, but the sciences of predicting right now to guess what happened in the past is a markedly separate thought process. Not all science is bad or at odds with faith in God. Some are though even if @Sccit is for me I am not for Kabbolistic works

 

[GPBear]

THE TORAH IS UNALTERED AND REMAINED THE SAME FROM DAY 1

U CANNOT ALTER GOD’S WORD

It's not even the same alphabet. The original Hebrews in the Levant were writing in a Phoenician script, the block Hebrew that's read today wasn't even invented until the 1-2nd century AD and developed out of a square-script which developed around the 3rd century BCE. Much later than the original Masoretic texts were written.

Not to mention discrepancies in the text itself. Goliath today is said to be 6 cubits/9 feet tall, when originally he was 4 cubits and around 6'9.

But of course the guy who writes in all caps is gonna give me an undisturbed hermeneutic interpretation.

 

[Software]

We begin this journey with our own understanding of human consciousness.

Our hubris is thinking that we have minds and senses that are equal to or could comprehend the mind of God.

We haven't even cracked the code of quantum physics and how it relates to sentience.

There is an explanation...but we aren't built to understand it.

That's the sobering truth.

This is a smart ass embryo

 

[Sex Luthor]

i am a chemical engineer Science isnt about measuring the past. Its about measuring present states to make inferences of future states.

Any science that measures today, in order to ascertain the past is quack science.

I don't think you understand how little sense that makes and disproves your points about religion. You realize that without studying or measuring the past there would be no data to compare to the presant or future?

 

[MMS]

I don't think you understand how little sense that makes and disproves your points about religion. You realize that without studying or measuring the past there would be no data to compare to the presant or future?

that logically makes no sense

you can only measure in the present. Therefore to measure the present data to make an inference on past data isnt the same thing as measuring present data to make a prediction on future data

in control theory, this is easy to see when you look at loops. Regardless what kind of feedback system is in place it requires current measurement for stability. If you take data from the present and match it with data from the past you can make a trend for the future. However if you take data from the past then take data from the present to infer something else about the past its a self reference (like radiological dating or light red shift)

this whole system broken compared with something simple like a temperature gauge (fluid position versus heat capacity)

 

[Maddmike]

I did shrooms one time and I knew what its was all about but I forgot