Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Show us where science believes there's an "X-Man factor", whatever that is.

 

So no evidence that scientists believe in an X-ray factory?    Nothing at all?

 

There are several articles where Scientists believe they can create an actual human to become an x-man.   But what I am discussing was related to a Pew Research Poll dealing with current scientists suffering with common mental illnesses.

[Tzephanyahu]

On 11/26/2020 at 6:50 PM, The Barbarian said:

 

Barbarian, all you are doing here is quoting conjectures.  You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

You are taking what others have written and believing it, despite the outlandish premise, and selling it as your own - as if you have first hand knowledge.  Except your not doing this very thing with the Word of God.  That's okay. As it's your personal decision.  But trying to offer these bitesized "facts for evolution" is madness - as they are intepretations of data, not data themselves. There is a difference.

These cut-and-paste "facts" you are posting aren't helping your argument but free you from the logical d3batr I suppose.

But as I said before, you are seemingly well-settled with evolution, as I am with Creation according to the Word. Therefore, let's agree that each other are wrong and leave it.   Because I'm seeimg nothing new here and I'm sure I couldn't convince of 7 day Creation if you wouldn't listen to Moses.

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

There are several articles where Scientists believe they can create an actual human to become an x-man.   

Mutation doesn't work the way you think it does.   No Pokemon, no X-men.

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

But what I am discussing was related to a Pew Research Poll dealing with current scientists suffering with common mental illnesses.

It's actually less common in highly intelligent scientists than it is for highly intelligent people in other fields:
 

Quote

 

The researchers point out that highly intelligent people have tendencies for “intellectual overexcitabilites" and a hyper-reactivity of the central nervous system. On the one hand, this gives people with high IQ heightened awareness that helps their creative and artistic work. In fact, the field of cognitive ability recognizes one aspect of highly intelligent people to be “a broader and deeper capacity to comprehend their surroundings."

This hyper-reactivity, however, can also lead to deeper depressions and poor mental health. This turns out to be particularly true for poets, novelists and people with high verbal intelligence. Their intense emotional response to the environment increases tendencies for rumination and worry, both of which predict depression and anxiety disorders.

The scientific literature has confirmed the association between gifted children and an increased rate of allergies and asthma. One study shows that 44% of those with an IQ over 160 suffered from allergies compared to 20% of age-matched peers. Тhe exploratory study done by the authors of this latest paper further supports that connection.

 

https://bigthink.com/design-for-good/why-highly-intelligent-people-suffer-more-mental-and-physical-disorders

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Barbarian, all you are doing here is quoting conjectures.  You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm just showing you the facts.   You didn't finish the quote, so I don't know which facts are upsetting you.    If you'd finish it, I could give you more data to support it, if you'd like.

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

You are taking what others have written and believing it, despite the outlandish premise, and selling it as your own - as if you have first hand knowledge. 

I'm just showing you the facts.   Research is always documented.   All science is like that.   No scientist does it all on his own.   We have to depend on the facts and theories of scientists who came before us.   Again, if you have specific problems with any of the facts, I can give you more documentation.   Would you like me to do that?

Just let me know what specific topics still concern you.

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Except your not doing this very thing with the Word of God. 

The word of God is not science.   When I quote Him, I do so in absolute confidence that He is correct.    All of us should do that, and we should also be very careful to not add to His word, nor read our own desires into it.

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

But trying to offer these bitesized "facts for evolution" is madness - as they are intepretations of data, not data themselves. There is a difference.

You're having a bit of trouble separating facts (evidence and data) from theories (ideas that are supported by those facts).    It's critical issue, if you want to understand.

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

But as I said before, you are seemingly well-settled with evolution, as I am with Creation according to the Word.

As I said, we all should be very careful not to add to His word or insert our own desires into it.   Neither evolution nor creationism is in God's word.   Evolution is merely an observed phenomenon (remember the scientific definition) and creationism is a modern revision of Genesis.   Neither is God's word.

Evolution happens to be God's creation, as are electrons.   Neither is found in scripture.

[The Barbarian]

59 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yep, except the theist understand the conclusions s/he reaches with the non-theist go to explain how "God did it," whereas the non-theist's context is "It just happened."

No, that's wrong, too.   Deists, for example, see telelogical meanings in creation.   Guys like IDer Michael Denton do, even if they don't attribute it to God.  ID founder Philip Johnson said it's "maybe a space alien."

 

[The Barbarian]

18 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Deists are theists.

Difference Between Deism and Theism

Both Theism and Deism believe in the existence of one God that created the universe, but whereas Theism ascribes powers to God and believes him to be involved with controlling the affairs of the universe, Deism believes that Go created the universe and stropped intervening in its affairs. He created natural laws at the same time and allowed the universe to be governed through these natural laws. So, while deism ascribes no miracles and super powers to God, Theism believes that God listens to our prayers and controls the events all the time. He is actively supervising the events taking place on earth.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-deism-and-vs-theism/

[Paul James]

On 12/2/2020 at 1:45 AM, The Barbarian said:

I'm just showing you the facts.   You didn't finish the quote, so I don't know which facts are upsetting you.    If you'd finish it, I could give you more data to support it, if you'd like.

I'm just showing you the facts.   Research is always documented.   All science is like that.   No scientist does it all on his own.   We have to depend on the facts and theories of scientists who came before us.   Again, if you have specific problems with any of the facts, I can give you more documentation.   Would you like me to do that?

Just let me know what specific topics still concern you.

The word of God is not science.   When I quote Him, I do so in absolute confidence that He is correct.    All of us should do that, and we should also be very careful to not add to His word, nor read our own desires into it.

You're having a bit of trouble separating facts (evidence and data) from theories (ideas that are supported by those facts).    It's critical issue, if you want to understand.

As I said, we all should be very careful not to add to His word or insert our own desires into it.   Neither evolution nor creationism is in God's word.   Evolution is merely an observed phenomenon (remember the scientific definition) and creationism is a modern revision of Genesis.   Neither is God's word.

Evolution happens to be God's creation, as are electrons.   Neither is found in scripture.

Evolution is a religion based on godless scientists' faith in the theory.   It totally fails the scientific method of observation, hypotheses, experimentation and testing.  It has never been observed to happen, no one has successfully experimented with it, and it cannot be tested in the laboratory.  Therefore it is not a science, but an alternative to Creation by a God they don't want to be morally responsible to.

[The Barbarian]

56 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Evolution is a religion based on godless scientists' faith in the theory. 

Since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things, I think your assumption is a faulty one.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

56 minutes ago, Paul James said:

It totally fails the scientific method of observation, hypotheses, experimentation and testing. 

Evolution is a phenomenon that is directly observed.   Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is.   What do you think it is?

56 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Therefore it is not a science

Technically, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory.   In science, a theory is an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.  Would you like to learn about some of the predictions of the theory that have been confirmed?

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by The Barbarian

[Paul James]

On 12/3/2020 at 2:45 PM, The Barbarian said:

Since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things, I think your assumption is a faulty one.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

Evolution is a phenomenon that is directly observed.   Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is.   What do you think it is?

Technically, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory.   In science, a theory is an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.  Would you like to learn about some of the predictions of the theory that have been confirmed?

 

Evolution is a demonic delusion to bring those who reject Christ to judgment.

"and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

False cause fallacy.

No.   The fact is, "information" requires none of those assumptions.   And we know that Shannon's theory works, because engineers use it to make the internet work, and to communicate reliably over vast distances of space with low-powered transmitters.

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

The founder of physics, Aristotle, put no assumptions of relativism or quantum mechanics into his theory. 

Neither did Newton, but NASA still uses his laws of motion and theory of gravitation to navigate the solar system.    In science, results count.  

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

The fact remains there exists inherent information, not just assigned information.

It's all information.   And it all works the same way.    Engineers use Shannon's theory for one reason.   It works.    They don't use the doctrine of "inherent" information for one reason.   It doesn't work.    If it did, they'd use it no matter who objected.   But because it doesn't work, they won't use it.

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

I was simply stating Penrose provides a very thought provoking analysis of entropy, an example of theists and non-theists observing the exact same information and reaching different conclusions. 

Yeah, I get that.   But it still comes down to functionality.    And that's how science works.   It's a tough game, but nothing else we can do  works as well for understanding the physical universe.