Darwinism is made up

[defendor]

The infinity thing is going nowhere, you haven't made any valid points refuting it, you just disagree with it and call it nonsense.

Certainly, infinity cannot be reached by the addition of integers, because that defeats the definition of what infinity actually is, namely beyond calculability. The successive addition of integers will never give you infinity, because you will never arrive at a figure that is incalculable

So how is adding up a bunch of finite moments ever going to give you eternity? Time progresses at 60 minutes an hour, so it obviously is finite and measurable.  Time cannot be infinite.  If there is an infinite amount of moments behind you, it would've taken infinitely long to progress to this moment.  So it would've taken eternity to reach the present, and by the standards of infinity, it cannot be reached. So how could the present exist if it took eternity to get to this moment?

The ability to do work only tells me what energy does not what it is.  If someone asked me "who am I?"  I wouldn't say "I eat, I sleep, and I do activities"  that doesn't tell you who I am.  I am asking for what energy is in being.

[TheJackel]

So how is adding up a bunch of finite moments ever going to give you eternity?

Purpose:

the concept of having purpose, or attaining purpose. But the interesting thing about this is that we will always have a purpose even after we die, or even if we are no-longer conscious entities. This is referring to where all that which we are made of will always exist, and will always serve a purpose. What we are made of will become that of something else to where this could include perhaps becoming the fuel that ignites a new star to which gives rise to new life!

 Example:

    Does a tree still exist if it is cut down and burned as firewood? Technically everything that made the tree will always exist. All the matter and energy that made the tree will continue on, and become emergent or bound to other things. Purpose is never lost, and is always self-attained, and self-attaining. So the purpose of existence is simply to exist because the opposite is impossible.

The ability to do work only tells me what energy does not what it is

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. "A universal set of all sets". Energy is the substance of existence itself.

[defendor]

I'm not sure how you related purpose and infinite number of moments.

Could God not also qualify as the definition of "the substance of existence itself"?

[hackenslash]

Ah, the idiotic attempt to attach the label 'god' to that for which we already have a name.

Really, as apologists go, you're very poor at it.

[McQ]

Ah, the idiotic attempt to attach the label 'god' to that for which we already have a name.

Really, as apologists go, you're very poor at it.

Please don't continue to push with the personal insults. Keep it civil.

[hackenslash]

Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

[defendor]

This seems to be a common theme, the misunderstanding of 'being'.  So you obviously disagree, but you have not said how or why you disagree.  Only because I brought up God?  So the disagreement is not the in principle of ideas but in the idea of a creator, or else you would be able to explain how or why that is a fallacy.  

So basically, you don't want there to be a God as opposed that God tangibly can't exist.

[Whitney]

Why is it so freakin hard to stay on topic???  

This thread was originally about why Darwinism is not an accurate description of someone who accepts evolution as true...now it's about "being" or some other nonsense.

Will someone who has been keeping up please point out where the split(s) needs to occur?

[defendor]

I apologize, but I think this still holds a bit of truth.  The exclusion from God in science is not based on scientific facts but on personal bias.  

So as it pertains to Darwinism, the idea of a evolutionary theory (general term) is designed to outcast the notion of God, and give the same autonomous power to science.

[Whitney]

I apologize, but I think this still holds a bit of truth.  The exclusion from God in science is not based on scientific facts but on personal bias.  

So as it pertains to Darwinism, the idea of a evolutionary theory (general term) is designed to outcast the notion of God, and give the same autonomous power to science.

Science is the study of the natural world, the study of material things that can be experienced through our senses and collected as data.  Just because god can't be studied in this manner doesn't mean science is purposely set up to be biased against god....we can actually thank many religious people for their contributions to science throughout history.

So, no...there is no truth to science being biased against god.  There seems to be some truth to you being biased against science.

Again, "Darwinism" isn't a real word...it makes you sound stupid when you use it.  

[defendor]

I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

[LegendarySandwich]

I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

There is a strong bias against Intelligent Design, as for all types of pseudoscience.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Really? You're citing that movie as a serious source?

[Whitney]

I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

Of course scientists would be biased against allowing non-science to be claimed as science...

Perhaps you should do research on it...I think you'll find the bias is against willful ignorance (and that's a good type of bias).

[McQ]

Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

You should really know better than to do this with me by now. I already quoted your personal insults. Don't push it. You got a friendly, unofficial reminder. By saying "the idiotic attempt", the word "idiotic" is referring to the attempt made by the person. The person. Followed by just another insult. Come on, you usually do much better than this.

[Tokage]

I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

Ehhh.....*rubs nose*

There is no bias against intelligent design defendor, the thing is that there is no evidence for intelligent design.
The entire case for intelligent design is based on attempting to discredit evolution, that's not how science works. Scientists do not take intelligent design seriously because there's nothing to back it, only it's proponents pointing to holes in evolutionary understanding, which there are, but do not indicate that therefore a God did everything.

Intelligent design, is simply disguised creationism, which of course links back to the proponents creation story of choice derived from their religion. So the funny thing actually is that the proponents of intelligent design are biased.