RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,09:29   

A tard world removed from all reality.  What a thread.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....dropped

We have citizenbob being schooled by such luminaries as SChen24, Patrick and TRoutMac.

Even IF citizenbob is real (and not a sockpuppet) here's the "advice" he's receiving...

SChen24  
Quote
It is true that most science teachers will laugh if you ask them about ID. Others will mock students and so forth. A helpful tool that I posted a while ago is Jonathan Wells' "Ten Questions to Ask You Biology Teacher about Evolution." Here is the link:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_10questions.htm
********************
No, evolution is NOT the "central organizing principle of biology." Evolutionists always make that claim but it simply isn't true. They say things like "nothing in molecular biology makes sense except in light of evolution." How about, nothing in molecular biology makes sense except in light of...*gasp!*...molecules?! The simple fact is evolution is not the central organizing principle of biology.
********************
citizenbob opines - Tose [sic] ten-questions are awesome. I'm afraid to ask them to my biology teacher - he might set me an assignment to answer all ten. He's that kind of person.

SChen24 argues - Also, Citizenbob, if your science teacher tells you to do that, then we may be able to file for action (legal or not) against him.
*******************
Yes, there may well be a valid criticism of the ID argument at the moment. It would be nice for evolutionists to actually use it though. But yes, it could very possibley exist. Most, if not all, of the current claims being used against ID are not valid.

The argument that ID is not "testable" and that it "doesn't make any predictions" isn't true and most definitely isn't relevant.
....
As to the actual testability and prediction making of ID, however, I am not an expert and would rather have one respond to these questions.
*******************
Yes, are you correct that materialism is wrong. He asked what you replace it with and you didn't know so he got mad. Well, if it is wrong, should we keep it? If it is wrong, get rid of it and keep looking for the right answer.

Materialism is a paradigm that has gone wrong and needs to be replaced with a neutral, objective, truth-seeking paradigm.

And as for him getting mad, you're only a student. How about all the answers HE (and other evolutionists) can't produce?

Keep up the good work Citizenbob.


Patrick  
Quote

Patrick tries to define "Pragmatic Naturalism".
******************
On the subject of the usefulness of methodological naturalism I’d agree that it has been very successful as a working model for the majority of cases. The problem is, what if the evidence leads to explanations/conclusions that do not resort only to “matter, energy, and their interaction”? The point at issue is whether nature operates exclusively by such causes or whether there is a further nature beyond the known.
**********************
That’s why opponents to ID claim science IS methodological naturalism (and then some like Monod claim it is antiteleological naturalism). By that definition ID is automatically ruled out as being science since ID “allows” for the existence of entities outside of known “matter, energy, and their interaction” although it does not "require" them. Now eventually as discoveries are made the "nature of nature" may be extended. If God(s) does exist then it/them would operate by a superset of rules which, again, may not be the entire limit of reality (although they could be).
***************************
On a side note, I’ve pretty much banished the word “supernatural” from my vocabulary when in these discussions since to my mind the supernatural is stuff like vampires and the boogieman. The question is “what is the nature of nature” and whether we should be held back a priori from asking that question.

As for the idea that ID requires a designer that can supercede natural law (aka divine intervention) I suggest you read Dembski’s explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity.
*******************************
Despite the fact that ID is compatible with common descent Darwinists should not be so certain about this method being 100% undeniable evidence. Unfortunately the evidence is not self-evident...interpretation is required. I commonly will ask Darwinists why they're so certain the features of humans and whales came about due to the popularized timeline. Why couldn't these features come about by convergent evolution? If front-loaded evolution is occurring there really isn't a reason to follow the pathways established by the old dogma. Meaning, that if the data for all morphological features are contained within an initial supercell they could evolve independently of each other and not through a line sharing similar features.


TRoutMac  
Quote
First of all, you are in the right place, citizenbob. Hang out here and you'll get lots of great information.

Back when I was in high school, which was 20 years ago...
********************
You may not be able to convince your teacher… in fact, I'm almost certain you won't. But forget about that… the other students need to be exposed to these questions. They need to see someone else thinking critically about these issues and asking good, tough questions. And they need to see that their teacher doesn't HAVE the answers.
**********************
Materialism/Natularism is a fool's game when it comes to origin-of-life questions and here's why. The letter of the law in materialism is that you can only seek "natural" explanations for natural phenomena. What I like to do is to "zoom out" to the big picture… when we ask "How did life begin?" or "How did the universe come into existence?" we're really asking about the origin of nature. Think of it in those terms. Where did nature come from?...
**********************
Testability:
Remember that ID isn't just applicable to biology or natural things. So move it out of this realm for a moment. Think of archaeological discoveries like, for example, the Rosetta Stone. If ID isn't "testable", then how did anyone ever conclude that the Rosetta Stone was NOT the product of random natural processes like wind and erosion?

We have several thousand years of experience and knowledge of what intelligent agents produce. Intelligent agents devise languages, correct? You bet… we got TONS of languages. English, Morse Code, C++, HTML, Java. Humans observed the creation of these languages, correct? Have humans ever observed a language being produced purely by natural, unintelligent processes? Nope, never. So if we suspected (and we do) that biology is the product of intelligent design, we could "test" that hypothesis by determining whether biological life contains within it some form of language. Hmmm… That's just exactly what DNA is!! It's a "language".
**********************
We've got these folks on the run, citizenbob. Don't let 'em get you down.
*********************
would love to ask a Darwinist, by the way, whether Darwin predicted the complexity of a single cell. (in Darwin's time they thought a cell was just a blob of protoplasm, very simple) Did Darwin "predict" information processing systems in living cells? Did he "predict" that cells would contain tiny little machines… rotary engines, universal joints, etc.? Did Darwin "predict" that these tiny nano-machines would be irreducibly complex?

Answer? No, he didn't. Interesting, ain't it though?
*****************
As SChen24 pointed out earlier, your teacher has expressed a loyalty to materialism that surpasses even his loyalty to what is true. In other words, he doesn't mind chasing a lie if it allows him to remain within the bounds of materialism. Materialism is the boss, and truth takes a back seat. It's amazing.


As a bullet list of claims we have...
  • Evolution isn't the central tennent of biology.
  • ID is a testable theory.
  • Materialism is wrong.
  • Redefining what science is helps understand science better.
  • Front-loading is a practical theory.
  • DNA is a language.
  • Darwin didn't predict everything so evolution is false.
  • Truth! Truth! Truth! Truth! Truth! Truth!


U-g-g-g-g-g-h-h-h-h!!!

I need a drink.  And it's only 10 in the morning.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]