Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > the post ID world

Pages: (13) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Xavier du Barry Posts: 4 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,19:36    for Faid

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,22:52    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 27 2006,21:13) Faid and Stephen What exactly are your complaints?  What are the flaws in thinking?  Please educate me? Do you think IDT will become a "fact" of science or that the debate will continue to rage?  I don't see either of these possibilities as ludicrous.  In fact, they seem the ONLY two possibilities.  Please add more if you wish. My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points. You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,23:36    Stephen Elliot, Shouldn't you then ask for clarification on specific points?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,04:37    Quote My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points. You deliberately make it difficult to communicate. How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,05:01    [quote=thordaddy,Mar. 27 2006,19:59][/quote] The biggest problem is that nothing you write makes any sense.  There is no logic whatsoever connecting your statements.  Examples: Quote Science already admits that it cannot deny the existence of an IDer, but science can't admit to it either because there is NO empirical evidence. So science simultaneously admits something and yet can't admit it.  This makes no sense whatsoever. Quote This actually means that empirical evidence may exist, but it can't be "observed." This makes no sense AND demonstrates that you don't know what the word "empirical" means. Quote This in turn means it may be observed (faith/belief), but it cannot be measured. You're building on your previous nonsense, which obviously isn't getting you anywhere. Quote Yet, as we see, science readily makes predictions about unique phenomenon (psychology). This doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with your previous statements.  The term "unique phenonmenon" is also confusing.  It is unclear what you are trying to say about psychology. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,05:02    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,10:37) Quote My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points. You deliberately make it difficult to communicate. How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic? For the first couple weeks he was here, I thought TD's incoherent writing style was some kind of deliberate debating strategy to avoid being pinned down with any statements that could later be refuted. I now think it well and truly is the best he can do. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,05:22    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 28 2006,11:02) Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2006,10:37) Quote My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points. You deliberately make it difficult to communicate. How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic? For the first couple weeks he was here, I thought TD's incoherent writing style was some kind of deliberate debating strategy to avoid being pinned down with any statements that could later be refuted. I now think it well and truly is the best he can do. I think that he sits with a thesaurus and picks either the longest, most obscure or scientific-sounding word to replace a simple one. The "not get pinned down" is also an element I believe. His "science and religion are fundamentaly identical" comment was typical.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,14:39    improvious opines, Quote So science simultaneously admits something and yet can't admit it.  This makes no sense whatsoever. It makes perfect sense if you recognize the mixed messages sent out by "science."  The ID versus science debate persists because science can't say an IDer doesn't exist but still claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer.  If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer then it doesn't exist scientifically-speaking, but a scientist can't make this claim. Next you say, Quote This makes no sense AND demonstrates that you don't know what the word "empirical" means. Empirical is ALL that is observed and/or experienced.  When a scientist claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer, he is merely saying that he knows of no measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  He is not actually saying that an IDer DOES NOT EXIST.  But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure). Lastly you say, Quote This doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with your previous statements.  The term "unique phenonmenon" is also confusing.  It is unclear what you are trying to say about psychology. The stance is that NO empirical evidence for an IDer exists.  This in turn means that NO measurable empirical evidence exists for an IDer.  This in turn means faith/belief are not considered measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  So what does this make out of psychology?   How could the study of a mother (psychology) that drowns her 5 children bring any insight of why a mother drowns her 5 children?  How can you make predictions and perform experiments in this unique situation?  That is what differentiates science from faith and belief, no?  Yet, psychology says it can gain insight into unique situations and rare events, but can get nothing from the mass belief in an IDer that has spanned most of human history and encompasses billions of people. It seems a question of willingness versus capability.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,16:32    Quote Empirical is ALL that is observed and/or experienced.  When a scientist claims NO empirical evidence for an IDer, he is merely saying that he knows of no measurable empirical evidence for an IDer.  He is not actually saying that an IDer DOES NOT EXIST.  But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure). Wow....I thought you were an idiot, guess not...nice usage of hume thordaddy...all things are natural right Its a good thing that NO ONE is trying to prove that an IDer does not exist.... What is the point of this explanation of why you cannot prove a negative? BTW...all we are saying is that ID has not presented evidence for an IDer ID may very well be true, and if it is true I wish you guys would get to work on proving it.... all of this anxiety is killing me

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:00    Quote But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure). Maybe he should look next to his square circle.  That's where I usually leave my unobservable empircal evidence. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:16    PuckSR opines, Quote Its a good thing that NO ONE is trying to prove that an IDer does not exist.... What is the point of this explanation of why you cannot prove a negative? BTW...all we are saying is that ID has not presented evidence for an IDer ID may very well be true, and if it is true I wish you guys would get to work on proving it.... all of this anxiety is killing me Really?  I don't see much difference in saying ID(T) is not science and an IDer does not exist. Afterall, the claim that ID(T) is not science is based on the notion that NO empirical evidence (originating in experience and/or observation) exists for an IDer.  This must leave a scientist to conclude that an IDer doesn't exist unless of course he concedes that things may exist in which HE has no empirical evidence.   But alas, he also outright rejects empirical evidence (originating in experience and/or observation) when he denies that "faith" represents empirical evidence for an IDer. This is quite a mindboggling situation for a scientist.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,18:42    Quote Really?  I don't see much difference in saying ID(T) is not science and an IDer does not exist Ok...you obviously hold this belief because you have a severe misunderstanding ID could possibly be science... The current thing you refer to as ID(T) is not science, that does not mean that ID cannot be science Let me change some of the words, and see if you can observe the fallacy of your logic. You have a work of art(world) You tell us that it was made by a sculptor(IDer), and you tell us that the work of art is a sculpture(ID[t]) We look at the work of art, and ask you how you can prove it is a sculpture.....you cannot tell us It just looks like a sculpture.... We say...we will not hang it in our museum and say it is a sculpture until you can prove it is a sculpture Now...did we deny that it was made by a sculptor? NO Did we deny that it could be a sculpture? NO Now...you get very angry...and ask us what a sculpture is... and we tell you that a sculpture is a 3 dimensional work of art. Your art looks more like a 2 dimensional work of art, a painting(philosophy) perhaps? But if you can prove that it is a 3-dimensional work of art, we will hang it in our museum(scientific community). Now did we deny that it was made by a sculptor? NO....remember Michelangelo Did we deny that it could be a sculpture? NO...we just want proof that it is one...not just you telling us that its obviously a sculpture

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,20:43    PuckSR, You say ID(T) has not presented evidence for an IDer.  What evidence would suffice?  If ID(T) could become science as you stated then you have to be aware of some evidence that would applicable outside of "faith" of course.  As of now, the claim is that NO empirical evidence exists for an IDer or its design.  This is quite an extreme and absolutist position.  There is some distance between no empirical evidence of an IDer (science's stance) to proof of said IDer (believer's stance) and I can't say I'm convinced that the scientific community has any intention of moving on its position.  Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence. As I said, I don't see much difference between saying ID(T) isn't science and an IDer does not exist.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,22:48    Quote thordaddy PuckSR, ...  As of now, the claim is that NO empirical evidence exists for an IDer...   Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence. Subjective experience is not empirical evidence.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:00    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Subjective experience is not empirical evidence. Oh really?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2006,23:40    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 29 2006,05:00) Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Subjective experience is not empirical evidence. Oh really? Yes really. I suppose you are going to go down the "everything is subjective" path. Well I will concede that point. In order to minimise this, science demands that experiments/measurements are repeatable. That anyone can do them. It does not accept individual revelationary experiences as evidence.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,01:05    Science can't say the FSM doesn't exist either!  Woo hoo!  FSM must therefore exist and is real and scientific!

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,01:18    Quote But alas, he also outright rejects empirical evidence (originating in experience and/or observation) when he denies that "faith" represents empirical evidence for an IDer. Oh, you're hopeless. Xavier: Thanks man! I see they've actually improved it! -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,05:07    Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,07<!--emo&) Science can't say the FSM doesn't exist either!  Woo hoo!  FSM must therefore exist and is real and scientific! Indeed, if you're Thordaddy, the fact of millions of people believing in a deity proves its existence. By this 'logic', the god(s) of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism must all be real, given the millions of people who believe them. Moreover, the lack of a creator god posited by Buddhism is ALSO true. So Jehovah, Allah, and Shiva all exist. And none of them created the world, and all of them did. The cosmos are a more complicated place than I thought... Someday I hope TD will tell us how many followers a religion must have in order to make it true. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,05:40    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,11:07) Someday I hope TD will tell us how many followers a religion must have in order to make it true. One assumes that this formula would also apply to things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, alien cow mutilations, etc. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,05:44    Quote (improvius @ Mar. 29 2006,11:40) 7--> Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,117) Someday I hope TD will tell us how many followers a religion must have in order to make it true. One assumes that this formula would also apply to things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, alien cow mutilations, etc. Don't forget pumas. (For all you Red vs. Blue fans out there.)

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,06:50    Quote You say ID(T) has not presented evidence for an IDer.  What evidence would suffice?  If ID(T) could become science as you stated then you have to be aware of some evidence that would applicable outside of "faith" of course. Im absolutely aware of scientific evidence that could exist for ID theory..... Have the IDer design something...anything...for observation or...better yet...find an organism that doesnt just "appear" to be designed....but that you can prove was designed.... I would accept a pocket watch inside of a cell as proof. I would accept a message inside of DNA as proof...perhaps a long series of prime numbers? I, nor science, will accept things that "look" designed as proof. Let me explain.... The classic example of scientific revolution is the concept of heat...it was originally considered a gas...then we developed a theory of energy... Here is the point...when Joule wanted to replace the current theory with a new one...he couldnt just point to an explained phenomenom under the old theory and use his new theory to explain it as well... he had to find an instance where the old theory failed and his new one succeeded.... You havent done that...you point to things like the eye...and offer an explanation...and so does Evolution...so guess what...the theory that we currently have is not going to be defeated because you "enjoy" your explanation more than ours... Find something that completely baffles Evo...and that your theory explains..methodically and fully...and we will start taking you seriously... BTW...after you point to the "unexplained"..you then give us a couple years to develop an explanation under the old theory...and if we cannot...then you get validation...sorry that is how it works.. Quote Afterall, it readily dismisses the empirical evidence (originating in experience or observation) of billions of believers that has spanned human history.  It chalks this up to NO empirical evidence. Just because the definition of empirical included the word observation, doesnt mean that anything observed is empircal. Empirical-Derived from experiment and observation Empirical doesnt just mean observed....millions of people have said that they saw aliens...does this prove aliens? Empirical knowledge refers to the knowledge being derived from experimentation and observation.... i.e. the gravitational constant was arrived at empirically the alternative is absolute knowledge...which is still observed knowledge...but it is known without testing. i.e. 2+2=4 Quote As I said, I don't see much difference between saying ID(T) isn't science and an IDer does not exist. Because you dont understand science.... This is a huge problem for a lot of you people... Science isnt saying that they are absolutely right... science is saying that they have the best natural explanation currently.... When we say that ID(t) isnt science....we are not denying that it is possible...far from it We are saying that it is not a valid natural explanation...it could very easily be true....but since it isnt currently testable or proveable within the realm of scientific definition...we are claiming it isnt scientific right now Thought Experiment: If i claim that socks disappear in the dryer because of a wormhole that dryers create...is that scientific plenty of people have observed socks disappearing wormholes might exist it explains what happened to my socks... but it isnt science....until i actually observe the wormholes..in a testable, repeatable way...either directly or indirectly.. The wormhole might still be in my dryer....and I can feel perfectly free to claim that it is there...I can even start an organization promoting the idea.... but the scientific community will not accept my claim until they can all go out and find wormholes in dryers.... no matter how confident my friends and I are about the wormhole......

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,07:19    Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 29 2006,12:50) Thought Experiment: If i claim that socks disappear in the dryer because of a wormhole that dryers create...is that scientific Everyone knows that it is due to sock gnomes that socks go missing.

W. Kevin Vicklund Posts: 68 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,07:58    No, socks are the larval form of wire coathangers.  I have empirical evidence (taken from several households in which I have lived) that the rate of disappearance of socks is directly correlated with the rate of appearance of new wire coathangers.  My mother, who to my knowledge first discovered this phenomenon, has independently verified my findings in on-going research dating back to the sixties.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,08:12    Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Mar. 29 2006,13:58) No, socks are the larval form of wire coathangers.  I have empirical evidence (taken from several households in which I have lived) that the rate of disappearance of socks is directly correlated with the rate of appearance of new wire coathangers.  My mother, who to my knowledge first discovered this phenomenon, has independently verified my findings in on-going research dating back to the sixties. Independent verification, schmindependent verification.  I have empirical faith in the sock gnomes.  Can you account for that Mr. Independent verification? Sock gnomes are gifts from the benevolence of FSM.  Without sock gnomes, we would wear the same socks over and over for too long, which would thusly expose us to the elements.  Socks gnomes come and steal our socks, thus forcing us to buy new ones and protect ourselves from the elements.  Oh, and it also stimulates the economy, which FSM also benevolently supplies to us.  And because I believe all this, then that means it is empirical and therefore it is true and real.  So there.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,08:20    You make a compelling argument, but there's one problem; doesn't there need to be a certain number of people believing in sock gnomes in order to make them real? Are we sure we've crossed that threshold? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,08:36    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,14:20) You make a compelling argument, but there's one problem; doesn't there need to be a certain number of people believing in sock gnomes in order to make them real? Are we sure we've crossed that threshold? I wouldn't believe it if there weren't empirical evidence (whether it is measureable or not.)  So, therefore, only one person is needed, because that one person would not believe without empirical evidence, which thus proves that the empirical evidence exists.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,08:42    My socks don't disappear so much as they get religion, then have to be replaced. Henry

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,08:47    Quote (GCT @ Mar. 29 2006,14:36) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,14:20) You make a compelling argument, but there's one problem; doesn't there need to be a certain number of people believing in sock gnomes in order to make them real? Are we sure we've crossed that threshold? I wouldn't believe it if there weren't empirical evidence (whether it is measureable or not.)  So, therefore, only one person is needed, because that one person would not believe without empirical evidence, which thus proves that the empirical evidence exists. Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

ptman Posts: 3 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2006,09:02    Dryer gnomes which you seem to want to call sock gnomes are a well established empirical phenomena. If you don't believe this just go to any laundromat and ask and I doubt you will find a single person there who has not experienced their actions. Furthermore, Dryer Gnomes live in Sleeveland as can be empircally confirmed by anyone who has ever found that sock that they didn't quite get away with. As for religious socks, that has only been a problem since the Fall. Prior to the Fall, socks would always return with darned material added so that they could live forever. R'amen

Pages: (13) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard