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 Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 319 320 321 322 323 [324] 325 326 327 328 329 ... >

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,07:20    Daniel continues to press his rhetorical strategy:               Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 30 2008) In the meantime, no one here has addressed my original challenge.  So Bill, rather than ignore me again for the hundredth time, how about you explain how natural processes produced some complex living system?  It could be anything Bill. Any living system.  ANYTHING!  (Am I being too specific?) Yet:                 Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 30 2008) Essentially you're saying that if we don't know the history of something, that 'something' is miraculous. Another non sequitur. Daniel, although the second quote was irrelevant to the comment to which it was addressed, you're exactly right: it doesn't follow that if we don't know the history of something, that "something" must have miraculous origins. Yet it is also accurate to say that your repeated rhetorical gambit, paraphrased as "God Theory is supported if you can't show me a sufficiently detailed account of the origination of a complex living system" makes exactly that argument. Essentially you're saying that if we don't know the history of something, that 'something' is miraculous. But that IS a non-sequitur, as you rightly state. It does not follow from the fact that OOL is unsolved, or that our understanding of the origins of many complex biological processes is incomplete, that a "miraculous" cause (Goddidit) should be, or need be, or even can be evoked in a scientific context. Time to drop that argument. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,07:55    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 01 2008,15:20) Daniel continues to press his rhetorical strategy:               Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 30 2008) In the meantime, no one here has addressed my original challenge.  So Bill, rather than ignore me again for the hundredth time, how about you explain how natural processes produced some complex living system?  It could be anything Bill. Any living system.  ANYTHING!  (Am I being too specific?) Yet:               Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 30 2008) Essentially you're saying that if we don't know the history of something, that 'something' is miraculous. Another non sequitur. Daniel, although the second quote was irrelevant to the comment to which it was addressed, you're exactly right: it doesn't follow that if we don't know the history of something, that "something" must have miraculous origins. Yet it is also accurate to say that your repeated rhetorical gambit, paraphrased as "God Theory is supported if you can't show me a sufficiently detailed account of the origination of a complex living system" makes exactly that argument. Essentially you're saying that if we don't know the history of something, that 'something' is miraculous. But that IS non-sequitur, as you rightly state. It does not follow from the fact that OOL remains unsolved, or that our understanding of the origins of many complex biological processes remains incomplete, that a "miraculous" cause (Goddidit) should be, or need be, or even can be evoked in a scientific context. Time to drop that argument. Don't expect that to happen too soon Daniel is caught in a room full of echos he can only hear his own thoughts. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,08:06    Time, Daniel, to drop everything and run to the nearest precipice and consider just exactly what it is that this God Life is really doing for you. It sure seems to leave you unsatisfied.   You troll here just to perhaps divert your internal dialogue (goofus and gallant) into an arena unconstrained by any sort of relationship with reality.  It's a space where your projections and wish-desires may run wild.  Fabulous really, it's a virtual playground with foam rubber on all the corners.  You play awesomely.  your imagination is unparalleled, at least for godbots who cannot fathom any alternative to their Prime Mover Security Blankie. Life is complex, therefore Jehovah!  I did it! (I have a two year old who gets just as excited about an activity that carries an equivalent amount of epistemic weight and does exactly the same amount of explanatory work:  I POOPED IN THE POTTY DADDY!!!) Sometimes though Daniel you seem a little bored with all this.  Your myopic squint has become all too familiar. You need another perspective, but you have presupposed yourself into quite a corner.  Any perspective informed by experience, facts or internal consistency is automatically out of bounds for you.  Not a very satisfying way to exist, eh? I suggest dear Daniel that you might learn something the way Socrates did.  What dear daniel is keeping such a warrior of the light as yourself from crossing over?  Why should Jesus H* Christ punish you by keeping you here to duel with plebes who are obviously far beneath your level of self-delusional capacity holiness quotient.   Fall upon thy sword.  Let me be your Volumnius. * stands for Hairy.  this is true but not mentioned in the bible.  Jesus was possibly the hairiest person that ever lived, hairy has more CSI than smooth and it is self-evident that God has the most CSI or he ain't God. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,09:05    Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 01 2008,08:55) Don't expect that to happen too soon Daniel is caught in a room full of echos he can only hear his own thoughts. That IS his own thought - the second a direct repudiation of the first. Let's see which he abandons. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,10:09    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2008,16:06) Life is complex, therefore Jehovah!  I did it! Oh no no no grasshopper ........he say "life complex, god simple". (Like don't you just get it man?...here smoke this) And isn't that a non Secateurs anyway? oh no...... IT'S ONLY PLAIN STUPIDITY     Quote * stands for Hairy.  this is true but not mentioned in the bible.  Jesus was possibly the hairiest person that ever lived, hairy has more CSI than smooth and it is self-evident that God has the most CSI or he ain't God. Yair well when a certain Miss Mary M got him and had her wicked wicked way with him she got such a bad rash she had to take  a gillette loaded with  these onto HIM. She was very hairy too I believe -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,10:28    Quote Of course, that's not what Daniel and the IDiot Crew are proposing. Right, my point is just that I can't see no reason why the alternative I am suggesting can be ruled out. That is, if one is religiously inclined and want that kind of God in his life. I believe that there are lots of true, dedicated Christians who are very comfortable not only with their God, but also are at peace with the world, science and the theory of evolution. Maybe not all of them, but I also think many don't even bother about the hereafter. They are more concerned with the here and now which AFAIK is the only time we will ever have. Isn't that what eternity (as a religious/psychological term) is all about? WRT Daniel and others like him, we won't reach them with any argument. They will have to sort out their problems by themselves, but Pavlovian reflexes are not easily unlearned. They know what they have and are frightened of the void that letting go of ingrained faith would leave. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,11:04    Quote (Quack @ Dec. 01 2008,18:28)         Quote Of course, that's not what Daniel and the IDiot Crew are proposing. Right, my point is just that I can't see no reason why the alternative I am suggesting can be ruled out. That is, if one is religiously inclined and want that kind of God in his life. No one says you can't         Quote I believe that there are lots of true, dedicated Christians who are very comfortable not only with their God, but also are at peace with the world, science and the theory of evolution. ....ooops almost the no true Scott(d)... I have to agree it's only the Straussian theocrats/Islamofacists/Christian Taliban who think that science destroys OTHER people's (read vassals) faith  in *insert favorite big cheese here* In the very few words actually attributed to Mr. J. Christ who only seemed to recomend visiting prisoners, caring for the poor in their many guises, recommending  peace, fuck the rich and be nice to your enemies I can't see where this hate knowledge business was in his manifesto.         Quote Maybe not all of them, but I also think many don't even bother about the hereafter. They are more concerned with the here and now which AFAIK is the only time we will ever have. Isn't that what eternity (as a religious/psychological term) is all about? Ah yes eternity only means a long time...like all of a decently long enjoyable life .....the much  fabled hear(sic) and now..... after that it doesn't fucking matter. For these MOFOS their whole life is NOT an eternity it is a very short nil pro quo  30 second loop on a Radio Shack  Telephone Answering machine followed by a McDonalds death.         Quote WRT Daniel and others like him, we won't reach them with any argument. They will have to sort out their problems by themselves, but Pavlovian reflexes are not easily unlearned. They know what they have and are frightened of the void that letting go of ingrained faith would leave. Pavlovian reflexes? I don't think so.....it's pure Freud.   They fell in love with their mothers....who lied to them. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,11:05    Quote WRT Daniel and others like him, we won't reach them with any argument. They will have to sort out their problems by themselves, but Pavlovian reflexes are not easily unlearned. They know what they have and are frightened of the void that letting go of ingrained faith would leave. Some men you just can't reach... Daniel doesn't want to be reached.  He is just here to troll.  As I have said before, I think he is an old troll with a new name.  At any rate, nothing he says is of any consequence for precisely the reasons you identify. To wit:  Daniel refuses to acknowledge that he cannot distinguish between a universe where life is an inevitable consequence of the (known and unknown) properties of matter, and the universe he claims exists where life is proof of Gods. In other words, it may just be that things could not be any different than they are, for reasons entirely antithetical to his reasons.  An obstinate unwillingness to wrestle with this issue is a sure sign that you are dealing with a crank, a fraud, or a child.  Or possibly all three and a tinfoil hat.  I suspect the Fifth Way:  Silly Troll. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,11:15    I vote AFDave style crank. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:19    It's like talking to the brainwashed... OK... You won't accept any criticism of the current theory unless another equally expounded theory is ready to take its place. You won't accept any criticism of the current theory because much remains to be learned and it will eventually pan out. Anything beyond what is currently known is "too much detail to ask" of the current theory. You're willing to ignore all of life's wonderful organization because there are a handful of systems you believe to be "sub-par". You won't accept any evidence of design - no matter how intricate the organization and no matter how analogous to human designs - unless a causal history can be made for the designer.   You won't accept any of life's systems as evidence for design in spite of the fact that after 150 years of intense research the present theory explains exactly none of them. You won't accept anything that can be called "God" as a designer because that invokes a supernatural mechanism. And (the scariest part) you actually believe that accidental processes can produce life's intricacies despite no demonstrable supporting evidence. So, I guess the decks pretty well stacked.  Only one question remains: What will you accept as evidence for design? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:40    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 01 2008,16:19) It's like talking to the brainwashed... Brains!     Quote You won't accept any criticism of the current theory unless another equally expounded theory is ready to take its place. Usually a theory is replaced by a theory that better explains all the observed data and then some more that the current theory cannot itself explain. That is why a theory is replaced, because a better one comes along. Daniel, if you want you "god" theory to replace evolution you'd better make a start explaining every single thing that evolution explains. Please start with HIV. What was it originally designed for? How can it be stopped? Why does it appear to "evolve" in order to survive? Then the same questions for cancer. Then I have some more after that.     Quote You won't accept any criticism of the current theory because much remains to be learned and it will eventually pan out. It's not about "accepting" it. You've not actually made any substantive (i.e. supported by actual physical evidence or experiments). It's not that it will eventually pan out, it is that it *is* panning out. Unless you have a better explanation for all the data so far observed?     Quote Anything beyond what is currently known is "too much detail to ask" of the current theory. How can you ask for beyond what is currently known? You can find out what is currently unknown, and that is what is happening by people called "scientists". It would be somewhat pointless discovering the already known? I think even you would agree then Daniel.     Quote You're willing to ignore all of life's wonderful organization because there are a handful of systems you believe to be "sub-par". A handful? The reason everything looks like it was cobbled together is because it was. Everything. Why don't humans come with batterys Daniel? What's the specific function of Cancer? Of HIV?     Quote You won't accept any evidence of design - no matter how intricate the organization and no matter how analogous to human designs - unless a causal history can be made for the designer.   Try providing some such evidence. "Things are complex" won't cut it round here.     Quote You won't accept any of life's systems as evidence for design in spite of the fact that after 150 years of intense research the present theory explains exactly none of them. Your theory explains all of them. Everything. And therein lies the problem, a theory that explains everything explains nothing. god did it. for some reason.     Quote You won't accept anything that can be called "God" as a designer because that invokes a supernatural mechanism. Does it? Are you talking about a single "God" or a Trillion Gods? How do you know there was the number of "Gods" that you claim there was? However many that might be?     Quote And (the scariest part) you actually believe that accidental processes can produce life's intricacies despite no demonstrable supporting evidence. What, like a DVD of it happening? There is plenty of research into OOL, it's just that you are an ignorant son of a bitch and refuse to consider it.     Quote So, I guess the decks pretty well stacked.  Only one question remains: Yes, reality is against you. Poor child.     Quote What will you accept as evidence for design? As you have not provided anything other then "things are complex" that remains to be seen. Try again, put another coin in the slot. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:41    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 01 2008,16:19) What will you accept as evidence for design? Evidence for a designer? -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:46    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 01 2008,16:19) It's like talking to the brainwashed... OK... You won't accept any criticism of the current theory unless another equally expounded theory is ready to take its place. Nope. But criticism has to be based on new evidence, not millenia-aged canards. And it has to explain at least one thing better than the current paradigm, lead to testable hypotheses, and be objective (capable of being observed by me as well as by you). Your "criticism" fails on all three counts.     Quote You won't accept any criticism of the current theory because much remains to be learned and it will eventually pan out. Nope. See above     Quote Anything beyond what is currently known is "too much detail to ask" of the current theory. Nope. Details are constantly being provided by evolutionary biology, so it is reasonable to infer that this will continue to occur. Details have always been lacking for think-poof theory, and you have provided no new ones, so it is reasonable to infer that your paradigm will never provide new details. A reasonable person would choose the paradigm that continues to provide new data and insights...     Quote You're willing to ignore all of life's wonderful organization because there are a handful of systems you believe to be "sub-par". Nope. We're willing to look at the details of life's organization, the good as well as the bad, and ask questions about how this could come to be. Evolutionary theory offers good, testable explanations of sub-par designs. Think-poof theory explains nothing about good design, and even less about bad design. A reasonable person would choose the paradigm with more explanatory power...     Quote ]You won't accept any evidence of design - no matter how intricate the organization and no matter how analogous to human designs - unless a causal history can be made for the designer. Nope. But if, as you say, design implies a designer, it seems reasonable to ask for evidence of the existence of the designer and for some evidence of how he/she/it could work. A detailed causal history, such as the one you demand for amino acid synthesis, is not needed. But you need at least some plausible, objective, and explanatory framework. You have not provided that. Evolutionary theory does provide it. A reasonable person would choose the paradigm that provides more evidence, and more capability for being tested...     Quote You won't accept any of life's systems as evidence for design in spite of the fact that after 150 years of intense research the present theory explains exactly none of them. Nope. It offers plausible testable objective explanations for lots of things that you haven't even asked about. Think-poof theory, on the other hand, explains exactly none of them after 5 millenia. A reasonable person would choose a theory with a better, albeit imperfect, track record over a theory with a pathetic track record of explaining exactly nothing at all.   Quote You won't accept anything that can be called "God" as a designer because that invokes a supernatural mechanism. Yep, because neither you nor anyone else can tell us how to test this hypothesis, nor can you provide objective evidence for it. Show us the objective evidence for this mechanism, or provide avenues for testing the hypothesis, and scientists would probably trample you on the road to the Nobel Prize which awaits a success in this arena.     Quote And (the scariest part) you actually believe that accidental processes can produce life's intricacies despite no demonstrable supporting evidence. Nope. Strawman. Accidental processes are just part of the explanation. There is plenty of evidence for the combination of chance, necessity and contingency giving rise to the diversity of living and extinct forms on this planet.     Quote So, I guess the decks pretty well stacked.  Only one question remains: What will you accept as evidence for design? Evidence and testability. That seems self-evident. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:56    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 01 2008,17:19) What will you accept as evidence for design? Within the context of methodological naturalism, which enables and guides the scientific method (the only method we know of for attaining knowledge in which cumulative confidence may be accrued), the hypothesis of supernatural design is excluded. Period. Any observation can be reconciled with the actions of an all powerful supernatural intelligence. Therefore no observation can empirically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of supernatural design. Supernatural design is therefore beyond the reach of the scientific method. It doesn't follow that it did not occur, or has no meaning. But it does follow that the assertion cannot be given scientific meaning. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:57    Quote What will you accept as evidence for design? Assuming that "design" means "life or some aspect of it was deliberately engineered by somebody or something": 1) There needs to be a premise which gives more detail than what I paraphrased above, since without more than that there's no way to show that it necessarily predicts anything different than current theory. 2) The premise has to be consistent with all the already accumulated data. 3) There needs to be a consistently observed pattern of observations that can be explained as a logically deduced necessary consequence of the stated premise. 4) That pattern needs to be distinct from the expectations of the current theory in a way that can be consistently detected. 5) The proposed hypothesis needs to predict some future observations that are unlikely to occur together if the premise is wrong, and which can be verified in a reasonable time frame (not more than a few decades; preferably a few years). Henry

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,20:49    Quote What will you accept as evidence of design? mitschlag says "evidence of a designer".  that's certainly necessary.  hume destroyed any argument without such evidence and no one has countered this so far. RB correctly describes the requirements for a scientific argument from design, namely that design is not 'supernatural'.  This is a particularly thorny hook Daniel finds himself hoist upon, for material evidence does not speak to the supernatural and immaterial evidence does not facilitate scientific understanding.  Most importantly, RB nails the coffin shut with the admission that just because it cannot be described or understood via science qua science does not mean that it is not true nor real.  Who could possibly argue otherwise?  I'd be surprised if anyone on this board would take such a position. Of course Daniel never has been interested in what science can do.  It is all a giant apologetic exercise for him.  He keeps skipping the crucial piece of evidence required by mitschlag (and any honest observer). So what is needed by Daniel or anyone else who is whimpering Quote What will you accept as evidence of design? is a proven method of design detection.  To date there is no such thing.   Even if there were such a thing, it would not get the cdesign proponentists off the hook for mitschlag's or Henry's requirements.  I personally don't see any way that The Argument Regarding Design can ever counter those objections in a manner that satisfies the base requirements of any means of understanding true facts about the real world. Daniel, were he honest (he is not), would accept this and work towards a method of 'design detection'.  The same goes for him and any other cdesign proponentists.  They are all frauds. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,21:05    Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 01 2008,17:57) Quote What will you accept as evidence for design? Assuming that "design" means "life or some aspect of it was deliberately engineered by somebody or something": 1) There needs to be a premise which gives more detail than what I paraphrased above, since without more than that there's no way to show that it necessarily predicts anything different than current theory. 2) The premise has to be consistent with all the already accumulated data. 3) There needs to be a consistently observed pattern of observations that can be explained as a logically deduced necessary consequence of the stated premise. 4) That pattern needs to be distinct from the expectations of the current theory in a way that can be consistently detected. 5) The proposed hypothesis needs to predict some future observations that are unlikely to occur together if the premise is wrong, and which can be verified in a reasonable time frame (not more than a few decades; preferably a few years). Henry Having a scientific revolution is a process of convincing the scientific community that your hypothesis is more useful in some way. When evolutionists are producing tons of research using their idea, and your 'theorists' are producing jack, Ur Doin it Rong.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,21:10    Hey Daniel I will sell you a custom-built Stevetronic Design Detector. It'll be a little box, with an antenna, and a red light. Whenever the red light is on, it's detecting design. And since everything in the universe was designed by YHWH uh I mean, Intelligent Designer, the red light is always on! Amazing, huh? And please don't look inside. And for only $750!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please contact me for payment arrangements and shipping.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,21:20    Funny line at Balloon Juice Quote Resveritrol. Had lots of that this weekend at the wedding. I am now 27 – not 39.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,22:04    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2008,21:10) Hey Daniel I will sell you a custom-built Stevetronic Design Detector. It'll be a little box, with an antenna, and a red light. Whenever the red light is on, it's detecting design. And since everything in the universe was designed by YHWH uh I mean, Intelligent Designer, the red light is always on! Amazing, huh? And please don't look inside. And for only $750!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please contact me for payment arrangements and shipping. I can get you one for 300 bucks, AND it has a digital interface.  with a red light.  that's always on.  and a buzzer. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,23:10    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 01 2008,19:05) Having a scientific revolution is a process of convincing the scientific community that your hypothesis is more useful in some way. When evolutionists are producing tons of research using their idea, and your 'theorists' are producing jack, Ur Doin it Rong. And that really is the crux of the matter isn't it ? If ID actually produced something that was useful, people would use it, and push the boundaries of it's usefulness as far as they could... regardless of the philosophical implications. If ID theory helped you create pharmaceuticals faster, the pharma industry would be all over it. If YEC theory predicted where you could find oil, you know Chevron and Shell would hire YEC geologists, and YEC geology would be taught in every university. The oil companies have no stake in the biblical account being false. If astrology worked, the countries with the best astrologers would dominate the world. If prayer worked better than penicillin, your HMO would demand prayer. But here's the rub Daniel... Observation shows that to a very good approximation, we don't live in that universe. Natural explanations displace supernatural ones, not because of some materialist agenda, but because the supernatural ones don't fucking work. If you are going to claim that yours is different, you'd better be prepared to show it. All you have to do to defeat materialism is come up with magic that works better than materialist science. With the infinite power of God on your side, that should be pretty easy, right ?

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,23:26    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 01 2008,15:56) Within the context of methodological naturalism, which enables and guides the scientific method (the only method we know of for attaining knowledge in which cumulative confidence may be accrued), the hypothesis of supernatural design is excluded. Period. Imnsho, the natural vs supernatural distinction isn't the point. What matters is whether or not the hypothesis actually explains some verifiable repeatable pattern of observations. If something traditionally thought of as supernatural were to actually explain something in a verifiable manner, it could be studied. Otoh, something "all powerful" would be a different matter than merely supernatural, because of the lack of constraints implied by that concept. Henry

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,23:48    Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 01 2008,23:26) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 01 2008,15:56) Within the context of methodological naturalism, which enables and guides the scientific method (the only method we know of for attaining knowledge in which cumulative confidence may be accrued), the hypothesis of supernatural design is excluded. Period. Imnsho, the natural vs supernatural distinction isn't the point. What matters is whether or not the hypothesis actually explains some verifiable repeatable pattern of observations. If something traditionally thought of as supernatural were to actually explain something in a verifiable manner, it could be studied. Otoh, something "all powerful" would be a different matter than merely supernatural, because of the lack of constraints implied by that concept. Henry Quote This is a particularly thorny hook Daniel finds himself hoist upon, for material evidence does not speak to the supernatural and immaterial evidence does not facilitate scientific understanding. ID (or any supernatural) could in principle construct an empirically equivalent narrative that piggybacks (by theft, not toil) on the explanatory work done by the natural mechanism.   you would then have a pluralism that would require elaboration of whatever variance in predictions that could be found between two such theories.  A carefully crafted 'theory' could potentially never contradict the other theory, such that it could never be falsified, yet claim all epistemic ground occupied by another theory (like last thursdayism).  then, parsimony just renders it useless.  this is what ID has attempted to do. but a 'supernatural' mechanism, studied via rigorous methods as you describe, would cease to be 'supernatural' despite whatever historical trappings it may have borne. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,04:25    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 02 2008,00:19) It's like talking to the brainwashed... Yeah yeah says you ......dickhead. At least you heard something beyond that hollow echo for once. But comming from a self confessed middle aged white facist male theocrat / god botherer that is PRETTY FUCKING FUNNY!.     Quote OK... You won't accept any criticism of the current theory unless another equally expounded theory is ready to take its place. Please Daniel TRY TO GET WHAT THE WORD THEORY ACTUALLY MEANS. Hint g$d IS NOT A FUCKING THEORY.     Quote You won't accept any criticism of the current theory because much remains to be learned and it will eventually pan out. Do YOU  have another ...er actual THEORY? Hey put down down that bible for a second and pick up a FUCKING dictionary     Quote Anything beyond what is currently known is "too much detail to ask" of the current theory. As opposed to WHAT? xxx breathed into dust...BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA     Quote You're willing to ignore all of life's wonderful organization because there are a handful of systems you believe to be "sub-par". oh yeah wonderful like your wife and children who I imagine you think are "wonderful'. Good for you...... so are everone else's     Quote You won't accept any evidence of design - no matter how intricate the organization and no matter how analogous to human designs - unless a causal history can be made for the designer.   DUH?     Quote You won't accept any of life's systems as evidence for design in spite of the fact that after 150 years of intense research the present theory explains exactly none of them. uh yeh sez u (who I believe is a circuit board jockey for a power station and came near the back of the class in all his science subjects while at...... wait for it .....HIGH SCHOOOL.  BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA     Quote You won't accept anything that can be called "God" as a designer because that invokes a supernatural mechanism. Why are you here again Daniel ?     Quote And (the scariest part) you actually believe that accidental processes can produce life's intricacies despite no demonstrable supporting evidence. ooooooooh scaaaarrrrry BOO HOO HOO Daniel is an ACCIDENT!!     Quote So, I guess the decks pretty well stacked.  Only one question remains: You can't shuffle can you Daniel?     Quote What will you accept as evidence for design? As Spinoza said Daniel "... a simple phone call from your g$d would suffice" Surely that is in HIS power? Anything less is a con from you or your crazy creobots. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,06:38    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2008,00:48) but a 'supernatural' mechanism, studied via rigorous methods as you describe, would cease to be 'supernatural' despite whatever historical trappings it may have borne. Exactly. "Naturalism" of the methodological variety doesn't constrain us to a particular ontology (e.g. "only the physical"), and notions with evidentiary traction may tow us into strange domains indeed. If we can retrace and reliably repeat our conceptual and empirical steps, something that long would have been rejected as supernatural and perhaps impossible may be found to be natural. But Daniel explicitly intends "all powerful agency" when he specifies his designer, and insists that OOL - in fact O of Anything - cannot result from natural processes untended by an all powerful and intervening representational intelligence. The natural, he insists, left to its own can never give rise to such complexity and apparent purpose. Indeed, for Daniel, living organisms themselves are not part of the natural order. They are in it and composed of components drawn from it, but they are not themselves natural. He doesn't want them to be natural. Moreover, the "all powerful" character of his designer renders dispositive evidentiary traction impossible. So while evidence may move the boundaries of the natural, resulting in surprising and sometimes very strange inclusiveness (quantum physics has accustomed us to this), Daniel is busy out back throwing securely natural phenomena (living organisms) over the fence the other direction. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,07:04    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2008,14:38) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2008,00:48) but a 'supernatural' mechanism, studied via rigorous methods as you describe, would cease to be 'supernatural' despite whatever historical trappings it may have borne. Exactly. "Naturalism" of the methodological variety doesn't constrain us to a particular ontology (e.g. "only the physical"), and notions with evidentiary traction may tow us into strange domains indeed. If we can retrace and reliably repeat our conceptual and empirical steps, something that long would have been rejected as supernatural and perhaps impossible may be found to be natural. But Daniel explicitly intends "all powerful agency" when he specifies his designer, and insists that OOL - in fact O of Anything - cannot result from natural processes untended by an all powerful and intervening representational intelligence. The natural, he insists, left to its own can never give rise to such complexity and apparent purpose. Indeed, for Daniel, living organisms themselves are not part of the natural order. They are in it and composed of components drawn from it, but they are not themselves natural. He doesn't want them to be natural. Moreover, the "all powerful" character of his designer renders dispositive evidentiary traction impossible. So while evidence may move the boundaries of the natural, resulting in surprising and sometimes very strange inclusiveness (quantum physics has accustomed us to this), Daniel is busy out back throwing securely natural phenomena (living organisms) over the fence the other direction. FUCK OFF rb HE WANTS US ALL TO BELIEVE IN GOATS er GEROHTS ..er TOASTERS..er $0.50 GHOSTAS. Yes he believes ded persons ACTUALLY LIVE like ShC* *Shiva H Chrishnu. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,07:06    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2008,06:38) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2008,00:48) but a 'supernatural' mechanism, studied via rigorous methods as you describe, would cease to be 'supernatural' despite whatever historical trappings it may have borne. Exactly. "Naturalism" of the methodological variety doesn't constrain us to a particular ontology (e.g. "only the physical"), and notions with evidentiary traction may tow us into strange domains indeed. If we can retrace and reliably repeat our conceptual and empirical steps, something that long would have been rejected as supernatural and perhaps impossible may be found to be natural. But Daniel explicitly intends "all powerful agency" when he specifies his designer, and insists that OOL - in fact O of Anything - cannot result from natural processes untended by an all powerful and intervening representational intelligence. The natural, he insists, left to its own can never give rise to such complexity and apparent purpose. Indeed, for Daniel, living organisms themselves are not part of the natural order. They are in it and composed of components drawn from it, but they are not themselves natural. He doesn't want them to be natural. Moreover, the "all powerful" character of his designer renders dispositive evidentiary traction impossible. So while evidence may move the boundaries of the natural, resulting in surprising and sometimes very strange inclusiveness (quantum physics has accustomed us to this), Daniel is busy out back throwing securely natural phenomena (living organisms) over the fence the other direction. spot on. i have said it before and i'll say it again...  It's all ontological silly buggers with him. that's it.  nothing more. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,07:12    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2008,15:06) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2008,06:38) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2008,00:48) but a 'supernatural' mechanism, studied via rigorous methods as you describe, would cease to be 'supernatural' despite whatever historical trappings it may have borne. Exactly. "Naturalism" of the methodological variety doesn't constrain us to a particular ontology (e.g. "only the physical"), and notions with evidentiary traction may tow us into strange domains indeed. If we can retrace and reliably repeat our conceptual and empirical steps, something that long would have been rejected as supernatural and perhaps impossible may be found to be natural. But Daniel explicitly intends "all powerful agency" when he specifies his designer, and insists that OOL - in fact O of Anything - cannot result from natural processes untended by an all powerful and intervening representational intelligence. The natural, he insists, left to its own can never give rise to such complexity and apparent purpose. Indeed, for Daniel, living organisms themselves are not part of the natural order. They are in it and composed of components drawn from it, but they are not themselves natural. He doesn't want them to be natural. Moreover, the "all powerful" character of his designer renders dispositive evidentiary traction impossible. So while evidence may move the boundaries of the natural, resulting in surprising and sometimes very strange inclusiveness (quantum physics has accustomed us to this), Daniel is busy out back throwing securely natural phenomena (living organisms) over the fence the other direction. spot on. i have said it before and i'll say it again...  It's all ontological silly buggers with him. that's it.  nothing more. I'LL GIVE U ONTRA-FRIGIN-LOGICAL FIRST THEAR WAS DARKNESS ...RIGHT? THEN THAIR WUZ LIGHT ...RIGHT? AFTER THAT THER WUS ADAM....REIGHT? THEN DARE WUZ ME I DARE U 2 CONTRADICK ME. HAIL 2 THEE OH LORD WHEREVA 'N WHATEVA U R OK? XXxX dANIEL????? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,11:09    Quote Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)." -- Ray Comfort -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,14:57    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 01 2008,22:48) but a 'supernatural' mechanism, studied via rigorous methods as you describe, would cease to be 'supernatural' despite whatever historical trappings it may have borne. Exactly! And that's why the "supernatural" distinction is inappropriate - it's based on lack of knowledge of the phenomenon, not on a verifiable distinction. That's what happened with lightning, diseases, earthquakes, volcanoes, the sun crossing the sky, etc.; they were called supernatural until people acquired enough background to actually study them and their causes. (It's also what's currently happening with abiogenesis today.)

Pages: (666) < ... 319 320 321 322 323 [324] 325 326 327 328 329 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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