RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,22:56   

is is possible that both are true?  cause, uh, i think he is definitely here looking for a date*.  else he would have answered my questions, or anyone else's, or done SOMETHING in 82 pages.

*not that there is anything wrong with that.  cf Chatfield

--------------
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

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2009,23:34   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 29 2009,19:37)
The really sad part is that he is so committed to ignorance, that he must ignore those who would be willing to teach him.  As my grandfather used to say, as soon as you stop learning, you start to die.

I find it frustrating that his zealousness for ignorance is so readily transmitted to young people.  Kids who should spend their time learning and questioning, instead spend their time arguing.

Flody and his like transmit and propagate their ignorance by tapping into a primal fear.

One of the facts of childhood is that you are powerless. Your continued existence depends upon how well you respond to the whims and demands of the adults around you. If you're lucky, those adults are essentially sane and responsible and responsive. Even then, it's a long and confusing process to figure out the rules, from “Don’t shit your pants” to “Casseroles are disgusting pig-slop and no decent woman would expect her family to eat that”.

Because you learn them so early, the rules become THE RULES, for everyone, everywhere, in every situation. And then you enter the wider world, where it’s still not okay to shit your pants but casseroles can be kinda tasty… That world doesn't care about you, personally, and it totally ignores the brazillion quirky family rules that have defined and shaped you. Bad things happen, your heart is broken, you face the abyss.

Choice 1: Decide that the world is large and complicated and beyond your control, so it’s better to focus on what you can control, i.e., your behavior and how it affects those around you.

Choice 2: Decide that the world is large and complicated and beyond your control, so it’s better to retreat elsewhen, i.e., to a time when there was someone in charge with THE RULES.

Look at Flody’s response to Lou FCD’s first jpg. I read it pretty much as I think Lou FCD intended: a riff on Flody’s holier&annoyingier-than-thou, passive-aggressive (“I love you but God hates you”) posts.

How did Flody respond? With a full-bore blast of proselytizing. He’s that powerless and defenseless, that childlike. He can’t tolerate an unexpected glimpse of what he imagines awaits him if he doesn’t follow THE RULES.

It would be tragic, if he weren’t such an insufferably arrogant clod.

  
didymos



Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,03:08   

Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Frank (bolding mine):

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)


I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...

edited: got who Floyd was responding to wrong.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,03:28   

I want to underscore the point of Constant Mews.

FL's "arguments" are garbage, and it's good that we point out this undeniable fact.  (Really undeniable ... FL himself does not deny it.)

But FL himself is not garbage.  He stands up for his beliefs (while mistaking his beliefs for facts).  He is not afraid to be in the minority (while somehow thinking that his minority status is evidence that his beliefs are facts).  I wish FL good health and improved thinking.  If you pray, I hope you'll pray for FL.

  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,05:50   

Quote
I just wonder if it's ever even occurred to him that there is even the slimmest possibility that he might be wrong.  It wouldn't corrode his faith, it wouldn't destroy his faith in Jesus.  It would, generally speaking, make him a much nicer person to be around and a much more effective witness for his faith.

He might even learn to know "The Christ in me" (cit. St. Paul) ('me' in this case being  FL) instead of the fruitless worshiping of a mythical Jesus at Calvary. It is interesting to note that in a context of myth creation, use of "The location's landscape resembled the shape of a skull" would make sense.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1242
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,06:04   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 30 2009,03:08)
Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Robin (bolding mine):

   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)


I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...

Maybe Floyd and this lady could hook up.

I'd pay to see that.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,08:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)

Quote
Quote
You have not established why Deadman's presuppostions (assuming he has any) are pertinent to your proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.



Floyd, Floyd, Floyd...(sigh)...I already told you that the Presuppositional Apologetics argument is nonsense. So here we go. You are begging the question Floyd. Your claim that Deadman et al have invoked anti-supernatural presuppositional appeals is circular - you haven't established that your presupposition that the supernatural exists is valid. Thus, any statement about denying the supernatural CAN'T be a presupposition - such is merely a neutral statement against the fallacious presupposition of the theological assumption. You lose again Floyd.


Quote
You were willing, for example, to say out loud that the Resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical instead of historical.   You stood up and said your true beliefs.


False Floyd - I stated an assessment of evidence. There is no evidence that the story is factual at all, thus the neutral position is that the story, like all other such stories is metaphorical. Unless the Apologetic can provided objective evidence that supports the resurrection (and only the resurrection) as being a valid explanation, the position that the story is metaphoricall cannot be a presupposition. It can only be a response to a claim that is unsubstantiated.

Quote
I can't even get Deadman to be THAT honest with me.  He's ducking and hiding his cards.  And relying on YOU guys to keep him hid.


You're lying Floyd. Once again, Deadman's beliefs have NO BEARING on this discussion.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,08:17   

Quote (Dan @ Oct. 30 2009,04:28)
I want to underscore the point of Constant Mews.

FL's "arguments" are garbage, and it's good that we point out this undeniable fact.  (Really undeniable ... FL himself does not deny it.)

But FL himself is not garbage.  He stands up for his beliefs (while mistaking his beliefs for facts).  He is not afraid to be in the minority (while somehow thinking that his minority status is evidence that his beliefs are facts).  I wish FL good health and improved thinking.  If you pray, I hope you'll pray for FL.

Dan you think he actually believes all the crap he says?  NO WAY

--------------
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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,08:21   

Guys, c'mon...why are we even bothering with Floyd's issue #5? What's the first rule concerning a creationist taking a quote from some larger piece of work? That's right...it's likely take out of context.

Whoa...looky there! That's just what Floyd did with Rosenhouse's quote:

Quote
Frankly, the whole idea of niches existing in nature just waiting for animals to evolve their way into them is a bit dubious to begin with. Animals in part create their own niches, and the landscape is constantly changing as creatures evolve.

These are just a few of the scientific considerations that ought to dampen Miller's confidence in the inevitably of human-like creatrues. Curiously, though, this whole line of argument resolves one theological difficulty only at the price of creating other ones.

Yes, human inevitability would solve the problem of preserving human specialness in the face of evolutionary contingency. But just consider the view of natural history entailed by this. Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-awae creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years? Problem of evil, indeed.



OOOOOoooopsss...Seems Floyd's been dishonest about what Rosenhouse meant. His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position, so Rosenhouse's scenerio doesn't actually exist. Thus, neither does Floyd's argument.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,08:35   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 30 2009,03:08)

Quote
Wow. Playing catch-up and, I can't believe that no one jumped on this bit he addressed to Robin (bolding mine):

 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,08:43)
(However, if she IS a Christian, why aren't you following her example and hooking up with Jesus?  You could always sign up with Him as a theistic evolutionist, you know.)


I know he answered directly later, but I still think this is pretty funny, especially with how he was still dragging his heels right after posting it. That was some nice self-pwnage there, Floyd.  Only topped by finally just answering the damned question.  

I'd also like Floyd to note that the phrase 'hooking up with Jesus' is probably ill-advised and best avoided in the future as it does not mean what he thinks it means.  Or maybe it does, which is just really way too fucking disturbing to contemplate...


Just an FYI - I believe when Frank asked the question, he was referring to my sister, the theological scholar. I will say that she is a deeply devout Christian, though not a fundamentalist and/or an Apologist. She reads Koine Greek and Hebrew (and a little Aramaic), has degrees in ancient Romance Languages and Theology, and has put together various translations of religious works. I used to be a devout Christian like her, but I found over the years that the answers that Christianity provides are to questions that I discovered are not relevant to me. I enjoy discovering the answers to questions about the natural world.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,08:55   

Actually Robin I was not asking about your sister.  It was for my sister who's a good Catholic girl.

She took my word on "Theistic Evolution" and when the Pontiff came out and said what he did on Evolution and Catholicism, she dropped all issues with Evolution and being a Christian.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,09:13   

Quote
Care to point to that? Page? Citation?

Page 27, dude.  I was quoting you quite directly.
 
Quote
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman

Sound familiar?

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,09:27   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,09:13)
Quote
Care to point to that? Page? Citation?
Page 27, dude.  I was quoting you quite directly.
Quote
.....(All) of science denies being capable of investigating/supporting Supernaturalist Deities as a knowable "cause". --- Deadman
Sound familiar?

Um, I went to page 27.  I found Deadman's remarks and I didn't see that one anywhere.  Is it on a different page?

In any case that is true.  If one were to include "supernatural claims", then there will be no way to separate ANY of the myriad of Supernatural entity from being responsible from anything!

That means any religion and any belief can be used, all with equal weight, along with totems, animal spirits and the invisible friend of the weird guy sitting across from you in a McDonald's as being responsible for anything you want them to be responsible for.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:01   

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 30 2009,08:55)

Quote
Actually Robin I was not asking about your sister.  It was for my sister who's a good Catholic girl.

She took my word on "Theistic Evolution" and when the Pontiff came out and said what he did on Evolution and Catholicism, she dropped all issues with Evolution and being a Christian.


Ahh...my bad. Interesting note though. Thanks!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:02   

Quote
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position

But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.
Quote
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."


----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website

So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.

******

And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  

(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
 
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:02   

THIS is what you had posted, Flody:

"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:03)
Ohhhh yes I have.  For example, some posters (and Deadman was specifically one of them, so there!)  have appealed to an anti-supernaturalist presupposition of(naturalism for short) in an attempt to evade the force of the First and Second Incompatibilities.  You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition.

Knowing what that particular presupposition is and how it works, helped me to both understand the objections you guys were lodging, and also to locate the correct professional sources with which to carefully and specifically argue against trying to equate that negative presupposition with science itself---(like Deadman and his pals were trying to do.)

Here's your full quote. Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.

When you were asked to point to any scientific program that could establish the causal origins of anything due to gods, you couldn't do that, FLody.

That's because so far as is known, there is no way to determine deistic supernatural causation for anything. Science cannot know the "ultimate truth" about such claims

Saying this about science is not the same thing as "Appealing to a negative theological supposition" Flody, and I know YOU know that, which is why you left that bit out of your last post.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
didymos



Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:14   

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 30 2009,06:35)
Just an FYI - I believe when Frank asked the question, he was referring to my sister, the theological scholar.

Oops.  I misread that.  It was Frank, and I see he was actually talking about his sister.  OK, I go fix.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:35   

Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:38   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:02)
Quote
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position

But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.
Quote
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
[b]D
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."[/b]

----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website
So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.

******

And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  

(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)
 
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.

And once again Floyd takes Dawkin's opinions as some sort of an "Evilutionist" Canon to which all who "believe in Evilution" must abide by.

False.  Dawkins was expressing his oen Atheism and say why HE BELIEVES that the universe is not designed and there is no god.  That is a statement of faith, of sorts in no god or gods what so ever, a position to which I don't agree.  What Dawkins is actually doing here is criticizing people like you who think that because we survive in the universe, all of this was designed for us.

Why do you continually mix opinion with facts?

So you "#5" incompatibility is a construct of your own mind and has been defeated many, many times.  Only your willful ignorance.

You seem to forget that you yourself have already concluded that the Pontiff, nmgirl, CM and others are Christian and they accept Evolution.

Again, you lost and you are making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:44   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."
Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

"Religion of Materialism"?

I guess it's like yours and other YECs who feel that those think Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth must "believe it is true".

Again, I don't believe Evolution is true.  I think it is the best explanation of how the diversity of life we see came about.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:55   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

No, Flody, that's simply bullshit. I didn't "rely on a negative theological presupposition" I merely stated the truth, which is that science denies theistic supernaturalism as a KNOWABLE CAUSE of things. There is no way for science to point at anything and say the ultimate cause of X or Y is a deity.

As I reiterated earlier,. when you were asked to show HOW SCIENCE COULD CONCEIVABLY achieve that, you simply refused to answer.

This remains fact, but it is not "negative theological presupposition"

You being duplicitous won't change that, and it also exposes your bogus "reason" for wanting--no, insisting-- on knowing my religious views, as being bullshit as well

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,10:57   

Quote
Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.

Nope, you were presented with three separate refutations from the professionals---and to this day you remain unable to refute a one of them.

In fact, this is a good way to start presenting the "ID Is Science" portion.....by dealing with your main objection (your main presupposition, more accurately) right off the top.

First, let's review the three refutations that were given to you, and which you are totally unable to eliminate.

Quote
"In fact, if the preceding investigations are correct, there is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.

"Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being in principle legitimate.

"It is, of course, perfectly possible that such attempts could end up wholly empty, but since every scientific research program faces at least that possibility, that hardly constitutes grounds for pre-emptive prohibitions."

--- Dr. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science, c2001, p.149

Quote
"Science is about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."
chemist Dr. John Millam, May 2005 KS science hearings

Quote
Naturalism: the only game in town?

G. K. Chesterton once said that "behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda." Advocates of descent have used demarcation arguments to erect double standards against design, suggesting that the real methodological criterion they have in mind is naturalism.

Of course for many the equation of science with the strictly materialistic or naturalistic is not at all a hidden agenda. Scientists generally treat "naturalistic" as perhaps the most important feature of their enterprise. Clearly, if naturalism is regarded as a necessary feature of all scientific hypotheses, then design will not be considered a scientific hypothesis.

But must all scientific hypotheses be entirely naturalistic? Must scientific origins theories, in particular, limit themselves to materialistic causes?

Thus far none of the arguments advanced in support of a naturalistic definition of science has provided a noncircular justification for such a limitation. Nevertheless, perhaps such arguments are irrelevant. Perhaps scientists should just accept the definition of science that has come down to them. After all, the search for natural causes has served science well. What harm can come from continuing with the status quo? What compelling reasons can be offered for overturning the prohibition against nonnaturalistic explanation in science?

In fact, there are several.

First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth.

Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.

To insist that postulations of past agency are inherently unscientific in the historical sciences (where the express purpose of such inquiry is to determine what happened in the past) suggests we know that no personal agent could have existed prior to humans. Not only is such an assumption intrinsically unverifiable, it seems entirely gratuitous in the absence of some noncircular account of why science should presuppose metaphysical naturalism.

Second, to exclude by assumption a logically and empirically possible answer to the question motivating historical science seems intellectually and theoretically limiting, especially since no equivalent prohibition exists on the possible nomological relationships that scientists may postulate in nonhistorical sciences.

The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not "Which materialistic scenario will prove most adequate?" but "How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?"

Since one of the logically and syntactically appropriate answers to this later question is "Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans," it seems rationally stultifying to exclude the design hypothesis without a consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that might support it.

The a priori exclusion of design diminishes the rationality or origins research in another way. Recent nonpositivistic accounts of scientific rationality suggest that scientific theory evaluation is an inherently comparative enterprise. Notions such as consilience and Peter Lipton's inference to the best explanation discussed above imply the need to compare the explanatory power of competing hypotheses or theories.

If this process is subverted by philosophical gerrymandering, the rationality of scientific practise is vitiated. Theories that gain acceptance in artificially constrained competitions can claim to be neither "most probably true" nor "most empirically adequate." Instead such theories can only be considered "most probable or adequate among an artificially limited set of options."

Moreover, where origins are concerned only a limited number of basic research programs are logically possible. (Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not. If it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter has always possessed its present arrangement.)

The exclusion of one of the logically possible programs of origins research by assumption, therefore, seriously diminishes the significance of any claim to theoretical superiority by advocates of a remaining program. As Phillip Johnson has argued, the use of "methodological rules" to protect Darwinism from theoretical challenge has produced a situation in which Darwinist claims must be regarded as little more than tautologies expressing the deductive consequences of methodological naturalism.

An openness to empirical arguments for design is therefore a necessary condition of a fully rational historical biology.

A rational historical biology must not only address the question "Which materialistic or naturalistic evolutionary scenario provides the most adequate explanation of biological complexity?" but also the question "Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"

To insist otherwise is to insist that materialism holds a metaphysically privileged position. Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic.

---Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, "Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent", ARN, www.arn.org

Okay, now those three are back on the table.  The next post answers your one question and takes everything further.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,11:00   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)
 
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

so you claimed to "need to know" my religious views, because you "needed to know my presuppositions" that you now say are "materalistic science" even though you already knew that...

Fuck, you're a very bad liar. Lies work best when they're remotely tied to reality, Flody, instead of obviously false on the face of them. If you're going to lie as baldly as this, you may as well give up.

ETA: regarding your last post,Flody: go ahead and show me the valid scientific esearch program in that brain-spew.

I asked you many, many times to show a scientifically valid research program to determine deistic causation or teleological plan and you refused to answer each time. so do it now, show me any valid scientific RESEARCH PROGRAM in that word salad you posted.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,11:06   

FL
 
Quote
"Does a strictly materialistic evolutionary scenario or one involving intelligent agency or some other theory best explain the origin of biological complexity, given all relevant evidence?"

Well, what's your answer and what evidence did you consider in coming to that answer?
EDIT: Oh and FL
Quote
This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.

Many things are logically and empirically possible. The question is, do you have evidence for them.

Please show your evidence. As we are talking about ID as science at this point It (should) go without saying that your evidence cannot be your Bible.

--------------
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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,11:27   

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,10:02][/quote]
Quote
Quote
His quote addresses a specific scenerio - this is what evolution would be if we accepted Ken Miller's proposition. But science DOESN'T take that position

But guess what, boys?   Imcompatibility #5 existed (and was mentioned by evolutionists) BEFORE Rosenhouse brought it up.   He's just re-stating something that's ALREADY there (and hasn't been solved at all!!) because it happens to fit Miller's situation.


 
Quote
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation.
uring the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.... The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."


----Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (vol. 273, November 1995), p. 85., quoted in
"The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution", Henry Morris, ICR website

So, nope, you haven't done a thing to erase Incompatibility #5, not even Rosenhouse's re-statement of it.  In fact you haven't even dented it, nor have you found a solution for his specific questions therein.


Double false Floyd. Dawkins is saying the exact same thing as Rosehouse in that quote from Scientific America, numbskull. Dawkins was noting what the natural world under evolution would imply about God if such a being existed. But as Dawkins notes, such isn't the case. This universe is the product of indifference, thus there is no "cruel god" issue at all. Bye bye to your issue #5.

You really need to learn to read, Floyd.

******

Quote
And then check THIS out:  if you try to escape Rosenhouse's re-statement of #5 by ducking Miller's current position in his book Only A Theory (the basis for Rosenhouse's re-stating of Incom #5), THEN you automatically bring up Miller's previous position in his previous book Finding Darwin's God, in which Miller called us humans "lucky accidents."  


No we don't because Miller is begging the question by reversing a logical argument. How can we be "accidents" if there is no purpose or design to the universe, Floyd? Answer: we can't. It's like saying that heads coming up when you flip a coin is an "accident" or that rain falling is an "accident". Such statements are appeals to emotion based on inaccurate assumptions (such as the whole fine tuned universe) that don't actually mean anything.

Quote
(And THAT then creates a direct head on crash into Incompatibility #1 and #2, boys.)


False yet again, as noted above.
 
Quote
Miller was trying to glom onto Simon Conway Morris's position in an attempt to find a way out of that particular FDG crash.  But now, by doing so, Miller merely crashes straight into the already-existing Incompatibility #5, as Rosenhouse perfectly points out in his response.

So any way you go, you're caught.  And please notice:  Robin still doesn't have an answer to Incompatibility #5 himself.


Completely erroneous thinking Floyd. But thanks again for the entertainment and chuckle!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,11:30   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)

Quote
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! What a laugh Floyd! Keep repeating that to yourself (religion of Materialism) that and $10 will get you cup of coffee!

But again Floyd, sorry, but that's just question begging (nevermind erroneous since there cannot, by definition, be a religion of Materialism). Care to try again?

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,11:51   

[quote=FloydLee,Oct. 30 2009,10:57][/quote]
Quote
Quote
Of course I have no problem with me saying "all of science denies supernaturalism as a knowable cause"  -- because it does.

Nope, you were presented with three separate refutations from the professionals---and to this day you remain unable to refute a one of them.

In fact, this is a good way to start presenting the "ID Is Science" portion.....by dealing with your main objection (your main presupposition, more accurately) right off the top.

First, let's review the three refutations that were given to you, and which you are totally unable to eliminate.

Quote
snipped nonsense for space


Okay, now those three are back on the table.  The next post answers your one question and takes everything further.


False Floyd. We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science. We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science. Ignoring that doesn't make that refutation go away.

As to Meyer's statement, he's just begging the question by assuming there is a God by definition, but such isn't established and presuming such doesn't put the burden on science or the non-believer to prove there isn't a god or supernatural powers. Once again, science as administered by humans is limited to natural instruments for testing and natural perceptions for natural senses. Thus, we can ONLY deal with what is natural. So much for Meyer's thesis.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,11:59   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:57)

Quote
First, with respect to origins, defining science as a strictly naturalistic enterprise is metaphysically gratuitous. Consider: It is at least logically possible that a personal agent existed before the appearance of the first life on earth.

Further, as Bill Dembski argues in the next chapter, we do live in the sort of world where knowledge of such an agent could possibly be known or inferred from empirical data. This suggests that it is logically and empirically possible that such an agent (whether divine or otherwise) designed or influenced the origin of life on earth.


BTW Floyd, this argument by Meyer completely disassembles his own (and your) argument. If Dembski is correct and we can know about the "supernatural" from empirical data guess what? The data would come from a natural source and thus the explanation would be...(wait for it)...NATURAL! And actually, given the data of a natural phenomenon being natural, from a scientific perspective, the agent would also be considered natural. Such a tact completely demolishes the argument. Say thanks to Meyer for us!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2009,12:18   

Quote
We completely elimated Ratzch's and Millam's claims by quoting actual definitions and prerequisites for science and about science.

No you didn't.  Not ONE of the sources quoted offered ANY refutations to any of Meyer's specific points, nor Millam's huge point, nor even Ratzsch's for that matter.

Go ahead and re-quote your sources. if you'd like to compare notes.

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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