RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,05:52   

Please make a point which can then be discussed.

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

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:10   

And before you or someone else asks me who the creator or designer is or was, I didn't say there is or was one. It will be interesting to see if any of you respond to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
rossum



Posts: 174
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:20   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct.  Science cannot prove that an undetectable being of infinite power (Ubip) did something and then perfectly covered up her tracks.

Science cannot prove that Ubip is not going to turn the soap in your bathroom into the most delicious and nutritious food overnight.  Despite that, how many people do you know who try taking a bite out of their bar of soap every morning, just in case?

Science works within limits, which is part of what gives it its power to explain things within those limits.  A Ubip is outside the limits of science so the actions of the Ubip, or similar, are not susceptible to scientific enquiry.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
fusilier



Posts: 208
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:24   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

In addition to rossum's point, scientific inquiry does not "prove" anything.  Scientific inquiry evaluates hypotheses based on the preponderance of evidence.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:24   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct, but non controversial.

1) Science can't ever "prove" anything. It provides evidence in support of explanations, but that is never at the level of "proof". Thus it could provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and lots of people are doing that. What is the evidence supporting the notion of intelligent design?

2) Nobody, not even you, can prove a negative, which is basically what you are saying when you say something is "impossible".

Boring.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:33   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.

Mind reader is it now then?
   
Quote
You want a point for "rational discussion"?

No, rather you made the claim that specific issues cannot be discussed rationally here and it's all about bashing religion. And I want to disconfirm that claim. If you don't want to play, that's fine by me.
   
Quote
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.


To me that's not a very interesting claim. And as others already have, I'm happy to agree with it. Many things are possible but it's about what you have evidence for.

A similar but equally vapid claim would be:
   
Quote
Science cannot prove invisible pink unicorns did not create the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks.

A more interesting claim would be
Quote
Science has proven that intelligent design and not evolution is responsible for the creation of biological organisms and their their building blocks

Then evidence would be required to substantiate that claim. Should none be forthcoming, then it's just yet another empty claim.

There is plenty of evidence that evolution is responsible for the creation of biological organisms, do you dispute that?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:36   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 21 2011,08:24)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct, but non controversial.

1) Science can't ever "prove" anything. It provides evidence in support of explanations, but that is never at the level of "proof". Thus it could provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and lots of people are doing that. What is the evidence supporting the notion of intelligent design?

2) Nobody, not even you, can prove a negative, which is basically what you are saying when you say something is "impossible".

Boring.

Well, Kris has shown us his knowledge, and been found wanting. And I was hoping for a sophisticated arguement.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:51   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with this statement.

What you will encounter is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:57   

Science cannot prove that I did not create the universe either.  yawn

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:59   

I'm pretty sure Kris just pwned us.  He made a statement and everyone here agreed with it.  Science loses.  Good science wins.  That probably makes sense to someone.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:18   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Kris,
Proving or disproving the existence of a god or an "intelligent designer" is not the goal of Science.  The goal of Science is to understand the world as it is based on a preponderance of evidence.  The weight of that evidence built over the last couple of centuries has supported a 13+ billion year old universe, a 4+ billion year old earth, and the evolution of life on this planet over it's long existence.  It also supports the idea that humans are related to all other life forms on this planet, and that our closest living kin are probably chimpanzees.

If you have evidence to dispute any of this that can stand up to scientific scrutiny you are welcome to present it here.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:21   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Kris says

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Yes.

I'd like to point out however, that science can and does show that abiogenesis is chemically possible (at least, it hasn't been discovered to be impossible yet).

Intelligent Design is not anything that can be examined by science.  And this is purely because the proponents of ID studiously avoid making any claims that could be examined by science and really avoid being pinned down on definitions in their claims (like, what is information or complexity).

When ID does make a scientifically testable claim (thanks Behe), it is shown, by science, to be false.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,11:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)

Quote
Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.


"Kris", you're such a bible thumping Creationist you make Dr. Dr. Dembski look deist.

--------------
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: Jan. 21 2011,11:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)

Quote
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.


...which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether ID/creationism is science.

But of course, your 'slip' is now showing - you admonished us for bashing religion and then bring this nonsensical point up. If we are such low-lifes for bashing ID/creationism because they are religious concepts, then why should we care if science can prove such is impossible? If ID/creationism are religious concepts, then they aren't scientific, can't be taught as such in public schools, and are of no concern to us whatsoever.

Thanks for making our point 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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,11:28   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:10)
And before you or someone else asks me who the creator or designer is or was, I didn't say there is or was one. It will be interesting to see if any of you respond to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said.

You keep claiming to be a scientist, yet you also keep making statements like this.  You also make these pseudo-gotcha zingers as if you think they would demonstrate anything but a lack of understanding.

I read your little disclaimer as a 'get out of showing my work' card: whether or not you are a believer is immaterial at this point.  If you think ID ought to be taken seriously, present the evidence which you think is meritorious.  Coming from someone who does NOT believe in the designer, it would have a bit more weight.

The burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim, which at this point would be ID.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,12:01   

Adda rabba, as my rabbis would say. (Exactly the opposite.)

Science, in the person of Craig Venter, has proven an intelligent agent of far less power than a god, angel, demi-urge, urge, urgette or urgonomic is capable of designing life and its building blocks.

Further, I claim that every time I kick off a cellular automata, I have been the intelligent designer of that (very small) universe.

Now what?

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,12:05   

Any 'designer' that an IDist uses to explain his/her position must contend with some simple facts.

The designer must be "God" for some value of God. (i.e. a deity).

The designer must be a meddler (i.e. the designer must let something happen naturally and other things happen by design).

There is no evidence for such a designer.

Therefore, until ID presents evidence that shows there is a designer, ID is useless.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,22:54   

So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2094
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,23:02   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,20:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

You made a statement.

Most responses were "Yep, you're right. So what?"

There was a bit of trash-talk in there, but if you're serious about a discussion instead of a pissing contest, just ignore it.

So:

Kris: "Science can't prove there's no designer."

Everyone else: "Correct."

Next point?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2094
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,00:32   

Come on, Kris, you've been lurking here for at least an hour. What's the next point?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,00:44   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

Kris,

As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.

What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.

Your response?

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,01:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,22:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

So much for any effort at a point, let alone refutation.

Thanks for confirming my assessment.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,07:40   

He wants to be a martyr for the cause.  He just wants to be banned so he can complain.

Rather than have ANY discussion of substance, he posts multiple regurgative posts on how unfairly he's being treated.

What do you call Kruger-Dunning when it relates to non-skill based things?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:13   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2011,22:44)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

Kris,

As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.

What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.

Your response?


Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

Anyway, here goes:

Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.

I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists. Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.

Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?

Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.

I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.

I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.

I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:

Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.

You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:

Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.

There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.

Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.

Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.

You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.

What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?

I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.

We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:25   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

Anyway, here goes:

(snip the steaming pile of sanctimonious bullshit.)



Come back when you IDiots get some positive evidence, OK?  We'll leave the light on for you.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
olegt



Posts: 1379
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:25   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.

Quote
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.


This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.

That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:46   

Here's an argument:

P1: Science is crap.
P2: ID is crap.
C1: ID is science.

As any tracker can tell you, there are lots of different kinds of crap, though. If you've got a definition of science that admits IDC, you've got a non-functioning definition of science. It isn't even close. IDC is, after all, a collection of arguments that have only been ornamented as they have been passed down from natural theology to creationism to scientific creationism to creation science to IDC. IDC hasn't brought a single empirically testable claim *for* its position to the table. As noted in the Kitzmiller trial, whatever is "testable" about IDC is that way because of its class of negative claims about evolutionary science, which *is* empirically testable.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
olegt



Posts: 1379
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:48   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)

You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:

Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.


Yawn. As Carl Sagan once wrote,
Quote
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,10:13   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 22 2011,07:25)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.

 
Quote
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.


This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.

That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates.

Maybe you should be telling some scientists and science supporters there are no "proofs" in science. Some scientists and science supporters sure do talk or write like they have "proofs".

Personally, I feel that that science has proven many things but there are lots of things that haven't been proven that are touted as though they are proven.

And I'm not "confusing" science with math.

By the way, do you realize that a lot of math is used in science? Some aspects of science are virtually completely based on math, and some scientists seem to think that math is the answer to everything in nature and science. Some seem to think that an equation written on a chalkboard is all the proof that is necessary for their claims.

Regarding your other comments: Huh?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,10:15   

Wow.  Just...wow.

Kris just spent way too many words to say even more things that are neither surprising nor informative, and which again demonstrate that Kris's claim to being a scientist is at best questionable.

I honestly don't think he knows what he believes he knows, because he seems utterly amazed and astounded by things so basic to the process that they should be given.

Okay, I'm done with the muppet.  He's impervious.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
olegt



Posts: 1379
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,10:17   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,10:13)
By the way, do you realize that a lot of math is used in science? Some aspects of science are virtually completely based on math, and some scientists seem to think that math is the answer to everything in nature and science. Some seem to think that an equation written on a chalkboard is all the proof that is necessary for their claims.

O, I had no idea! Thanks for opening my eyes, Kris!

Quote
Regarding your other comments: Huh?


What a deep thought.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,10:21   

fact - the sun is a yellow star.  This is not science.  This is a fact.  It is provable.

Hypothesis - the sun is yellow because it is made of melted yellow crayons.  This is science.  It is a testable hypothesis.

You, like most non-scientists, are confusing the two.

Evolution is a fact.  It is observed in the wild and in the lab.  Speciation is a fact.  It is observed in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution is also the mechanism for the fact of evolution.  It is a testable hypothesis.

ID is not a fact.  There is no proof of a designer or a designer affecting ANYTHING in the universe.

ID as a mechanism is not a testable hypothesis.  There is no evidence that will convince an IDist that ID is not true.  There is no research program.  There is not even the beginnings on one and every leading light of ID admits this.

Every statement is decided on its own merits.  Just saying, Science has problems does not in any way shape or form mean that ID is correct.  ID must be decided on its own merits... if you can find any WE WOULD BE THRILLED TO HEAR THEM.

I know you probably don't get this.  But every single person in this forum would be thrilled if someone would come up with a testable hypothesis for ID, because then we could do the work and figure it out once and for all.

So, so you have anything like this?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,10:53   

Shorter Kris:  "There isn't any evidence yet for ID/creationism but there might eventually be so you stoopid scientists should still consider magical thinking until such a time as it can be 100% ruled out by MY set of criteria or you're all a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant jerkwads, just like you say the religionists you bash all the time are.  Also, you're big meanies."

That about right?

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,11:17   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,10:53)
Shorter Kris:  "There isn't any evidence yet for ID/creationism but there might eventually be so you stoopid scientists should still consider magical thinking until such a time as it can be 100% ruled out by MY set of criteria or you're all a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant jerkwads, just like you say the religionists you bash all the time are.  Also, you're big meanies."

That about right?

'Kris' seems to be another Joey Gallien clone.   Even if the words "scientifically illiterate blustering asshole" aren't used, the implication is the same.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,11:33   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 22 2011,12:17)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,10:53)
Shorter Kris:  "There isn't any evidence yet for ID/creationism but there might eventually be so you stoopid scientists should still consider magical thinking until such a time as it can be 100% ruled out by MY set of criteria or you're all a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant jerkwads, just like you say the religionists you bash all the time are.  Also, you're big meanies."

That about right?

'Kris' seems to be another Joey Gallien clone.   Even if the words "scientifically illiterate blustering asshole" aren't used, the implication is the same.

Clone?  Nah, I'm pretty well convinced this is JoeG.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Heh.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,11:34   

So, Kris, how would you test the ID hypothesis?

How would you falsify it?

How would you reproduce* the ID mechanism?


If the answer to any of these 3 questions is "well, we can't", then I'm afraid ID is not science.







*Insert saucy** joke here.



**Insert culinary joke here.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,11:46   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.

Okay, I'll bite:

Although I acknowledge that peer review is imperfect, and yes some stuff gets in that shouldn't, I am having difficulty believing that you have vetted any scientific papers, given the content of the post in which this paragraph was found. You show a lot of misconception about what science is as well as what constitutes evidence. So, first, please list some papers you have found that should not have been published so we can deal with specifics. Ideally they would be in this topic, but others are okay too.

Second, if a "creator" is implied in creation, and in ID ("designer") they are by definition religious, unless you are talking about some inanimate object, work of art, stone tool, etc. The premise of religion is the supernatural source of life and consciousness, morality and emotion.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,11:56   

Quick reminder for "science-guy" Kris:

Quote
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


Scientific method

ID doesn't fit that description, ergo ID =/= science.

Funny that in the end it's always the same stupid arguments and whinning from ID supporters when the buck stops right there, with the very universaly accepted definition of what science and the scientific method are.

So, Kris, would you include astrology in science?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,11:57   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,10:13)
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you.

What you want to say is, "not all of this response of mine is directed to you." (Pet Peeve: "All Fords are not Mustangs" is not the same as "Not all Fords are Mustangs.")
Quote
I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

You don't need to know a thing about me to respond to the following:

"ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding."
Quote
[Scientsts] won't consider [ID or Creation] to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction.

If you mean to say that scientists won't consider ID to be scientific until a testable theory is put forth, you are correct. Nor should they, and you should demand the same.
Quote
most of you…expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

This is false, in my opinion. Nor is it remotely equivalent to "scientists won't consider ID to be scientific until a testable theory is put forth."
Quote
At the same time, many of you…speak as though science has all the answers to every question.

That is also false, in my opinion. I've been posting here four years and have never encountered anyone remotely demanding absolute proof, or asserting that science answers every question. Can you produce a single instance of either?
Quote
What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known?

I'll shout it from the mountaintops and sing it o're the golden plains: "Science doesn't know everything and a lot of things will never be known."

Now, why not respond to the following:

"ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding."

That what most here assert. If you're really interested in understanding why ID gets no traction in the scientific community, engage with that.

[Edited to remove unneeded and not quite accurate characterization of Kris' post.]

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,12:08   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Hi everyone, it's been an long time.  :)

As others have pointed out, your claim is entirely correct. And I should add that you have just outlined why intelligent design isn't scientific.

In the same vein, nothing can disprove the fact that you do not exist and that everything is the product of my imagination.
Nothing can disprove the fact that I just created the universe 1 minute ago, including this very webpage, with your memory and all.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,12:14   

Edited to delete wrong post...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,13:32   

To make amend for my post right above, I will post this:

The Messenger: The Conscience Scene

I find it to be a spot-on depiction of an ID follower, as described by Master Dustin Hoffman...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,19:09   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:56)
Quick reminder for "science-guy" Kris:

 
Quote
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


Scientific method

ID doesn't fit that description, ergo ID =/= science.

Funny that in the end it's always the same stupid arguments and whinning from ID supporters when the buck stops right there, with the very universaly accepted definition of what science and the scientific method are.

So, Kris, would you include astrology in science?

Your responses to me are a glaring example of poor reading skills. I didn't say that ID is science, or scientific.

I could simply say that the sky is blue and many of you would respond by saying, "No it's not and ID isn't science! It's religion, and there's no testable theory or hypothesis!" You guys are obsessed.

I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,19:37   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

Anyway, here goes:

Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.

I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. {B}There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists.[/B] Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.

Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?

Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.

I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.

I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.

I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:

Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.

You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:

Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.

There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.

Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.

Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.

You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.

What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?

I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but [B}I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.[/B]

We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything.

OK, so you don't think ID is correct, yet you don't agree with most science and you think that science should retain an open mind.

Let me ask you... how can science 'retain an open mind' about something that, by definition is not testable and has exactly zero supporting evidence in the last 150 years?

What exactly are we supposed to have an open mind about?

Who is the designer?  If you read my paper, then you know that only a deity will work as the designer.  Even the leading proponents of ID openly admit that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God.  Do you know better than them?

I have been waiting for ID to say anything scientific for 15 years.  There's been nothing.

Let me ask you, should we teach string theory on high school as fact?  If not, then why should we teach ID, which has much less support (at least the math in string theory works out correctly, ID math doesn't).

Finally, a real conversation.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
olegt



Posts: 1379
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,19:41   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,19:09)
I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science?

String theory as we know it today is not a scientific theory. It is not yet able to make testable predictions for experiments. There are some hunches that string theorists have thrown out there but they are not themselves certain about them. Such as if the extra dimensions are sufficiently large then there may be certain signatures that could be observed at the LHC. No one knows why those extra dimension would be large and simple guesses (in essence, dimensional analysis) indicate that they shouldn't be, so there you have it.

Here is Brian Greene, a string theorist at Columbia, in a 2006 New York Times editorial:

Quote
To be sure, no one successful experiment would establish that string theory is right, but neither would the failure of all such experiments prove the theory wrong. If the accelerator experiments fail to turn up anything, it could be that we need more powerful machines; if the astronomical observations fail to turn up anything, it could mean the effects are too small to be seen. The bottom line is that it's hard to test a theory that not only taxes the capacity of today's technology, but is also still very much under development.

Some critics have taken this lack of definitive predictions to mean that string theory is a protean concept whose advocates seek to step outside the established scientific method. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, we are feeling our way through a complex mathematical terrain, and no doubt have much ground yet to cover. But we will hold string theory to the usual scientific standard: to be accepted, it must make predictions that are verified.


Yes, they are working on it, but so far they don't have much to run tests.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,19:51   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 22 2011,20:41)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,19:09)
I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science?

String theory as we know it today is not a scientific theory. It is not yet able to make testable predictions for experiments.

To repeat the classic:



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

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,21:18   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,17:37)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

Anyway, here goes:

Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.

I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. {B}There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists.[/B] Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.

Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?

Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.

I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.

I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.

I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:

Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.

You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:

Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.

There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.

Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.

Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.

You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.

What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?

I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but [B}I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.[/B]

We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything.


OK, so you don't think ID is correct, yet you don't agree with most science and you think that science should retain an open mind.

Let me ask you... how can science 'retain an open mind' about something that, by definition is not testable and has exactly zero supporting evidence in the last 150 years?

What exactly are we supposed to have an open mind about?

Who is the designer?  If you read my paper, then you know that only a deity will work as the designer.  Even the leading proponents of ID openly admit that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God.  Do you know better than them?

I have been waiting for ID to say anything scientific for 15 years.  There's been nothing.

Let me ask you, should we teach string theory on high school as fact?  If not, then why should we teach ID, which has much less support (at least the math in string theory works out correctly, ID math doesn't).

Finally, a real conversation.

Yet another glaring example of poor reading skills. I never said that I "don't think ID is correct". I didn't say that it's "correct" or that it isn't "correct". I only suggested that ID is possible and that science cannot prove that it's impossible, at least at this point in time. I also said that I think that the concept of ID or creation can be separated from religious beliefs.

Why is String Theory called String "Theory"? Why isn't it called String Speculation? Is String Theory science? Is String Theory testable with empirical evidence? Can anyone show me an actual "String"?

15 whole years? Wow, that's a looooooong time. How long did it take mankind to come up with the Theory of Evolution? How about The Big Bang Theory?

Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity. Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?

Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,21:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18)

No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible
possibly violating the Constitution.

Fixed that for you.

"We" are not your biggest worries.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,21:41   

It would appear that Kris has flounced out.

For the record, I think those obnoxious posts should stay right where they are, so that everyone's replies make sense. That's the archivist in me.

I defy any creationist to accuse me a wielding a heavy stick here.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,21:58   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18)
Yet another glaring example of poor reading skills. I never said that I "don't think ID is correct". I didn't say that it's "correct" or that it isn't "correct". I only suggested that ID is possible and that science cannot prove that it's impossible, at least at this point in time. I also said that I think that the concept of ID or creation can be separated from religious beliefs.

Why is String Theory called String "Theory"? Why isn't it called String Speculation? Is String Theory science? Is String Theory testable with empirical evidence? Can anyone show me an actual "String"?

15 whole years? Wow, that's a looooooong time. How long did it take mankind to come up with the Theory of Evolution? How about The Big Bang Theory?

Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity. Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?

Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible.

Kris,

For ID to be possible you MUST have a designer.  There isn't any evidence of a designer that has ever been found.

Could it possibly be found in the future... maybe.  However, the people that need to be looking aren't.  They are too busy lying about science to do any science.

I totally disagree that ID can be separated from religion.  By definition, ID requires a deity like designer.  Further, since every ID proponent has publicly stated that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God and the stated goal of ID is nothing less than a theocratic country based on Judeo-Christian principles, then by definition, ID is religious.

If you think ID can be separated from religion, then let's figure out how.  It hasn't been done yet.  I maintain that it cannot be.

As far as String Theory.  It's a theory because the principles worked out by string theorists have been used to predict results of further mathematical explorations of String Theory.  Of course, like much of math, it could all be wanking, but it still is internally consistent (unlike ID), it is well defined (unlike ID), and it is sufficiently robust that there is a possibility of finding evidence of it (unlike ID).

As far as "Can anyone show me actual string?"  I invite you to show me actual stored bits in computer memory.  I invite you to show me a tau lepton.  You can't.  So does it actually exist?  Who knows?

String theory isn't the issue here though.  ID is.  ID doesn't even have as good a position as String Theory.  Heck, I'd argue that ID doesn't even have as good a position as loop quatum gravity does (and that requires naked singularities and magnetic monopoles).

Actually, 15 years is a lot of time.  Think about what we didn't have in 1995.  Of course, the other side of the coin is that, arguably, it's taken the entire life of the universe to come up with these principles.  (See, I can think about things in many different ways and am open to ideas.)

No, no, no, no.  Everyday scientists come up with notions.  Eventually some of those notions will become hypotheses.  Eventually some of those will be tested, etc. etc.

Kris, I need to listen very carefully because this is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT AND WEBSITE.

Quote
Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?


Those other scientists are trying to push their notions, hypotheses, and theories into the high school curriculum, and attempting to change science so that astrology is considered a science.  Those people are not trying to put a very specific religious principle into the science classrooms.

Intelligent Design is.

It's that simple.

BTW: American Indians are not trying to push The Feathered Serpent into the science classroom.  ID is.

Further, you are wrong.  Intelligent Design is very specifically (as stated by the leaders of the movement) about the Judeo-Christian God.  They do not allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  They do not allow Odin.  They do not allow Cthullu.  They do not allow Shiva.  Only God.

If you think that the designer could be any of these, then I invite you to go over to Unintelligent Design and say so.  See if the comment even makes it past moderation.

As I have shown, using ID as the base, the designer MUST be a deity.  Unfortunately, according to ID proponents, it must be the God of the Christian Bible.  

As far as String Theory, I mentioned in my physics class because some students asked me about it.  I would never claim it as fact.  I defy you to find a high school in the US where String Theory is claimed as fact.  

On the other hand, as Kristine (or Robin) mentioned, if you say that special creation by an intelligent designer is possible, then you are breaking the law.

It is up to ID proponents to show that ID is possible.  SO far, everything that Behe has said about irreducible complexity has been wrong.  Everything that Demsbki has said about 'information' has been wrong.  

That's not a way to get information into the classroom.

Arguably, since we haven't seen the revolutionary war, there is no way we should teach it.  Arguably, we could say that time travelers from a future confederacy shot Lincoln.  We could say ANYTHING is possible.  

What we should do is teach kids to think instead of regurgitate and then they could figure it out on their own.  Unfortunately, we must teach to the lowest common denominator and we must be careful of offending people like you, so we can't correct misconceptions.

If you think we should say that ID is possible, then we're going to need a reason to say that.  To say it's possible because we haven't proved it impossible is a logical fallacy.  We haven't proven that the interior of the moon is not hollow, so should we say that it's possible.

So far, everything that ID has said has been shown to be wrong.  You want ID to be taught (and yes, that's not what you said, but if you say that it's possible, then you are implicitly endorsing it in class), then we're going to need a lot more than it's not impossible.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,22:04   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,21:58)
Kris, I need to listen very carefully because this is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT AND WEBSITE.

Found your problem, O Cybertank.

The muppet has no interest in paying attention.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
qetzal



Posts: 308
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,22:11   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18)
Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity.


Bullsh*t.

Quote
Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?


Because even if you were right about all these scientists making unfalsifiable claims, they don't insist that their ideas should be given equal time in public schools, or that their ideas are just as well-supported by the facts as bona fide scientific theories like evolution.

Quote
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.


They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,22:15   

I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,22:29   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 22 2011,22:11)
They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all.

There you go, being all reasonable and stuff.  You guys know that makes JoeyKris's head go kablooey, and we can't have the precious little moppet throwing his tantrums over nothing.

After all, we're the ones obsessed and just as bad as the fundamentalists and like that.  He says so, ergo it must be true!

:D

Like a brick wall, that boy.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
JohnW



Posts: 2207
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,22:39   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:34)
*Insert saucy** joke here.



**Insert culinary joke here.

Smut and cooking.  Insert French joke here.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,08:27   

Kris shows his color

concern troll is concern trolling

in another thread

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,08:36   

Well, I come back after a day or two and nothing is different. Big surprise. It's clear that Kris has nothing to discuss. Pity-it would have been fun watching him get his ass handed to him by the PT crowd. But an insult-throwing fest is hardly interesting....

  
qetzal



Posts: 308
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,08:48   

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29)
There you go, being all reasonable and stuff.

I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

;)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,08:56   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,08:48)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29)
There you go, being all reasonable and stuff.

I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

;)

You might confuse concern troll.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,09:10   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,09:10   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,04:11)
[SNIP]

They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all.

It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,10:29   

Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 22 2011,07:08)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Hi everyone, it's been an long time.  :)

As others have pointed out, your claim is entirely correct. And I should add that you have just outlined why intelligent design isn't scientific.

In the same vein, nothing can disprove the fact that you do not exist and that everything is the product of my imagination.
Nothing can disprove the fact that I just created the universe 1 minute ago, including this very webpage, with your memory and all.


Ravi de te revoir! Et comment va?

It's not a fact; it's just a theory!*


*I know its old material but things are quiet around here these days.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,11:04   

Wow, late to the party and the monkey's dead!

(That's what she said.)

Kwis said:  Science can't prove an imaginary concept is impossible.

I say:  Correct.  Next.

Kwis said:

Quote
*SNIP*


I say:  DNFTT

I like this game!

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,11:35   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,08:48)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29)
There you go, being all reasonable and stuff.

I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

;)

Reason and logic, delivered without the abuse he so badly craves, makes Baby JoeyKris cry.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
qetzal



Posts: 308
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,19:12   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10)
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,19:31   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,19:12)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10)
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.

You should try substituting baby seal.  You get that same neotany and the fat content gives you that same juicy consistency you've come to expect.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,19:35   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 23 2011,19:31)
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,19:12)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10)
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.

You should try substituting baby seal.  You get that same neotany and the fat content gives you that same juicy consistency you've come to expect.

Might I also suggest bald eagle?  It has a flavor somewhere between California condor and dodo... oops, we weren't supposed to mention the dodos were we?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,20:20   

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?

You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?

How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,20:29   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:20)
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?

You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?

How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.

WTF?

Dude really.

There are three statements here.  Only one has any connection with reality.

I'm very curious, why is it that you want to argue about American Indian religion with an American Indian and not discuss... you know... science?  You're the one complaining that we don't talk about science... yet, given the opportunity, you don't want to talk about science.  That's just weird.

Here let me help.  I'll start a topic and you can feel free to jump in.

I maintain that and any designer must be a deity and if that deity can affect the physical universe, then its actions must be detectable in the physical universe.  To date, the majority of the suggested actions of said deity have natural explanations that are better than the deital ones.  Further, currently on-going research indicates that there are no physical limitations that would prevent a purely natural explanation for other of said deity's supposed actions.

Discuss.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,20:36   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?

Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?

What is this supposed to mean?  "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,21:02   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?

Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?

What is this supposed to mean?  "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"

I think the implication is that by believing in a lenient Grandfather instead of a stern Father, they can sin more, or something like that.  What this has to do with science, you got me.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,21:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?


Uh, I'm saying that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. That surprises you?

Different tribes have different creation myths, but they listen to all without fighting because, essentially, what you whitewash as "Native American" are local tribes with a local religion.

Read God Is Red by Vine Deloria Jr. to get an understanding of a place religion, versus the "time religion" of Judeo-Christianity.
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?


I'm saying that non Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts of God are very different from the creator/designer concept. Santeria is a case in point; followers of that religion say, "You talk about God, but we dance to the drum and become God."

It's a big world out there!

 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
What is this supposed to mean?  "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"


That's a joke. You reacted exactly as I expected you to.

Edited by Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,21:23

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,21:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2011,18:29)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:20)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?

You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?

How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.

WTF?

Dude really.

There are three statements here.  Only one has any connection with reality.

I'm very curious, why is it that you want to argue about American Indian religion with an American Indian and not discuss... you know... science?  You're the one complaining that we don't talk about science... yet, given the opportunity, you don't want to talk about science.  That's just weird.

Here let me help.  I'll start a topic and you can feel free to jump in.

I maintain that and any designer must be a deity and if that deity can affect the physical universe, then its actions must be detectable in the physical universe.  To date, the majority of the suggested actions of said deity have natural explanations that are better than the deital ones.  Further, currently on-going research indicates that there are no physical limitations that would prevent a purely natural explanation for other of said deity's supposed actions.

Discuss.

Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."

Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,22:32   

Quote
Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.

     
Quote


Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."


Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.

     
Quote


Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*



Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,22:45   

Kris,  I know you just want to be a pissed off troll.  Let's take a look at what was said and how you responded... k?

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?
Quote


There's this thing called 'context' in language.  It means that you can divine some information that is literally unsaid by how what is said.

When you specifically say something about American Indians and a parson quotes you and says "we", the unpoken assumption is that he is an American Indian.

I freely admit that this assumption could be wrong.  But I'd put money on it being correct.




You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?
Quote


This is what was said:
Quote
we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".


I'm not sure how you missed this.  

Now, again, I will admit that I'm sure that no one can speak for all American Indians, however, as someone who has studied a bit of their culture, I can safely say that they do not think of the creator/designer in the same way that you do.


How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.
[/quote]

OK, I can see that you never actual said "I believe supernatural things exist"... on the other hand... you are DEMANDING that science accept the possibility that such things do exist when there is no evidence for them.

You are oh so very careful to say nothing that could be literally taken as one way or another.  My 4-year-old has already gotten beyond such things and can handle adult phrasing and assumptions.  If I tell him to go to bed, he knows that he has to get into the bed and go to sleep.  He doesn't stand beside the bed, then complain that I told him he just had to "GO" to bed.

Why don't you just say what you mean and we can stop all this silliness?

Quote

Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."

Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*


See here's what you are not understanding and I know that you are not understanding it because you have SPECIFICALLY ignored it.

I don't give a shit about your religion or lack thereof.  I don't give a shit if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthullu, Odin, Jupiter, or Shiva.  If you want to have a science discussion that's fine.

However, what you don't get is the Intelligent Design IS religion.  That's all that it is.  There is no science to talk about, so we must talk about the religion of intelligent design.

As I said, and you have not read or commented on, almost by definition, the designer must be a deity.  There is no evidence for said deity and there are purely natural explanations that cover almost all the ground that said deity must cover to be real.

Indeed, when invoked, there is a 50% chance that the invoked statement regarding said deital action has already been shown to have a purely natural, physical cause or mechanism.  It is my belief and opinion that the other 50% will be shown to also have a natural, physical cause.

Any proponent of design, and you are a proponent of design if you think that it has any redeeming qualities, must show that not only does design show EVERYTHING that science does, it must also do show more effectively AND show that the things science can't explain can be explained by that deital action.  No such statement has ever been found.

Now, at this point, I'm sure you (well, an ID proponent would say) "But the designer does everything, literally everything."  In that case, the designer is chemistry, physics and biology... or not different enough to mean anything to anyone.

I note that you never read the article I wrote and pasted a link for you.  It would explain why the designer, if it exists, must be a deity and why it must act in a very specific way and that we have not, in all the hundreds of years we've been looking, we have not seen the merest scrap of evidence for those actions.  

I invite you to read the article and comment here, if you like.

To reiterate, science does not bring deity into this conversation... ID does.  Would like the statements from all the leading proponents of ID that specifically say that ID is religion?  Would you like me to quote the Wedge document that they were all a part of making?  I can do that.

Anyone who thinks that ID or a designer is not deital, is just lying to themselves.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2094
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,23:01   

Okay, I know it's getting as old as Kwok's "M.I.P.", but Kris really argues like a tenth-grade chess club nerd. I know because I was one.

"I never said that..."

True: Kris makes a point of never really saying anything we can hold him to, except "Scientists R MEEEN! WHAAAH!".

In response to the FACT that the ID that most of the cognitive universe recognizes, is the movement of that name promulgated but the Discovery Institute and their ilk, Kris will say:

"Not that ID! Just because their "ID" is religious doesn't mean "ID" is religious!"

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,23:22   

what a sad cunt

edit for teh betterz

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,00:45   

I've got a bone for Kris to chew on.

(That's what ... never mind.)

Assume no fossil record.  All you've got are biological samples from thousands of organisms.  You have DNA sequences and protein sequences and you have figured out how DNA relates to proteins.  

Let's make it even worse.  You don't know anything about the organisms - no pictures, no nothing.  Just the molecular info.

With this information alone is it possible to derive a theory of evolution?

With this information alone, what can you figure out?

(To coin a phrase, I would call this the Venter Conjecture.  Mugs and t-shirts available on-line soon.)

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,08:21)
fact - the sun is a yellow star.  This is not science.  This is a fact.  It is provable.

Hypothesis - the sun is yellow because it is made of melted yellow crayons.  This is science.  It is a testable hypothesis.

You, like most non-scientists, are confusing the two.

Evolution is a fact.  It is observed in the wild and in the lab.  Speciation is a fact.  It is observed in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution is also the mechanism for the fact of evolution.  It is a testable hypothesis.

ID is not a fact.  There is no proof of a designer or a designer affecting ANYTHING in the universe.

ID as a mechanism is not a testable hypothesis.  There is no evidence that will convince an IDist that ID is not true.  There is no research program.  There is not even the beginnings on one and every leading light of ID admits this.

Every statement is decided on its own merits.  Just saying, Science has problems does not in any way shape or form mean that ID is correct.  ID must be decided on its own merits... if you can find any WE WOULD BE THRILLED TO HEAR THEM.

I know you probably don't get this.  But every single person in this forum would be thrilled if someone would come up with a testable hypothesis for ID, because then we could do the work and figure it out once and for all.

So, so you have anything like this?

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise. I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and  giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:30   

Quote

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
   
Quote


I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

Right, so you could stop right there.
   
Quote


I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
   
Quote


It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
   
Quote


To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
   
Quote


I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and  giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.


WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!

Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU!

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:43   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,20:32)
Quote
Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.

       
Quote


Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."


Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.

       
Quote


Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*



Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.

Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:56   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:02)
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

What you are missing, Kris, is that the majority of ID supporters claim that ID is in fact provable, falsifiable and so can be settled as an issue.

This is not actually news. Except to you, it seems.

Daily claims are made on UncommonDescent as to how ID has been once again vindicated. There's only one source of "coded information" and that's intelligence don't ya know. And DNA is "coded information" therefore ID = True.

Quote
What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.


Then as nobody here is suggesting that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer I would suggest that you take your faux-concern to UncommonDescent and see how long you last over there under their free and open moderation policy. Free and open until you say something they do not like.

So why don't you take it to UD Kris, they must be making you very angry with their daily claims that they know exactly who the designer is.

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

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:59   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,00:30)
Quote

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
     
Quote


I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

Right, so you could stop right there.
     
Quote


I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
     
Quote


It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
     
Quote


To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
     
Quote


I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and  giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.


WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!

Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU!

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,03:03   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,03:11   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:03)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

Kris forgot once more to hurl his favorite insult at me:

"You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one."

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,04:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,00:56)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:02)
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.


What you are missing, Kris, is that the majority of ID supporters claim that ID is in fact provable, falsifiable and so can be settled as an issue.

This is not actually news. Except to you, it seems.

Daily claims are made on UncommonDescent as to how ID has been once again vindicated. There's only one source of "coded information" and that's intelligence don't ya know. And DNA is "coded information" therefore ID = True.

     
Quote
What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.


Then as nobody here is suggesting that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer I would suggest that you take your faux-concern to UncommonDescent and see how long you last over there under their free and open moderation policy. Free and open until you say something they do not like.

So why don't you take it to UD Kris, they must be making you very angry with their daily claims that they know exactly who the designer is.


I'm not sure I'd agree that the majority of ID supporters would claim that it's scientific, or fact, or falsifiable, or provable. Some would, and some would even claim it's settled.

I see it as being kind of like the militant muslims who want to kill anyone who isn't just like them. They're definitely worth taking seriously but they don't necessarily represent every muslim on Earth. Some of the guys or gals(?) on the internet (or elsewhere) who push ID and creation in a religious way and want to cram their religious beliefs into schools and everything else are the 'militant' ones, in the sense that they can't stand the thought that anyone else could possibly disagree with them. You know, kind of like some people on religion bashing websites. :)

Until pretty recently I wasn't aware of the combatants in this 'war' and I didn't think about it much. I was too busy finding and studying fossils, butterflies, birds, and a lot of other things. I'm more familiar with the war and the combatants now, although I'm sure there are some things and people that I'm not aware of.

Some of the claims or arguments from ID-ists or creationists are thought provoking but I do realize that none of them have proof. Some of their claims are crazy. Still, some of their arguments against science are valid. Both 'sides' have their militant supporters and both sides surely have people who don't take sides, or art least not in a way that feeds the war. In other words, I'm sure there are people who believe in ID and/or creation who don't want to force their beliefs onto anyone or everyone else.

I do complain to or bash some religious zealots. Some of them are just plain nuts, or downright dangerous.

It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:03   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,01:03)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:07   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,04:35)

I'm not sure I'd agree that the majority of ID supporters would claim that it's scientific, or fact, or falsifiable, or provable. Some would, and some would even claim it's settled.


Then you disagree with most ID supporters as can easily be seen by simply going to UncommonDescent and browsing the posts and comments. This is not a complex claim, the evidence is there if you are willing to look.
 
Quote
Some of the guys or gals(?) on the internet (or elsewhere) who push ID and creation in a religious way and want to cram their religious beliefs into schools and everything else are the 'militant' ones, in the sense that they can't stand the thought that anyone else could possibly disagree with them.


Disagreeing with people is one thing, but it's not about that. They claim to have evidence that life was designed. The disagreement is about that evidence, not the claim itself.
 
Quote
You know, kind of like some people on religion bashing websites. :)

I don't give a fuck about your nor anybody else's religion. On the other hand if you make the claim that there is evidence for ID then that's when I'll give a fuck.

Clear?
   
Quote
Until pretty recently I wasn't aware of the combatants in this 'war' and I didn't think about it much. I was too busy finding and studying fossils, butterflies, birds, and a lot of other things


Fascinating I'm sure.
 
Quote
I'm more familiar with the war and the combatants now, although I'm sure there are some things and people that I'm not aware of.


It's not a war when one side refuses to fight. ID refuses to fight, they want to win the "war" without going through the normal process of proving their case via evidence.
 
Quote

Some of the claims or arguments from ID-ists or creationists are thought provoking but I do realize that none of them have proof.


So why don't you go an argue with Gordon Mullings who claims to have such proof.
 
Quote

Some of their claims are crazy.

Name 1 non-crazy claim.
 
Quote
Still, some of their arguments against science are valid.

Name 1 such argument. Dare you.
 
Quote
In other words, I'm sure there are people who believe in ID and/or creation who don't want to force their beliefs onto anyone or everyone else.

So what?
 
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem.

They are their own worst enemy's. Just another generation or two and their ranks will be a fraction of what they are now.
 
Quote
I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.

Then I guess you support decent eduction which by definition means that ideas like ID are not taught in schools as there is absolutely no evidence for them.

Do you?

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

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:14   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 23 2011,19:22)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
     
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?


Uh, I'm saying that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. That surprises you?

Different tribes have different creation myths, but they listen to all without fighting because, essentially, what you whitewash as "Native American" are local tribes with a local religion.

Read God Is Red by Vine Deloria Jr. to get an understanding of a place religion, versus the "time religion" of Judeo-Christianity.
     
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?


I'm saying that non Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts of God are very different from the creator/designer concept. Santeria is a case in point; followers of that religion say, "You talk about God, but we dance to the drum and become God."

It's a big world out there!

   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
What is this supposed to mean?  "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"


That's a joke. You reacted exactly as I expected you to.

You have things a bit mixed up, which doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me at all that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. In fact, those differences help support my point. There are or have been lots of religious beliefs, and not just among American Indians, that include a creator and/or designer that is not the Judeo/Christian God.

I'm only contesting the assertion that all ID-ists or creationists believe that the creator and/or designer is the Judeo/Christian God.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:28   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,08:02)
[SNIP]

1)

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise. I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable.

[SNIP]

2)

It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort.

[SNIP]

3)

We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

[SNIP]

4)

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible.

[SNIP]

They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

[SNIP]


5)

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past...

[SNIP]

6)

...I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.

Snipping, bolding, italicising and numbering all mine.

Forgive me, in the following there may be something we UK citizens call "taking the piss". Frankly, it's time for Kris to get the benefit of some mockery again.

1) So at some point, somewhere, somewhen, some magic fairy could have possibly done something.

STAND BACK FOLKS! KRIS IS DROPPING SOME SCIENCE ON US!

Dude, pass the bong and learn not to take everything you think when stoned out of your mind seriously.

It was said in regards to ridicule, but it also makes the point here well:

 
Quote
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." Thomas Jefferson.


You are promoting an idea so vague, so nebulous and so pointless that laughing at it and you is really the only avenue left. Well, ignoring both works just as well I suppose, but it's less amusing in the immediate short term. It will gradually become more amusing to ignore you I'm guessing. This makes me sad. Anyway...

The two statements in 1) are mutually exclusive if you take them to their logical conclusions. Firstly, proving a negative outside of some refined mathematical system is to all intents and purposes, impossible. So you get a nice big LOGIC FAIL for that for starters. Secondly, you are shifting the burden of proof undeservedly. This mythical entity you have concocted called "science" does not have to prove gods/god/pixies/designers do not exist, proponents of such ideas have to demonstrate that these gods' or pixies' existence is constistent with the available evidence. Note that this is a different thing from "proving" something. Proof, again, is something that really only exists within the rarified confines of mathematical systems. "Science" does not "prove" things in that sense, it's more accurate to say that through the process of scientific research we can eliminate extraneous hypotheses, refine other hypotheses and derive explanations that are parsimonious, testable and consonant with the available evidence. There is a great deal of difference there, and a great deal of epistemology that, as your posts demonstrate beyond doubt, you do not understand. Thanks for lecturing people that do though. Undeserving arrogance like yours, delivered in an insulting manner is always a massive PR win, especially when, you know, you are profoundly concerned with PR and all.

So how are they mutually exclusive? Well, before you equivocate as you have done with others I'll explain. You say some sort of ID or creation or something is possible. Okay. How do you know that? Seriously. On what data, reason or anything other than simply false equivalence, logical fallacies and just pulling things out of your arse is that claim based?

{Pauses}

Oh right, nothing other than those things. Gotcha. It's "possible" in the same way that "the universe is really a giantic banana but we can't see it" is possible, i.e. it's a baseless assertion. That is UNTIL it has some evidence to support it, burden of proof remember. {Aside: the use of "proof" here is slightly different to the use above, closer to the formal and original meaning of "testing", not (as in the colloquial manner you used it) "demonstrating".} Anyway, you are asserting without basis that this "designer(s) done it" claim is worthy of some consideration, and yet it is barely a coherent proposition, it's not anything anyone can work with until the details are fleshed out. And unfortunately even that nebulous concept does fit into a religious tradition, that of deism. There have been ostensibly christian deists for example, i.e people who believe the christian god set the universe in motion as it were, and then did not intervene (except for the odd dubious miracle). This isn't very strict deism I'll grant, but my point is this, even the nebulous claim is one that falls under the wide brim of religious claims.

These vague notions are not new, and their refutation is just as old, look up Last Thursdayism as a classic (humorous) example. This is what irks about your inane drivel and trolling, it's not merely that they are based on ignorance of what (for want of a better term) knowledge is available to you, it's that they are the hallmarks of a confused attitude that is profoundly anti-knowledge. As we will see...

2) Simply stated: no. Not a one. No one hates the idea of some intelligent entity being behind the curtain, you're simply making that up. It's not an uncommon piece of conspiracy crankery advanced by those who have an idea and get laughed at when their idea is shown to be utter bullshit (happens to the best of us, some of us get over it). Again you rely on a nebulous concept. Would someone "hate" the idea of, say some vicious South American deity who demand human sacrifice being the one behind the curtain (so to speak)? Yes, probably, and I think it's obvious why. I think you'll find the idea of SPECIFIC deities/concepts of deities being utterly hateful to be relatively uncontroversial, but the idea of ANY possible deity/concept of a deity being hateful? Nope. The claim is too nebulous once again.

If, again, you shift the goalposts back to an IDCist "information" type scenario (as if "information" were some mysterious force permeating the cosmos) then, yet again, we hit nebulosity at some velocity. It's impossible to hate a nebulous concept. Define it. Give it parameters. Show your work.

3) Science isn't complete? Gosh, who knew? The fact that we don't know everything, does not mean we know nothing. Look up the "god of the gaps" arguments and the logical problems with them and their centuries old refutations.

In the words of Dara O'Briain "If science knew everything, it would stop". We already KNOW that science doesn't know everything, we already know that science (and indeed humans) cannot know everything. Not just in a hippy dippy pot smoking or theistic fashion, but because (as admitted by several people here already and as I'll cheerfully admit to) it's possible that even when scientific research has lead to a working model of every observable phenomenon in the unievrse (we're a way off that!) that it's still all pixies underneath. However, this is yet another demonstration of the vacuity of the pixie claim, because it could equally be leprechauns, or brownies, or the Sidhe, or my mum. These claims are not only unevidence they are beyond the realm of evidence. Believe in them if you want to, but science they ain't and they are fuck all use to man or beast outside of a freshman, weed inspired, bullshit session.

Seriously, do you think you are telling people, some of whom are professional scientists, some of whom are enthusiasts, some of whom are old hands in the arena of flippant fighting with fantatsic fucktardery anything? I guess Darwin was right:

 
Quote
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"


Take a ticket and report to Messers Dunning and Kruger. It's a long queue, you'll have to wait.

As for "we can't get shit together on earth" etc, to paraphrase Samuel L Jackson: Non sequitur, motherfucker? Do you even know what one is? I'd put money on us solving a complete, detailed mechanistic pathway for, say, abiogenesis before we solve every human problem on earth. Mind you, since human "problems" are by their very nature insoluble in anything like the same sense and a "simple" scientific discovery, then I guess that's obvious. One of these things, Kris, is not like the other. Naughty, troll. Naughty.

4) Is someone saying these things are impossible? I doubt it. In fact I know it's not the case. Are they saying that no evidence supports the claims of various IDCists and creationists, no data is available to confirm these claims? Yes. Are they saying that SPECIFIC claims (like, say, there was a global flood ~4k years ago) are impossible based on the evidence we currently have? Yes. See the difference? Forgive me if I doubt it. No one is fighting against this vague, nebulous "pixies done it" horseshit you are (dishonestly) retreating to. As if such a claim were even meaningful (see above). What people ARE doing is taking the individual, specific claims and demonstrating how these are wildly inconsistent with the available evidence.

They are also pointing out that the eternal goalpost shifting, which you and your creationist chums (but you're not defending them, oh no no no, heaven forbid. You just make the identical arguments), ends in a welter of logically inconsistent mush. Try to comprehend the difference between "X is impossible" and "there is no evidence to support X, in fact X is contradicted by much/all of what we do know to a high degree of accuracy". Forgive me again if I doubt this distinction (not even a subtle one) will percolate into your head.

No one said science knows everything. You do like this strawman don't you? Your misconceptions about science, philsophy, and well, quiet clearly everything are a) not correct, b) not exhuastive, and c) not binding. You're wrong, do some basic work, fucking deal with it.

5) No it wouldn't. It would be nice if the conditions that made religion necessary were unnecessary, but for religions to be a thing of the past would mean humans were a thing of the past. Marx said it very well I think:

 
Quote
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain, not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun.”


Now I wouldn't agree with every sentiment there, but I hope it's obvious to even the meanest intelligence (Kris, I'm looking at you) which parts are relevant.

6) Crikey! Really?

STAND BACK AGAIN FOLKS!!! KRIS IS DROPPING SOME REAL SCIENCE ON US AGAIN!!

Thank you, Kris. Thank you thank you thank you. Thankyou for divining our true purpose here. Thank you for telling us that we should be doing something else. Thank you for allowing "sites like this to remain". Oh your genoerosity knows no bounds. Calloo callay, o frabjuous day, Kris is letting people fuck about on the internet in their spare time. The magnanimity of such a gesture will surely elevate Kris to the heights of human compassion occupied by such luminaries as Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the Dalai FUCKING Lama.

Oh please.

I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead.

There ARE better ways to promote science, and thousands of people across the globe are doing them. Some of those people are even here. Doing their little bit, in their little way, off the internet. Some people just come here for the LULZ (as I believe the youth are saying). So what? This is just some corner of the web, if it fails to work for you, it may work for someone else, it may not. Maybe that isn't even the point. Whilst some of the "problems" with science communication and "popularity" can justly be laid at the feet of those scientismaticians locked in their ivory towers with those fat Big Pharma and Government pay cheques (the bastards), not all of them can. Gosh, I wonder if ANYONE has considered any of this before? If I were, you know, someone with an interest in a subject like this, I might do something like go and find out BEFORE shooting my mouth off and trolling websites. But that's only the case if you were...you know...actually interested. Which you're not are you, Kris.

In the words of Evil Willow: Bored now.

We need a new chew toy.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:45   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,11:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,01:03)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

Wait. Kris, do you not like Dale or something? You've been unclear about this. Maybe you could troll a little harder, make it obvious.

Pro-tip: Whining that people are mean to you and your ideological, ignorance worshipping bum chums when you arrogantly spout your horsehit, and then insulting the living crap out of a bunch of people you don't actually know, on first meeting is a great way to instigate mockery.

Thanks

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:59   

Thanks Louis, new signature...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,06:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2011,20:45)
Kris,  I know you just want to be a pissed off troll.  Let's take a look at what was said and how you responded... k?

     
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
       
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?
     
Quote


There's this thing called 'context' in language.  It means that you can divine some information that is literally unsaid by how what is said.

When you specifically say something about American Indians and a parson quotes you and says "we", the unpoken assumption is that he is an American Indian.

I freely admit that this assumption could be wrong.  But I'd put money on it being correct.




You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?
     
Quote


This is what was said:      
Quote
we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".


I'm not sure how you missed this.  

Now, again, I will admit that I'm sure that no one can speak for all American Indians, however, as someone who has studied a bit of their culture, I can safely say that they do not think of the creator/designer in the same way that you do.


How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.


OK, I can see that you never actual said "I believe supernatural things exist"... on the other hand... you are DEMANDING that science accept the possibility that such things do exist when there is no evidence for them.

You are oh so very careful to say nothing that could be literally taken as one way or another.  My 4-year-old has already gotten beyond such things and can handle adult phrasing and assumptions.  If I tell him to go to bed, he knows that he has to get into the bed and go to sleep.  He doesn't stand beside the bed, then complain that I told him he just had to "GO" to bed.

Why don't you just say what you mean and we can stop all this silliness?

     
Quote

Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."

Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*


See here's what you are not understanding and I know that you are not understanding it because you have SPECIFICALLY ignored it.

I don't give a shit about your religion or lack thereof.  I don't give a shit if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthullu, Odin, Jupiter, or Shiva.  If you want to have a science discussion that's fine.

However, what you don't get is the Intelligent Design IS religion.  That's all that it is.  There is no science to talk about, so we must talk about the religion of intelligent design.

As I said, and you have not read or commented on, almost by definition, the designer must be a deity.  There is no evidence for said deity and there are purely natural explanations that cover almost all the ground that said deity must cover to be real.

Indeed, when invoked, there is a 50% chance that the invoked statement regarding said deital action has already been shown to have a purely natural, physical cause or mechanism.  It is my belief and opinion that the other 50% will be shown to also have a natural, physical cause.

Any proponent of design, and you are a proponent of design if you think that it has any redeeming qualities, must show that not only does design show EVERYTHING that science does, it must also do show more effectively AND show that the things science can't explain can be explained by that deital action.  No such statement has ever been found.

Now, at this point, I'm sure you (well, an ID proponent would say) "But the designer does everything, literally everything."  In that case, the designer is chemistry, physics and biology... or not different enough to mean anything to anyone.

I note that you never read the article I wrote and pasted a link for you.  It would explain why the designer, if it exists, must be a deity and why it must act in a very specific way and that we have not, in all the hundreds of years we've been looking, we have not seen the merest scrap of evidence for those actions.  

I invite you to read the article and comment here, if you like.

To reiterate, science does not bring deity into this conversation... ID does.  Would like the statements from all the leading proponents of ID that specifically say that ID is religion?  Would you like me to quote the Wedge document that they were all a part of making?  I can do that.

Anyone who thinks that ID or a designer is not deital, is just lying to themselves.[/quote]

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

First of all, with the way some people write here "we" could mean just about anything. I'm not a psychic, so I don't know whether rhmc is an American Indian or not.

If I'm "DEMANDING", then what is everyone else here doing?

It's my 'opinion' that science, scientists, and science supporters should be open to things that are possible. A creator/designer of some sort, at some level, is possible.

Ya know, for all any of us know, we and our universe could be an experiment in a test tube in a lab somewhere. Far fetched? Yeah, to most people. Impossible? No. Any evidence of it? No. Could there ever be any evidence of it? Who knows?

One of the best things about nature is that there will always be questions that can't be answered completely. There's always something to wonder about. Call it job security for scientists and explorers, and for the part of the mind where curiosity resides.

Regarding ID being religious: Maybe a new term should be created to describe the ID-ists and or creationists who you guys and gals have such a problem with. Something to separate them from all the benign ID or creation believers. How about this for the extreme ones: PMPRZWWTDTW (Politically Minded Pushy Religious Zealots Who Want To Dominate The World)? For less extreme but still concerning ones, how about: PRZWSLU (Pushy Religious Zealots Who Should Lighten Up)? There could be several terms for various degrees of religious zealotry. Then, if everyone used the appropriate one at the appropriate time there might not be as many misunderstandings. Splitting them instead of lumping them might make religion bashers look more reasonable and it might not piss off the people who believe in creation and/or design, or just think they're a possibility, but don't want to be lumped with the more extreme religious zealots.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,06:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,06:12)
It's my 'opinion' that science, scientists, and science supporters should be open to things that are possible. A creator/designer of some sort, at some level, is possible.

And so is the flying spagetti monster. So what?

Science should only be concerned with things that can be tested, not with what is "possible".
 
Quote
Ya know, for all any of us know, we and our universe could be an experiment in a test tube in a lab somewhere. Far fetched? Yeah, to most people. Impossible? No. Any evidence of it? No. Could there ever be any evidence of it? Who knows?

How's the light in your cardboard pyramid?
 
Quote
Regarding ID being religious: Maybe a new term should be created to describe the ID-ists and or creationists who you guys and gals have such a problem with.

Maybe it should, why don't you go ask the posters at uncommondescent about it?
 
Quote
Something to separate them from all the benign ID or creation believers. How about this for the extreme ones: PMPRZWWTDTW (Politically Minded Pushy Religious Zealots Who Want To Dominate The World)?

I can't speak for everybody here, but to my mind the main "problem" with the ID crowd is their desire to teach their bullshit in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Read the transcripts.
 
Quote
Splitting them instead of lumping them might make religion bashers look more reasonable and it might not piss off the people who believe in creation and/or design, or just think they're a possibility, but don't want to be lumped with the more extreme religious zealots.

People can believe what they want, but if they try and teach their beliefs in school then many many rational people will have a problem with that.

Do you?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,06:50   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,07:26   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,03:02)
Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

And most of us will take an extra step with you and state that science cannot prove that they are impossible, as we agreed above (about which agreement you have not remarked).

Which leads to the final step: because ID is not subject to empirical disconfirmation, and because ID fails to generate testable entailments that may be subject to empirical disconfirmation, it is not possible make it do any scientific work.

If you agree with the above, we can draw the discussion vis ID as science to a close.

If you disagree with the above, your disagreement would take the form of, "I believe ID CAN be a science," followed by your thoughts on the conceptual framework and empirical procedures by means of which ID may be tested. However, given your opening gambit ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible") it is difficult to see where you could go with that.

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

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,07:39   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,04:22)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,06:12)
It's my 'opinion' that science, scientists, and science supporters should be open to things that are possible. A creator/designer of some sort, at some level, is possible.

And so is the flying spagetti monster. So what?

Science should only be concerned with things that can be tested, not with what is "possible".
   
Quote
Ya know, for all any of us know, we and our universe could be an experiment in a test tube in a lab somewhere. Far fetched? Yeah, to most people. Impossible? No. Any evidence of it? No. Could there ever be any evidence of it? Who knows?

How's the light in your cardboard pyramid?
   
Quote
Regarding ID being religious: Maybe a new term should be created to describe the ID-ists and or creationists who you guys and gals have such a problem with.

Maybe it should, why don't you go ask the posters at uncommondescent about it?
   
Quote
Something to separate them from all the benign ID or creation believers. How about this for the extreme ones: PMPRZWWTDTW (Politically Minded Pushy Religious Zealots Who Want To Dominate The World)?

I can't speak for everybody here, but to my mind the main "problem" with the ID crowd is their desire to teach their bullshit in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Read the transcripts.
   
Quote
Splitting them instead of lumping them might make religion bashers look more reasonable and it might not piss off the people who believe in creation and/or design, or just think they're a possibility, but don't want to be lumped with the more extreme religious zealots.

People can believe what they want, but if they try and teach their beliefs in school then many many rational people will have a problem with that.

Do you?

If science should only be concerned with things that are testable, then why are some scientists and science supporters so concerned with things they say they can't test? You know, like creation and ID for example.

Yeah, I know, you're going to say that science, scientists, and science supporters are only concerned because some ID/creationists want to inject ID/creationism into science and have it taught in schools. Tell that to Dawkins.

I'm curious about something: What if someone proposed teaching ID and creation in public schools but not as a part of science instruction. In other words, what if they said ID/creation should be allowed to be taught in public schools but that it should not be associated with science, not be labeled as science, and should not be considered as a replacement for science? And what if the ID/creation class was elective? And let's say that the course was offered starting in 10th grade.

For the sake of discussion let's say that the teaching would include ID and creation ideas or beliefs from a variety of religions, and the concept of ID or creation that excludes religion. I suppose it could be kind of like a religious history/philosophy course but focusing only on the subjects of ID and creation, with non-religious ideas included.

I guess what I'm mostly wondering is whether you all have a problem with ID/creation strictly because some of the proponents want it taught as science or a replacement for science, or because you wouldn't want it taught under any circumstances?

Another question: Do any of you think that science subjects should be taught in churches, or private, religion based schools? If you had the authority to do so, would you make it mandatory to teach science in private, religion based schools?


When are you going to get over Dover? The law was enforced. The case is over. Move on already.

I already answered your "Do you?" question.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,07:46   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,03:28)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,08:02)
[SNIP]

1)

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise. I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable.

[SNIP]

2)

It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort.

[SNIP]

3)

We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

[SNIP]

4)

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible.

[SNIP]

They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

[SNIP]


5)

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past...

[SNIP]

6)

...I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.

Snipping, bolding, italicising and numbering all mine.

Forgive me, in the following there may be something we UK citizens call "taking the piss". Frankly, it's time for Kris to get the benefit of some mockery again.

1) So at some point, somewhere, somewhen, some magic fairy could have possibly done something.

STAND BACK FOLKS! KRIS IS DROPPING SOME SCIENCE ON US!

Dude, pass the bong and learn not to take everything you think when stoned out of your mind seriously.

It was said in regards to ridicule, but it also makes the point here well:

   
Quote
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." Thomas Jefferson.


You are promoting an idea so vague, so nebulous and so pointless that laughing at it and you is really the only avenue left. Well, ignoring both works just as well I suppose, but it's less amusing in the immediate short term. It will gradually become more amusing to ignore you I'm guessing. This makes me sad. Anyway...

The two statements in 1) are mutually exclusive if you take them to their logical conclusions. Firstly, proving a negative outside of some refined mathematical system is to all intents and purposes, impossible. So you get a nice big LOGIC FAIL for that for starters. Secondly, you are shifting the burden of proof undeservedly. This mythical entity you have concocted called "science" does not have to prove gods/god/pixies/designers do not exist, proponents of such ideas have to demonstrate that these gods' or pixies' existence is constistent with the available evidence. Note that this is a different thing from "proving" something. Proof, again, is something that really only exists within the rarified confines of mathematical systems. "Science" does not "prove" things in that sense, it's more accurate to say that through the process of scientific research we can eliminate extraneous hypotheses, refine other hypotheses and derive explanations that are parsimonious, testable and consonant with the available evidence. There is a great deal of difference there, and a great deal of epistemology that, as your posts demonstrate beyond doubt, you do not understand. Thanks for lecturing people that do though. Undeserving arrogance like yours, delivered in an insulting manner is always a massive PR win, especially when, you know, you are profoundly concerned with PR and all.

So how are they mutually exclusive? Well, before you equivocate as you have done with others I'll explain. You say some sort of ID or creation or something is possible. Okay. How do you know that? Seriously. On what data, reason or anything other than simply false equivalence, logical fallacies and just pulling things out of your arse is that claim based?

{Pauses}

Oh right, nothing other than those things. Gotcha. It's "possible" in the same way that "the universe is really a giantic banana but we can't see it" is possible, i.e. it's a baseless assertion. That is UNTIL it has some evidence to support it, burden of proof remember. {Aside: the use of "proof" here is slightly different to the use above, closer to the formal and original meaning of "testing", not (as in the colloquial manner you used it) "demonstrating".} Anyway, you are asserting without basis that this "designer(s) done it" claim is worthy of some consideration, and yet it is barely a coherent proposition, it's not anything anyone can work with until the details are fleshed out. And unfortunately even that nebulous concept does fit into a religious tradition, that of deism. There have been ostensibly christian deists for example, i.e people who believe the christian god set the universe in motion as it were, and then did not intervene (except for the odd dubious miracle). This isn't very strict deism I'll grant, but my point is this, even the nebulous claim is one that falls under the wide brim of religious claims.

These vague notions are not new, and their refutation is just as old, look up Last Thursdayism as a classic (humorous) example. This is what irks about your inane drivel and trolling, it's not merely that they are based on ignorance of what (for want of a better term) knowledge is available to you, it's that they are the hallmarks of a confused attitude that is profoundly anti-knowledge. As we will see...

2) Simply stated: no. Not a one. No one hates the idea of some intelligent entity being behind the curtain, you're simply making that up. It's not an uncommon piece of conspiracy crankery advanced by those who have an idea and get laughed at when their idea is shown to be utter bullshit (happens to the best of us, some of us get over it). Again you rely on a nebulous concept. Would someone "hate" the idea of, say some vicious South American deity who demand human sacrifice being the one behind the curtain (so to speak)? Yes, probably, and I think it's obvious why. I think you'll find the idea of SPECIFIC deities/concepts of deities being utterly hateful to be relatively uncontroversial, but the idea of ANY possible deity/concept of a deity being hateful? Nope. The claim is too nebulous once again.

If, again, you shift the goalposts back to an IDCist "information" type scenario (as if "information" were some mysterious force permeating the cosmos) then, yet again, we hit nebulosity at some velocity. It's impossible to hate a nebulous concept. Define it. Give it parameters. Show your work.

3) Science isn't complete? Gosh, who knew? The fact that we don't know everything, does not mean we know nothing. Look up the "god of the gaps" arguments and the logical problems with them and their centuries old refutations.

In the words of Dara O'Briain "If science knew everything, it would stop". We already KNOW that science doesn't know everything, we already know that science (and indeed humans) cannot know everything. Not just in a hippy dippy pot smoking or theistic fashion, but because (as admitted by several people here already and as I'll cheerfully admit to) it's possible that even when scientific research has lead to a working model of every observable phenomenon in the unievrse (we're a way off that!) that it's still all pixies underneath. However, this is yet another demonstration of the vacuity of the pixie claim, because it could equally be leprechauns, or brownies, or the Sidhe, or my mum. These claims are not only unevidence they are beyond the realm of evidence. Believe in them if you want to, but science they ain't and they are fuck all use to man or beast outside of a freshman, weed inspired, bullshit session.

Seriously, do you think you are telling people, some of whom are professional scientists, some of whom are enthusiasts, some of whom are old hands in the arena of flippant fighting with fantatsic fucktardery anything? I guess Darwin was right:

   
Quote
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"


Take a ticket and report to Messers Dunning and Kruger. It's a long queue, you'll have to wait.

As for "we can't get shit together on earth" etc, to paraphrase Samuel L Jackson: Non sequitur, motherfucker? Do you even know what one is? I'd put money on us solving a complete, detailed mechanistic pathway for, say, abiogenesis before we solve every human problem on earth. Mind you, since human "problems" are by their very nature insoluble in anything like the same sense and a "simple" scientific discovery, then I guess that's obvious. One of these things, Kris, is not like the other. Naughty, troll. Naughty.

4) Is someone saying these things are impossible? I doubt it. In fact I know it's not the case. Are they saying that no evidence supports the claims of various IDCists and creationists, no data is available to confirm these claims? Yes. Are they saying that SPECIFIC claims (like, say, there was a global flood ~4k years ago) are impossible based on the evidence we currently have? Yes. See the difference? Forgive me if I doubt it. No one is fighting against this vague, nebulous "pixies done it" horseshit you are (dishonestly) retreating to. As if such a claim were even meaningful (see above). What people ARE doing is taking the individual, specific claims and demonstrating how these are wildly inconsistent with the available evidence.

They are also pointing out that the eternal goalpost shifting, which you and your creationist chums (but you're not defending them, oh no no no, heaven forbid. You just make the identical arguments), ends in a welter of logically inconsistent mush. Try to comprehend the difference between "X is impossible" and "there is no evidence to support X, in fact X is contradicted by much/all of what we do know to a high degree of accuracy". Forgive me again if I doubt this distinction (not even a subtle one) will percolate into your head.

No one said science knows everything. You do like this strawman don't you? Your misconceptions about science, philsophy, and well, quiet clearly everything are a) not correct, b) not exhuastive, and c) not binding. You're wrong, do some basic work, fucking deal with it.

5) No it wouldn't. It would be nice if the conditions that made religion necessary were unnecessary, but for religions to be a thing of the past would mean humans were a thing of the past. Marx said it very well I think:

   
Quote
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain, not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun.”


Now I wouldn't agree with every sentiment there, but I hope it's obvious to even the meanest intelligence (Kris, I'm looking at you) which parts are relevant.

6) Crikey! Really?

STAND BACK AGAIN FOLKS!!! KRIS IS DROPPING SOME REAL SCIENCE ON US AGAIN!!

Thank you, Kris. Thank you thank you thank you. Thankyou for divining our true purpose here. Thank you for telling us that we should be doing something else. Thank you for allowing "sites like this to remain". Oh your genoerosity knows no bounds. Calloo callay, o frabjuous day, Kris is letting people fuck about on the internet in their spare time. The magnanimity of such a gesture will surely elevate Kris to the heights of human compassion occupied by such luminaries as Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the Dalai FUCKING Lama.

Oh please.

I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead.

There ARE better ways to promote science, and thousands of people across the globe are doing them. Some of those people are even here. Doing their little bit, in their little way, off the internet. Some people just come here for the LULZ (as I believe the youth are saying). So what? This is just some corner of the web, if it fails to work for you, it may work for someone else, it may not. Maybe that isn't even the point. Whilst some of the "problems" with science communication and "popularity" can justly be laid at the feet of those scientismaticians locked in their ivory towers with those fat Big Pharma and Government pay cheques (the bastards), not all of them can. Gosh, I wonder if ANYONE has considered any of this before? If I were, you know, someone with an interest in a subject like this, I might do something like go and find out BEFORE shooting my mouth off and trolling websites. But that's only the case if you were...you know...actually interested. Which you're not are you, Kris.

In the words of Evil Willow: Bored now.

We need a new chew toy.

Louis

Meh.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,07:57   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,07:39)

If science should only be concerned with things that are testable, then why are some scientists and science supporters so concerned with things they say they can't test? You know, like creation and ID for example.

Perhaps it's an interesting hobby. After all, if you see a man walking with a stone in his shoe but who does not realise his limp is caused by the stone then why not inform him of his error?
 
Quote
Yeah, I know, you're going to say that science, scientists, and science supporters are only concerned because some ID/creationists want to inject ID/creationism into science and have it taught in schools. Tell that to Dawkins.

The plight of humanity is of concern for us all. All that is required for evil (ignorance) to triumph is for those that know better to do nothing.

It's quite simple Kris. ID is a con-job that purports to show evidence that X was designed. Upon formal examination these claims fall apart and ID in general can be shown as nothing more then an effort to separate the ignorant from their money.

There's a reason "buy my book" is the rallying call of ID. Those without much experience in the scientific world see books about ID couched in pseudo-scientific language and assume that ID has scientific support, even if they are not capable of understanding the proposed evidence in those books.  
 
Quote

I'm curious about something: What if someone proposed teaching ID and creation in public schools but not as a part of science instruction.

What, you mean like Dr. Allen MacNeill who taught the first ID course in Cornell’s history?

You might need to to a bit more research....
 
Quote
In other words, what if they said ID/creation should be allowed to be taught in public schools but that it should not be associated with science, not be labeled as science, and should not be considered as a replacement for science?


What would you teach, exactly? Please do tell.
 
Quote
I guess what I'm mostly wondering is whether you all have a problem with ID/creation strictly because some of the proponents want it taught as science or a replacement for science, or because you wouldn't want it taught under any circumstances?

Teach science in science class. Don't teach non-science in science class. Is that simple enough?
 
Quote
Another question: Do any of you think that science subjects should be taught in churches, or private, religion based schools? If you had the authority to do so, would you make it mandatory to teach science in private, religion based schools?

In short, yes. "Science" is more of a way of thinking about things then anything specific. And when you have a critical mind then the more obviously foolish claims of religion will soon dissolve away. I would suggest the idea of "local control" over course contents in the USA is a terrible idea, in general, and that a single course should be created and taught in any institution that would claim to be a "school". Then you can compare outcomes equally, everybody is on a level playing field and the accuracy of your education will not depend on the level of right wingnuttery on the local education board.

But I don't have the option to enforce such. And so the next best thing is to say that teach your own children what they want, but don't expect the "qualification" they receive at the end of it to be accepted on the same level as a qualification received from an actual real education. Those kids will be competing with the kids who got an actual education in the job market, guess who's going to be working at the Ark theme park and guess who's going to be off to Europe to work on the LHC.
   
Quote
When are you going to get over Dover? The law was enforced. The case is over. Move on already.

Yet attempts to teach ID in schools persist. So you might want to go tell those other people to get over it. And the DI.
 
Quote

I already answered your "Do you?" question.

Great. Now you can make a start on all the others you've been pretending that you've not seen.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,07:57   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,13:46)
[SNIP]

Meh.

Well played. Our trolling judges give you a solid 5.8 across the board.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,07:59   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,07:46)
Meh.

Meh indeed. And thus the case for ID lives on.

I mean, when an ID proponent is confronted with facts that disconfirm their pet theories do they stop making the claim?

Of course not.

Yet now they know the claim is disputed and possibly untrue. But they continue to make it. And, from what I understand of their belief, that's knowingly telling a lie. Which is, like, bad.

But their response when this is pointed out?

As yours, meh.

So, Kris, meh away, the floor is yours. But your inability to engage has been noted and, by me at least, laughed at.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,08:03   

Simple question Kris.

Do you think that the evidence for ID is

A) As strong as the evidence for unguided evolution.
B) Not as strong but considerable.
C) Hardly any at all.
D) Zero in size.

There are several ideas with evidence as strong as the evidence for ID. Would you suggest that they are also taught in schools?

There is a large body of work out there that purports to show that 9/11 was an inside job. There's more physical evidence to show that then there is for ID. Should we teach 9/11 conspiracy theories in public schools? If not, why not?

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,08:20   

Kris: But it should be thus

ATBC Regulars: Kris, listen, this is how it is

Kris: I know, but it still should be thus

ATBC Regulars: Kris, we understand, but it's not

Kris: But I want it to be this

ATBC Regulars: Neither the universe nor us care what you want


Kris, you are wrong.  Here let's try this in simple bullet form.

1) There is no evidence for a designer.
 1a) This is important because claims require evidence.

2) ID is religious.
 2a) The leaders of the ID movement say so.
 2b) Logically, the designer must be a deity.
 2c) Only those of two very specific religious persuasions promote ID.  No hindus, Shinto Priests, atheists, of FSM worshipers promote ID.

3) Therefore saying a designer is possible in science class is not correct.*

If you think ID has any merits, then put them forth here.  Again, you don't seem to get this because I know you think we all hate religion and ID and everything else, but we would love it if ID was testable.  There's not a scientist here who would not be in line to test an actual hypothesis from ID.  There isn't any.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say one of my students is a member of a church that says modern medicine is evil and that diseases are caused by evil spiritst.  Since I can't prove evil spirits don't exist,  should I alter my lectures about germ theory to accomodate that student?  Or should I teach reality?

You would say (based on your previous comments) that I should also teach that diseases are caused by spirits.  Am I right?

If so, then you would be wrong.  It's the exact same situation with the designer.  Without evidence, I can teach anything as possible.  (As I've already mentioned to you and you pretty much ignored.)  Which means that school becomes useless and the religious nuts who do want stupid American sheeple win.

Meh, I don't believe that you will accept this.  I personally believe that you are a creationist.  Anyone who supports ID is a creationist.  

I further believe that you are so steeped in bias and your own personal worldview that you cannot accept the reality of science. **

*Not becuse their might be a designer, but because we don't need to distract children with advanced concepts before they are ready.  I mean, in many instances Newton's equations don't work well... that doesn't mean that I'm only going to teach Einstein's equations to my Physics class.

** Predicting massive 'insult' in  3... 2... 1...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,08:41   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 24 2011,05:26)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,03:02)
Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

And most of us will take an extra step with you and state that science cannot prove that they are impossible, as we agreed above (about which agreement you have not remarked).

Which leads to the final step: because ID is not subject to empirical disconfirmation, and because ID fails to generate testable entailments that may be subject to empirical disconfirmation, it is not possible make it do any scientific work.

If you agree with the above, we can draw the discussion vis ID as science to a close.

If you disagree with the above, your disagreement would take the form of, "I believe ID CAN be a science," followed by your thoughts on the conceptual framework and empirical procedures by means of which ID may be tested. However, given your opening gambit ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible") it is difficult to see where you could go with that.

Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific. In fact, I've never said that science should be working on ID or creation or trying to figure them out. I've suggested that science should keep an open mind about them unless it finds proof to the contrary. In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them, and that also means that science and scientists shouldn't propose alternative suggestions, speculations, inferences, hypotheses, or theories that are intended as a direct alternative to ID and/or creation. Science should stick to what it has evidence of and should not make unfounded inferences, speculations, or assumptions.

For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Id-ists and/or creationists should also not claim that ID or creation are a done deal until and unless they can show that they're a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions.

Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible. Oh yeah, I know, some of you admit that science can't prove they're impossible when you're presented with a direct statement that science can't prove they're impossible, but the usual wording by most people here, and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., strongly asserts that they are impossible.

I would agree that they're impossible under most or all of the circumstances that religious people assert, but I wouldn't agree that they're impossible under any circumstances.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:00   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,08:41)

 Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific.

Sure. You just implied it.
 
Quote
In fact, I've never said that science should be working on ID or creation or trying to figure them out.

Sure. You just implied it.
 
Quote
I've suggested that science should keep an open mind about them unless it finds proof to the contrary.

Science does. And when somebody provides evidence for ID or creation then "science" will listen.
 
Quote
In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them, and that also means that science and scientists shouldn't propose alternative suggestions, speculations, inferences, hypotheses, or theories that are intended as a direct alternative to ID and/or creation.

No. Evolution is a direct challenge to the idea that god created biology but the idea of "god" is not contained within it at all. It's just a side effect.  Should science and scientists be silent about that just because it happens to conflict with some set of beliefs about how extant biology arose? Only a fool would think so.
 
Quote
Science should stick to what it has evidence of and should not make unfounded inferences, speculations, or assumptions.

Good science does. There is plenty of evidence for non-ID driven evolution.
 
Quote
For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions.

That's "not even wrong".
 
Quote
They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Care to provide an example of a scientist claiming to have all the answers? Thought not...
 
Quote
Id-ists and/or creationists should also not claim that ID or creation are a done deal until and unless they can show that they're a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions.

Creation and ID is nothing but speculation, inferences, and assumptions.
 
Quote
Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.

You really are quite dense. We've been over this.
 
Quote
Oh yeah, I know, some of you admit that science can't prove they're impossible when you're presented with a direct statement that science can't prove they're impossible, but the usual wording by most people here, and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., strongly asserts that they are impossible.

Citation please. Or STFU.
 
Quote
I would agree that they're impossible under most or all of the circumstances that religious people assert, but I wouldn't agree that they're impossible under any circumstances.

So what's your fucking point? That until a mathematics level of "proof" is available nobody should say anything? You are not living in the real world. Bars on the windows is it, for your own protection no doubt...

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

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:03   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,06:20)
Kris: But it should be thus

ATBC Regulars: Kris, listen, this is how it is

Kris: I know, but it still should be thus

ATBC Regulars: Kris, we understand, but it's not

Kris: But I want it to be this

ATBC Regulars: Neither the universe nor us care what you want


Kris, you are wrong.  Here let's try this in simple bullet form.

1) There is no evidence for a designer.
 1a) This is important because claims require evidence.

2) ID is religious.
 2a) The leaders of the ID movement say so.
 2b) Logically, the designer must be a deity.
 2c) Only those of two very specific religious persuasions promote ID.  No hindus, Shinto Priests, atheists, of FSM worshipers promote ID.

3) Therefore saying a designer is possible in science class is not correct.*

If you think ID has any merits, then put them forth here.  Again, you don't seem to get this because I know you think we all hate religion and ID and everything else, but we would love it if ID was testable.  There's not a scientist here who would not be in line to test an actual hypothesis from ID.  There isn't any.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say one of my students is a member of a church that says modern medicine is evil and that diseases are caused by evil spiritst.  Since I can't prove evil spirits don't exist,  should I alter my lectures about germ theory to accomodate that student?  Or should I teach reality?

You would say (based on your previous comments) that I should also teach that diseases are caused by spirits.  Am I right?

If so, then you would be wrong.  It's the exact same situation with the designer.  Without evidence, I can teach anything as possible.  (As I've already mentioned to you and you pretty much ignored.)  Which means that school becomes useless and the religious nuts who do want stupid American sheeple win.

Meh, I don't believe that you will accept this.  I personally believe that you are a creationist.  Anyone who supports ID is a creationist.  

I further believe that you are so steeped in bias and your own personal worldview that you cannot accept the reality of science. **

*Not becuse their might be a designer, but because we don't need to distract children with advanced concepts before they are ready.  I mean, in many instances Newton's equations don't work well... that doesn't mean that I'm only going to teach Einstein's equations to my Physics class.

** Predicting massive 'insult' in  3... 2... 1...

Now why would I insult you? After all, you've been so nice to me. :)

Gotta go for now.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:13   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,08:41)
[/quote]
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 24 2011,05:26)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,03:02)
Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

And most of us will take an extra step with you and state that science cannot prove that they are impossible, as we agreed above (about which agreement you have not remarked).

Which leads to the final step: because ID is not subject to empirical disconfirmation, and because ID fails to generate testable entailments that may be subject to empirical disconfirmation, it is not possible make it do any scientific work.

If you agree with the above, we can draw the discussion vis ID as science to a close.

If you disagree with the above, your disagreement would take the form of, "I believe ID CAN be a science," followed by your thoughts on the conceptual framework and empirical procedures by means of which ID may be tested. However, given your opening gambit ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible") it is difficult to see where you could go with that.


Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific. In fact, I've never said that science should be working on ID or creation or trying to figure them out. I've suggested that science should keep an open mind about them unless it finds proof to the contrary.


But there is evidence to the contrary.  Every single thing that ID has tried to promote as evidence of design has been shown to have a purely natural cause.

Quote

In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them,


Oh, hell no!  

Every scientist and support of the concept of science should be standing up and DEMANDING that ID be treated as science...

1) you can't claim it to be true until there is evidence to support it.

2) You can't teach it in schools until there is a well documented and understood mechanism or set of laws that describe its actions.

3) You can't change science to support woo

Kris, should we also teach astrology in science... or at least say that it's possible?

Quote

and that also means that science and scientists shouldn't propose alternative suggestions, speculations, inferences, hypotheses, or theories that are intended as a direct alternative to ID and/or creation.


wait... what?

You're saying that science not only should say that ID is possible, bu they CANNOT try to find an alternate hypothesis.  

This is the stupidest thing you've ever said.

Quote

Science should stick to what it has evidence of and should not make unfounded inferences, speculations, or assumptions.

And so should ID... which means they should shut the fuck up and do some science.

Quote

For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.


Abiogenesis is a proven fact.  Once there was no life on this planet, now there is.  Proven fact.

There is no chemical or physical reason that life could not have come about by chemistry... if there is a reason, science hasn't found it yet.

So, unless we have complete evidence of anything, we shouldn't say anything about.  That's what you said.

So I guess we should shut off all the computers.  I guess we have to stop all trading on stock exchanges.  We can't look at the sky anymore either. Those all contain things we don't fully understand... yet we can still use the tools to do some things.

Second stupidest thing you've said.

Quote

Id-ists and/or creationists should also not claim that ID or creation are a done deal until and unless they can show that they're a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions.


Without speculation, inferences, and assumptions?!?!?  That's how science is done man.

I think you were instead looking for 'evidence', 'repeatability' and 'a designer'.

Of course, they don't have any of that.

Quote

Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible. Oh yeah, I know, some of you admit that science can't prove they're impossible when you're presented with a direct statement that science can't prove they're impossible, but the usual wording by most people here, and on Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., strongly asserts that they are impossible.


Is it impossible?  No.  We could all be living inside the matrix and a 14-year-old designed us and our universe for a science fair.

It is up to the proponents of an idea to support the idea.

Quote

I would agree that they're impossible under most or all of the circumstances that religious people assert, but I wouldn't agree that they're impossible under any circumstances.


Then what's your problem?

I think I know what it is... you don't like militant atheism.  This has nothing to do with science or education, you don't like atheists.  You think they should stay in the closet and be quiet.  Am I right?

Well, Kris, if creationists get to go door to door and have private conversations with major law-makers, then we get to too.  And we also get to expose the lies and misinformation that they peddle.

You don't like it, then go accomodate them.  I assure you that they will take everything you give them and then they will get rid of you and keep taking from someone else, until they have it all.

Have you read the Wedge document?  The stated goal of ID is to create an American theocracy.  Do you understand what that means?  Probably not.  Sad really.

As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't helping science, then you are hurting it.  You, Kris, are hurting science.  That also means that you are hurting students by giving them a weaker education.  You are hurting the US by making the country dumber and less able to attract companies, jobs, and intelligent, hard-working people.  

Perhaps you ought to take a look at the PISA results.  I doubt it though, you are a creationist, you won't look at anything that doesn't support what you think is true and right.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:17   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,09:03)
Now why would I insult you? After all, you've been so nice to me. :)

Gotta go for now.

That's it?  That's all...

Kris, you don't know anything about the subject you are attempting to discuss.

I'd be willing to teach you, but as has been shown, you are not willing to listen.

I (and I'm sure others) will continue to point out why you are wrong on so many levels.  Do try to keep up though.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:41   

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,10:10)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

gistu wa'do, tsi s ta si di-da

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:48   

After reading Kris's posts with an open mind, and can only come up with this conclusion:

The guy's a schmuck!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,09:54   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,09:48)
After reading Kris's posts with an open mind, and can only come up with this conclusion:

The guy's a schmuck!

That is an insult to schmucks...


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,10:08   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,14:41)
[SNIP]

1)

I've suggested that science should keep an open mind about them unless it finds proof to the contrary.

2)

For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

[SNIP]

3)

Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.

[SNIP]

Bolding and numbering mine.

1) How do you know science doesn't have an open mind to anything? If these propositions are incoherent, false, already disproven, or simply not even scientific, why the hell should anyone pay them any mind?


2) I'll start with what I said to IBIG but with the name changed:

Quote
I'm seeing a lot of "I don't know how it happened therefore it couldn't have happened" from IBIG Kris. I'm also seeing a lot of "You scientists don't have every step of the path fossilised in a bottle therefore it didn't happen" and other sundry excuses. I'm seeing a great deal of "I don't know, therefore no one knows" where IBIG Kris takes his ignorance to be some sort of evidence. I'm also seeing a lot of misunderstanding of what science, at its root, IS (i.e. a lot of misunderstanding about the provisional nature of science and what have you). I'm not seeing a lot of, well, for want of a better word, chemistry.

After all, if "non-living" chemicals were to give rise "spontaneously" to "living" systems then isn't this a chemical issue? What specific chemical barriers are there that IBIG Kris is aware of and the entirety of the chemical sciences are not?


Let's be blunt Kris, you know fuck all about the relevant science or how it's presented. You are touting  a false equivalence based on your own ignorance. Guess what, your ignorance is not equal to someone else's knowledge. Sorry. Unless you have something to support your claims....no thought not.

Scientists DO say that we are figuring out how life came about. No one says it's a done deal. Saying something is parsimonious (for example) is not the same as implying it's a done deal. Your ability to comprehend the English language is clearly up there with your abilities to reason. I.e. it's fucked.

3) No it won't. Even a detailed search will not find these things. Citations very much needed to support your claims.

Citations I BET will not be forthcoming. Because they don't exist beyond Kris's misunderstanding/deliberate misreading.

Keep pulling claims out of your arse Kris, it's funny. You're too afraid to even engage an actual argument, you just want to troll and spew horseshit in the hope that something will stick. No dice.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,10:15   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,15:03)
[SNIP]

Now why would I insult you? After all, you've been so nice to me. :)

Gotta go for now.

You come into AtBC, spout what amounts to basically no more than a heap of lies and common creationist horseshit, insult people up and down, accuse everybody of massive hypocrisy, slander the open-mindedness of all scientists and the integrity of the processes of science, demonstrate no desire to actually have a rational discussion with anyone but instead to troll and repeat unsubstantiated claims of a variety of hues of nonsense, demonstrate MASSIVE ignorance of the subjects you deign to extemporate upon, do so with an undeserved turn of arrogance and then demand that people don't fucking tell you about this in no uncertain terms? Even be a bit more than slightly ride? Physician! Heal thyself!

You're a fuckwit, boy.

I can only hope for your sake that it is all deliberate and you are trolling. At least under those circumstance there is some hope for you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,10:42   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,08:57)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,13:46)
[SNIP]

Meh.

Well played. Our trolling judges give you a solid 5.8 across the board.

Louis

haha the sad cunt made you type a bunch of words.  fuckstick wins that one.  but it was almost worth it for

Quote
old hands in the arena of flippant fighting with fantatsic fucktardery


and

Quote

Thank you, Kris. Thank you thank you thank you. Thankyou for divining our true purpose here. Thank you for telling us that we should be doing something else. Thank you for allowing "sites like this to remain". Oh your genoerosity knows no bounds. Calloo callay, o frabjuous day, Kris is letting people fuck about on the internet in their spare time. The magnanimity of such a gesture will surely elevate Kris to the heights of human compassion occupied by such luminaries as Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the Dalai FUCKING Lama.

Oh please.

I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead.


I LOLED

Hey Kris go fuck yourself with a chicken

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

  
qetzal



Posts: 308
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,10:43   

Kris writes:
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,21:54)
Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*

Dale_Husband responds:
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,22:32)
Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.

Kris then quotes the above exchange verbatim, and replies:
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:43)
Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

Seriously? You don't think Dale's response was relevant to your statement? Perhaps you need to take a breath and actually read what people are saying.

P.S. To the best of my knowledge, I have never "regularly attack[ed] religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them." Yet strangely, I've never been "insulted, attacked, ridiculed, [or] banned." Not by the PT regulars or moderators, anyway.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,10:46   

for shit's sake he has shown he is willing to cut and paste or hunt and peck gigantic reams of pure asshattery, that's worth something even if it's obvious that he is either 1)  too stupid to comprehend and synthesize information or 2)  just trolling for shits.  More on getting the little muppet to type and less on wasting time doing anything but insulting his mother 's goiter and the fact that his father maintains the slight odor of elderberry and bukakke wine

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,10:58   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 24 2011,16:46)
for shit's sake he has shown he is willing to cut and paste or hunt and peck gigantic reams of pure asshattery, that's worth something even if it's obvious that he is either 1)  too stupid to comprehend and synthesize information or 2)  just trolling for shits.  More on getting the little muppet to type and less on wasting time doing anything but insulting his mother 's goiter and the fact that his father maintains the slight odor of elderberry and bukakke wine

I'm going for "trolling for shits" with respect to Kris.

Maybe he isn't the only target of the words typed, 'Ras. And maybe, juuuuust maybe, finding old and familiar ways to call someone a fuckknuckle is briefly amusing.

I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,11:15   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,10:58)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,16:46)
for shit's sake he has shown he is willing to cut and paste or hunt and peck gigantic reams of pure asshattery, that's worth something even if it's obvious that he is either 1)  too stupid to comprehend and synthesize information or 2)  just trolling for shits.  More on getting the little muppet to type and less on wasting time doing anything but insulting his mother 's goiter and the fact that his father maintains the slight odor of elderberry and bukakke wine

I'm going for "trolling for shits" with respect to Kris.

Maybe he isn't the only target of the words typed, 'Ras. And maybe, juuuuust maybe, finding old and familiar ways to call someone a fuckknuckle is briefly amusing.

I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.

Louis

Of course not, he cna't prove anything he's said with the possible exception of the standardized defintions of words he uses... though I'm not willing to say that he uses every word correctly.

For example, it is will known that he called me a hypocrite and has been unable to prove it and has not retracted his statement.  

He's a little man hiding behind the great wall of the internet throwing pebbles and hoping to hit someone on the other side.

As previously said, it's briefly amusing and good practice to take his ramblings apart while waiting for a real challenge.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,11:22   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,17:15)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,10:58)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,16:46)
for shit's sake he has shown he is willing to cut and paste or hunt and peck gigantic reams of pure asshattery, that's worth something even if it's obvious that he is either 1)  too stupid to comprehend and synthesize information or 2)  just trolling for shits.  More on getting the little muppet to type and less on wasting time doing anything but insulting his mother 's goiter and the fact that his father maintains the slight odor of elderberry and bukakke wine

I'm going for "trolling for shits" with respect to Kris.

Maybe he isn't the only target of the words typed, 'Ras. And maybe, juuuuust maybe, finding old and familiar ways to call someone a fuckknuckle is briefly amusing.

I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.

Louis

Of course not, he cna't prove anything he's said with the possible exception of the standardized defintions of words he uses... though I'm not willing to say that he uses every word correctly.

For example, it is will known that he called me a hypocrite and has been unable to prove it and has not retracted his statement.  

He's a little man hiding behind the great wall of the internet throwing pebbles and hoping to hit someone on the other side.

As previously said, it's briefly amusing and good practice to take his ramblings apart while waiting for a real challenge.

Look I'm going to have to agree with all of that. Stop it or something like conversation might break out. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,11:29   

Quote
I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.


except that we can't parse this from "doesn't give a fuck about even trying to do so"

I'm still willing to bet he cannot swallow even ONE entire gallon of diesel fuel.  May he prove me wrong.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,11:31   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 24 2011,17:29)
Quote
I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.


except that we can't parse this from "doesn't give a fuck about even trying to do so"

I'm still willing to bet he cannot swallow even ONE entire gallon of diesel fuel.  May he prove me wrong.

If he does swallow at least one gallon of diesel fuel, I'm promising to offer him a nice cigar right afterward!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,13:47   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,09:41)
Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific.

What I am saying is a bit stronger than that. I'm saying that ID as currently conceived generates no testable hypotheses, and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research. Do you also agree with that? You come very close to asserting same when you say "Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible."

If so, as I said before, I'll bow out of further discussion of ID with you, as you and I would be in substantial agreement on that point, and I have no interest in the further topics of religion, peer review, scientific fraud and other peripheral issues you've raised, at least not given the eristic way in which you raise them.  

If not, it is incumbent upon you to propose (sketch) a conceptual framework and empirical approach by means of which ID may be subject to empirical test.
   
Quote
In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them.

What scientists and others cannot ignore are attempts to wedge ID into the science curricula of public schools, as was the case here in Ohio five years ago. What we also choose not to ignore is the persistent, deliberate distortion of the current state of evolutionary science promulgated by the DI, UD, and other advocates of ID.  
   
Quote
For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Most scientists would agree with aspects of this. However, abiogenesis is inherently an alternative to creation or design, and can't be represented as otherwise. Further, among those alternatives, theories of the origins of life within a naturalistic framework are the only theories that are, and can be, amenable to empirical investigation. Lastly, because all successful scientific theories rest upon a measure of assumption and rely upon inference, I would strike that portion. That said, no one should represent abiogenesis as a done deal, as you say, and I'm not aware of anyone who has. It is one of the great unsolved scientific questions of our lifetimes.
   
Quote
Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.

Please quote one person at AtBC stating that ID is impossible. I've certainly never said that, or anything resembling that, as I don't believe that.

What I do believe is that ID as currently formulated is inherently incapable of being cashed out scientifically. That is quite a different thing than being inherently impossible.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,14:20   

Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,16:08   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,16:18   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 24 2011,22:08)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

This! With added emphasis! And sprinklers on top!

ETA: louis, just once again take a look at my top sig. Just sayin'... :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,17:22   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,22:18)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 24 2011,22:08)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

This! With added emphasis! And sprinklers on top!

ETA: louis, just once again take a look at my top sig. Just sayin'... :)

Jesus loves you all. Just remember that.

The fact that Jesus is a large Mexican gentleman with a penchant for unwilling buggery is something that should perhaps concern you, other than that, you're all good.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,18:16   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 24 2011,16:08)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

A PotW would be appropriate though.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,19:41   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,05:03)
Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

You could have just said nothing at all and been just as meaningful. Clearly, you cannot answer me properly once I have dissected and blown away your bogus arguments.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,20:05   

Kris said
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.


What a delusion that is! Just like some (perhaps all) of religion itself is a delusion! Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind.

Science does well enough as it is. Concern trolls like Kris are liars, period.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,00:43   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,00:56   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague.  Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please?  Be specific.  More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:34   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,18:05)
Kris said
 
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.


What a delusion that is! Just like some (perhaps all) of religion itself is a delusion! Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind.

Science does well enough as it is. Concern trolls like Kris are liars, period.

If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

"Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind."

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind. Of course in your case, it's a lost cause.


You're dumber than a dog turd. And speaking of delusional....

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:45   

[quote=Kris,Jan. 25 2011,01:34][/quote]
Quote
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing.

As to your second question, it is baseless. Most people in modern industrial society support science AND believe in at least some religious myths. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

Quote

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind.


To those who are open-minded and not delusional, yes. But many people are not like that.

Got any more stupid questions?

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:50   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 23 2011,22:45)
I've got a bone for Kris to chew on.

(That's what ... never mind.)

Assume no fossil record.  All you've got are biological samples from thousands of organisms.  You have DNA sequences and protein sequences and you have figured out how DNA relates to proteins.  

Let's make it even worse.  You don't know anything about the organisms - no pictures, no nothing.  Just the molecular info.

With this information alone is it possible to derive a theory of evolution?

With this information alone, what can you figure out?

(To coin a phrase, I would call this the Venter Conjecture.  Mugs and t-shirts available on-line soon.)

Yes, it's possible to derive a theory of evolution. Anyone can derive a theory about anything. Would it be convincing to me? No, or at least not very.

At this time, little could be figured out in regard to proving evolution.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:55   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,17:41)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,05:03)
Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

You could have just said nothing at all and been just as meaningful. Clearly, you cannot answer me properly once I have dissected and blown away your bogus arguments.

Well, if anyone knows about blowing things, it's you.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,02:23   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 24 2011,11:47)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,09:41)
Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific.

What I am saying is a bit stronger than that. I'm saying that ID as currently conceived generates no testable hypotheses, and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research. Do you also agree with that? You come very close to asserting same when you say "Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible."

If so, as I said before, I'll bow out of further discussion of ID with you, as you and I would be in substantial agreement on that point, and I have no interest in the further topics of religion, peer review, scientific fraud and other peripheral issues you've raised, at least not given the eristic way in which you raise them.  

If not, it is incumbent upon you to propose (sketch) a conceptual framework and empirical approach by means of which ID may be subject to empirical test.
     
Quote
In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them.

What scientists and others cannot ignore are attempts to wedge ID into the science curricula of public schools, as was the case here in Ohio five years ago. What we also choose not to ignore is the persistent, deliberate distortion of the current state of evolutionary science promulgated by the DI, UD, and other advocates of ID.  
     
Quote
For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Most scientists would agree with aspects of this. However, abiogenesis is inherently an alternative to creation or design, and can't be represented as otherwise. Further, among those alternatives, theories of the origins of life within a naturalistic framework are the only theories that are, and can be, amenable to empirical investigation. Lastly, because all successful scientific theories rest upon a measure of assumption and rely upon inference, I would strike that portion. That said, no one should represent abiogenesis as a done deal, as you say, and I'm not aware of anyone who has. It is one of the great unsolved scientific questions of our lifetimes.
     
Quote
Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.

Please quote one person at AtBC stating that ID is impossible. I've certainly never said that, or anything resembling that, as I don't believe that.

What I do believe is that ID as currently formulated is inherently incapable of being cashed out scientifically. That is quite a different thing than being inherently impossible.

Like I've said, I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools, but I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?

Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible". Just look at the reception I get when I simply suggest that they are possible, or that a creator/designer is possible in some form, at some level, even when I suggest that it could have nothing to do with any religious beliefs the world has ever known and that it could be 'naturalistic'.  

For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,02:56   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,23:45)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,01:34)

   
Quote
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing.

As to your second question, it is baseless. Most people in modern industrial society support science AND believe in at least some religious myths. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

   
Quote

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind.


To those who are open-minded and not delusional, yes. But many people are not like that.

Got any more stupid questions?

"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.

Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,02:57   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:23)
Like I've said, I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools, but I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?

Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible". Just look at the reception I get when I simply suggest that they are possible, or that a creator/designer is possible in some form, at some level, even when I suggest that it could have nothing to do with any religious beliefs the world has ever known and that it could be 'naturalistic'.  

For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?



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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,03:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:56)
 
"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.
Exactly. Strange, that you state the blatantly obvious and think that's an argument against what we are doing here and at PT. Not at all.  
Quote


Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

Well, I DID ask for more stupid questions! Science is the foundation of our modern civilization, so we are surrounded by its products, including Coca-Cola.

Come back when you can organize your thoughts better.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:01   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 25 2011,01:22)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:56)
 
"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.
Exactly. Strange, that you state the blatantly obvious and think that's an argument against what we are doing here and at PT. Not at all.    
Quote


Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

Well, I DID ask for more stupid questions! Science is the foundation of our modern civilization, so we are surrounded by its products, including Coca-Cola.

Come back when you can organize your thoughts better.

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi. Do you really think that preaching to the choir here is going help make science more popular, and religion less popular?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:04   

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of hog hunting boy.  Do you really think that being a glory hole all-star is going to make Dale love you like you need him to and take away that icky sticky guilty feeling you get when you think about him?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:18   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:01)
[SNIP]

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi.

[SNIP]

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA

{chokes, breathes, vomits, breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  BWa BWa BWA BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A marketing stooge? Who the fuck wants to be a marketing stooge? Oh this explains so much about you, Kris.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:26   

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,22:56)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague.  Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please?  Be specific.  More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?


The MadPanda, FCD

Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!

"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"

You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:36   

krissy needs to read her signature line.

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:52   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,04:18)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:01)
[SNIP]

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi.

[SNIP]

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



HA

{chokes, breathes, vomits, breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  BWa BWa BWA BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A marketing stooge? Who the fuck wants to be a marketing stooge? Oh this explains so much about you, Kris.

Louis

No wonder religion is far more popular than science.

By the way, you are a "marketing stooge" and you're not even being paid for it. You're on a public website that can potentially be accessed by a lot of people. Every time you promote science or bash religion you are doing marketing, and it doesn't matter if anyone is actually looking at what you say. Lots of people ignore TV commercials or signs but those are still marketing.

Why do you come here and make comments in defense of science and to denigrate religion? Do you just want to preach to the choir and be part of a gang, or do you hope that visitors to this site will or might be swayed toward science and away from religion by what you say here? Do you really think that you're going to win the so-called 'war' against religious zealots by believing that science doesn't need to be popular to the masses, like religion is?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:16   

Kris, why do you come here at all?

Nobody gives a shit about your antics, you are unable to correctly answer the simplest of questions, and are spewing more bullshit than a Texas ranch.

So I will finaly give you what you crave for: nobody here likes you, nobody here gives a fuck about your concern trolling, and the sooner you die, the better for the world.

There! now you can copy/paste this as much as you want on creosites to show how those evil science proponents are big meanies.

Go fuck yourself with a chainsam! You're not even funny anymore.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:25   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:52)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,04:18)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:01)
[SNIP]

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi.

[SNIP]

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




HA

{chokes, breathes, vomits, breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  BWa BWa BWA BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A marketing stooge? Who the fuck wants to be a marketing stooge? Oh this explains so much about you, Kris.

Louis

No wonder religion is far more popular than science.

By the way, you are a "marketing stooge" and you're not even being paid for it. You're on a public website that can potentially be accessed by a lot of people. Every time you promote science or bash religion you are doing marketing, and it doesn't matter if anyone is actually looking at what you say. Lots of people ignore TV commercials or signs but those are still marketing.

Why do you come here and make comments in defense of science and to denigrate religion? Do you just want to preach to the choir and be part of a gang, or do you hope that visitors to this site will or might be swayed toward science and away from religion by what you say here? Do you really think that you're going to win the so-called 'war' against religious zealots by believing that science doesn't need to be popular to the masses, like religion is?

Denigrate religion? Please.

You haven't even established this is occuring, you've merely asserted it without basis in fact. And even if you do manage to dredge up a quote or two you are ignoring two key things a) Not all the views expressed at, say, Pharyngula or PT or here or wherever are binding on all commenters (I, for example, disagree strongly with a couple of regulars here about the reach and remit of rational enquiry, one of the few genuinely thought provoking conversations I've found on the web), b) you are assuming motivations exist and a particular conflict exists in the way you claim it does. You are framing things the way you want to frame them, not necessarily how they demonstrably are. Clarity will not result.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about, and as previously suspected, you're trolling for kicks. Do you seriously think that "science" is less "popular" than "religion" because of some MARKETING strategy? You haven't even defined those terms or even demonstrated that this is the case (and let's be blunt, it isn't the case. You're effectively ignoring the social environment entirely). Not only that, you're setting up a false dichotomy. It's like I said, Kris, you're demonstrably too ignorant of the subject matter and you're just pulling things out of your arse. THIS is why you get mocked btw.

I'm not in any "war" against religious zealots, in fact I think that's the wrong way to view the whole situation. The contention that exists is a philosophical one, it's about epistemology, the fact that religious ideas tend to fall to one end of a particular epistemological continuum is no more significant than the fact that ideas about homeopathy do.

Kris you are projecting your ignorance and views about the world onto others. You are making baseless assertions because you are butthurt about Teh Scientists Being Mean On Teh Intarwebz. No one cares. What might work to help YOU might not work for someone else. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand techniques for talking to others about any topic exist. I don't scream and rant at Grammaw because it won't work, I migth scream at rant at someone else for whom it might work (although thinking about this, it is rare), and I'll take the piss out of people like you because they are beyond rational engagement. You've been given umpteen opportunities to demonstrate your point now, and you have yet to take them, focussing instead on the butthurtedness you feel inside. Awww poor marketing fuckwit.

And no, not every conversation is a marketing opportunity, sorry. Your ability to define and divine the purpose of anyone else's actions is severly attenuated. Our motives, my motives and your motives may be different. Think about that.

Why not, instead of whining about your butthurtedness, actually try to have a conversation about your claims in which you support them with something other than assertion. Let me guess, it's because you can't, right?

So nice try troll, but every time you poke your head out it gets taken off. Isn't that an effective image to send? People might complain about the method, but they still get the image of you flailing about headless every time you try to make an argument. Tchoh, it almost seems like you know fuck all about marketing as well as, well, everything else.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,03:23)
I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?

So far as I can discern, your position is "I've never said ID/creation is science or scientific, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that it isn't science or scientific." IOW, you don't have a position, or if you do, you don't wish to disclose it, and instead prefer to equivocate.  
   
Quote
I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions

With which contentions do you agree, with which do you disagree, and vis which do you have no opinion?
   
Quote
Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible".

Would you please quote a participant at AtBC speaking "as though" creation and/or ID are impossible? In my experience, most here have argued not that ID is impossible, but that ID/creation are incapable of scientific investigation, and are therefore not science, a distinction to which you don't seem prepared to address yourself. That is certainly my position. Moreover, it is my position that ID won't be repaired by time or further discoveries due to conceptual flaws inherent to the position.
   
Quote
I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools...

Your assertion was that scientists should remain silent on ID/creation. Given that you don't condone the teaching of ID in public school science classes, do you maintain that scientists should remain silent when attempts are made to insert ID into public science classrooms? Or do you now agree that it is appropriate for scientists to vocally oppose attempts to insert ID into public school curricula?

My position, and that of most participants here, is that ID is not science, and therefore should not be taught in public school science classrooms. It follows that when efforts are made to do same, they are rightly vigorously opposed.
   
Quote
For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?

You have no idea whether a creator/designer exists ("for all any of us know"). Having established that, you are now going to embark on an investigation into where it came from. There may be aspects that could someday be "naturalistic," but you are unwilling to take a stand on whether and how the conceptual and empirical tools of science can be brought to bear on the question.

Good luck with that.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:47   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,13:16)
Kris, why do you come here at all?

Nobody gives a shit about your antics, you are unable to correctly answer the simplest of questions, and are spewing more bullshit than a Texas ranch.

So I will finaly give you what you crave for: nobody here likes you, nobody here gives a fuck about your concern trolling, and the sooner you die, the better for the world.

There! now you can copy/paste this as much as you want on creosites to show how those evil science proponents are big meanies.

Go fuck yourself with a chainsam! You're not even funny anymore.

I don't dislike Kris, I don't know him. He's just a rectal itch on the internet, worth nothing more than the time I wish to waste on replying to his inanities. I certainly don't wish him (or anyone) harm or death and I know for a fact you don't either (hence why I know you are exaggerating for comedy effect).

Kris is an internet troll at best (this way at least he knows what he is doing and has some potential for intellectual redemption) and is a moron at worst (hopeless). I bear the cat no ill will but I reserve the right to mock the living shit out of him for prancing merrily into the room and acting like a total dough-heed. But I am not going to wish him harm or a rapid exit from this world, however humorously.

Kris is VERY VERY CONCERNED and VERY VERY BUTTHURT about TEH MEANNESS. So much so that his confused little spiels are merely endless repetitions of the same assertions and creationist tropes. "I'm all about Teh Scienz" sez Kwis....yeah, right. Course you are mate. Whatever you say (insert eyeroll here). The muppet can barely spell the word, let alone understand it. Kris is a troll of very little brain. How do I know? He hasn't managed to understand that IF he wants to have a serious conversation (a thing he claims to desire, after all he is laying on his fainting couch with the smelling salts DEMANDING people be nice, oh if only they'd be nice then we could all have such nice conversations) then all he has to do is have one.

But you see he doesn't want one, he wants to whine and chuck kiddy fits because people are MEAN to him. HIM! The Chosen One! The One Who Has Come To Speak Truth To The Meanies! We should all bow before him and his Magnificent Marketing Strategy because being rude and fucking obnoxious to people never convinces them. This is why he is being so rude and obnoxious, he thinks it will convince us....oh wait....is there something wrong with Kris's claims and methods? Oh why yes there is.

The kid's a moron. This is AtBC's Tom Johnson of the moment. If Kris wants to discuss strategy, tactics, science communication, the apparent "conflict" between science and religion etc etc then he is welcome to do so. Like I said though, he doesn't want that and it's manifestly obvious he doesn't. He wants to vent and project his motives and his ignorance. He'll go away after a while.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,04:22)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,06:12)
It's my 'opinion' that science, scientists, and science supporters should be open to things that are possible. A creator/designer of some sort, at some level, is possible.

And so is the flying spagetti monster. So what?

Science should only be concerned with things that can be tested, not with what is "possible".
   
Quote
Ya know, for all any of us know, we and our universe could be an experiment in a test tube in a lab somewhere. Far fetched? Yeah, to most people. Impossible? No. Any evidence of it? No. Could there ever be any evidence of it? Who knows?

How's the light in your cardboard pyramid?
   
Quote
Regarding ID being religious: Maybe a new term should be created to describe the ID-ists and or creationists who you guys and gals have such a problem with.

Maybe it should, why don't you go ask the posters at uncommondescent about it?
   
Quote
Something to separate them from all the benign ID or creation believers. How about this for the extreme ones: PMPRZWWTDTW (Politically Minded Pushy Religious Zealots Who Want To Dominate The World)?

I can't speak for everybody here, but to my mind the main "problem" with the ID crowd is their desire to teach their bullshit in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Read the transcripts.
   
Quote
Splitting them instead of lumping them might make religion bashers look more reasonable and it might not piss off the people who believe in creation and/or design, or just think they're a possibility, but don't want to be lumped with the more extreme religious zealots.

People can believe what they want, but if they try and teach their beliefs in school then many many rational people will have a problem with that.

Do you?

"Science should only be concerned with things that can be tested, not with what is "possible"."

How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested? Do all scientific tests produce results that were predicted, or predictable? Are no scientific tests, that are or were ever done, simply exploratory in nature? Are there never any surprises in science? Do all scientists agree on what is possible, and impossible? Do all scientists agree on what is testable, or not testable? Has science already invented every possible test for every possible thing in the universe or on Earth?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:56   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,07:47)

How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested?

How can you know unless you try and test it? If you can't think of a way to test your idea then you need to reconsider if it's scientific in nature or not. I'd say. If the answer was known in advance you'd have no need to attempt to test it would you? Duh.
Perhaps this will help
   
Quote
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Clear? Testing = prediction = consequence. Rinse and repeat.
   
Quote
Do all scientific tests produce results that were predicted, or predictable?

If you always got the result you predicted, why do the test at all?
   
Quote
Are no scientific tests, that are or were ever done, simply exploratory in nature?

Why are you asking me? I thought you claimed to know something about this?
   
Quote
Are there never any surprises in science?

All the time. The only place there are no surprises is religion. Static, unchanging. Boring.
   
Quote
Do all scientists agree on what is possible, and impossible?

Of course not.
   
Quote
Has science already invented every possible test for every possible thing in the universe or on Earth?

It's amazing that you think you can ask questions when you have ignored the majority of questions addressed to you.

If you'd like to have an actual conversation about this sort of thing then I would suggest you re-register under a new user name and start over without the attitude.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:58   

Hark at Kris, wanting to talk about the scientific method of all things. The TARD is strong in this one.

Hey, Kris, go apply the same logic to the folks at UD. Go ask them about their predictions regarding what we'd find if ID were true.

You'll find that their "predictions" are based on facts known at the time they made their predictions, and so they are not predictions at all.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:00   

Quote
How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested?


Well, Fuckface (hey, new nickname for you, but your stupidity deserves abuse), In order to know that, science has to test it. Right with you so far.

ID/Creationism has been around for a veeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy long time, and yet it's still untestable. Wishing it could be doesn't mean it will. It just means the greedy bastards using it to pulp the cash out of credulous morons are getting fuller pockets while said morons are cradling a fairytale.

Not much to do about that, except making sure these crackpots stay out of the school system.

So, who has to test the ID/creation "hypothesis"? Mainstream scientists, or the few rags who proposed it in the first place?

ID/Creationism is fine, takes many to make a world, but leave it the fuck out of schools or be prepared to get attcked and insulted, which is all you deserve!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:09   

Kris is one of those confused people who thinks his ignorance is somehow significant in terms of evidence. What he fails to appreciate is that his ignorance IS significant, just not in the way he thinks it is.

This part of Kris' schtick can be summed up as "I don't know, therefore know one knows and furthermore no one can know because I am too thick to find out for myself". Look out for it. It's common trope amongst the truly intellectually lazy and dishonest. Especially the ones with a really massive ego and sense of undeserved entitlement like Kris.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
piltdown



Posts: 1
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:26   

Dear National Science Foundation,

I respectfully request a grant in the amount of $50,000  for the proposed Do Science research program outlined below.

I am open-minded, I do good science.

I won't say I do or don't believe, but am open to the possibility that, at some level, or in some form, some sort of It is. (Though it may all be a just a dream in a dream in a dream in a dream. Far-fetched? perhaps, but not impossible.)

Could there be any evidence? Who knows; there will always be questions that can't be answered completely.

Rest assured that I will be very silent and will not propose any suggestions, speculations, inferences, hypotheses, or theories; or claim that it is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative, or a fact, or parsimonious; or assert or imply in any way that it is a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions.

I will only say I'm working on figuring out how and I don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Twenties would be quite acceptable.

Thank you for your consideration,

Scientist.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:26   

The shorter Kwis:

Louis:  I fink we're gonna get a touch of the Andy Cain in the A.M., know what I mean, mate?

S.Dog:  Old Greek saying, Louis, "rain at night, [greek]fish[/greek] don't bite."  Diogenes.

Doc Bill:  That's what she said!

Kwis:  Weathermen suck!

All:  What?

Kwis:  Are you saying that ALL weathermen are perfect?  Are you saying that ALL weathermen have PhD's?  Are you saying that weather "science" is 100 percent accurate?  Screw you Dale!

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:31   

Kris,

How about you explain the scientific method in your own words so that we know you understand it.

Then, I would like you to give three examples of you using the scientific method in your everyday life.

Yes, this is a teaching moment and this is one way I taught my students.  So, please show us you are worthy of even consideration.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:52   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,01:34)
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?


The answers are similar for both your questions: because teaching and learning science isn't the same thing as practicing science and the institution of science itself. In other words, the reason this site exists is to combat misinformation regarding the teaching and learning of science. Similarly, the reason that more people believe religious myths than engage in science is because it's a heck of a lot easier believing in myths, superstitions, and the promise of an afterlife than actually learning and doing science.

ETA:

Science is hard, "Kris". It requires actual work. It requires collaboration, research, analysis, trial and error, and (in many ways most importantly) a humbleness and willingness to be wrong and disappointed. In contrast, believing a myth is ridiculously easy and fulfilling.

It takes real strength and integrity to try and discover how the world actually is and face that, rather than pretending that the world is something you imagine it might be.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2094
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,09:15   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 25 2011,06:26)
The shorter Kwis:

Louis:  I fink we're gonna get a touch of the Andy Cain in the A.M., know what I mean, mate?

S.Dog:  Old Greek saying, Louis, "rain at night, [greek]fish[/greek] don't bite."  Diogenes.

Doc Bill:  That's what she said!

Kwis:  Weathermen suck!

All:  What?

Kwis:  Are you saying that ALL weathermen are perfect?  Are you saying that ALL weathermen have PhD's?  Are you saying that weather "science" is 100 percent accurate?  Screw you Dale!

Whoa! You're channelling k.e., there, DocBill.
Beautifully surreal. Nice work.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:49   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,06:26)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,22:56)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague.  Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please?  Be specific.  More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?


The MadPanda, FCD

Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!

"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"

You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.

Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper.  You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass.  I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Instead, you respond with abuse, sarcasm, bullshit, and more dodging.

"Lying hypocritical scumwad" is not strong enough for you.

You make Biggy look rational.  Now go fuck yourself anally with a dead porcupine and take your dumbass little crybaby fucktard bullshit somewhere else.

I'm done.  This muppet's a waste of effort.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:52   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,11:49)
Quote
Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper.  You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass.  I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Instead, you respond with abuse, sarcasm, bullshit, and more dodging.

"Lying hypocritical scumwad" is not strong enough for you.

You make Biggy look rational.  Now go fuck yourself anally with a dead porcupine and take your dumbass little crybaby fucktard bullshit somewhere else.

I'm done.  This muppet's a waste of effort.


The MadPanda, FCD

I think I'm in love.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:55   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,10:52)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:49)
Quote
Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper.  You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass.  I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Instead, you respond with abuse, sarcasm, bullshit, and more dodging.

"Lying hypocritical scumwad" is not strong enough for you.

You make Biggy look rational.  Now go fuck yourself anally with a dead porcupine and take your dumbass little crybaby fucktard bullshit somewhere else.

I'm done.  This muppet's a waste of effort.


The MadPanda, FCD

I think I'm in love.

I'll warn Mrs. MP, then...   :D


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,11:23   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 23 2011,10:29)
[quote=jeannot,Jan. 22 2011,07:08]
Ravi de te revoir! Et comment va?

It's not a fact; it's just a theory!*


*I know its old material but things are quiet around here these days.

Happy to see you too Alan.
Ça va bien. Still in Languedoc.

  
Cubist



Posts: 346
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,11:54   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,07:47)
How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested?
'Always'? It can't. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Do all scientific tests produce results that were predicted, or predictable?
'Always'? No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Are no scientific tests, that are or were ever done, simply exploratory in nature?
There are, have been, and will be, plenty of such tests. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Are there never any surprises in science?
Surprises are far from unheard-of is science. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Do all scientists agree on what is possible, and impossible?
No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Do all scientists agree on what is testable, or not testable?
No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Has science already invented every possible test for every possible thing in the universe or on Earth?
No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,11:57   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,10:49)

Quote
...you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.


"Dog pizzle...whoa!!"

Now, now! Careful there Panda...there are roolz of edikate on these here boards.





...dog pizzle...man...that's just...I can't stop laughing! That and dead porcupines (ooohh...owwww!) and such!

Ooh...gotta breath...gotta breath...lol!

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:05   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 25 2011,11:57)
[quote=MadPanda, FCD,Jan. 25 2011,10:49][/quote]
Quote
...you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.


"Dog pizzle...whoa!!"

Now, now! Careful there Panda...there are roolz of edikate on these here boards.





...dog pizzle...man...that's just...I can't stop laughing! That and dead porcupines (ooohh...owwww!) and such!

Ooh...gotta breath...gotta breath...lol!

Wait 'til I really get going!  (/Vizzini)

I prefer to reserve my talents in such matters for truly deserving targets, rather than the insipid waste of potential who keeps pulling on a shoe and dramatically announcing to all and sundry that it fits his foot perfectly.

This was a real-life application of the BF&I Rule, which accepts that after fifteen minutes of unsuccessful lockpicking even the most accomplished master thief will be overheard saying "oh, let's just break the @#$%er thing down".  Kind of like using reason and logic on Biggy.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:30   

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,08:49)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,06:26)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,22:56)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague.  Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please?  Be specific.  More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?


The MadPanda, FCD

Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!

"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"

You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.

Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper.  You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass.  I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Instead, you respond with abuse, sarcasm, bullshit, and more dodging.

"Lying hypocritical scumwad" is not strong enough for you.

You make Biggy look rational.  Now go fuck yourself anally with a dead porcupine and take your dumbass little crybaby fucktard bullshit somewhere else.

I'm done.  This muppet's a waste of effort.


The MadPanda, FCD

How polite of you.

Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension. That's one of the biggest problems you all have. You misinterpret much of what I say and you read things into what I've said that I never actually said or implied. Hmm, why do you do that? Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:39   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:30)
How polite of you.

Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension. That's one of the biggest problems you all have. You misinterpret much of what I say and you read things into what I've said that I never actually said or implied. Hmm, why do you do that? Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

Or maybe because you are very, very careful never to actually say anything that could be taken as a position one way or another.

Only thing worse than a hypocrite is a chicken who won't take a stand.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,12:55   

Quote
Or maybe because you are very, very careful never to actually say anything that could be taken as a position one way or another.

Only thing worse than a hypocrite is a chicken who won't take a stand.


Let the troll get his kick-in. He probably thinks he's found the ultimate loophole in interwebs reasoning. The schumck* is pathetic!





*Sorry schumcks everywhere, didn't mean to offend.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,13:21   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:30)
Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

Just because somebody is not your enemy does not automatically mean you want them to be your friend.

If that person, for example, was a right dick then perhaps you'd not want to hang around with them.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,14:02   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,19:21)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:30)
Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

Just because somebody is not your enemy does not automatically mean you want them to be your friend.

If that person, for example, was a right dick then perhaps you'd not want to hang around with them.

Quote
If that person, for example, was a right dick then perhaps you'd not want to hang around with them.


Is there a slight hint aimed at Kris there?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,14:58   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:30)
How polite of you.


Dude, you got the Dog Pizzle title now. I'm sorry, but nothing you say at this point can be taken seriously. LOL!


Quote
Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension.


(sigh) If you really meant "claims" and not "bodies of theories", then you weren't talking about science there, D P. Yet another example that you aren't actually a scientist.

See...that you don't happen to find some claims made by some people who happen to be scientists in their day (or night) job isn't even worth an announcement in the Virgin Island Daily News. Why? Because claims are nie unto opinions and they don't carry any actual scientific weight. They don't. Period.

Unless you have a beef with an actual element of science, you're just pissing in the wind.

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

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,17:03   

I gotta hand it to you guys....You frikken make me laugh!  I've been heads down finishing a design for a client...took my first break in a week or so...and thought I'd pop in here...

I about pissed my pants....Not many sites issue the smack-down like the one you get here for being bat-shit ignorant and stupid.

I love you guys!

Kris,

Quit while you're......oh, wait.....yeah,...your not.... Oh, never mind.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,17:19   

Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 25 2011,17:03)
Quit while you're......oh, wait.....yeah,...your not.... Oh, never mind.


First rule of trolling:  "It doesn't matter if you cannot score.  If you don't concede defeat, you don't lose."