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 >  
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: 1387
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: 3314
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: 1487
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: 4244
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: 3314
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: 1387
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: 4244
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: 3044
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: 3044
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: 3314
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: 309
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: 3044
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: 2259
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: 3314
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: 309
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: 3314
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

   
  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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