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 >  
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.

  
  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]