RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,00:05   

I stopped posting at UC when Dave was put in charge and I won't post there again until he is removed as the big cheese. I support ID but putting Dave Scot in charge of UC was not a very good move. I understand the reason for Dembski doing it. He would like to have a non religious person be a spokesman for ID to counter criticism that ID is religiously based.

But in choosing a person like Dave Scot (who is childish, crude, quick to anger, egotistic, arrogant and confused) Dembski has made a mistake.

For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?

I feel it is extremely foolish to try and present ID divorced from reference to a God figure as part of the paradigm. The people who do that look like they are trying to con people. There is no need to try and pretend that ID isn't about God. No one believes it anyways, unless you are a confused person like Dave Scot.

Almost all proponents of ID believe that a God built all life. An extremely tiny minority believe in guided evolution. Dave Scot is part of the extremely tiny minority even though he claims to be an agnostic. Confused our poor Dave Scot is. If you believe evolution is guided by an intelligence then how can you possible be an agnostic? What is that intelligence if not a God? And Dembski put that guy in charge of his blog? I know Dembski doesn't believe in what Dave Scot believes in, but if he thinks that by putting out front a non religious face to represent ID will aid in the appreciation of ID, he is sadly mistaken.

People like Dave Scot who claim to believe in guided evolution have to answer a big question. If God or the intelligent whatever could guide evolution to get the desired life forms, then why couldn't God have skipped the billions of years of evolution and just created the life forms without evolution?

Anyways, ID proponents should quit being such pussies when it comes to being upfront with what they believe. ID is about a God paradigm. It's not about anything else.

I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

I belong to the second group. I wish the people in the first group would grow up and quit trying to please everybody all of the time. Stand up and be proud, don't hide behind rhetorical mind games and mental cases like Dave Scot. Your every move is transparent. Be loud and proud, if your agenda was purely scientific then you wouldn't think you have to con people. I am 100% against the agenda of those controlled and paid by the Christian reactionary elements in society.

As long as ID is represented in the public mind with Chrisitan reactionary elements it will be mindlessly fought against on political grounds i.e the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Putting up angry confused confrontational arrogant rude  Dave Scot types as your representative is not going to help.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,00:32   

LOL this one is funny.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/700#more-700

Dave Scot is giving a free lesson for Wesley in how to do science.

Bang goes another irony meter.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,00:46   

Zardoz,
ID has been very, very good to W. Dembski.

My opinion about the ID movement is low. The reason they do not want to mention religion is that they want ID taught in a science class.

In the meantime, a few of them are making pretty good cash from books and appearances. So much so that I can only assume they are too busy to actually be doing any scientific experiments.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4377
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,01:32   

Well, "DaveScot" does come close to an insight in his rant. I really could not care less about whether someone who has proved themselves worthy of an IP ban has read access to the site. And so while I could, if i had anything besides velleity for this project, have a look at the source and figure out what it is doing, but it simply isn't worth my time. My only concern would be whether the IP ban code is effective. That experiment has been run, and "DaveScot" has confirmed that the result is positive.

I'm puzzled, though, at why I would care what Dell does in their hiring. Last I heard, they didn't have dolphins or whales available for research. Those who are interested can have a look at The Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 3829-3841 (2001), for a report of a project that I contributed computer hardware and software support to.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2006,07:38

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

    
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,01:39   

Hang on if Dave Scot is banned here to the extent that the can't read this forum - how was he able to paste Wesley's explanation into his UP thread?

I love his Tagline - "Fair Warning - comments may be moderated" - I imagine him saying it in a 'Dalek' voice.

A fairer warning would be to list the topics and opinions that will get you 'moderated' - over and above the good manners etc rules that most boards have.

I suppose the list would be too long, and hard for DaveScot to maintain since it seems to be constantly growing.?

Is there a name for this particular pathology?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,02:16   

Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:35   

Quote
I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

Sounds very simple, but by observation it doesn't work that way. ALL anti-evolution people, as far as I can tell, find the fact of evolution (as opposed to the proposed mechanisms by which it works) an intolerable affront to their pride. Kind of like overweight people rejecting gravity as a scientific fraud because the alternative is to admit what they really don't want to.

Among the fact-rejecting crowd, the associated motivations seem fairly spread around, not binomial as Zardoz argues. Some are trying to trick a pro-reality system into teaching superstition in science class because they Believe, and want everyone else to. Others consider this dishonest, and instead want to preach against reality on straight religious grounds. Some wish to attain political power sufficient to use civil authority to *coerce* behavior according to their faith. Others are convinced that simply abandoning rationality will be sufficient to guide behavior. Some seek to discover their god hiding somewhere in reality by searching for places where He screwed up and failed to cover His tracks. Others reject this in favor of seeing the Hand Of God guiding every...well, they all have different levels of granularity on this. A few even seem to believe that predictable, natural processes are themselves guided, while others recognize that if this is true, layering on some Guider is superfluous and clumsy.

Essentially, what Zardoz is preaching here is PURE blindness, and he's offended that people like DaveScot give the impression of peeking every now and then. Peeking is a giveaway of confusion. REAL Believers don't do it.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:46   

Zardoz said:
Quote
For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?
But Zardoz, doesn't Dembski hisself say it's not necessarily god?:

Quote
Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.

For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn’t mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:53   

A ...nice...analogy from DaveScot:

Quote
#

Saxe

I read the Worldmag article you linked. It was kind of tedious and off topic until the end. Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining. That caught me off guard too. Dembski has a PhD in the philosophy of science, interestingly enough. So WTF are scientists doing telling him what is and isn’t science? That’s like foxes telling farmers how to build chicken coops, isn’t it?

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Comment by DaveScot — January 24, 2006 @ 1:57 am
Lol.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,03:56   

btw, i just went to Uncommon Pissant, and the top 5 posts have 0 comments each. I'm sure it's just because they're new, but for a second I thought, "Has he done it? Has he finally banned everyone?"

   
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,04:01   

Why is DaveScot linking to this editorial from the Daily Herald? It's not helping his case.

Quote
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
In our view: Confusing religion with science

To listen to some senators in the Utah Legislature, schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in a strange religion. It is called science, and some senators believe they have the antidote.

Senate Bill 96, sponsored by Sen. D. Chris Buttars, passed on Monday and now moves to the House, where it is being sponsored by Rep. Jim Ferrin of Orem. The bill would require science teachers to tell students that there are several theories on the origin of life.

While the bill does not mention "intelligent design," "divine design" or any other euphemism for creationism by name, the implications are clear: A number of legislators want to push religion into the public schools by force of law. Among those voting for the bill were Parley Hellewell, Curtis Bramble, Mark Madsen and John Valentine.

The fig leaf that provides cover for a legislative enactment of religion in Utah is the notion that teachers impose speculative secular views on students and need to be ordered how by the legislature how to teach. Bramble even goes so far as to suggest that the body of scientific ideas concerning the origin of life and the nature of humanity represents a religion of its own, unsupported by fact, and so it's fair to enact law that forces faith-based views into the classroom. In weighing unprovable concepts, why should our children be fed only secular views that are no more valid than faith?

"Sen. Buttars's bill is only asking that teachers not impose their religious beliefs in this theory on him or upon others, especially upon those who rely on these same teachers to tell them the absolute truth," Sen. Allen M. Christensen, R-North Ogden, said during debate. He also dropped this revealing phrase: "It falls to us as legislators to ensure the truth is taught."

While we understand the lure of symbolic legislation in a state largely populated by religious conservatives, we had hoped our senators might have been a little more circumspect. S.B. 96 (see accompanying text), wants to control instruction concerning "origins of life." Oddly, it is laced with the word "theory." Some form of the "theory" appears in virtually every governing sentence of the bill, sometimes more than once.

The trouble is that there is no scientific theory on the origin of life. There is only speculation, which is something else altogether. A theory arises from a set of observable facts that support one another and suggest a possible cause. Speculation, on the other hand, is based on nothing. It is pure conjecture.

We could end the discussion right here and say that S.B. 96 may be nothing but unenforceable nonsense, since the public schools couldn't discuss an actual theory of the origins of life if they wanted to. None seem to exist. The chemical composition of living things is well established, but what makes them come to life remains a mystery.

And yet in S.B. 96 the Senate suggests that there are current scientific theories (note the plural noun) that deserve a full and fair vetting in the course of a science class. Bombarded by multiple theories about the origins of life, children might become confused about "absolute truth," to use Christensen's phrase. So S.B. 96 orders the public schools to "stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life ... is correct."

Only Utah's Legislature could come up with such an Aristotelian conundrum. We therefore invite our senators to elaborate on any of the genuine "theories" to which this bill refers. The Herald will provide space on this page for the effort. Please list in detail the scientific observations and measurements that support any, or all, of the theories to which your bill makes reference. We're ready to be enlightened.

Without such guidance, we will continue to be disappointed that our senators passed a bill forcing teachers to combine faith and genuine scientific theory in the public school curriculum.

The dictionary reports that the word "religion" is associated with "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." We think the government would be wise to stay out of this. Unfortunately, S.B. 96 nudges God into science class, using code words like "theory," as though one's belief in God were as externally valid as any scientific pursuit. But the proposition that God exists, that he created the universe and gave life to man is not a theory -- it is faith. It may be true, but it is not science. Misapplying scientific words to what amounts to a faith-based argument is ultimately not constructive. It is dishonest.

While many people believe they have empirical evidence for their faith, the standard of measurement is purely personal, not scientific. That is why there is so much disagreement in the world over religion. That is why James Madison argued so eloquently to keep religious doctrines out of secular laws. And that is why a new government in Iraq that is based on religion is likely to fail.

Other language in S.B. 96 is perhaps more troubling than the overt reference to theories about the origins of life. The bill ambiguously directs schools to present alternatives to what it calls "the origins or present state of the human race." Any attempt to find a concrete meaning in this semantic mush is difficult, but we can clearly see the intent -- and the danger. Buttars and his Senate colleagues want to push creationism into the public school curriculum. In truth, this is an attempt to insert a state-endorsed brand of religion into secular life.

Masquerading as a way to balance the curriculum (as though this were really needed in Utah), S.B. 96 enshrines psuedo-science in law. This is wrong. Decisions on curriculum should be left in the hands of professionals charged with oversight of the schools, not seized by a group of part-time politicians who attempt to think deep thoughts once a year.

Mostly, however, we believe all this is a colossal waste of time. Our legislators should spend their limited days on Capitol Hill doing something that will make a real difference to Utah.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:01   

Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:18   

Looks like those who do not wish to join the ID cult of conformity are now posting in coded language to air their concerns.

I wish you could download a decoder ring.  Doing the old fashioned way is time consuming....

I wonder if some of them will ban together and start meeting in secret?


Quote
Shane Was all..
Hy Dv, hvn’t sn wht thy’r syng nd dn’t ntnd t, bt s smn wh’s prtty pr D, wld pprct rthnk f yr mdrtn hr. Prhps jst lvng t ll t smn ls wld b bst. Th sgnl t ns rt hr hs chngd snc y’v bn mdrtng, nd ’m srt trng hrng bt y ll th tm nd sng thrs cmpln bt yr mdrtn, r y tllng s thy r. ’v bn n yr shs bfr, s knw wht’s t lk, trst m. thnk t’s bst y stp rght bck r stp t fr whl nd lt thngs cl dwn.

nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.

Comment by Shane — January 23, 2006 @ 5:24 pm


--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Charliecrs



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:41   

Keiths -  wanted to ask ya question b4 you were booted from "UC" what is the main reason (if not more) [evidence / fact / logic ] , that has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is a fact ?. Perhaps is the reason pending ?.

Given [fine print] : Evolutions is a well documented and established fact.
The majority of scientist world wide accept evolution as is, unquestioned solid as rock fact.
Real scientists do not question Darwin.


Is it because you belive or accept / know the following ?


- the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
 overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?

- came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible      believers thought it was ?

- because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ?
therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?

-  because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ?
and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?

- was visited by the ghost of Caption Piccard and Eugenie scott, instead of the traditional ghost of Christmas past ?.

Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.
----------------------
"You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion"

Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot. Funny am i missing the irony ?.

Charlie

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:43   

I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer. I don't think the argument holds up very well under scrutiny, but it's not completely untenable on its face, and a lot of folks who favor the argument are not motivated to scrutinize it very deeply.

It's important to a lot of Believers that science at least not rule out their concept of God, if not necessarily prove it. And let's face it: the generally scientifically accepted version of evolution does, in fact, rule out certain concepts of God. A subpopulation of ID advocates would be happy enough with a version of science that requires some conscious intelligence without specifying it.

Based on my experience at the local level, most "ID" advocates are really old-fashioned creationists who occupy a spectrum ranging from those who actually want the biblical scenario in the curriculum to those who merely want it not ruled out.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:53   

Charlie, I've seen a lot of creationists with bad grammar and punctuation and spelling, but I've never seen anyone who put periods after question marks. What's up with that?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2006,09:53)
Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining.

It doesn't get better than that line.

Maybe someone should go onto UD and ask how these 'philosophers'' decisions would be enforced? Jail time for scientists who persisted in practicing science without a license?

Amusing how it now seems to be a fad for the Fundies to rebrand themselves as 'philosphers'. Everyone likes philosophers, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:57   

Quote (Renier @ Jan. 24 2006,08:16)
Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.

Am I wrong or does a totally anonymous proxy enable someone to bypass an ip ban?

As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD. In fact he likes to compare his views with those of Michael Behe who has also said something or another in favor of common descent.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:04   

"Fair Warning: Comments Commenters may be moderated obliterated."

:p

By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:07   

Quote (Ved @ Jan. 24 2006,12:04)
By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!

I think the appropriate term is 'refugee'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Charliecrs



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:10   

Lol Steve - but im not a creationist so what more can i say there. I do however like ID- so i thought i could have some fun here. Now please do start giving me the 411 about what i belive in, what color my hair is or what i eat 4 breakfast.

Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:11   

Quote (Flint @ Jan. 24 2006,09:35)
Quote
I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

Sounds very simple, but by observation it doesn't work that way. ALL anti-evolution people, as far as I can tell, find the fact of evolution (as opposed to the proposed mechanisms by which it works) an intolerable affront to their pride. Kind of like overweight people rejecting gravity as a scientific fraud because the alternative is to admit what they really don't want to.


I don't know what you mean by "affront to pride". For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.

Quote
Among the fact-rejecting crowd, the associated motivations seem fairly spread around, not binomial as Zardoz argues. Some are trying to trick a pro-reality system into teaching superstition in science class because they Believe, and want everyone else to. Others consider this dishonest, and instead want to preach against reality on straight religious grounds. Some wish to attain political power sufficient to use civil authority to *coerce* behavior according to their faith. Others are convinced that simply abandoning rationality will be sufficient to guide behavior. Some seek to discover their god hiding somewhere in reality by searching for places where He screwed up and failed to cover His tracks. Others reject this in favor of seeing the Hand Of God guiding every...well, they all have different levels of granularity on this. A few even seem to believe that predictable, natural processes are themselves guided, while others recognize that if this is true, layering on some Guider is superfluous and clumsy.


All of those reasons fall under what I wrote i.e political/personal, it was meant to include any type of religious or social or political motivation.

Quote
Essentially, what Zardoz is preaching here is PURE blindness, and he's offended that people like DaveScot give the impression of peeking every now and then. Peeking is a giveaway of confusion. REAL Believers don't do it.


What do you mean?

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:25   

RE: "open discussion"
Quote
Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot.

Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p


Arden: 'refugee', check!

  
Charliecrs



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:30   

Just joined to ask Kethis a question that i didnt get to ask b4 he got axed. So will the *real* Kethis please stand up ?

"Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p"

- wonder how long thats going to last though, cux i do have the habbit of mouthing while trying to do it politely lol :) :) :)

Charlie.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:33   

One of the latest posts: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/701

This must be a joke. IIRC, Jack asked Dembski if he wanted to allow another viewpoint to be presented. Dembski said no thanks. Now DaveScot has the gall to pull this out.

    
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:38   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.

This will be an answer to you and stevestory. It's not that they believe that romulans or klingons are responsible, what they are trying to do is alter evolutionists perception of themselves as basing their theories on religious beliefs. In effect what they are trying to do is say " It doesn't matter what the designer is we have proof that there must be some type of designer". I think that is a purely tactical rhetorical method used when evolutionists or fence straddlers ask them to describe the designer. Plus they don't really know much or really anything about the designer in the sense of knowing what or how the universe is controlled by the designer.

In my view "god" is a type of alien. Here is my view of the designer which I have learned from my study of vedanta, physics, and personal experience.

A common belief among physcists is a thing called the Higgs Field. Whether it exists or not no one knows, but it is a popular theory. The Higgs field is supposed to pervade the entire universe. It is supposed to be the cause of giving mass to matter along with the hypothesized Higgs Boson particle. Then there is the Quantum Potential and Bells' Theorem. These three theories are postulating an interconnectedness, a unified reality in our universe.

From my way of looking at things I see the "Designer" as being something similar to Bohm's implicate order. The universe (infinite universe:see plasma cosmology, eric lerner et al) which we can perceive is only showing us what is visible to our eyes and to our technological instruments. But there is more then meets the eye and our instruments. It wasn't long ago that the quantum world was unknown to us as well as other things revealed by modern technology, like cosmic microwaves, space plasma, infrared light etc. As our technology has advanced more things pop into our field of view. They were always there but we didn't know it.

To me the designer is something we exist as a part of. 3 dimensional matter/energy and our consciousness/mind are parts of the explicate order, the designer is the implicate order. The world of matter is the quantum expression from a sub quantum substratum of the material universe. The complete holisitic universe is a unified field of an unknown energy comprising many dimensions of which we are usually (most people) only able to perceive the 3 dimensions of matter, plus mind and consciousness.

That unified field is the designer. Mind and consciousness are part of the unified field. Our mind and consciousness exist as parts of the unified field, the unified field as a whole is a single mind and consciousness. A single universal entity. Essentially, reality as we know it, is a living being. We and everything else in our space time exists within and as a part of a conscious intelligent entity, that entity exists in many more dimensions then the ones we can perceive.

As to where it came from? It is part of the natural development of the infinite space time continuum. At some point in time long long ago the original substance of the space time continuum somehow changed from an inert state into an active state. Consciousness and mind was one of the results of that change. We cannot really understand fully what happened because there are many dimensions at play in what happened (is happening) and we can only relate to a few of them. But to give an idea of what happened try to imagine an infinite ocean of ice. In all directions there was ice on into infinity. Then for some unknown reason there was a chemical reaction which created heat in the ice, the ice started to melt and eventually started to boil and kept on boiling from now until forever.

In a similar way the original state of the infinite space time continuum was an inert potential of some type. Some kind of massive change occured to that inert potential and it morphed into a different state. It developed consciousness/mind and gradually developed it's mind and intellect. After a long time it developed it's intellect to the point of being able to build the 3 dimensional world we see around us. It didn't build it like we build something. We build things that are different from ourselves. It builds things out of itself. Matter and the laws of nature exist because they are part of a conscious intelligent being.

Imagine how a virtual reality works. The programmer and computer build a digital world. Everything in the virtual world can seem like it is real, the chair can seem like a chair, the apple can seem like an apple, but in fact all that we experience in a virtual reality is a combination of pixels designed to look like those things. The virtual apple is really a part of the computer which has been designed to appear like an apple.

Quantum particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, atoms, these are like computer pixels to the designer, the designer is like a programmer and a computer in one. We live in a cosmic living computer. Everything exists as part of a cosmic virtual reality.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:41   

Quoting Russell..

Quote
I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer.


My point is/was that they are fooling no one with their "it could be space aliens or time travelers" theory.  They keep trying to fool the public so that they can teach their nutty notions in public science class, but no one is buying their Klingons might have dunnit nonsense.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:42   

Zardoz wrote:
Quote
As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD.

A month ago DaveScot was still claiming to be agnostic on the issue:
Quote
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606

Of course, you can distinguish the two (unless the Designer is perverse and "plants" the evidence to make common descent appear to be true).

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:43   

Interesting. Although the DI gets all indignant when you say they promote the inclusion of ID in school curricula...

Quote
When asked about how biology teachers should teach intelligent design theory, Dembski said teachers should “go as far as you can.”
(from FishyFred's link)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,06:54   

Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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