Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > the post ID world

Pages: (13) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,00:12    Stephen Elliot asks, Quote Why do you consider ID as being scientific as it stands now? As opposed to seeing science and religion as antithetical to each other, they appear to me as fundamentally identical.  Could we say they are subject to descent with modification?  Both endeavors represent a search for the truth, an interpretation of empirical evidence.  The only difference is one pertains to what is measurable while the other tends to that which is not currently measurable.  It only makes sense to think that science would come after religion in the lineage of human endeavors.  So it's hard to see the stark dichotomy that is presented when both science and religion share a common lineage, structure and function.   Quote There is glaringly obvious evidence against ID as science. The most obvious being the "Wedge document". This clearly lays out a political/religious motivation behind the movement. I see the Wedge document as the obvious reaction to those that politicize science and betray its constraints.  If science is going to stand by the claim that it cannot account for the Origins then under what rationale do you think that others will not take on the task and scoff at science when it tries to interject ITS rules?  You seem to be oblivious to the political and social ramifications of current scientific conventional wisdom.  How you could expect no opposition on top of being able to make up the rules is bewildering to me. Quote Then look at other actions. Why should they be using PR to promote their claims? Why have people been trying to have it taught in schools as science, rather than presenting evidence to scientists? There is something rotten in the state of ID (apologies to the bard). I can see it and I am sure that you can as well. I can't say I see anything rotten because I don't have this fear of Christianity.  I've never experienced its "oppressive" forces in any manner that I am aware of. Why are they using PR?  Well first, it's undoubtedly an uphill battle.  The task at hand is currently beyond the reach of science and all its technology and brain power.  All science has to do is explain what is obvious. Quote As I understand it, science is about trying to understand how the universe (and all it contains) works. Supernatural explanations have to be ruled out or progress will halt. If "God did it" is an acceptable answer there would be no need for further investigation. Then how did science EVER come about?  Are murder and rape a part of the Universe?  What can science really say about either?  It can count how many times each happened, it may be able to create a probable offender profile, it may be able to predict patterns in motivating factors, but it can saying nothing about whether it is right or wrong.  In fact, science is entirely neutral.  I, for one, am glad that a purely scientific society does not exist without religion to infuse a much needed value system.  I don't have your fear of ID nor a fear of science.  Both bring value to our lives, but can also be used in a nefarious manner, no doubt.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,00:25    CJ O'Brien, Can I assume you have no children of your own? I have no more fear of "goalless evolution" than I have affinity for "goal-oriented evolution."  Neither side was ever presented in any significant manner in the course of my life.  I stand here as a third-party observer that finds the debate most illuminating and feel compelled to participate with what I see.  The irony is that many on this forum spout the scientific line while simultaneously engaging in wild and unsubstantiated assumptions and rabid name-calling.  Both, undoubtly, unscientific.  This, honestly, comes as a shock and in part helps to undermine the claims of nefarious motives on the part of the IDers.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,02:24    Thordaddy, How do rationalise science and religion as being identical? Science uses experiments and produces evidence to back up it's claims. I can't recall religion doing that. Of course ID faces an uphill struggle. So it should, if it claims to be scientific then oposing views would be quite the  correct atitude. The response should be to gather evidence and present it. Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented. BTW. From your responses I get the idea that you think I believe science can answer any question. I do not think that. I doubt science will ever be able to give answers to some questions. Subjective questions I imagine will always be outside the scope of science. Also, I am not antireligious or an atheist, (I got the impression you think I am) but I do not consider my religious opinion to be in any way scientific.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:01    4--> Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 17 2006,214)  Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence.  By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure or explain.  This means empirical evidence exists outside of science and science is NOT privy to all empirical evidence.  Now what do we do with such empirical evidence is the question.  Since science is either unwilling or incapable of dealing with such empirical evidence, it will naturally be left to others to interpret such evidence. Quote The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon?   Argumentum ad Populum Quote What does science have to say about how this belief in an IDer is acquired? Spurious Accuracy Post Hoc Quote Do scientists really claim there exists no empirical evidence for a designer?  Such a claim posits that science is in possession of all empirical evidence. No, the claim is that none has been found, nor has a method been found for detecting "design".  The only method thus far is "it looks designed to me," supported by some magic maths.  Come up with a reliable method, and maybe we'll talk. Quote By its very definition, science must exclude empirical evidence it can't measure.... If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, how is it empirical?  If it can't be measured, observed, or tested, it's magical!  How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things? Now go away.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,07:36    I observe that occasionally, my socks disappear in the washer/dryer cycle.   My hypothesis is that an undetectable sock gnome is making off with them. Evidence 1) My socks disappear during the washer/dryer cycle 2) In fact, this seems to be a widely reported phenomenon that crosses national and cultural boundaries. 3) I believe that responsible agent is the sock gnome. 4) Other people have strongly asserted that their socks disappearance is a result of an undetectable, concious agent of one kind or another. Conclusion   The sock gnome is real, based on empirical, measurable evidence.  We observe that socks disappear, and we can collect data on the frequency of the disappearance and on what kinds and variations of socks the gnome prefers.  We also observe that this phenomenon is attributed to a similar agent by peoples around the globe.  A more ambitious study could even count heads. The sock gnome is real, people!  Because we believe in it! Also notice that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot (and his cousins), UFOs are all contained within the proof-by-belief paradigm. I can't wait until this class comes to my local university!

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,09:11    Quote CJ O'Brien, Can I assume you have no children of your own? I don't really care; it would be typical, but factually incorrect. Can I assume you're dodging the issue? -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,09:16    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 18 2006,06:25) Can I assume you have no children of your own? I haven't been keeping track of this thread for a while so I might have missed something, but may I ask why it is relevant whether O'Brien has children? -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,11:05    Quote thordaddy Posts: 41 Joined: Jan. 2006 Posted: Mar. 17 2006,214   stevestory asks, Quote What measurable phenomenon is science ignoring? The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon? You will make progress when you understand that science is not denying the measurement that 'billions of people believe in ID'. No scientist would say that empirical statement is untrue. The evidence that billions of people believe in religion/ID/whatever is absolutely uncontested. Science is not denying this empirical fact. What science is not accepting is your interpretation of that fact. If you want to think more clearly on this issue, you need to distinguish the evidence from the interpretation. You are wrong that the evidence of widespread belief is ignored. Here's an example of a scientist trying to account for that fact-- http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155 Science is ignoring your argument that 'because so and so many people believe x, x should be taken seriously'. And science is right to ignore that argument. It is a stupid argument. Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because your writing isn't clear. It may be that your argument is 'because so and so many people believe in x, x is true'. If that's your argument, you're way way way out to lunch.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,17:36    Quote We observe that socks disappear, and we can collect data on the frequency of the disappearance and on what kinds and variations of socks the gnome prefers. That's more research than intelligent design currently has, although to be fair the need to account for the loss of socks has been around longer than the need to stem the tide of feminists and homosexuals. Disclaimer: the second half of the previous sentence is intended as a joke, and should not be taken as proof that scientists make baseless insulting accusations, so I don't want any complaints. The stuff before the comma is as true as the day is long.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:18    Quote We observe that socks disappear Are you sure about that, Jay Ray? Quote How can science, the method for observing and testing things, deal with unobservable, untestable things? That's a very succinct way of putting it, may I use it when appropriate?

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:28    Heck yeah.  I've got a whole sock drawer with unmatched single socks.  Some of them have been unmatched for more than a year. What are you, some kind of gnomeless heathen?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,22:49    Now I come to check, bloodyhe11, you're right. You should publish

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,23:15    Publish? Hel no. He should teach! -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2006,23:18    Quote (Jay Ray @ Mar. 19 2006,04:28) Heck yeah.  I've got a whole sock drawer with unmatched single socks.  Some of them have been unmatched for more than a year. What are you, some kind of gnomeless heathen? The gnome that raids my socks is more cunning. It always seems to steal just one sock. But a few days later the missing sock usually reapears. Obviously the gnome is just trying to convince me I wasn't paying full atention when doing my washing. Sneaky little bugger he is.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,00:08    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote How do rationalise science and religion as being identical? First, I said fundamentally identical.  Which, to put it in scientific terms, is like saying a human is fundamentally identical to a fish as science is fundamentally identical to religion.  They both share common lineage, structure and function.  Call it descent with modification in the realm of intelligence. Quote Science uses experiments and produces evidence to back up it's claims. I can't recall religion doing that. That would be a modification in intelligence, but it nonetheless does nothing to change science and religion's fundamental commonality. Quote Of course ID faces an uphill struggle. So it should, if it claims to be scientific then oposing views would be quite the  correct atitude. The response should be to gather evidence and present it. There are billions of pieces of evidence that span most of human history.  Why aren't scientists findings ways to measure this evidence and give it meaning?  As of now, they take the position that NO evidence exists.  How could one possibly do what the scientist demands given this conventional wisdom? Quote Can I assume you are aware of the history of "plate tectonics"? They faced the exact same atitude from the scientific community when the idea was first presented. Supporters of that idea had the correct response. It is now well established because data was gathered and presented. So, it is clear that science has in times past made it difficult for truths to come forward?  Is this the lesson you wish to portend? Quote BTW. From your responses I get the idea that you think I believe science can answer any question. I do not think that. I doubt science will ever be able to give answers to some questions. Subjective questions I imagine will always be outside the scope of science. This is exactly opposite of what I think.  I think science can't answer the ultimate question and it says so itself.  The question then becomes, if this is the stance of science then by what rationale can they tell those that seek this answer that it can't be done unless it's within the framework of "science?"  You want to take the ball and go home but still make the rules?  This is silly. Quote Also, I am not antireligious or an atheist, (I got the impression you think I am) but I do not consider my religious opinion to be in any way scientific. Well, then you can't believe in descent with modification.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,00:16    UnMark, You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,00:32    stevestory opines, Quote You will make progress when you understand that science is not denying the measurement that 'billions of people believe in ID'. No scientist would say that empirical statement is untrue. The evidence that billions of people believe in religion/ID/whatever is absolutely uncontested. Science is not denying this empirical fact. What science is not accepting is your interpretation of that fact. If you want to think more clearly on this issue, you need to distinguish the evidence from the interpretation. You are wrong that the evidence of widespread belief is ignored. Here's an example of a scientist trying to account for that fact-- http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155 Science is ignoring your argument that 'because so and so many people believe x, x should be taken seriously'. And science is right to ignore that argument. It is a stupid argument. This is why science ALONE is not adequate.  If 6 billion people thought it was wrong to murder, you would claim this shouldn't "be taken seriously."  You make this claim because science is devoid of a value system.   But more to the point, I have said nothing about whether billions of people believing in an IDer represents the existence of an IDer.  I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.  It seems you concede this point?  Such a concession is an indictment on science because it will not pursue this "known" empirical evidence with scientific vigor. Quote Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because your writing isn't clear. It may be that your argument is 'because so and so many people believe in x, x is true'. If that's your argument, you're way way way out to lunch. No, the argument is the schizophrenic nature of science.  Is there empirical evidence for an IDer or isn't there?  Can science answer all our questions or can't it?  Is science a static endeavor or will its structure and function evolve?  Is science not religion and vice versa or are they fundamentally identical in structure and function and beholden to descent with modification?

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,02:11    > This is why science ALONE is not adequate. No, is quite adequate in explaining the world around us. >  If 6 billion people thought it was wrong to murder, you would claim this shouldn't "be taken seriously."  You make this claim because science is devoid of a value system. Morality doesn't nearly come into play here. > I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence. It isn't. It is a blind belief, nothing more. > Such a concession is an indictment on science because it will not pursue this "known" empirical evidence with scientific vigor. There is no known empirical evidence for IDer. > No, the argument is the schizophrenic nature of science.  Is there empirical evidence for an IDer or isn't there? There is no empirical evidence for an IDer. > Can science answer all our questions or can't it? It can't. > Is science a static endeavor or will its structure and function evolve? The methodology will be the same. > Is science not religion and vice versa or are they fundamentally identical in structure and function and beholden to descent with modification? Science is not religion. So, in conclusion, there is nothing schizophrenic in science, but you write as if you were a schizophrenic.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,03:44    Quote I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.  It seems you concede this point? Wrong wrong wrong. I didn't say anything about what the belief was w/r/t evidence. You said science was ignoring the evidence of 6 billion people believing. Now you try to swap in a point of ethics for a point of fact? You are confusing evidence of a belief, with the evidence that supports the belief. Among other things. You're just such a tangled mess of an argument I don't see the point in continuing. I'll let everybody else here try to fight through your spaghetti logic. Mysteriously, everyone here seems to think you've got your wires crossed. Can't imagine why.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,06:27    Quote Is this the lesson you wish to portend?   1.  To serve as an omen or a warning of; presage: black clouds that portend a storm.   2. To indicate by prediction; forecast: leading economic indicators that portend a recession. Perhaps you meant convey. Quote You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.   1.         1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.         2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.   2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine. Stones, glass houses?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,08:24    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 19 2006,06:16) UnMark, You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical. I think Thordaddy gets Creationist Post of the Week for this one. -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,11:51    You've got to admit though Alan, compared to calling science and religion identical, an incorrect use of 'portend' is hardly noticeable.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,12:18    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 19 2006,17:51) You've got to admit though Alan, compared to calling science and religion identical, an incorrect use of 'portend' is hardly noticeable. Thordaddy is just trying out a new Republican strategy: all opinions and ideologies are equally correct, and reality is relative. Therefore, the reality we decide to go with as a nation must be chosen by public opinion polls. Whatever opinion or ideology a plurality of the American public prefers becomes official policy. So therefore, if 51% of the American public says the world is 5,000 years old, the world is 5,000 years old. I've been seeing more veiled versions of this for a while, but few people state it as baldly as TD. -------------- "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

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,12:39    Quote The gnome that raids my socks is more cunning. It always seems to steal just one sock. But a few days later the missing sock usually reapears. Obviously the gnome is just trying to convince me I wasn't paying full atention when doing my washing. Sneaky little bugger he is. Sometimes I get in a snit about my lost socks and question my faith in the sock gnome.  I barge into the laundry room and excavate furiously behind and between the washer/dryer.  Every so often, buried underneath the strata of ancient grimy lint, I find a fossil sock that is the perfect match to a lonely brother upstairs in my dresser. Its at times like these that I question my faith in the sock gnome.  I have to ask why would the sock gnome go to all the effort to place that sock in just such a way so as to suggest that maybe there is a material explanation after all? And after many sleepless nights tumbling my doubt around and around in my brain like damp clothes in a broken down dryer, I come to the realization that warm feet is all that matters, and I thank the sock gnome for providing.  So I get up, open my sock drawer, and pick out the fluffiest pair of socks I own.   I pull them on so nice and comfy, and I thank the sock gnome for  providing me with the stretchy, fluffy nylon/cotton blend I once thought was lost to me.  I curl up in bed with a smile, wiggle my toasty toes, and sleep like a lamb, content to know that the sock gnome giveth even as he taketh away.  I believe in the sock gnome.  He is as real as you and me.

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,16:34    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 19 2006,06:16) UnMark, You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical. Yes, Arden, this certainly is the creationist post of the week!  Were it not so sad, it'd be hilarious!  I can't help but respond. . . . Quote You need to freshen up on the definition of empirical.  It seems you've become too attached to the scientific one which limits the true meaning of empirical. A dictionary lists the common meanings of words.  dictionary.com offers these definitions for empirical: Quote 1.a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine. Thordaddy, please point out which of these definitions you're using.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,18:36    Quote Thordaddy, please point out which of these definitions you're using. he already did... the "true" one. *snicker* really, I do wonder why you all even bother replying to it. His drivel is barely comprehensible, and his thinking is about elementary school level. I guess things are getting pretty slow round these parts.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,19:41    empirical -1 : originating in or based on observation or experience -empirical data- 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment -empirical laws- 4 : of or relating to empiricism I am using 1 and 2, of course! Portend-1 : to give an omen or anticipatory sign of 2 : INDICATE , SIGNIFY It was clear through our conversation that stevestory indicated that science has at times inhibited greater truths to come forward.  This is not the message he intended to convey, but was instead ASKED if this was the message he intended to portend?  And yes, it would be an omen if science were in the habit of obstructing the truth. Lastly, I didn't not say science and religion were identical much like a scientist wouldn't say a human and a fish were identical.  What I said was that science and religion were fundamentally identical similar to how fish and humans are fundamentally identical.  They both share a common lineage, common structure and common function.  Call it descent with modification. You fellas really need to get your act together if you expect science to get the respect you demand.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,20:02    guess what. nobody gives a rat's ass if someone who is as clueless as yourself doesn't respect science. a better question is - why on earth should anybody care what your opnion is? based on your vast repetoire of knowlege? based on your witty reparte? *snicker*

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,21:08    sir toejam, Your reply betrays your sentiments.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2006,22:30    Thordaddy, Why say fundamentaly identical? Identical is a very poor choice of word. If you meant similar or vaguely similar you should have said that. You consider science to be holding back knowledge. When what it is actually doing is testing ideas before pronouncing them to be a usefull explanation. Trying to converse with you is a bit like herding cats or knitting fog. It is very difficult to make any headway. What is worse, you apear to be deliberately making it so. Unless you post your ideas, clearly I give up. Also we are on completely the wrong thread here and should move over to your own thread.

Pages: (13) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard