Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Thread 2 for Kris started by oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,05:52
Please make a point which can then be discussed.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,08:04
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52) | Please make a point which can then be discussed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.
You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,08:10
And before you or someone else asks me who the creator or designer is or was, I didn't say there is or was one. It will be interesting to see if any of you respond to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said.
Posted by: rossum on Jan. 21 2011,08:20
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Correct. Science cannot prove that an undetectable being of infinite power (Ubip) did something and then perfectly covered up her tracks.
Science cannot prove that Ubip is not going to turn the soap in your bathroom into the most delicious and nutritious food overnight. Despite that, how many people do you know who try taking a bite out of their bar of soap every morning, just in case?
Science works within limits, which is part of what gives it its power to explain things within those limits. A Ubip is outside the limits of science so the actions of the Ubip, or similar, are not susceptible to scientific enquiry.
rossum
Posted by: fusilier on Jan. 21 2011,08:24
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52) | Please make a point which can then be discussed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.
You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In addition to rossum's point, scientific inquiry does not "prove" anything. Scientific inquiry evaluates hypotheses based on the preponderance of evidence.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 21 2011,08:24
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Correct, but non controversial.
1) Science can't ever "prove" anything. It provides evidence in support of explanations, but that is never at the level of "proof". Thus it could provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and lots of people are doing that. What is the evidence supporting the notion of intelligent design?
2) Nobody, not even you, can prove a negative, which is basically what you are saying when you say something is "impossible".
Boring.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 21 2011,08:33
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mind reader is it now then?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- You want a point for "rational discussion"? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, rather you made the claim that specific issues cannot be discussed rationally here and it's all about bashing religion. And I want to disconfirm that claim. If you don't want to play, that's fine by me.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me that's not a very interesting claim. And as others already have, I'm happy to agree with it. Many things are possible but it's about what you have evidence for.
A similar but equally vapid claim would be:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Science cannot prove invisible pink unicorns did not create the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A more interesting claim would be
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Science has proven that intelligent design and not evolution is responsible for the creation of biological organisms and their their building blocks ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then evidence would be required to substantiate that claim. Should none be forthcoming, then it's just yet another empty claim.
There is plenty of evidence that evolution is responsible for the creation of biological organisms, do you dispute that?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 21 2011,08:36
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 21 2011,08:24) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Correct, but non controversial.
1) Science can't ever "prove" anything. It provides evidence in support of explanations, but that is never at the level of "proof". Thus it could provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and lots of people are doing that. What is the evidence supporting the notion of intelligent design?
2) Nobody, not even you, can prove a negative, which is basically what you are saying when you say something is "impossible".
Boring. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, Kris has shown us his knowledge, and been found wanting. And I was hoping for a sophisticated arguement.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 21 2011,08:51
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04) | Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with this statement.
What you will encounter is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 21 2011,08:57
Science cannot prove that I did not create the universe either. yawn
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 21 2011,08:59
I'm pretty sure Kris just pwned us. He made a statement and everyone here agreed with it. Science loses. Good science wins. That probably makes sense to someone.
Posted by: ppb on Jan. 21 2011,09:18
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04) | Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kris, Proving or disproving the existence of a god or an "intelligent designer" is not the goal of Science. The goal of Science is to understand the world as it is based on a preponderance of evidence. The weight of that evidence built over the last couple of centuries has supported a 13+ billion year old universe, a 4+ billion year old earth, and the evolution of life on this planet over it's long existence. It also supports the idea that humans are related to all other life forms on this planet, and that our closest living kin are probably chimpanzees.
If you have evidence to dispute any of this that can stand up to scientific scrutiny you are welcome to present it here.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2011,09:21
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | Kris says
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes.
I'd like to point out however, that science can and does show that abiogenesis is chemically possible (at least, it hasn't been discovered to be impossible yet).
Intelligent Design is not anything that can be examined by science. And this is purely because the proponents of ID studiously avoid making any claims that could be examined by science and really avoid being pinned down on definitions in their claims (like, what is information or complexity).
When ID does make a scientifically testable claim (thanks Behe), it is shown, by science, to be false.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 21 2011,11:22
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Kris", you're such a bible thumping Creationist you make Dr. Dr. Dembski look deist.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 21 2011,11:27
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether ID/creationism is science.
But of course, your 'slip' is now showing - you admonished us for bashing religion and then bring this nonsensical point up. If we are such low-lifes for bashing ID/creationism because they are religious concepts, then why should we care if science can prove such is impossible? If ID/creationism are religious concepts, then they aren't scientific, can't be taught as such in public schools, and are of no concern to us whatsoever.
Thanks for making our point for us.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 21 2011,11:28
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:10) | And before you or someone else asks me who the creator or designer is or was, I didn't say there is or was one. It will be interesting to see if any of you respond to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep claiming to be a scientist, yet you also keep making statements like this. You also make these pseudo-gotcha zingers as if you think they would demonstrate anything but a lack of understanding.
I read your little disclaimer as a 'get out of showing my work' card: whether or not you are a believer is immaterial at this point. If you think ID ought to be taken seriously, present the evidence which you think is meritorious. Coming from someone who does NOT believe in the designer, it would have a bit more weight.
The burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim, which at this point would be ID.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: dvunkannon on Jan. 21 2011,12:01
Adda rabba, as my rabbis would say. (Exactly the opposite.)
Science, in the person of Craig Venter, has proven an intelligent agent of far less power than a god, angel, demi-urge, urge, urgette or urgonomic is capable of designing life and its building blocks.
Further, I claim that every time I kick off a cellular automata, I have been the intelligent designer of that (very small) universe.
Now what?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2011,12:05
Any 'designer' that an IDist uses to explain his/her position must contend with some simple facts.
The designer must be "God" for some value of God. (i.e. a deity).
The designer must be a meddler (i.e. the designer must let something happen naturally and other things happen by design).
There is no evidence for such a designer.
Therefore, until ID presents evidence that shows there is a designer, ID is useless.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 21 2011,22:54
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 21 2011,23:02
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,20:54) | So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You made a statement.
Most responses were "Yep, you're right. So what?"
There was a bit of trash-talk in there, but if you're serious about a discussion instead of a pissing contest, just ignore it.
So:
Kris: "Science can't prove there's no designer."
Everyone else: "Correct."
Next point?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 22 2011,00:32
Come on, Kris, you've been lurking here for at least an hour. What's the next point?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 22 2011,00:44
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54) | So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kris,
As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.
What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.
Your response?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,01:27
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,22:54) | So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So much for any effort at a point, let alone refutation.
Thanks for confirming my assessment.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,07:40
He wants to be a martyr for the cause. He just wants to be banned so he can complain.
Rather than have ANY discussion of substance, he posts multiple regurgative posts on how unfairly he's being treated.
What do you call Kruger-Dunning when it relates to non-skill based things?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,09:13
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2011,22:44) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54) | So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kris,
As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.
What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.
Your response? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.
Anyway, here goes:
Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.
At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists. Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.
Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:
< http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ >
Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?
Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.
I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.
I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.
I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:
Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.
You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:
Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.
There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.
Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.
You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.
What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?
I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.
We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 22 2011,09:25
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.
Anyway, here goes:
(snip the steaming pile of sanctimonious bullshit.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Come back when you IDiots get some positive evidence, OK? We'll leave the light on for you.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 22 2011,09:25
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.
That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 22 2011,09:46
Here's an argument:
P1: Science is crap. P2: ID is crap. C1: ID is science.
As any tracker can tell you, there are lots of different kinds of crap, though. If you've got a definition of science that admits IDC, you've got a non-functioning definition of science. It isn't even close. IDC is, after all, a collection of arguments that have only been ornamented as they have been passed down from natural theology to creationism to scientific creationism to creation science to IDC. IDC hasn't brought a single empirically testable claim *for* its position to the table. As noted in the Kitzmiller trial, whatever is "testable" about IDC is that way because of its class of negative claims about evolutionary science, which *is* empirically testable.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 22 2011,09:48
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:
Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yawn. As Carl Sagan once wrote,
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,10:13
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 22 2011,07:25) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.
That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you should be telling some scientists and science supporters there are no "proofs" in science. Some scientists and science supporters sure do talk or write like they have "proofs".
Personally, I feel that that science has proven many things but there are lots of things that haven't been proven that are touted as though they are proven.
And I'm not "confusing" science with math.
By the way, do you realize that a lot of math is used in science? Some aspects of science are virtually completely based on math, and some scientists seem to think that math is the answer to everything in nature and science. Some seem to think that an equation written on a chalkboard is all the proof that is necessary for their claims.
Regarding your other comments: Huh?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,10:15
Wow. Just...wow.
Kris just spent way too many words to say even more things that are neither surprising nor informative, and which again demonstrate that Kris's claim to being a scientist is at best questionable.
I honestly don't think he knows what he believes he knows, because he seems utterly amazed and astounded by things so basic to the process that they should be given.
Okay, I'm done with the muppet. He's impervious.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 22 2011,10:17
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,10:13) | By the way, do you realize that a lot of math is used in science? Some aspects of science are virtually completely based on math, and some scientists seem to think that math is the answer to everything in nature and science. Some seem to think that an equation written on a chalkboard is all the proof that is necessary for their claims. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
O, I had no idea! Thanks for opening my eyes, Kris!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Regarding your other comments: Huh? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What a deep thought.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,10:21
fact - the sun is a yellow star. This is not science. This is a fact. It is provable.
Hypothesis - the sun is yellow because it is made of melted yellow crayons. This is science. It is a testable hypothesis.
You, like most non-scientists, are confusing the two.
Evolution is a fact. It is observed in the wild and in the lab. Speciation is a fact. It is observed in the wild and in the lab. Evolution is also the mechanism for the fact of evolution. It is a testable hypothesis.
ID is not a fact. There is no proof of a designer or a designer affecting ANYTHING in the universe.
ID as a mechanism is not a testable hypothesis. There is no evidence that will convince an IDist that ID is not true. There is no research program. There is not even the beginnings on one and every leading light of ID admits this.
Every statement is decided on its own merits. Just saying, Science has problems does not in any way shape or form mean that ID is correct. ID must be decided on its own merits... if you can find any WE WOULD BE THRILLED TO HEAR THEM.
I know you probably don't get this. But every single person in this forum would be thrilled if someone would come up with a testable hypothesis for ID, because then we could do the work and figure it out once and for all.
So, so you have anything like this?
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 22 2011,10:53
Shorter Kris: "There isn't any evidence yet for ID/creationism but there might eventually be so you stoopid scientists should still consider magical thinking until such a time as it can be 100% ruled out by MY set of criteria or you're all a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant jerkwads, just like you say the religionists you bash all the time are. Also, you're big meanies."
That about right?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 22 2011,11:17
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,10:53) | Shorter Kris: "There isn't any evidence yet for ID/creationism but there might eventually be so you stoopid scientists should still consider magical thinking until such a time as it can be 100% ruled out by MY set of criteria or you're all a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant jerkwads, just like you say the religionists you bash all the time are. Also, you're big meanies."
That about right? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
'Kris' seems to be another Joey Gallien clone. Even if the words "scientifically illiterate blustering asshole" aren't used, the implication is the same.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 22 2011,11:33
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 22 2011,12:17) | Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 22 2011,10:53) | Shorter Kris: "There isn't any evidence yet for ID/creationism but there might eventually be so you stoopid scientists should still consider magical thinking until such a time as it can be 100% ruled out by MY set of criteria or you're all a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant jerkwads, just like you say the religionists you bash all the time are. Also, you're big meanies."
That about right? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
'Kris' seems to be another Joey Gallien clone. Even if the words "scientifically illiterate blustering asshole" aren't used, the implication is the same. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Clone? Nah, I'm pretty well convinced this is JoeG. The evidence is overwhelming. Heh.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,11:34
So, Kris, how would you test the ID hypothesis?
How would you falsify it?
How would you reproduce* the ID mechanism?
If the answer to any of these 3 questions is "well, we can't", then I'm afraid ID is not science.
*Insert saucy** joke here.
**Insert culinary joke here.
Posted by: lkeithlu on Jan. 22 2011,11:46
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, I'll bite:
Although I acknowledge that peer review is imperfect, and yes some stuff gets in that shouldn't, I am having difficulty believing that you have vetted any scientific papers, given the content of the post in which this paragraph was found. You show a lot of misconception about what science is as well as what constitutes evidence. So, first, please list some papers you have found that should not have been published so we can deal with specifics. Ideally they would be in this topic, but others are okay too.
Second, if a "creator" is implied in creation, and in ID ("designer") they are by definition religious, unless you are talking about some inanimate object, work of art, stone tool, etc. The premise of religion is the supernatural source of life and consciousness, morality and emotion.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,11:56
Quick reminder for "science-guy" Kris:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Scientific method >
ID doesn't fit that description, ergo ID =/= science.
Funny that in the end it's always the same stupid arguments and whinning from ID supporters when the buck stops right there, with the very universaly accepted definition of what science and the scientific method are.
So, Kris, would you include astrology in science?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 22 2011,11:57
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,10:13) | Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you want to say is, "not all of this response of mine is directed to you." (Pet Peeve: "All Fords are not Mustangs" is not the same as "Not all Fords are Mustangs.")
---------------------QUOTE------------------- I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don't need to know a thing about me to respond to the following:
"ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding."
---------------------QUOTE------------------- [Scientsts] won't consider [ID or Creation] to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you mean to say that scientists won't consider ID to be scientific until a testable theory is put forth, you are correct. Nor should they, and you should demand the same.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- most of you…expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is false, in my opinion. Nor is it remotely equivalent to "scientists won't consider ID to be scientific until a testable theory is put forth."
---------------------QUOTE------------------- At the same time, many of you…speak as though science has all the answers to every question. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is also false, in my opinion. I've been posting here four years and have never encountered anyone remotely demanding absolute proof, or asserting that science answers every question. Can you produce a single instance of either?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll shout it from the mountaintops and sing it o're the golden plains: "Science doesn't know everything and a lot of things will never be known."
Now, why not respond to the following:
"ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding."
That what most here assert. If you're really interested in understanding why ID gets no traction in the scientific community, engage with that.
[Edited to remove unneeded and not quite accurate characterization of Kris' post.]
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 22 2011,12:08
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52) | Please make a point which can then be discussed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi everyone, it's been an long time. :)
As others have pointed out, your claim is entirely correct. And I should add that you have just outlined why intelligent design isn't scientific.
In the same vein, nothing can disprove the fact that you do not exist and that everything is the product of my imagination. Nothing can disprove the fact that I just created the universe 1 minute ago, including this very webpage, with your memory and all.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,12:14
Edited to delete wrong post...
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 22 2011,13:32
To make amend for my post right above, I will post this:
< The Messenger: The Conscience Scene >
I find it to be a spot-on depiction of an ID follower, as described by Master Dustin Hoffman...
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,19:09
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:56) | Quick reminder for "science-guy" Kris:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Scientific method >
ID doesn't fit that description, ergo ID =/= science.
Funny that in the end it's always the same stupid arguments and whinning from ID supporters when the buck stops right there, with the very universaly accepted definition of what science and the scientific method are.
So, Kris, would you include astrology in science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your responses to me are a glaring example of poor reading skills. I didn't say that ID is science, or scientific.
I could simply say that the sky is blue and many of you would respond by saying, "No it's not and ID isn't science! It's religion, and there's no testable theory or hypothesis!" You guys are obsessed.
I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,19:37
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.
Anyway, here goes:
Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.
At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. {B}There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists.[/B] Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.
Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:
< http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ >
Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?
Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.
I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.
I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.
I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:
Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.
You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:
Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.
There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.
Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.
You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.
What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?
I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but [B}I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.[/B]
We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, so you don't think ID is correct, yet you don't agree with most science and you think that science should retain an open mind.
Let me ask you... how can science 'retain an open mind' about something that, by definition is not testable and has exactly zero supporting evidence in the last 150 years?
What exactly are we supposed to have an open mind about?
Who is the designer? If you read my paper, then you know that only a deity will work as the designer. Even the leading proponents of ID openly admit that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God. Do you know better than them?
I have been waiting for ID to say anything scientific for 15 years. There's been nothing.
Let me ask you, should we teach string theory on high school as fact? If not, then why should we teach ID, which has much less support (at least the math in string theory works out correctly, ID math doesn't).
Finally, a real conversation.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 22 2011,19:41
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,19:09) | I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
String theory as we know it today is not a scientific theory. It is not yet able to make testable predictions for experiments. There are some hunches that string theorists have thrown out there but they are not themselves certain about them. Such as if the extra dimensions are sufficiently large then there may be certain signatures that could be observed at the LHC. No one knows why those extra dimension would be large and simple guesses (in essence, dimensional analysis) indicate that they shouldn't be, so there you have it.
Here is Brian Greene, a string theorist at Columbia, in a 2006 New York Times < editorial >:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- To be sure, no one successful experiment would establish that string theory is right, but neither would the failure of all such experiments prove the theory wrong. If the accelerator experiments fail to turn up anything, it could be that we need more powerful machines; if the astronomical observations fail to turn up anything, it could mean the effects are too small to be seen. The bottom line is that it's hard to test a theory that not only taxes the capacity of today's technology, but is also still very much under development.
Some critics have taken this lack of definitive predictions to mean that string theory is a protean concept whose advocates seek to step outside the established scientific method. Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly, we are feeling our way through a complex mathematical terrain, and no doubt have much ground yet to cover. But we will hold string theory to the usual scientific standard: to be accepted, it must make predictions that are verified. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, they are working on it, but so far they don't have much to run tests.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 22 2011,19:51
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 22 2011,20:41) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,19:09) | I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
String theory as we know it today is not a scientific theory. It is not yet able to make testable predictions for experiments. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To repeat the classic:
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 22 2011,21:18
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,17:37) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13) | Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.
Anyway, here goes:
Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.
At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. {B}There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists.[/B] Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.
Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:
< http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ >
Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?
Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.
I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.
I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.
I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:
Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.
You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:
Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.
There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.
Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.
You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.
What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?
I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but [B}I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.[/B]
We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, so you don't think ID is correct, yet you don't agree with most science and you think that science should retain an open mind.
Let me ask you... how can science 'retain an open mind' about something that, by definition is not testable and has exactly zero supporting evidence in the last 150 years?
What exactly are we supposed to have an open mind about?
Who is the designer? If you read my paper, then you know that only a deity will work as the designer. Even the leading proponents of ID openly admit that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God. Do you know better than them?
I have been waiting for ID to say anything scientific for 15 years. There's been nothing.
Let me ask you, should we teach string theory on high school as fact? If not, then why should we teach ID, which has much less support (at least the math in string theory works out correctly, ID math doesn't).
Finally, a real conversation. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another glaring example of poor reading skills. I never said that I "don't think ID is correct". I didn't say that it's "correct" or that it isn't "correct". I only suggested that ID is possible and that science cannot prove that it's impossible, at least at this point in time. I also said that I think that the concept of ID or creation can be separated from religious beliefs.
Why is String Theory called String "Theory"? Why isn't it called String Speculation? Is String Theory science? Is String Theory testable with empirical evidence? Can anyone show me an actual "String"?
15 whole years? Wow, that's a looooooong time. How long did it take mankind to come up with the Theory of Evolution? How about The Big Bang Theory?
Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity. Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.
No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 22 2011,21:27
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18) | No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
possibly violating the Constitution.
Fixed that for you.
"We" are not your biggest worries.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 22 2011,21:41
It would appear that Kris has flounced out.
For the record, I think those obnoxious posts should stay right where they are, so that everyone's replies make sense. That's the archivist in me.
I defy any creationist to accuse me a wielding a heavy stick here.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 22 2011,21:58
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18) | Yet another glaring example of poor reading skills. I never said that I "don't think ID is correct". I didn't say that it's "correct" or that it isn't "correct". I only suggested that ID is possible and that science cannot prove that it's impossible, at least at this point in time. I also said that I think that the concept of ID or creation can be separated from religious beliefs.
Why is String Theory called String "Theory"? Why isn't it called String Speculation? Is String Theory science? Is String Theory testable with empirical evidence? Can anyone show me an actual "String"?
15 whole years? Wow, that's a looooooong time. How long did it take mankind to come up with the Theory of Evolution? How about The Big Bang Theory?
Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity. Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences?
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.
No, String Theory should not be taught in any school as fact, and neither should ID or creation. However, if an instructor is asked about them by a student, the instructor should say that any of them are possible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kris,
For ID to be possible you MUST have a designer. There isn't any evidence of a designer that has ever been found.
Could it possibly be found in the future... maybe. However, the people that need to be looking aren't. They are too busy lying about science to do any science.
I totally disagree that ID can be separated from religion. By definition, ID requires a deity like designer. Further, since every ID proponent has publicly stated that the designer is the Judeo-Christian God and the stated goal of ID is nothing less than a theocratic country based on Judeo-Christian principles, then by definition, ID is religious.
If you think ID can be separated from religion, then let's figure out how. It hasn't been done yet. I maintain that it cannot be.
As far as String Theory. It's a theory because the principles worked out by string theorists have been used to predict results of further mathematical explorations of String Theory. Of course, like much of math, it could all be wanking, but it still is internally consistent (unlike ID), it is well defined (unlike ID), and it is sufficiently robust that there is a possibility of finding evidence of it (unlike ID).
As far as "Can anyone show me actual string?" I invite you to show me actual stored bits in computer memory. I invite you to show me a tau lepton. You can't. So does it actually exist? Who knows?
String theory isn't the issue here though. ID is. ID doesn't even have as good a position as String Theory. Heck, I'd argue that ID doesn't even have as good a position as loop quatum gravity does (and that requires naked singularities and magnetic monopoles).
Actually, 15 years is a lot of time. Think about what we didn't have in 1995. Of course, the other side of the coin is that, arguably, it's taken the entire life of the universe to come up with these principles. (See, I can think about things in many different ways and am open to ideas.)
No, no, no, no. Everyday scientists come up with notions. Eventually some of those notions will become hypotheses. Eventually some of those will be tested, etc. etc.
Kris, I need to listen very carefully because this is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT AND WEBSITE.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those other scientists are trying to push their notions, hypotheses, and theories into the high school curriculum, and attempting to change science so that astrology is considered a science. Those people are not trying to put a very specific religious principle into the science classrooms.
Intelligent Design is.
It's that simple.
BTW: American Indians are not trying to push The Feathered Serpent into the science classroom. ID is.
Further, you are wrong. Intelligent Design is very specifically (as stated by the leaders of the movement) about the Judeo-Christian God. They do not allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They do not allow Odin. They do not allow Cthullu. They do not allow Shiva. Only God.
If you think that the designer could be any of these, then I invite you to go over to Unintelligent Design and say so. See if the comment even makes it past moderation.
As I have shown, using ID as the base, the designer MUST be a deity. Unfortunately, according to ID proponents, it must be the God of the Christian Bible.
As far as String Theory, I mentioned in my physics class because some students asked me about it. I would never claim it as fact. I defy you to find a high school in the US where String Theory is claimed as fact.
On the other hand, as Kristine (or Robin) mentioned, if you say that special creation by an intelligent designer is possible, then you are breaking the law.
It is up to ID proponents to show that ID is possible. SO far, everything that Behe has said about irreducible complexity has been wrong. Everything that Demsbki has said about 'information' has been wrong.
That's not a way to get information into the classroom.
Arguably, since we haven't seen the revolutionary war, there is no way we should teach it. Arguably, we could say that time travelers from a future confederacy shot Lincoln. We could say ANYTHING is possible.
What we should do is teach kids to think instead of regurgitate and then they could figure it out on their own. Unfortunately, we must teach to the lowest common denominator and we must be careful of offending people like you, so we can't correct misconceptions.
If you think we should say that ID is possible, then we're going to need a reason to say that. To say it's possible because we haven't proved it impossible is a logical fallacy. We haven't proven that the interior of the moon is not hollow, so should we say that it's possible.
So far, everything that ID has said has been shown to be wrong. You want ID to be taught (and yes, that's not what you said, but if you say that it's possible, then you are implicitly endorsing it in class), then we're going to need a lot more than it's not impossible.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,22:04
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,21:58) | Kris, I need to listen very carefully because this is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT AND WEBSITE. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Found your problem, O Cybertank.
The muppet has no interest in paying attention.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: qetzal on Jan. 22 2011,22:11
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,21:18) | Virtually every day some scientist comes up with some new theory or hypothesis or speculation or inference about something and many of them are not testable with empirical evidence and are no more provable or falsifiable than ID or creation by an intelligent entity. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bullsh*t.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Why aren't you guys bitching about those so-called theories, hypotheses, speculations, or inferences? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because even if you were right about all these scientists making unfalsifiable claims, they don't insist that their ideas should be given equal time in public schools, or that their ideas are just as well-supported by the facts as bona fide scientific theories like evolution.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 22 2011,22:15
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,22:29
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 22 2011,22:11) | They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There you go, being all reasonable and stuff. You guys know that makes JoeyKris's head go kablooey, and we can't have the precious little moppet throwing his tantrums over nothing.
After all, we're the ones obsessed and just as bad as the fundamentalists and like that. He says so, ergo it must be true!
:D
Like a brick wall, that boy.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 22 2011,22:39
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:34) | *Insert saucy** joke here.
**Insert culinary joke here. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Smut and cooking. Insert French joke here.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 23 2011,08:27
Kris shows his color
concern troll is concern trolling
in another thread
Posted by: lkeithlu on Jan. 23 2011,08:36
Well, I come back after a day or two and nothing is different. Big surprise. It's clear that Kris has nothing to discuss. Pity-it would have been fun watching him get his ass handed to him by the PT crowd. But an insult-throwing fest is hardly interesting....
Posted by: qetzal on Jan. 23 2011,08:48
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29) | There you go, being all reasonable and stuff. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
;)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 23 2011,08:56
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,08:48) | Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29) | There you go, being all reasonable and stuff. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
;) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might confuse concern troll.
Posted by: rhmc on Jan. 23 2011,09:10
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18) | Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 23 2011,09:10
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,04:11) | [SNIP]
They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.
{shakes fist}
Louis
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 23 2011,10:29
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 22 2011,07:08) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52) | Please make a point which can then be discussed. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi everyone, it's been an long time. :)
As others have pointed out, your claim is entirely correct. And I should add that you have just outlined why intelligent design isn't scientific.
In the same vein, nothing can disprove the fact that you do not exist and that everything is the product of my imagination. Nothing can disprove the fact that I just created the universe 1 minute ago, including this very webpage, with your memory and all. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ravi de te revoir! Et comment va?
It's not a fact; it's just a theory!*
*I know its old material but things are quiet around here these days.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 23 2011,11:04
Wow, late to the party and the monkey's dead!
(That's what she said.)
Kwis said: Science can't prove an imaginary concept is impossible.
I say: Correct. Next.
Kwis said:
---------------------QUOTE------------------- *SNIP* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say: DNFTT
I like this game!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,11:35
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,08:48) | Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29) | There you go, being all reasonable and stuff. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
;) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Reason and logic, delivered without the abuse he so badly craves, makes Baby JoeyKris cry.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: qetzal on Jan. 23 2011,19:12
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10) | It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.
{shakes fist}
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 23 2011,19:31
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,19:12) | Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10) | It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.
{shakes fist}
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should try substituting baby seal. You get that same neotany and the fat content gives you that same juicy consistency you've come to expect.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 23 2011,19:35
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 23 2011,19:31) | Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,19:12) | Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10) | It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.
{shakes fist}
Louis ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should try substituting baby seal. You get that same neotany and the fat content gives you that same juicy consistency you've come to expect. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Might I also suggest bald eagle? It has a flavor somewhere between California condor and dodo... oops, we weren't supposed to mention the dodos were we?
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,20:20
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18) | Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who's "we"?
You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?
How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 23 2011,20:29
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:20) | Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18) | Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who's "we"?
You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?
How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WTF?
Dude really.
There are three statements here. Only one has any connection with reality.
I'm very curious, why is it that you want to argue about American Indian religion with an American Indian and not discuss... you know... science? You're the one complaining that we don't talk about science... yet, given the opportunity, you don't want to talk about science. That's just weird.
Here let me help. I'll start a topic and you can feel free to jump in.
I maintain that and any designer must be a deity and if that deity can affect the physical universe, then its actions must be detectable in the physical universe. To date, the majority of the suggested actions of said deity have natural explanations that are better than the deital ones. Further, currently on-going research indicates that there are no physical limitations that would prevent a purely natural explanation for other of said deity's supposed actions.
Discuss.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,20:36
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15) | I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?
Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?
What is this supposed to mean? "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 23 2011,21:02
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36) | Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15) | I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?
Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?
What is this supposed to mean? "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the implication is that by believing in a lenient Grandfather instead of a stern Father, they can sin more, or something like that. What this has to do with science, you got me.
Posted by: Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,21:22
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36) | Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15) | I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Uh, I'm saying that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. That surprises you? Different tribes have different creation myths, but they listen to all without fighting because, essentially, what you whitewash as "Native American" are local tribes with a local religion.
Read God Is Red by Vine Deloria Jr. to get an understanding of a place religion, versus the "time religion" of Judeo-Christianity. Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36) | Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm saying that non Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts of God are very different from the creator/designer concept. Santeria is a case in point; followers of that religion say, "You talk about God, but we dance to the drum and become God."
It's a big world out there!
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36) | What is this supposed to mean? "...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids" ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's a joke. You reacted exactly as I expected you to.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 23 2011,21:54
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2011,18:29) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:20) | Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18) | Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who's "we"?
You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?
How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WTF?
Dude really.
There are three statements here. Only one has any connection with reality.
I'm very curious, why is it that you want to argue about American Indian religion with an American Indian and not discuss... you know... science? You're the one complaining that we don't talk about science... yet, given the opportunity, you don't want to talk about science. That's just weird.
Here let me help. I'll start a topic and you can feel free to jump in.
I maintain that and any designer must be a deity and if that deity can affect the physical universe, then its actions must be detectable in the physical universe. To date, the majority of the suggested actions of said deity have natural explanations that are better than the deital ones. Further, currently on-going research indicates that there are no physical limitations that would prevent a purely natural explanation for other of said deity's supposed actions.
Discuss. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?
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.*
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 23 2011,22:32
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?
"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 23 2011,22:45
Kris, I know you just want to be a pissed off troll. Let's take a look at what was said and how you responded... k?
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10) | Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18) | Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is. [/quote]
OK, I can see that you never actual said "I believe supernatural things exist"... on the other hand... you are DEMANDING that science accept the possibility that such things do exist when there is no evidence for them.
You are oh so very careful to say nothing that could be literally taken as one way or another. My 4-year-old has already gotten beyond such things and can handle adult phrasing and assumptions. If I tell him to go to bed, he knows that he has to get into the bed and go to sleep. He doesn't stand beside the bed, then complain that I told him he just had to "GO" to bed.
Why don't you just say what you mean and we can stop all this silliness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?
"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."
Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 23 2011,23:01
Okay, I know it's getting as old as Kwok's "M.I.P.", but Kris really argues like a tenth-grade chess club nerd. I know because I was one.
"I never said that..."
True: Kris makes a point of never really saying anything we can hold him to, except "Scientists R MEEEN! WHAAAH!".
In response to the FACT that the ID that most of the cognitive universe recognizes, is the movement of that name promulgated but the Discovery Institute and their ilk, Kris will say:
"Not that ID! Just because their "ID" is religious doesn't mean "ID" is religious!"
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 23 2011,23:22
what a sad cunt
edit for teh betterz
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 24 2011,00:45
I've got a bone for Kris to chew on.
(That's what ... never mind.)
Assume no fossil record. All you've got are biological samples from thousands of organisms. You have DNA sequences and protein sequences and you have figured out how DNA relates to proteins.
Let's make it even worse. You don't know anything about the organisms - no pictures, no nothing. Just the molecular info.
With this information alone is it possible to derive a theory of evolution?
With this information alone, what can you figure out?
(To coin a phrase, I would call this the Venter Conjecture. Mugs and t-shirts available on-line soon.)
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,02:02
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,08:21) | fact - the sun is a yellow star. This is not science. This is a fact. It is provable.
Hypothesis - the sun is yellow because it is made of melted yellow crayons. This is science. It is a testable hypothesis.
You, like most non-scientists, are confusing the two.
Evolution is a fact. It is observed in the wild and in the lab. Speciation is a fact. It is observed in the wild and in the lab. Evolution is also the mechanism for the fact of evolution. It is a testable hypothesis.
ID is not a fact. There is no proof of a designer or a designer affecting ANYTHING in the universe.
ID as a mechanism is not a testable hypothesis. There is no evidence that will convince an IDist that ID is not true. There is no research program. There is not even the beginnings on one and every leading light of ID admits this.
Every statement is decided on its own merits. Just saying, Science has problems does not in any way shape or form mean that ID is correct. ID must be decided on its own merits... if you can find any WE WOULD BE THRILLED TO HEAR THEM.
I know you probably don't get this. But every single person in this forum would be thrilled if someone would come up with a testable hypothesis for ID, because then we could do the work and figure it out once and for all.
So, so you have anything like this? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise. I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.
I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.
It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.
To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.
I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.
I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.
Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.
Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.
When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 24 2011,02:30
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right, so you could stop right there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.
I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.
Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.
Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.
When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!
Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU!
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,02:43
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,20:32) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?
"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 24 2011,02:56
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:02) | It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What you are missing, Kris, is that the majority of ID supporters claim that ID is in fact provable, falsifiable and so can be settled as an issue.
This is not actually news. Except to you, it seems.
Daily claims are made on UncommonDescent as to how ID has been once again vindicated. There's only one source of "coded information" and that's intelligence don't ya know. And DNA is "coded information" therefore ID = True.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then as nobody here is suggesting that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer I would suggest that you take your faux-concern to UncommonDescent and see how long you last over there under their free and open moderation policy. Free and open until you say something they do not like.
So why don't you take it to UD Kris, they must be making you very angry with their daily claims that they know exactly who the designer is.
Posted by: Kris on Jan. 24 2011,02:59
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,00:30) |
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right, so you could stop right there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.
I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.
Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.
Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.
When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!
Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 24 2011,03:03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|