RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: the post ID world< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,19:20   

Thorthingy. Science is a method. Get that, or should I draw you a picture?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,19:30   

Renier,

Would that be an evolving method?

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,20:17   

There is one possible scenario I would be happy to see where we never get to a post-ID world.  That would be the one where an advanced alien race landed on Earth saying "Mea culpa, we accidentally contaminated your planet with some biological goop which escaped from our lab. Sorry about that."

A smug DaveSnot would be a small price to pay for the utter defeat of all those creationist (and vast majority of IDists) who are absolutely convinced that we are here by supernatural design.

(Yeah, they could argue that God created the aliens first, but I'm sure the aliens would have their own ideas as to how they came about... :) )

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,20:45   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 08 2006,20:30)
Renier,

Would that be an evolving method?

Thordaddy

Quote
Would that be an evolving method?


Now you're getting the idea. Science is also work in progress. It does indeed evolve. Well done!

  
Baratos



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,14:35   

Quote
This is purely a propaganda war and the scientists need to quit thinking they can win this in the lab.  The fight is elsewhere.

The question is, what will you fight with?  Not guns, those are profoundly scientific weapons.  Scientists in many fields have been working on those for centuries.  Knives are out, too, since those are made in factories tainted by the horrors of science.  You cant wear any clothes while you fight,either, since the fabric is probably artificial.  If you get hurt in the fighting, no medicines of any kind.  Those so-called "microbes" are just a myth to create jobs for doctors.  Take that bullet to the head like a man!  Using anything other than a club will get you lynched by the others, since you obviously support science by using such blasphemous items!  But you wont need them, anyway, since your god will help you win.  Unless you prayed to the wrong god, in which case you are doomed. :p

Seriously, a dozen guys with guns killed thousands of Aztecs, and took over their empire.  One person today can press a button and kill millions.  This is why we work so hard to educate the masses, so they can understand and appreciate science.  That way everybody can use the results of science without fear, knowing even the deadliest weapon is harmless if you are wise enough never to use it.  Thor, you slipped through a crack in the in the system and ended up where you are today.


P.S.: If you can read this, you are using a computer.  Smash it imeadiately.  Evil scientists made it.  Then go repent at the nearest church for your sins.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,19:06   

Baratos,

You don't see the silliness of claiming a post-ID world?  It's as though science can end the speculation of a designer?  Do you propose your little diatribe as part of the effort?  LOL.

At best, scientists can claim no empirical evidence for an IDer.  Even this assertion is highly questionable as no scientist I am aware of is outfitted with all the known  and unknown empirical evidence and must chalk up the "faith" of several billion believers as some yet unidentified delusionary physical process.  

This is a war of 2 competing ideas that is being fought in the courtroom, classroom, bedroom and public square.  You show yourself to be one of those that thinks the only battle be in the laboratory room.  Here, you seem blind to the empirical evidence.  

If the masses can't even understand the most basic biological and physical theories of our universe because science can't convey this "truth" clearly then another theory that is much older and identifiable will win the day.  

This doesn't mean the end of science because science is merely the afterthought.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2006,22:25   

Quote
This is a war of 2 competing ideas that is being fought in the courtroom, classroom, bedroom and public square.


No, this is a war between Religious nuts who wants to force their c_rap(doctrine) down the throats of kids, and people who does not want to allow it. Science is under attack by religion because some religious nuts are to dumb, arrogant and ignorant to think for themselves (or are just dishonest money making maths people), and wants everyone else to be like they are. This is a war that ONLY appears where there is a strong fanatical religion base. Religious nuts wants science to prove their doctrines(Maybe because they are faithless freaks). Science does not. That's why the religious nuts wants to change what science is, in order to make it say what they want it to say. I only have 2 words for them : F them. They need to sort themselves out before they try and sort everyone else out. As for me, I don't give a rats *ss for their doctrines. They should leave science and the rest of humanity alone, or leave the planet and find their own.

This, Thordaddy, is what it is all about. We are doing just fine without your religious creationist c_rap in science. It is unwelcome in science, until the useless, lazy, talkers, the ID scientists, get their lazy bu_tts into the labs and start giving us evidence. If not, they should shut up and carry on teaching their "science" in church, where it belongs. The rest of us (including some Christians) are sick and tired of their fluffy bunny arguments and dishonesty.

In my view Thordaddy, you are :
1) Dishonest
or
2) Sincere, but indoctrinated.
or
3) Hiding a faith crisis behind your antics, mostly preaching to yourself, and thus, in denial.
or
4) You are suffering from http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

Apologies to rational religious people. The comments above (religious nuts) deals with Fundies, not human beings.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,01:06)
At best, scientists can claim no empirical evidence for an IDer.  Even this assertion is highly questionable as no scientist I am aware of is outfitted with all the known  and unknown empirical evidence and must chalk up the "faith" of several billion believers as some yet unidentified delusionary physical process.  

Which believers?  I know some people who think Odin is a great guy, and others who have some allegiance to strange Indian practises.  

The point being, there are all these competing religions with different ideas of how things started.  Which one is correct?  They cant all be.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:15   

Quote
thordaddy



Posts: 14
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 10 2006,01:06  
Baratos,

You don't see the silliness of claiming a post-ID world?  It's as though science can end the speculation of a designer?
Nobody said theological speculation would end. ID is a political strategy for getting creationism past the courts. It is going down in flames, and we're entering the post-ID world as we speak.

   
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:39   

It seems with the way things have been going on uncommondescent.com, the next debate post ID will be dualism. Almost every post on that site has somebody saying that intelligence is beyond nature.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,06:06   

Dembski is a dualist, I believe.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:17   

Renier,

You sound like you're fighting for a cause that rivals any religious fanatic.  Are you unaware of those that are neither positively nor negatively inclined towards either side?  Do you think such people exist?  I exist.  Your rant shows a very ugly side of science.  A side that believes it is protecting some kind of dogma.  You can't protect science.  It is but a method that has evolved with time and will continue to evolve.  You can't stop it.  Don't be naive in believing that science is completely objective while scientists regularly toy with concepts like "observation," empirical evidence and the like.

Your fear is not persuasive.  In fact, it's more like paranoia.  I don't fear IDers indoctrinating my children and more than I fear the scientist that claims he isn't sure whether life begins at conception.  Both sides  have flaws because both sides represents human endeavors.

guthrie,

This is a question that no scientist has been willing to answer.  

What does the "faith" of billions of people in an IDer represent?  If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?

stevestory,

What one court does another can undo.  It's silly to laud the idea that this debate is being settled in the courts.  It means judges are defining science and scientists are not.  This is what I'm talking about when I say this battle isn't just in the lab.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:45   

I hadn't read your posts before, and now I have, and you actually think ID is science, so best of luck, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain anything to you. I'm sure one of the numerous people who likes to talk to creationists will oblige you.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:59   

Quote
If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?


Wow. Just, wow.

Unless I'm misreading this, Thordaddy seems to be saying is that if 'billions' of people have 'faith' in something, that means it has to be true. And therefore science has to explain it. And that anything believed in with this 'faith' can therefore contradict science.

So this is how he wants to force scientists to accept ID/C -- by saying all these people believe it, so that makes it empirical.

Again, just, wow.

So I suppose this strategy can work with ANY religion, really -- not only would this 'prove' Christianity, but it would equally well 'prove' Islam and Hinduism, Scientology. Any religion, really. Unless TD has some cutoff number of believers necessary to turn faith into a 'fact' -- what would it be, 500 million? A billion?

This reminds me of the Kansas BOE's attempts to redefine science so that it can include the supernatural. Ultimately this is a battle as to who gets to define what truth is, what empericism is, what reality is.

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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,12:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,17:17)
What does the "faith" of billions of people in an IDer represent?  If this "faith" is not an interpretation of the empirical evidence then what is it?  How does the scientist describe "faith" in terms of science?

Ummm, which definition of faith are you using?

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

All the deinitions I have come across say that faith doesnt usually involve empirical evidence.  Therefore, why should we pay any more attention to all these people, who, as you keep avoiding, all have apparently had different experiences of religion and the world in general?  

People used to think that the earth was orbited by the sun.  Then eventually they worked out it was not the case.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,12:51   

stevestory,

Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  

Arden,

You seem to be arguing that "faith" is acquired by some  method other than interpreting the empirical evidence and giving that interpretation meaning.  Do you care to elaborate on this method?  

guthrie,

If "faith" is not acquired via the empirical evidence then by what process is it acquired?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:15   

Quote
Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?

I hesitate to call it a 'method,' but yes, there is.
You start with the conclusion, and 'prove' it, using data acquired by others.

This is all ID does. There is no research program. There are no publications or conferences. In short, there are no ID scientists.

A point I believe you're missing, a step in the method you're leaving out, is the actual acquisition of data, before its given any interpretation at all. Yes, in a sense, the universe is just there for the observing. But it's been a long time since the naturalist just went out in the field, cataloging specimens and musing about conclusions. What scientists these days are willing to call "data" is acquired through selective observation and good experimental design.

IDers skip this entirely, and "cherry pick" their data from real science, then slather it with what you're calling "interpretation," all the while looking for only those bits that will support a foregone conclusion.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:45   

Thordaddy, I could kiss you.
Quote
Your rant shows a very ugly side of science.  A side that believes it is protecting some kind of dogma.  You can't protect science.  It is but a method that has evolved with time and will continue to evolve.  You can't stop it.  Don't be naive in believing that science is completely objective while scientists regularly toy with concepts like "observation," empirical evidence and the like.

First, his rant is not showing an ugly side of science. It is showing an angry side of Renier.
Second, It is but a method that has evolved over time??? Are you really that stupid? Look, you can have your kooky views of Jesus playing poker with his father and the Holy Ghost while Satan and Gabriel take bets on the winner. Keep them. I suspect you know that they are utterly ridiculous. If not, read This or This or, if you can bend your brain around analogy, this.
but how is it that you are saying anything in that statement?

Third: "Don't be naive in believing that science is completely objective while scientists regularly toy with concepts like "observation," empirical evidence and the like."- You mean like the voices in your head "toy" with you? :0

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:58   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
You seem to be arguing that "faith" is acquired by some method other than interpreting the empirical evidence and giving that interpretation meaning.  Do you care to elaborate on this method?  

It ain't empericism, that's obvious. People practice whatever religion they were raised in, or they find some belief that makes them feel good, or that is societally rewarded, and they 'believe' it. Whether there's any authentic emperical evidence for its truth is an entirely separate matter.

People believe stuff with no demonstrable basis in reality all the time. In fact, I'd say it's basically the norm of human behavior. If you want  to look at it benignly, things believed in by 'faith' are simply outside the realm of science and empericism. If you want to look at it harshly, they're just deluding themselves. Happens all the time.

The burden of proof is on you if you want to claim that everyone's religions/superstitions are based on emperical evidence. Silly ass word games and obfuscation won't cut it. ID ain't science, and saying that anything that certain people believe in hard enough somehow becomes true won't make it science. Nice try.

Science and religion/faith are different things. That's why there are different words for the two concepts.

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,14:06   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
stevestory,

Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  



There is something horribly wrong with your logic.

Science is a discipline that requires certain actions. It is not the only subject that is a worthwhile persuit. But any worthwhile subject that does not obey the rules of science, is not science.

That does not mean it is useless. It simply means it is not science.

You are correct in stating ID is an explanation of why we are here. But it is not scientific. Peoples degrees/qualifications do not matter. Unless ID makes falsifiable predictions and produces repeatable experiments, it will never be science.

Sorry this post has so many words, I did not have the time or inclination to write a shorter response.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,14:08   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
Science is but a method to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.  ID is an explanation of why we are here similar to ToE being an explanation of why we are here.  Your contention is that the latter is legitimate because it uses this method while the former doesn't.  But by what method do IDers interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning outside of the scientific method?  Is there another method?  

If you call junk science a 'method', sure. Distort findings, cherry pick other's research, ignore your errors when they're pointed out to you, and ignore inconvenient facts that would contradict your desired conclusion. Making stuff up (AKA lying) also helps.

As another example, Scientologists believe that Xenu is a galactic ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy", and that "75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today."

You tell me: could any method other than the scientific method have brought them to that conclusion?

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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,10:17   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 10 2006,18:51)
If "faith" is not acquired via the empirical evidence then by what process is it acquired?

I dont exactly know.  It would appear to be something to do with the person deciding that they have faith in something.  I note youhavnt tackled the problem that all these millions of different people seem to have faith thanks to different empirical evidence.  That would lead to me to suspect that either there are many, many gods, or else, that faith is not aquired by empirical evidence.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,12:22   

Is there a better predictive factor for religion, that what religion the parents were? People primarily get their religion in their childhood from the nearby adults.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,13:08   

guthrie opines,

I dont exactly know.  It would appear to be something to do with the person deciding that they have faith in something.  I note youhavnt tackled the problem that all these millions of different people seem to have faith thanks to different empirical evidence.  That would lead to me to suspect that either there are many, many gods, or else, that faith is not aquired by empirical evidence.

But where is that something if it is not within the physical world?

The underlying point is that this "faith" is in a creator/designer regardless of how the believer decides to act on his "faith."  

So what does a scientist say about billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned the known history of man?

Is this really evidence of nothing?  Can it not be measured?  Can NO predictions be made?

According to science "faith" must be attained the same way any system of belief is attained, namely, through interpretation of the empirical evidence.

Feel free to claim this interpretation a mass delusion.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,13:29   

Some have, ol' one-eyes, some have. Whole nations once sacrificed horses and drank calva in honor of your username, more or less: would you say that those were delusional? or were they sane, they had a point, and we should be searching the ocean to find scientific evidence for the Great Wyrm? Or the root of Hyggdrasil or whatever it was called?
However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,13:46   

TD:

I would ask you again:

Quote
Scientologists believe that Xenu is a galactic ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy", and that "75 million years ago, he brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today."


From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.

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

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,22:23   

Td wrote :
Quote
According to science "faith" must be attained the same way any system of belief is attained, namely, through interpretation of the empirical evidence.


When you have evidence for something, then you do not have faith in it, you KNOW it. Faith is required where there is a lack of evidence, or even contrary evidence. I don't believe the computer in front of me is there, I KNOW it is.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,00:31   

Faid opines,

However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

But you are claiming this belief to be evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?  Again, how is "faith" acquired if NOT through the interpretation on empirical evidence?

Arden opines,

From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.


Was your second statement correct?  All the concepts in their belief system are either known facts or conceptualization of facts.

Again, how is "faith" acquired if not through the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Renier opines,

When you have evidence for something, then you do not have faith in it, you KNOW it. Faith is required where there is a lack of evidence, or even contrary evidence. I don't believe the computer in front of me is there, I KNOW it is.

Then billions of believers that have spanned human history is evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?  Again, if "faith" is NOT acquired through the interpretation of empirical evidence then please tell me the process that takes place.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,02:15   

*Sigh*

Quote
Faid opines,

However, you do understand that applying validity to a theory because of its popularity is not how science works, right? 'x people believe in this' is not empirical evidence.

But you are claiming this belief to be evidence of nothing?  Is this your claim?


No, I do not consider this evidence for nothing. I do not consider it evidence of any kind. How hard is that to grasp?


Quote
Again, how is "faith" acquired if NOT through the interpretation on empirical evidence?


Well, you tell me, thordad. Seems like your field, after all. How did the Norse interpret empirical evidence to believe that a giant snake circles the world, biting its tail? That Valkyries will carry their souls to Valhalla if they die in battle? What empirical observations led them to predict Ragnarok?

You see, religious faith is aquired in any other way BUT "interpretation of empirical evidence".
Unless of course, in your book, that phrase actually means "looking at the world and making up stories about it round the fire".
But that is not what science does, whether you like it or not.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2006,06:51   

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 12 2006,06:31)
Arden opines,

From what I gather, many scientologists really believe this.

Feel free to tell me where the evidence for this is, if not in the scientific, emperical realm.

Having done that, feel free to tell me in what principled way any other religion is any different.


Was your second statement correct?  All the concepts in their belief system are either known facts or conceptualization of facts.

Congratulations on a spectacularly weaselly avoidance of answering the question.

'Second statement'? You mean do Scientologists really believe it? Yes, many do.

My other two statements were imperatives, so one cannot ask if they were 'correct' or not.

Your final statement is just so much empty verbiage, and has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. I think you realize all you're doing is laying down a smokescreen.

But no matter. I now know everything I need to know about your ability and willingness to actually debate this rationally. Bye.

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

  
  367 replies since Mar. 04 2006,09:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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