RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Salvador Cordova vs. Lenny Flank< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,12:41   

I have some matters to discuss with Lenny Flank.

I invite him to debate me on the issue of ID and evolution.


Salvador

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,13:00   

Heat getting to you now, Sal?

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you. So I'll ask again.  And again and again and again and again, every time you show up here, until you either answer or run away.  I want every lurker who comes in here to see that you are nothing but an evasive dishonest coward.

(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?

I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing---- the one you want taught in public school science classes, the one that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours.

Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.

Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently
designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).

If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions.

Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.

Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney. I will  repeat that I do NOT want a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and
how it explains data better than evolution does.

I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory":  How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old.  And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not.

I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories".  Unless of course you don't HAVE any and are just lying to us when you claim to.


(2)  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?


(3)  What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine.  Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all.  Ever.  Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, “materialistic” and “naturalistic” —- we don’t want any judges to think ID’s railing against “materialism” has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?

I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.”  I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”.  Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic  (oops, sorry, I meant to say “materialistic” and “naturalistic” — we don’t want any judges to know that it is “atheism” we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?

How about medicine.  When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease?  Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,  and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch?  Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?



(4)  The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."  

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself.  However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.


Oh, and your latest round of blithering about "anti-God" and "anti-religion" prompts yet another question, Sal (whcih, of course, you also will not answer).

(5)  Sal, you must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your ID crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are
UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are just lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible,  while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,13:17   

Quote

Flank asked,

Heat getting to you now, Sal?


Hiya Flank,

You and me eh?  Or do you need your PT buds to help you take me on.  Can you take me on one-on-one?  If anyone else jumps on this thread, let's kindly invite them to post on another thread, but I want just you and me. What'ya say, Flank.

But ya know Flank, I don't think it's fair for you to just ask me question and you get off scott free.  I answer a quetion, and then I'll feed one.  

C'mon Flank, don't want to answer question yerself.  Too scared your theory can't hold up to scrutiny?  So I'll answer one, and then ask one of you.

What?  You want an interrogation of me, not a debate?  What kind theory do you have that you demand a format like that.

If you call me dishonest for not answering your question, then maybe you ought to apply the same standard to yourself when I ask you questions.  Did you ever think of that?  Guess not.

Ok:



No, I just had some time to finally deal with you.  You were low on my priorities.
Quote


(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?




The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  

Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

It it testable in 2 ways:

1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.


Ok. Before I answer your other questions it is your turn.   State the laws of physics from which Darwinian evolution can be derived (answer: none Darwinism isn't science).  But I'd like to see you squirm.  


hehehe.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,14:11   

Just answer my questions, Sal.  Quit being a coward.

I'll repeat them again for you, in case you've forgotten them.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

Any time you are ready, Sal, you just let me know.  OK?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,14:14   

>The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  


Thanks for the empty assertion, Sal.  Now how about a scientific theory of ID.  Here, let me remind you once again of the question I asked:


what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?

I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing---- the one you want taught in public school science classes, the one that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours.

Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.

Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently
designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).

If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions.

Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.

Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney. I will  repeat that I do NOT want a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and
how it explains data better than evolution does.

I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory":  How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old.  And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not.

I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories".  Unless of course you don't HAVE any and are just lying to us when you claim to.



Any time you're ready, Sal.  And by the way, you still have four other questions to answer.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,14:49   

I want Sal to skip to question #3. Let's see some non-materialistic weather forecasting.

"Now we go to Dan with the weather. Dan?"
"Thanks Bob. Today it's going to be overcast with spotty showers, and a 20% chance of raining frogs, because you're all a bunch of sodomites. Back to you Bob."

   
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,14:50   

Quote

Just answer my questions, Sal.  Quit being a coward.


Calling me names, Flank?   :D Is that the best you can do.  I tried to answer question 1.  It's my answer.  Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.  Perhaps you should consider applying the same standard to yourself that you apply to me when you say I don't answer you question.

Quote

I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of .... criticisms of evolutionary biology.



What's the matter, Flank, can't answer legitimate questions for your worthless theory?  Like, what were the steps to the first eukaryote?




Quote

I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing---- the one you want taught in public school science classes,


Hey Flank, I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.  Why are insintuating by your question that I do?  Although I have no problem allowing teachers to make students aware of the holes in the pathetic pseudo science your defending known as Darwinian evolution.  Care to answer the question I posed, or will you go on dodging?  Apply the same standard to yourself that you're trying to apply to me.




Quote


Let's assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative.



No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.  One did not need a new theory to recognize Phlogiston and Epicycles were flawed, "we need a better theory because the current one is wrong" is a far better position than letting students think a wrong theory has solved the problems.  Darwinism and it's non-teleologcial sisters have not met the standards of real scientific theories like gravity.

Quote

Show me how your scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours.


We don't see life arise from non-life in the lab without intelligence.  Chemical evolution has failed.  It is consistently superior in it's predictions to ole Darwinist Haeckel's belief in spontaneous generation.  Evolutionary theory is a post-dictive narrative, it doesn't explain much above didly sqwat.

Large amounts of software don't come from  systems that had no thinking agent somewhere in the pipeline.  Biology is rich in software.  I hypothesize a Mind in the distant past.  What's so tough about that?

Care to describe by your worthless Darwinism how the software came to be?  C'mon Flank describe it.  Oh, I see you can't.....

:D


Quote


Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.


1. Only that an intelligence was a part, the manufacturing details are not needed to make a design inference.  For example we have genetically engineered seeds, does anyone really need to know the manufacturing process or the exact history to know they were engineered? No.  So there, you're wrong, and you only display your misunderstanding of ID theory.  Why don't you study ID theory first rather allowing me to spoon feed it to you?

2. ID does not specify the mechanisms, it only identifies when something is designed. It is very limited in it's claim.

3.  The mechanism we see today are only in evidence in humans to a small degree (their designing abilities).  We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know, we postulate a Designer operated in the past.  It's I hypothesis, what's so bad about that Lenny.  But as far as the Designer not being seen today, I should qualify that:  Quantum Theory and our measurements in the lab (such as the Double Slit Delayed Choice Experiment)  are highly suggestive the Designer's observations in the future are affecting the characteristics of the universe today (ala John Barrow, Frank Tipler, FJ Belinfante, M. Biagini, etc....).  Do I need to spoon feed you the details?


Quote

Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did,


No it does not.  You only flaunt your misunderstandings.

How about answering my first question, Flank.  Show how evolutionary theory is justified by the laws of physics.  How is evolutionary theory justified by the laws of physics (answer: it's not, because it's pseudo-science).

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,14:59   



Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.  Quantum Mechanics is becoming formulated in terms of information theory.  Information theory implies MIND as somewhere in the pipleline and therefore, as Harold Morowitz pointed out, MIND is a primitive component of physical systems.

Care to put up something comparable for your theory?  C'mon Flank, you're no match for me.  Answer my first question.  I've answered several of yours, care to put up even one answer for your theory?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,15:50   

Hey Sal, I don't see any, uh, scientifivc theory of ID anywhere in your big long rant.

So quit waving your arms and just answer my goddamn questions.

I'll repat them once again for you.

*ahem*

1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?


Any time you are ready, Sal, you just let me know.  Tell me all about your, uh, alternative scientific theory.

Or is "POOF!! God --- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer -- dunnit!!!" the best that IDers can come up with?

What did the designer do, specifically.

What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did.

Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.


Any time you are ready, Sal, you just let me know, OK?

Or, you could continue posting your juvenile rants, and demonstrate to everyone that you really are a dishonest evasive coward. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,15:53   

I'm beginning to think that this is NOT Sal, but just an imposter (probably DaveScott or somesuch).

Sal, even at his most mouth-foamingly, is not this illiterate and childish.


But then, I dont' care if it's Jesus Christ himself.  I still want answers to my simple questions.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,16:13   

By the way, why do all the nutters (everybody from the New Age wackos to the flying saucer kooks) always want to blither on and on about quantum mechanics?  (sigh)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,16:35   

Quote

Hey Sal, I don't see any, uh, scientifivc theory of ID anywhere in your big long rant.



Kind of hard to if one is scientifically illiterate or wilfully blind.  Tell me whether either or both are an applicable explanation for why you couldn't see.

Hey, Flank, you didn't answer my question.  Show how physics (the most fundamental science) results in evolutionary theory.  

I answered several of your questions.  I can't remedy the fact my answers are over your head.

Quote

(4) what objective criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently
designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).


An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.  www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected. If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory. Read the sublime works of Dembski to learn. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed your closed mind.....

Answer my 1st question, Flank, and I may decide to elaborate, you've not even moved once in that direction.  Apparently all you can do is cut and paste and repeat you questions even when I've started answering.

Oh, but I'm not here for you, Flank, but for the Lurkers.....

Quote

If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform, in principle, to answer these questions.


It answers some of them, it is not intended to answer all of them any more than gravitational theory is intended to answer questions about electromagnetic theory.  You're making category errors about the scope and domain of the question ID theory answers.  

Well, you've not even answered my basic question. Care to admit, evolutionary theory is not derivable from physics?  C'mon, Flank, what say you.  Yes, no, or "I, Lenny Flank have no clue".


Quote

Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can be falsified. What experimental results or observations would conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.


Conclusive proof?  Where have I argued for conclusive proof.  ID and creation science are offered as a hypothesis with experiments indirectly supporting the hypothesis, and certain ideas subject to falsification.    I never offered conclusive proof.  Where's the conclusive proof for your theory, Flank?  Speuclations aren't conclusive proof.  By the way you've gone several posts without answering my first question.  What's up with you?  Too much for you, Flanky boy.

Quote

Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is wrong so creation must be right" baloney.


I didn't, I'm only offering reasons the hypothesis is plausible.  Part of that is showing the un-planned evolutionary route is not established.  You're fabricating things about my position.  Shame on you.




Quote

I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative scientific theory":  How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory" determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or thousands of years old.  And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory' determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or does it determine that they have not.



ID theory wil for the sake of argument accept the generally accepted values for the age of the Earth.  Creationists of the Young Earth variety look for physical evidence such as decayed speed of light and quantized readshifts as evidence for a young earth. Both are offered as hyptheses.  I'm not in league with ICR or AiG, so don't put me in their absolutist camps.  Whatever the age is, the age is.  I think an open mind about them is a good thing, but at this stage I'm 80% oriented toward young Earth.





Quote

(2)  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?



ID is not used to determine the age of the earth nor does it specifically decide if humans descended from apelike primates.  You obviously don't understand even the basics, Flank.

The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID issues.  There I answered your question.  Care to answer my first one?

  
scordova



Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,16:41   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 04 2005,20:49)
I want Sal to skip to question #3. Let's see some non-materialistic weather forecasting.

"Now we go to Dan with the weather. Dan?"
"Thanks Bob. Today it's going to be overcast with spotty showers, and a 20% chance of raining frogs, because you're all a bunch of sodomites. Back to you Bob."

what da matter steve, can't allow your boy to mix it up with me one-on-one?  It's kind of insulting to you Flank that you have to jump this thread.  It shows you don't think he can deal with me himself. :D

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,16:52   

I think you might be right. That might not be the real Salvador. This person is making spelling errors, but not as many as Sal usually makes.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,16:56   

Not many grammar errors either. Sal usually mixmatches cases and such.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,17:02   

on the other hand, he said "wilfully", "Speuclations", "un-planned", "wil", "readshifts", and "hyptheses", all in one post, so it might actually be Salvador.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,17:38   

Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.

Forget them already?  No problem:


1.  What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2.  According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3.  what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

5.  Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics?  Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?


TRY to give me something a little more than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".

Or is that the best that ID, uh, "theory" can come up with?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,17:52   

I have to admit that THIS is kinda funny:


>It answers some of them, it is not intended to answer all of them any more than gravitational theory is intended to answer questions about electromagnetic theory.  You're making category errors about the scope and domain of the question ID theory answers.  


Followed immediately by:


>Well, you've not even answered my basic question. Care to admit, evolutionary theory is not derivable from physics?


I'm a little curious why Sal (or whoever this is) thinks that physics should be able to answer biology questions (although life *is* nothing but complicated chemistry). And I'd sure like Sal to underline the mathematical portion of his quantum field equations that represents "mind".

Well, OK, actually I'm not interested in Sal's (or whoever this really is) attempts at misdirection.  I just want answers to my simple questions.

Apparently I'm not going to get any coherent ones.

So far, all I've gotten are;

(1) the scientific theory of ID is that something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent

and

(2) the earth may be old, or it may be young. Humans may have evolved from primates, or may not have.  ID, uh, can't tell.

And some yammering about genetically engineered food, which I don't see the relevance of (unless Sal or whoever this is thinks that human bioengineers are the Intelligent Designer who produced life).

If THAT is the best IDers can come up with, well, it's no wonder they got their clocks cleaned in Dover.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,17:58   

Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers?  Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

Or, are IDers simply lying to us when they claim that ID is science and not religious apologetics?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,18:11   

Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that?  Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?

Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research".  Why is that?

How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"?  (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently).  None?  Why is that?

Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics?  Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right?  And yet IDers are ignored in these fields.  Why is that?

Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?   Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

I'm pretty sure that the answer to all of these questions is the same;  "Because ID doesn't actually offer anything scientifically useful, and is nothing but a political front for a bunch of fundamentalist theocrat-wanna-be's".  

Would you agree?  If not, would you mind pointing out something scientifically useful that ID has done in the past 25 years? Anything at all?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,18:28   

Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

Why is it that you are quite unable to come up with any?

Or was Luskin just BS'ing everyone when he made that claim?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,01:38   

Hello?  Sal (or whoever you are)?  Hello?

(sound of crickets chirping)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,01:44   

> I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.


Why not?

Please be as specific as possible.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,01:49   

>The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  


Explained how.  How does ID "explain" anything.  other than "something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent".


>Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.



What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?



>It it testable in 2 ways:


WHAT, specifically, is testable?  How do you  propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?



>1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com



Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.


>2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence.   However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it.  Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

And you've not shown how to actually TEST anything.  Pick something you think the Designer did.  Then show us how to test it.

Put up or shut up.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,01:55   

>An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.


Great.  Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?



> www.genetic-id.com gives examples of  how design is detected.


Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?


>If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory


Really.  So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?



> Read the sublime works of Dembski to learn.

Dembski doesn't tell me any more than you do. (shrug)


>I'm not in the mood to spoon feed your closed mind.....

Do it for the Lurkers, Sal (or whoever you are).

Unless, of course, you CAN'T.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,01:56   

Definitely not the "real" Cordova, Lenny. That creepy mixture of superciliousness and false bonhomie is missing.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,01:58   

>The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not ID
issues.  


But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,02:04   

>Definitely not the "real" Cordova, Lenny. That creepy mixture of superciliousness and false bonhomie is missing.


Indeed.  Sal is neither this childish nor this illiterate.

I suspect it's probably DaveScott, who *is* both childish and illiterate.

But in either case, it suits my purposes.  Whoever this is, he is doing a wonderful job of showing everyone that ID simply cannot answer the most basic of questions (and also shows that IDers are dishonest evasive deceptive liars).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,02:12   

>No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.


Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"?  After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement?  Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist?  Why not call yourselves a more accurate name?  I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson ---  The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).  It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

Make up your mind, Sal (or whoever you are).  Is there a scientific theory of ID, or isn't there.  

If there is, then let's see it.

If there's not, then what the #### are you bitching about?  Why is DI lying to us by claiming there IS a positive theory of design that does NOT cosist solely of negative arguments against evolution, when in fact there is NOT any such thing?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,02:17   

>We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know


Why not?  Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world?  Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?  

Your kindergarten theology is every bit as stupid as your kindergarten science is.


> we postulate a Designer operated in the past.

Convenient for you, isn't it.

So tell me, when did it stop operating.

And how can you tell.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  77 replies since Dec. 04 2005,12:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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