RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: For the love of Avocationist, A whole thread for some ID evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,05:12   

Quote
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is...

Ah no.
On the UD thread I said                    
Quote
I just want your version of a scientific argument for ID.

Please note the "your" part of that quote.
I'll admit I got a little lax on this thread and foolishly posted something less specific...                  
Quote
Scientific argument for ID please.

I apologise for any confusion.

I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?
If you don't want to do it, then fine.
Please don't dredge or do anything only half-decent on my account! :O
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.  
For me, the ID movement is a slow-motion train wreck, graphically illustrating anti-science and abysmally bad critical thinking skills.
I don't know you except that you post on UD and that you seem to support ID.
Can you make a real argument that does not involve hand-waving or vague, useless definitions?
You complained that in previous arguments with GCT that he twisted your words and              
Quote
...referred back to things I had said pages earlier.

Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.  After all, what's the point of writing something if you're not going to stand by it later?
Come on Advocationist, just share your personal understanding of ID with us. AFDave got dreadfully dull after a while, but judging from the Herculean length of his threads, nobody can say we didn't give him a fair chance to state his case.  In fact, we repeatedly begged him to.  Can you do better?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:06   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.

I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?  Or are you just confusing "atheism" with "science" (and are too dumb to tell the difference)?


Not to mention that teaching kids "there is no need to have a god" is, in the United States, against the law.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:11   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.

ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?

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

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:46   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2007,04:10)
P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.

Hello, Louis.

I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.

Upon reading some of Avocationist's posts, suffice to say they are articulate and eloquent.. but how should one say.. their science "sucks". I was glad to see that they admitted that science and maths they were not. That was a welcomed snippet of honesty. Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.  I've had 9 years exposure to an assortment of these citizens. With a lack of intellectual integrity, and a lack of substantive evidence FOR their generalised paradigm of either a creator or intelligent designer, I dare say that for most parts (and speaking personally) they have become a clique. At most, an abomination to the world of Academia. So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:14   

Serendipity,

Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.


Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]

Mmmm psychology, a new pleasure!

[/Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2*]

I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?

Quote
Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.


Nothing to commend, I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously. Take Wesley or Lenny or Dr GH as just a light selection of examples.

Quote
So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.


I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.

I am with Lenny on finding the "I don't know shit about this but I's an indypendent thinkerer and so I ain't gonna believe nuthin you say Mr Man" attitude of Avocationist amusing. I'm also pretty sure I'm not alone in finding a good portion of that natural scepticism healthy. I wonder what we'll have next.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:17   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,00:44)
Improvius,

 
Quote
Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.

The DI was founded in 1990.  And besides that, many of its present fellows were publishing books before then.  So, care to list the bibliography names for us?

And if this is such a "strange argument", then why did you bring it up in the first place?  You were the one who originally claimed Milton to be a "secular" source.  That's the point I'm challenging you on.  In any case, it isn't that creationists are "bad people" (though I'm sure some of them are), but rather that their opinions on science are, by their own admission, heavily biased.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:42   

Quote
This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.


This is based at least partly on a false equivocation. Creationists are not bad people per se, but the ideas they hold are (note seperation of idea and person. Quite important). Creationist/IDCist ideas have been regularly, routinely and rampantly refuted for over a century and a half now. It isn't a poor assumption (based on evidence) to think that anyone espousing creationist boilerplate (esp. well refuted boilerplate) is either:

1) Very silly (no bad thing, we can all be very silly)
2) Ignorant of the relevant science (still no bad thing, we aren't born knowing everything)
3) Mistaken (still not a bad thing, we all make mistakes)
4) Misled (still not a bad thing, we all are sometimes lead astray by less than scrupulous persons)
5) Dishonest (bad thing)

Most creationists I have met fall into the first 4 categories. A small but vocal minority fall into the last one.

How can I say this terrible thing? Well, simply put, whilst all people are equally valid and wonderful, not all opinions or ideas are equally valid and wonderful. Some ideas are more supported by the available evidence than other ideas. Creationist/IDCist ideas are very poorly supported by any evidence, in fact they have no evidence whatsoever in their favour (and yes I am aware you don't get this part because I have read your posts). Thus they are not the equal of scientific ideas in terms of their support by the available evidence. It is on this criterion alone that they are judged.

The difficulty I face, as a scientist interested in the accurate public communication of science, is when I encounter someone like you who espouses IDCist ideas is deciding which category above you fit into and thus how much of my time I am going to waste on you. Or indeed if that time is a waste at all. If you're in categories 1 to 4, then the chances are that any conversation with you will be illuminating and entertaining for me, and hopefully useful for you too. If it's category 5, then I'm sad to say we have nothing to talk about. There's not much point is having a dialogue with anyone who is willing to lie to avoid admitting when they are wrong about something.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:43   

The Discovery Institute does predate by several years the founding of the DI Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1996.

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

    
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:52   

Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 23 2007,08:46)
Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179

Mike PSS

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:57   

Wesley, for the record, what exactly did Dave Scot do to get banned from ATBC?

--------------
"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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,09:23   

Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,11:08   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 23 2007,09:23)
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.

In case Avocationist feels that it's too much of a challenge to concisely state the Theory of ID, let's note that Mr. Darwin managed to summarise his ideas about evolution in one paragraph:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."


ID version, please?

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:31   

The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona


It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:39   

I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before. There's a thread about that here, even.

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

    
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:40   

Quote
when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered

1. Yes. Or, conversely if you merely point out errors in reasoning and raise valid points in contradiction to their alleged "theories" and "facts," then you get banned.
2. What challenges did you make? When I offered to take up specific aspects of a book that you claimed to find essential to your layman's understanding...you didn't want to do so. If you have an actual challenge to make, do so.
3. All you were asked to do was to lay out, in your own words, a personal vision of what you believed ID to be. If you feel that you have been insulted, perhaps you might want to look at your own posts and see if you have not been insulting, or perhaps you might want to develop a slightly thicker skin or you might even want to portray yourself further as a martyr by storming off in a huff and not coming back. Oh, so many choices when you seek to avoid a direct line of questioning, eh?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:47   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,08:11)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.

ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?

Lenny, DI = Disco(very) Institute.  Even so, Avo is still incorrect.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:50   

Quote
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about

Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue. Some high-profile names have been tolerated for a while...McNeil comes to mind...and you'll say he was not subjected to multiple questions? Pfft.

Post Script: Just for your enlightenment, Avocationist, you can read the story of "Febble" a female poster at UD who was banned for having the temerity to expose the vacuous nature of ID :   http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/the_sad_state_o.html

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:53   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 23 2007,09:23)
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure. Kind of stifles thinking if you know what I mean.

By all means, whatever floats your boat. I don't even care if you write about how your faith has made you so much happier and better looking. But I do care that someone might go out and claim that there is ANY science left to whatever flavored god you prostrate yourself before.

ID is not currently science. It can't be studied yet. So, if you want to argue that evolution, which is falsifiable (easily), doesn't best explain what we see then you'd better have a lot of info at your fingertips. I read Darwin's Black Box and my 30 year old science education was enough to shred it for logical inconsistencies, projection, flat innaccuracies and sheer stupidity. And Behe isn't a dumb guy nor is he ignorant. So, have a go. But don't be surprised if folks here ask you for specifics because, frankly, no one has yet made a single argument refuting ToE.

But, you may be the first.

--------------
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

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:54   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,13:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
 
Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona


It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.

Then I guess you must get all huffy and bent out of shape whenever someone disagrees with you in person, too.  Wow, you must be loads of fun to hang out with.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:01   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,12:50)
Quote
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about

Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. Some high-profile names have been tolerated for a while...McNeil comes to mind...and you'll say he was not subjected to multiple questions? Pfft.

Also, what happened to Elizabeth Liddle AKA Febble at UD earlier this month was extremely instructive. Act totally civilized, totally polite, don't get angry, explain things patiently, contradict Dave Scot, you're banned.

--------------
"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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:04   

Hah, yeah, I added that in a post script, too, Arden. We were both thinking along the same lines. And, avocationist, that was within just the last 10 days.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:05   

Quote
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.


So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right?

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

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:11   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 23 2007,12:39)
I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before. There's a thread about that here, even.

Wesley,

There are many instances on that thread of IDers using the Taliban analogy. In fairness, maybe you should add those cases in which people like PT contributor Gary Hurd and compulsive commenter Lenny Flank return the favor.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:13   

Quote
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement.
I agree that this can be a problem, but ID proponents that make this statement all the time if not more than atheists do. After all if this was their only problem it could be solved quite easily and then the only people who would be complaining would be biblical literalists and Richard Dawkins.

Quote
Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose.
Except that most of them think that evolution=atheism so they have quite a lot too lose. Ill grant that there are exceptions but Im pretty sure that most biologists have nothing to loose. Mostly because I know a couple that don't believe in evolution don't have tenure and their careers are getting on pretty fine because they do good work. Im also not very sypmathetic to these types of claims becuase all the DI needs to do is come up with an ID theory and do some research to show it's a legitimate scientific field.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:41   

Heddle,

I never asserted that only ID advocates used invidious comparisons. I even noted an instance of Michael Shermer engaging in such in that original thread. As I noted there, the thread's purpose was to demonstrate definitively that the ID advocacy complement was not above using the rhetorical lowball that they get so exercised about when they are on the receiving end. I have been told on numerous occasions, for instance, the utter falsehood that William Dembski's demeanor is exchanges is wholly of an admirable character.

I certainly have no misconception that everyone arguing for good science education has behaved themselves and not indulged in unseemly rhetoric. I've probably been guilty of such in particular instances, though I do try to keep to a higher level. For others, we could argue cases. That, though, is not the point.

There are also numerous instances of ID advocates decrying bad uses of rhetoric utilized against them. The combination of the fact of invidious comparison use by ID advocates and the fact of their complaints against bad rhetoric leads to a particularly unsavory conclusion.

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

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:43   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,13:04)
Hah, yeah, I added that in a post script, too, Arden. We were both thinking along the same lines. And, avocationist, that was within just the last 10 days.

Great minds, etc.

There are a thousand stories of people being banned at UD for no good reason, but I mentioned Febble because her case was so egregious. There was absolutely no excuse for banning her save protecting Dave Scot & Dembski's fragile little egos. (But that's all UD has ever consisted of.)

Even Dave tacitly admitted this when the best he was able to do in the aftermath of banning her was to slime her statements (made elsewhere) on the honestly of US elections:

Quote

DaveScot wrote: “…if you google her a bit you’ll find she’s a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance”


So essentially Dave's admitting he had no excusable reason for banning her, but he's reassuring the 'base' that since she's a 'leftist', that alone justifies her banning.

Honestly, we could not ask for better, more self-destructive advocates of Intelligent Design.

--------------
"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

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,14:06   

Hello, Louis.

 
Quote
Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]


A man interested in my diatribe  :O  This could be promising... or it could be serendipity *chortles*

 
Quote
I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?


We all at some stage adopt a persona. Yes *all* of us. According to Labelling Theory we adopt these persona's to perform a specific role. Often these roles are positive, sometimes negative, sometimes psychiatric - that being that physiologically/psychiatrically we have a disposition towards persona's.. such as MP or Schizophrenia. Cybernetics is actually no different except more people have a tendency towards experimentation of a varity of persona's that they can adopt. In a sense this complies with Jungian persona's. This is also, all connected with communication. I suppose I could give a description relating to this thread.

A creationist begins communicating - often articulately and placidly. They will structurally present why they feel they are right in their given paradigm. Then that paradigm is challenged. The creationist will then adopt a martyr persona - the sadly misunderstood. Of course its due to people not being able to grasp what they are saying. They then become the "teachers". When then requested to support their claims with evidence, they are suddenly the "warrior".. steadfastly pushing ahead, secure in the knowledge that their teaching will miraculously convince people of their stance. When again requested to support their statements and supply evidence, they are suddenly the "persecuted" lost in a world of "blind people".. those blind to their vision. When still asked to support their claims, they become the "aggressive bull". Refusing to budge, reasserting their positions.

A variety of persona's are adopted during that description.

 
Quote
I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously.


I used to come here months ago, and like Sir Toejam, just changed my name. My anger is towards the misinformation that creationists spread (yes, often lies) in relation to science. Science however, can withstand the barrage, my concern is those individuals and groups who are naive enough to adopt that misinformation and at a later stage when being hammered by those learned in sciences, when they are corrected - the original people/s that fed them this misinformation are often long gone and take no accountability. It annoys me.

 
Quote
I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.


Diogenes is fading into the distance.. however sarcasm is often a result of cynicism.. Diogenes as a slave once told the King to stand before him, when the King asked why, Diogenes said it was to block out the sun which was blinding him.

 
Quote
I wonder what we'll have next.


Another persona, more than likely *smirks*

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,14:30   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,08:52)

Hello, Mike PSS.

Quote
Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.


Nicely written, factual and correct. I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:22   

Cedric,

Yours was probably the most thoughtful and constructive post, therefore, I'll have to put it off to deal with the mayhem, which never seems to stop.

Lenny,

No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.

Hello Louis,

Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.

I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.

People who subvert science are those who try to stop debate and open inquiry. Understand?

Improvius,

I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.

Back to Louis,

You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!!

Arden,

Yes, I am interested to know what DS did here. I did read the PT thread, and agree that he should be banned for life for threatening to hack the site, and that his behavior (wording in his post) was hypocritical.

Occam and Stephen, your post on back burner along with Cedric

Wesley,

I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE.

I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!

But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing.

Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it.

Deadman,

People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. I don't approve of his style. But it is one assumption, one comment in one thread. When one of you go over there, you don't suddenly find yourself with your own thread and half the board throwing insults and challenges that are almost impossible to meet, sneering and mocking all the while, telling you to go back to your black sabbath and so forth.

I didn't say Milton's book was essential, I just named it as one of several. Personally, I like Denton's maybe best.


Quote
Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue.


Although I find some boards too tolerant of nut cases that can't be reasoned with or who are broken records, generally I despise censorship, and that very thing is why I posted at the uncommonly dense thread. My post got lost in cyberspace, and I couldn't even imagine why, but I was on moderation for criticizing DS for the very treatment you speak of. I understand it is a fast moving blog and they might need tighter control on mayhem than here, but I think the moderation style makes them appear weak.
Yes, I saw Febble post there, but I didn't witness the part that led up to her banning. I have read your link. Obviously she is very intelligent, but I did not agree with her on a couple of points. Frankly, her remarks really deserved an in-depth response.
Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time.

That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems.
Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend.

BWE,
Quote
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
Really? I wonder who said this:

Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.


Arden,

Quote
So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right?
I am sure that if guys like Dembski and Behe and many, many others who are far more capable than I cannot do so, in fact have not brought out one good argument for ID, then I also cannot. But, more to the point that you responded to, as a group most of the people here are showing themselves unreasonable and irrational, and unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.

Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
Quote
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:30   

[/QUOTE]Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.[QUOTE]

Gosh have I called you loathsome and a liar and a subverter of science?

Remind me where I did that.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  459 replies since Jan. 22 2007,04:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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