scordova
Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003
|
| Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:40) | 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.
(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too. Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)
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?
6. 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.
7. 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?
8. 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"?
9. 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?
10. 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?
11. 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?
12. 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?
13. Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?
14. 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?
15. 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?
16. > I don't want ID or creation science taught in Public Schools nor college science classes.
Why not?
Please be as specific as possible.
17. >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".
18. >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?
19. >It it testable in 2 ways:
WHAT, specifically, is testable? How do you propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?
20. >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.
21. >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.
22. >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?
23. > 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?
24. >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?
25. >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?
26. >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?
27. 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. . . .
28. >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?
29. > 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.
30. >Perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a theory.
Perhaps you prefer Behe's definition of "scientific theory", which places astrology alongside ID?
But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?
31. >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.
Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.
Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?
Thanks.
Yep, that makes 31 questions, Sal. One, you've now answered. Two, you gave BS evasions. Still lots left.
Any time you're ready, Sal. You just let me know, OK?
>I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views. If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.
Glad to hear that. Sincerely.
What have you been doing to have other IDers repudiate them?
>Further you continue to use Fallacies of Interrogation.
Consider it a Vise, Sal. (snicker) (giggle)
> That means such questions, aren't even questions.
Well, Sal, they all look like questions to ME. Questions that you, for some odd reason, don't seem to want to answer.
One down, Sal. Thirty more to go.
Let me know when you're ready.
And by the way, if you really ARE Sal, then I feel very sorry for you. You seem, at long last, to have finally lost all your marbles. (shrug)
But I thank you, whoever you are, for demonstrating so clearly to everyone that ID/creationists are evasive dishonest cowards who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions. |
Hey Flank, you can't read. I answered 5. You haven't answered one. What's the matter, Flank, are my question to sophisticated for your high-school education?
| Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 05 2005,21:18) | Nope, still no answers to any of the 31 questions I asked.
Do let me know when you're ready, OK? |
Apparently you missed it Flank, so here it is:
| Quote |
Flank wrote:
Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you.
|
Hey, Flank, your set of question is 5 questions, I thought you'd be able to count by now.
| Quote |
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?
|
| Quote |
1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
My answer:
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. And subject to Popperian falsification as would be expected from a scientific theory.
|
| 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?
My answer: ID theory is not used to determine the age of the earth and it does not answer the question of whether humans descended from apes like ancestors or not.
Does gravitational theory have answers to those questions? No. Does that therefore invalidate graviational theory as a theory? No.
Your question nly demonstrates your attempt to suggest ID is untrue because it does not address certain questions. That's the fault of your miswired understanding, not the theory. Does your high school level understanding comprehend that, is the reasoning too sophisticated for you?
|
| Quote |
3. what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?
Evolution is dealing with specified complex information. That information trancends material reality (have you read Matter Myth by Physicist Davies and Gribbin?). Trying to tie the origin information to unthinking materialistic processes is mixing apples and oranges.
Weather phenomena do not deal with CSI.
Your accident investigation question is to vague to be useful for discussion, likewise your discussion of medicine. The fact that you can't even phrase your questions coherently is the reason you don't get the answer your looking for. You questions are about as dumb as asking why does 5 equal 4 (which apparently you haven't quite figured out is untrue), and then you call me a liar when I don't answer you're non-sensical questions.
Do you understand information theory, Flank? Well I guess not high school boy, it's way over your head.....
|
| Quote |
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.
My answer:
I don't know if I trust you're characterization of Ahamanson's current views. If they are as extreme as you claim (he may have renounced some of his views already), then I repudiate them.
I've never been a reconstructionist, nor do I have intention of doing so. I don't receive Ahmanson's money. I had lunch with him, but I paid for my meal...
I suggest you quit your false accusations, Flank.
|
| Quote |
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?
My answer:
Where did I ever say "ID is all about defeating atheism and anti-religion"?
I don't recall saying that, and that's not anything I would say anyway.....
Your question is another example of
Fallacy of Interrogation
Do I have to diagram the details of your logical fallacies down to the high school level for you?
Have anything to back it up that I explicitly said that or are those fabrications of your brain? That's several times you've misrepresented me, Flank. Care to issue some retractions.
|
| Quote |
Sal (or whoever you really are), just answer my goddamn questions.
|
Getting testy, eh? Still presuming you're not dealing with the real Salvador Cordova? Do you enjoy remaining in a state of denial. Didn't think that I'd eventually deal with you Flank? Can't deal with the facts that it's the real me coming out to take your high school understanding on?
I answered your questions (whichever one were coherent at least). I can cut and paste now, just like you, Flank. Since you evaded my first question, how about another one, #2:
How did life eventually arrive at the architecture such tat proteins eventually were homo-chiral with purely exclusive alpha-peptide bonds?
C'mon, Flank, make that high school education show through.
|
That's why the materialism in evolutionary theory is not consistent with science or the search for correct answers.
.
