Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::the post ID world

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,08:59

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 12 2006,14:51)

That use of "opines" seems very familiar to me. Some previous commenter over-used that word. Can't for the life of me think who it was. It wasn't a certain Mr Farfarman, was it?

Thordaddy & Larry F aren't the same person. They have totally different styles. Also, try googling them and comparing the stuff they post to various blogs, and also to the 'letters to the editor' that Larry posts. Very different 'paper trails'.

As far as I can tell, I don't think Larry F has posted here at AtBC yet.

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

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,09:02

Sorry folks

It was in fact Thordaddy on PT (23 comments in less than two days in January). D�j�-vu all over again.

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,09:06

Thanks Arden

Your post crossed with mine. All has become clear to me now.

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,10:29

So while I'm still trying to get an answer to how one acquires "faith" outside the process of interpreting empirical evidence, the "scientists" are quabbling about Norse gods and fake identities. LOL!

A simple IP check would show me to be in Pacific Beach, San Diego. Crown Point to be exact. Since my middle name is Thor and I have children, viola, thordaddy. I never have looked into the history of Thor or the vikings because it's just a name for me.

Just answer the question.

How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Arden,

I've answered your question. "Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence. Science DOES NOT allow any other process.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,11:07

hey thordaddy. don't be rude. this thread is supposed to be about what the creationists are going to do now that ID is mortally wounded. If you want to talk about how incredibly scientific your parents' religion is, why don't you start a thread for that instead of hijacking mine?

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,11:24

Quote

I've answered your question.

No you did not. You repeated a lot of empty verbiage and mostly just asked questions.

Quote

"Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence. �Science DOES NOT allow any other process.

Do you draw any distinction between interpreting real or imaginary 'emperical evidence'?

Quote

How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

We answered this question already. Most people are whatever 'faith' they were raised in. Or people 'acquire their faith' through societal pressure, or societal approbation. Millions of people maintain their faith by finding false patterns or ignoring evidence that contradicts their faith. (The fact that millions of people passionately believe extremely different faiths makes it pretty much impossible that everybody acquires their faith thru 'interpretation of empirical evidence'.) They interpret random evidence in such a way as to support what they already believe or want to believe. Self-delusion, in other words.

That is not the same thing as interpretation of emperical evidence. If you think it is, prove it by going to see a faith healer next time you become seriously ill.

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

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,11:33

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 12 2006,16:29)

WEll, I note you havent actually denied that different people experience different realities, and thus, if your line of reasoning is correct, there are millions or billions of gods about. Indeed, you cant even make much of the dictionary definition, which doesnt say much about empiricla evidence.

In short, you are a bloviating fool. What evidence do you have for your position? None. Thats why you cant present it.

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:35

So, Thor, besides trying to insult us by using the word scientist in quotes (still a praise for me) and repeating your (already answered) mantra for the bajillionth time, do you have anything constructive to add? Didn't think so.

Quote

"Faith" is acquired by interpreting the empirical evidence. �Science DOES NOT allow any other process.

Wait wait- science determines how faith is aquired?
"Faith" in quotation marks?
Are we still talking about "millions of believers throughout history" here? Or are you trying to change the subject and claim you were talking about something else all along? Because you're not doing a very good job.
So, please clarify: What do you mean by "faith"?

...not that I expect a straight answer.

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,12:51

too bad I can't move you to the bathroom wall.

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,13:08

Ok, here we go again.

stevestory,

What does post-ID mean? Has there ever been such a period?

You say,

If you want to talk about how incredibly scientific your parents' religion is, why don't you start a thread for that instead of hijacking mine?

I can't do anything but laugh at such an empirically paultry assumption. My parents didn't espouse ANY religion. They were too busy running their business and raising 6 boys. That's a lot of ball games and homework, you know!

Arden opines,

Do you draw any distinction between interpreting real or imaginary 'emperical evidence'?

Please do define "imaginary 'empirical evidence?'" You may call the interpretation fallacious, but that's a mighty bold claim.

And for someone that apparently has no "faith," you sure seem awfully knowledgeable about how it's acquired? Have you done a scientific study as to how the information contained within this universe has led billions to interpret a creator? If that information within the universe contains NO evidence of an IDer then how was the intepretation made? Delusion? Even that's an interpretation.

guthrie,

You've already conceded that you "don't know" how "faith" is acquired. Put your scientific mind to work and come back with a better answer. You can make the bold claim similar to Arden that it's a mass delusion that has spanned the history of man. I'm not that confident.

Faid

So you are arguing about a term that you can't define? The topic is "faith" in an IDer. How that "faith" is acquired is the question? Do you have an answer?

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,13:15

Empiracally paultry? First of all it's 'paltry', and second of all, I hear that all beliefs are based on studying the empirical evidence, so I don't know how you could say mine wasn't. Now will the lot of you start your own thread? it's rude to hijack mine.

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,13:43

I can't define it? Hey, I'm not the one who keeps putting quotation marks on it... What is the reason for that, anyway?

And of course, if you are going to keep referring to all those millions of people who "believed in an IDer over the centuries" as evidence, I'll just have to keep reminding you that those people believed in gods, and religious beliefs have nothing to do with "interpreting empirical evidence" or with any kind of science whatsoever (well except History of Religion etc).
That's what we've been telling you all this time, but you just don't listen, do you?

Oh and steve is right; you better make a new thread to answer. We'll answer there.

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

Renier

Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 12 2006,19:16

Quote

How is "faith" acquired if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Memes.... ever though of that?

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,00:00

stevestory opines,

Empiracally paultry? First of all it's 'paltry', and second of all, I hear that all beliefs are based on studying the empirical evidence, so I don't know how you could say mine wasn't. Now will the lot of you start your own thread? it's rude to hijack mine.

How am I hijacking your thread when my question was in direct reference to the thread? And before you start doing spelling checks for me, try your own (empiracally??).

What does post-ID mean? Such a thing has never existed as far as I know? Could you explain?

Renier,

Let's try the reductionist method and ask how the FIRST human acquired his "faith" in an IDer?

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,00:09

Thordaddy, if you want to show that you're really interested in discussing and you're not just trying to be provoking and irritating, take this to the "Thordaddy post here" thread.

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain why you're putting those quotes round "faith" again kthx

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,08:47

Faid,

I can't control your irritation. Grow some thicker skin. The thread title asks about a "post-ID" world? What does that mean to you? Since stevestory started the thread, it seemed to make sense to ask him what it meant. And so I've asked and have yet to receive and answer. Instead, I get silly responses that pertain to nothing being discussed.

I said very emphatically that there is NO "post-ID" world because science was merely an afterthought. What do you think?

PS Do think there are those that are neither positively nor negatively inclined towards either IDism or neo-Darwinism? Do you think there are those that are very much sitting on the fence? The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. That is an absurd assumption.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,09:01

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 15 2006,14:47)

The thread title asks about a "post-ID" world? �What does that mean to you? �Since stevestory started the thread, it seemed to make sense to ask him what it meant. �And so I've asked and have yet to receive and answer. �Instead, I get silly responses that pertain to nothing being discussed.

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it would help if you actually read the post that started this thread? I mean, just a suggestion....

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,09:37

Re "The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. "

That would depend on what one means by "question evolution". Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

Henry

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,10:46

That's just great, Thor. Your first post in this thread was:

Quote

I think it's quite naive for "scientists" to continue to believe that only they can define science while it is clear to the rest of us ignorant folks that science is being define by judges, teacher's unions, liberal activist groups and so on and so forth. �Why not be defined by ID activists? �This is the fail-proof strategy? �

The gall in thinking that only scientists and those in the clique could define science while others are left to the sidelines, voiceless and oppressed, is so repungantly totalitarian that it is doomed to extinction in a society based on equality, tolerance and non-discrimination.

The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians. �What's fair is fair.

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

Straight and to the point of the thread, I see.
After that, you post your "faith" question fourteen times, in spite of it being answered the first time, while avoiding and ignoring all calls for clarifying your position.
And now, you claim you were discussing "the post ID world" from the start.

How did that Commandment go again, Thordaddy?

Anyway, I'll be waiting in the thread made for you to explain what the word <quote>faith<unquote> means in your mind, and how exactly belief in gods comes from "interpreting empirical evidence".

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

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

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

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:15

stevestory opined,

ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated.

This is naive. I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID. Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science... judges defining science! Is this what stevestory is all giggly about? What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue? What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?

As I said, this battle is being fought on many fronts and not just in the laboratory.

Henry J opines,

Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

You're not referencing me, are you? If so, please provide the appropriate quotes where I state "no evidence" for evolution?

In fact, it is the "scientists" that claim NO EVIDENCE for an IDer which leads one to ask,

How did the belief (faith) in an IDer come into existence starting with the very first human that looked above and said something greater and more powerful must have had a hand in all of this? How did this belief (faith) arise outside of the process of interpreting the empirical evidence?

Faid,

I will say it again, there is NO process outside the interpretation of empirical evidence in which a person comes to "believe" or have "faith" in an IDer. If there is, please explain? Remember, let's focus on that first human that looked into the sky and pondered the creator. What was the process that allowed such insight and speculation? Physics theory doesn't leave you much wiggle room, does it?

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:26

thordaddy,

Quote

Henry J opines,

Re "The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist. "

Does it mean asking how a particular conclusion was reached? Or does it mean claiming there's no evidence for something for which plenty of evidence has been described?

You're not referencing me, are you? If so, please provide the appropriate quotes where I state "no evidence" for evolution?

I was asking for clarification as to what you meant by "question evolution".

henry

C.J.O'Brien

Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:40

Let's first keep in mind that monotheism, and thus belief in specifically a creator, is a late arrival to human spirituality (which term I am using in the sense of 'religious feeling' ).

The first gods were probably 'small gods,' or animistic spirits, the 'god' of a specific river, or of a species of tree, for instance. Now, you'd like to claim, I suppose, that it was close examination of those various empirical phenomena that led our ancestors to attribute their vagaries to the action of supernatural forces?

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:45

Quote

This is naive. I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID. Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science... judges defining science! Is this what stevestory is all giggly about? What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue? What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?

We were trying to fool everyone, and we would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you pesky kids! Yes, you saw right through us. Intelligent Design is a phenomenal revolution in science. The theory is such an amazing paradigm that it has led to an explosion of experiments and results. But since we control the journals, we have so far managed to supress the hundreds, nay thousands, of resulting papers. Though Intelligent Design has led to phenomenal new results and technologies in the lab, we have kept it all illegal and hidden thanks to a sympathetic judge who, like the rest of us, is secretly an atheist.

Well, we tried, but you beat us.

Stranger than fiction

Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,13:24

Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 16 2006,18:15)

What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?

A few things.

1. A little thing called precedent, of which Judge Jones's ruling is a particularly strong example.

2. The fact that judges are supposed to base their decisions on expert testimonies for cases in which they lack expertise. �Consider the huge gap between expert witnesses for and against ID, in terms of both quantity and quality.

Chris Hyland

Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,13:33

Quote

But since we control the journals, we have so far managed to supress the hundreds, nay thousands, of resulting papers.

I always find it ironic that they claim ID is being kept out of the literature and at the same time give a list of 'peer reviewed ID articles'.

In my opinion in the 'post ID world' a new generation of spokespeople will emerge who will argue what they will probably call 'non-darwinian evolution', or possibly 'guided evolution'. They will no longer argue for a designer, but when pushed will say that their theories likely point to a designer in the same way the current proponents will say that the designer is likely god. Then if we're lucky this dilution will continue there is nothing left and we can get back to more productive things.

Seven Popes

Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,14:00

Thordaddy, to quote:

Quote

How did the belief (faith) in an IDer come into existence starting with the very first human that looked above and said something greater and more powerful must have had a hand in all of this? How did this belief (faith) arise outside of the process of interpreting the empirical evidence?

In Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District , the judge ruled that ID was not science, it was religion. Your quote makes the same point. ID may be philosopy, but it isn't science. The ID people tried their darndest, but they ran headlong into the Establishment clause, and specifically the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test states that all laws in the United States must have a clear secular purpose (Lemon v. Kurtzman). That's all. </Troll Feeding>

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,14:26

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,18:45)

I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID. �Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science... �judges defining science! �Is this what stevestory is all giggly about? �What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue? �What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science? �

The IDC crowd really seems to be scarcely bothering to go thru the motions of doing (or being) real science anymore. They're now banking everything on some rightwing fundamentalist/activist judge giving them a favorable ruling despite everything -- a scenario where they're plucked out from the burning building by the helicopter. Everything else the IDC folks are doing is just to bide their time til this mythic judge comes along and rescues them.

And I seem to be hearing this whole "redefine science" meme a LOT more than I used to -- since they've failed dismally to convince anyone IDC isn't religion, they're now dreaming of some judge mandating that 'science' now officially must include the supernatural. I always ask whether this will include other notions of the origins of the world like what the Hindus or Neopagans believe, but they never answer.

Remarkably totalitarian -- imagine the Supreme Court intervening in what the valid definition of, say, history, chemistry or medicine was. For a bunch of folks who hate Islam so much, fundies sure seem to share a lot of the worst habits of Islamist countries.

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

thordaddy

Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,15:26

Henry J asks,

Quote

I was asking for clarification as to what you meant by "question evolution."

Well, since you have no evidence for "no evidence" then it leaves only one possible answer, doesn't it?

CJ O'Brien opines,

Quote

Now, you'd like to claim, I suppose, that it was close examination of those various empirical phenomena that led our ancestors to attribute their vagaries to the action of supernatural forces?

The claim is very simple. There is NO process outside of interpreting empirical evidence for the "belief" in a creator or creators. Take your pick! If no empirical evidence exists for an IDer(s) then how, scientifically speaking, did such a belief come into existence? What's the process that initiated this pondering of an IDer where NO evidence existed for such a pondering?

stevestory,

I don't believe you to be a serious participator in this thread. The point is simple. Judges are defining science. This begs the question.

Why can't preachers define science?
Why can't teachers define science?
Why can't politicians define science?

Judges do!

Please come up with a good answer for these questions.

Stanger than fiction opines,

Quote

1. A little thing called precedent, of which Judge Jones's ruling is a particularly strong example.

2. The fact that judges are supposed to base their decisions on expert testimonies for cases in which they lack expertise. Consider the huge gap between expert witnesses for and against ID, in terms of both quantity and quality.

Precedent is a legal mechanism that has NO business residing in the scientific sphere. Science doesn't seek stability, but the truth.

On point 2, it seems that you concede that those with less than the required expertise are defining science based on their less than expert interpretation of what the experts say. Huh?? Why does this power to define science only include judges? Why can't preachers, teachers and politicians define science as well?

Arden,

You haven't even gone passed the most basic question. If there is no empirical evidence for an IDer then by what process did such a "belief" manifest? How did the first "creationist" come by his "belief" if not by the interpretation of empirical evidence?

Seven Popes

Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006