An atheists world (2)

[HitchSlap]

imagine a court case where the defendant is telling the court, hey here is what evidence is. That would be contempt, because it would be a waste of time.

here it's just nonsequitor, doesn't follow the conversation.

I could post a bunch of stuff on evidence too, but it would be a word filler to fill my lack of argument.

seems this is the case with you,

right?

Evidence is why your home boys got spanked in the Dover trial.

Any questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am fairly sure science didn't create my computer I am using, or my phone, or my kindle. I think it was originally invented by various invented and manufactured at a software facility somewhere as a prototype. Engineers only use scientific method, what 10 % of the time at best?

Most of the time it's just rational and critical thinking.

which to you is only a multiple choice idea,

not a true and false idea.

which doesn't make sense either.

Then you would be totally ignorant of how your computer works.

How do you think it was invented in the first place?

 

[bhsmte]

I am fairly sure science didn't create my computer I am using, or my phone, or my kindle. I think it was originally invented by various inventors and manufactured at a facility somewhere as a prototype. Engineers only use scientific method, what 10 % of the time at best? After all they are not scientists remember?


i mean they call it computer science, but how much science do they use for real?

Maybe you were thinking of something else?

Most of the time it's just rational and critical thinking engineers use....


which to you is only a multiple choice idea,

not a true and false idea.

which doesn't make sense either.

It's hard to hold back your ignorance of science, isn't it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Then you would be totally ignorant of how your computer works.

How do you think it was invented in the first place?

go ahead and google it

Let me google that for you

 

[createdtoworship]

It's hard to hold back your ignorance of science, isn't it?

please go on, explain yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

Evidence is why your home boys got spanked in the Dover trial.

Any questions?

yes, there are many problems with the dover case, I suggest a podcast from discovery.org on the issue.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/04/where_dover_was_wrong_a_detail.html

whether ID is science:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3218

 

[bhsmte]

please go on, explain yourself.

You have done that on your own. Your posts speak for themselves.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have done that on your own. Your posts speak for themselves.

ok well that is begging the question as to what science is (arbitrary, or doesn't add information to the conclusion) (that I don't know what science is)

so please if you wish to contribute evidence go ahead....

 

[createdtoworship]

Once informed you can no longer deny that we do have evidence.

ok, where is it? I can't find it....did you lose it?

 

[bhsmte]

ok well that is begging the question as to what science is (arbitrary, or doesn't add information to the conclusion) (that I don't know what science is)

so please if you wish to contribute evidence go ahead....

Do you think you would be punching the keys on a computer, posting messages that are sent in fractions of seconds, without the advancements made from scientific work to discover the technology to do so?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It would be quite the career plan. Study hard in biology, get a PhD. from some highly regarded accredited university, then go be a shill on the Creationist circuit.

Charge, say, $5K per speaking engagement (plus expenses). Bill Clinton can get half a million for a single engagement; I'm sure a PhD biologist speaking against evolution could get 1% of that from several mega-churches and Creationist groups. Go to major cities and give talks at multiple places. Do that a couple of times a month. That right there could be a good two hundred grand. But then also sell your books and DVDs and CDs (series of them) at those events and online. And of course, instead of having one four-hour DVD at $10, sell four one-hour DVDs at $15 apiece. On your website, have a donations page to support your "organization", and don't forget the paid ads!

A friend of mine at work is a principal scientific officer (that's above higher scientific officer and senior scientific officer), and has a PhD, mentioned to me earlier this year that he earns £50,000 a year. The contrast is certainly striking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, there are many problems with the dover case, I suggest a podcast from discovery.org on the issue.

Intelligent Design the Future

whether ID is science:

CSC - Whether Intelligent Design is Science

The Discovery Institute has been caught lying too many times to be of any credibility, especially in their own defense. Do you have any fact based sources that make the same sort of claims?

 

[mzungu]

An even better example is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a.k.a North Korea which, of course, is everyone's favorite democracy.

The NAZIs used the socialist tag to garner the support of the working people in the 1920s. But, once they came to power, they threw all of the members of the German Socialist Party into the precursors of the concentration camps.

Indeed

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, there are many problems with the dover case, I suggest a podcast from discovery.org on the issue.

Intelligent Design the Future

whether ID is science:

CSC - Whether Intelligent Design is Science

I am listening to Luskin try to defend the IDists and he starts off with a statement that was shown to be a lie in the Dover trial, he claims "ID is not creationism", and yet they were able to show in the Dover trial that the textbook that was supposed to teach creationism was switched to one that was supposed to teach ID by only replacing the phrase "intelligent design" for "creationism". When a supposed defense starts off this badly I don't see why I should listen any further.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you can hear about the origin of ID and how it came out in the Dover trial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWNfKVY9bqc

I changed the video. I first posted the wrong one. Start at about 2:40.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am fairly sure science didn't create my computer I am using, or my phone, or my kindle.

Yes, those were all the result of divine revelation.

 

[Loudmouth]

ok well that is begging the question as to what science is (arbitrary, or doesn't add information to the conclusion) (that I don't know what science is)

so please if you wish to contribute evidence go ahead....

Evidence is empirically gathered facts that can be used to test a hypothesis. To put it another way, evidence in science is gathered from repeatable experiments that should produce the same data, within a range of error, for anyone who does the experiment. This would include measurements of fossils, DNA sequences, and isotope ratios in rocks.

The second part of evidence, as hinted at above, is the ability to test a hypothesis. To use forensic science as an example, if any DNA sequence would be considered a match to the suspect's DNA then that DNA is not evidence. Hypotheses need to make risky predictions. Creationism fails this part of the equation. For example, no matter what features a fossil has no creationist is going to accept it as transitional. No matter what features a rock or sediment layer has it will never be considered evidence of age by creationists. That is why creationism does not have evidence, because nothing can change their mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok, where is it? I can't find it....did you lose it?

I guess I should have put in the word "honestly".

You have been presented with evidence. As I said all fossils found to date have been evidence for evolution. Lucy is evidence for evolution. They fit in the evolutionary paradigm. They are undeniable evidence.

To show that they do not support evolution you have to show the evidence is not of the age we believe it to be. Remember, we do have evidence for the dates, those are independent of the theory of evolution.

Creationists hate the proper scientific definition of evidence. The definition that they depend on every day of their lives in many different ways. That definition, which is used by all science, not just evolution means they cannot deny that there is evidence for evolution. Most avoid learning it so that they have a hair of "plausible deniability" when it comes to evidence.

It is the only way that they can keep lying to themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the video continues here. She also gets into the next book that gradyll referred to:

Eugenie Scott on ID, Creationism and Dover 6of7 - YouTube

 

[EternalDragon]

Do you think you would be punching the keys on a computer, posting messages that are sent in fractions of seconds, without the advancements made from scientific work to discover the technology to do so?

Uh, those are operation sciences that can be tested, observed and repeated in the here and now. They have nothing to do with evolution theory. Absolutely nothing.