Intelligent Design's research impact on science

[VirOptimus]

In a bad mood today, are you?

On the contrary, I’m quite happy and content.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your non-troll posts? Isnt that zero?

Provocative = trolling? Who knew?

Here's what actually happens. I post a provocative thread. Someone argues with me. Therefore I'm trolling.

 

[Ophiolite]

Provocative = trolling? Who knew?

Here's what actually happens. I post a provocative thread. Someone argues with me. Therefore I'm trolling.

This is the science sub-section of the forum, as you know. Those members who are scientists, or who have scientific training are accustomed to two or three things in such an environment:
1. Clear expression of views, with minimal ambiguity and a consistency of thought.
2. Readiness to supply links to quality material (ideally from reputable peer reviewed journals) that provides the evidence and the arguments to support any assertions.
3. A proportion of posts that explore an issue in depth.

What we have come to expect, but would rather not see include:
1. Bland assertions with no support.
2. Opinions touted as established fact.
3. Posts that are short, not from concision, pith or wit, but because their content is of minimal value.

Against such a backdrop it is tempting and all too easy to suspect trolling when the real explanation may be genuine ignorance of the topic and lack of education in the scientific method. If your posts more often met the criteria set up in my first list above then any accusation of trolling could be avoided and we could all enjoy many fruitful discussions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is the science sub-section of the forum, as you know. Those members who are scientists, or who have scientific training are accustomed to two or three things in such an environment:
1. Clear expression of views, with minimal ambiguity and a consistency of thought.
2. Readiness to supply links to quality material (ideally from reputable peer reviewed journals) that provides the evidence and the arguments to support any assertions.
3. A proportion of posts that explore an issue in depth.

What we have come to expect, but would rather not see include:
1. Bland assertions with no support.
2. Opinions touted as established fact.
3. Posts that are short, not from concision, pith or wit, but because their content is of minimal value.

Against such a backdrop it is tempting and all too easy to suspect trolling when the real explanation may be genuine ignorance of the topic and lack of education in the scientific method. If your posts more often met the criteria set up in my first list above then any accusation of trolling could be avoided and we could all enjoy many fruitful discussions.

Friend, even non-scientific threads and posts are attacked. I think it's the Trump syndrome (or in the case of conservatives the Obama syndrome). However it doesn't really bother me that much.

 

[Ophiolite]

However it doesn't really bother me that much.

The problem is that you don't think there is a problem.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem is that you don't think there is a problem.

If the majority opinion is on the side of evolutionary science, and growing, what's the problem?

 

[tas8831]

Provocative = trolling? Who knew?

Here's what actually happens. I post a provocative thread. Someone argues with me. Therefore I'm trolling.

The trolling comes when you refuse to acknowledge your errors and continue to regurgitate the same foolish claims over and over.

The whole vocalizations from the aorta/gut come to mind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The trolling comes when you refuse to acknowledge your errors and continue to regurgitate the same foolish claims over and over.

That's not trolling.

The whole vocalizations from the aorta/gut come to mind.

I'm holding out for more research.

 

[Ophiolite]

The trolling comes when you refuse to acknowledge your errors and continue to regurgitate the same foolish claims over and over.

Such actions are discourteous, provocative in a negative sense, intellectually dishonest and off-topic.

That's not trolling.

If the aforementioned characteristics are not trolling, then I do not know what is. But even if it's not trolling it still remains as discourteous, provocative in a negative sense, intellectually dishonest and off-topic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Such actions are discourteous, provocative in a negative sense, intellectually dishonest and off-topic.

If the aforementioned characteristics are not trolling, then I do not know what is. But even if it's not trolling it still remains as discourteous, provocative in a negative sense, intellectually dishonest and off-topic.

If disagreement is trolling then I am trolled more than any here. Many disagree with me on everything simply because I disagree with them on one thing in particular: evolution. It seems that if you don't believe in evolution any other opinions are invalid.

 

[Ophiolite]

If disagreement is trolling then I am trolled constantly.

Nobody mentioned disagreement. That looks like another example of you trying to change the subject. That looks a lot like intellectual dishonesty.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nobody mentioned disagreement. That looks like another example of you trying to change the subject. That looks a lot like intellectual dishonesty.

You and others attempt to beat me over the head with your belief in evolution. I beat back with my belief in creation. You present or point to evidence that no one can understand. I counter with anatomy studies that anyone can understand. I believe my position is worth defending. If that defense is trolling it should become part of forum rules.

 

[VirOptimus]

You and others attempt to beat me over the head with your belief in evolution. I beat back with my belief in creation. You present or point to evidence that no one can understand. I counter with anatomy studies that anyone can understand. I believe my position is worth defending. If that defense is trolling it should become part of forum rules.

One doesnt "belive" in the ToE, one accepts the science. Not accepting science is not accepting physical reality, i.e. futile.

You dont "beat" back, you just troll and refuse to learn from your mistakes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One doesnt "belive" in the ToE, one accepts the science. Not accepting science is not accepting physical reality, i.e. futile.

You dont "beat" back, you just troll and refuse to learn from your mistakes.

How is belief in creation a mistake? And how can you infer evolution from studying anatomy?

 

[VirOptimus]

How is belief in creation a mistake? And how can you infer evolution from studying anatomy?

The ToE is incredibly wellsupported by all branches of biology. All the evidence and data support the ToE. All of it.

YEC have no data or evidence supporting it and is furthermore in direct conflict with physical reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

You and others attempt to beat me over the head with your belief in evolution. I beat back with my belief in creation. You present or point to evidence that no one can understand. I counter with anatomy studies that anyone can understand. I believe my position is worth defending. If that defense is trolling it should become part of forum rules.

Neat. Once again you fail to address the content of my post. I think that's the third in this particular run. You avoid answering. Instead you make points or ask questions that might be relevant after you have addressed the questions or arguments addressed to you, but are irrelevant, off-topic and trolling if used as avoiding tactics.

What don't you understand about "Avoiding tactics are intellectually dishonest"?

You present or point to evidence that no one can understand. I counter with anatomy studies that anyone can understand.

The evidence is well understood by anybody who can be bothered to study the matter. You apparently take pride in declaring you will not study it. You have been told this repeatedly yet you still repeat the lie that it is too difficult to understand.

Your points on anatomy amount to "It is obvious that anatomy shows us creation not evolution", yet you fail - repeatedly - to substantiate that, while other members provide details explaining the relevance of comparative anatomy, which you ignore and just repeat the same jaded mantra.

And then you claim you are not trolling! Right.

And remember, your "defence" of creation is so weak that you are very likely turning some readers against Creationism and perhaps even Christianity. Dawkins would be proud of your effort.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The ToE is incredibly wellsupported by all branches of biology. All the evidence and data support the ToE. All of it.

YEC have no data or evidence supporting it and is furthermore in direct conflict with physical reality.

I'm an OEC.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The evidence is well understood by anybody who can be bothered to study the matter. You apparently take pride in declaring you will not study it. You have been told this repeatedly yet you still repeat the lie that it is too difficult to understand.

I have perused it and the impossibility of understanding it became obvious pretty quick.
Do you think that everyone who says they believe it actually understands it? Note that there is no such requirement for belief in creation.

Your points on anatomy amount to "It is obvious that anatomy shows us creation not evolution", yet you fail - repeatedly - to substantiate that, while other members provide details explaining the relevance of comparative anatomy, which you ignore and just repeat the same jaded mantra.

The relevance of 'comparative anatomy' is common or similar design. That is obvious. Organisms function they way they do because they were designed that way. So, my position is "Argument from Obviousness". And that's not intended as a pun.

And remember, your "defence" of creation is so weak that you are very likely turning some readers against Creationism and perhaps even Christianity. Dawkins would be proud of your effort.

How is obviousness a weak argument? If I see deliberate design why am I wrong?

 

[Ophiolite]

I have perused it and the impossibility of understanding it became obvious pretty quick.

The millions who do understand it would disagree with you. I'm not speaking of the hundreds of millions who believe the theory. They are not relevant to this dicussion. I'm talking about those who have made a proper study of theory in enough depth and breadth to be thoroughly convinced by it. Millions. Many millions, yet you - who have given it no more than a cursory glance - are able to see that these millions, who have studied the theory in depth, many of them (hundreds of thousands at least) who have contributed to the refinement of the theory, these millions are wrong and you are right. I don't need to be sceptical to see how silly that is.

Do you think that everyone who says they believe it actually understands it? Note that there is no such requirement for belief in creation.

Dealt with above. It's not relevant. The lax rules for belief in creation is one of the things that makes atheists.

The relevance of 'comparative anatomy' is common or similar design. That is obvious. Organisms function they way they do because they were designed that way. So, my position is "Argument from Obviousness". And that's not intended as a pun.

You have failed to provide any details whatsoever to justify this position. You have offered it repeatedly as a bland assertion. In contrast several members have provided information and argument to justify the view that comparative anatomy supports evolution. Demonstrate you are capable of change: provide evidence justifying your position, not just a repeat of your infantile Argument from Obviousness.

How is obviousness a weak argument?

Obviousness is an opinion. Obviousness is subjective. Obviousness is not quantifiable. Obviousness is not scientific.

If I see deliberate design why am I wrong?

Because you have failed to employ one ounce of knowledge, one ounce of science, one ounce of testing, one ounce of validation, one ounce of measurement. You are doing nothing more than a guy in a bar, with too much to drink, arguing about the best ever heavyweight champion based on what he thinks he's seen, thinks he knows. And you keep repeating it. That's trolling.

 

[pitabread]

How is obviousness a weak argument?

Let's see: It's so obvious that life on Earth is the result of natural processes with no intelligent or supernatural intervention whatsoever.

Feel convinced yet?