- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,649
- 52,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
lolfail.... nothing even scientifically feasible for ID in that argument - safe to say there isn't one then.
My existence is an axiom - I exist. It doesn't matter how I exist, but the mere fact you see this means I exist - even if it's nothing more than a forumbot selecting random responses from a databases of prefabricated responses, I exist.lolressurect.... your existence is unfalsifiable: therefore unscientific.
Did I say you didn't?My existence is an axiom - I exist.
...what? You'll have to reference that - feel free to do that anytime you're ready.Are you maybe still working through how to answer some of my questions? I'm OK with that, and don't want to be overly critical if that is the case. It's the nature of a discussion, and I don't expect people to have every answer prepared.
I ask because either you are undecided or I'm not understanding your answers. To me you seem to go back and forth between "yes" and "no".
Put his name in there then if you think it belongs, I was referring to him, and not just him but all the ID proponents - so best include all their names (Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, etc.), and feel free to pass on my details too, fill your boots because ID has in fact already been found by a court of law to be a religious proposition so far devoid of scientific substance. Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial - Truth hurts, but there it is...Of course you left out the names this time, so I can't know specifically whom you are accusing, but to answer one of your questions, the person we were discussing was Dembski, and you have made several unfounded, defamatory statements above. I'm not going to be able to have a discussion with you about science if you don't understand why such statements are unfounded. Maybe you should read this material: Online Defamation Law
Science is Science and the Law is the Law. If you have to mix the two, then you're doing both of them wrong. If for example a gaggle of cdesign proponentsists got some ruling in a court of law to promote ID in science classes, this wouldn't make it science. It would be a disservice at the very least and nothing more.Afterward, you can answer this question: Do you really think what you're saying would stand up in a court of law? Any good lawyer would rip you apart tout de suite.
Oh, This'll be Good! - What is the scientific question being asked then, and how much of it has its foundation in 'Science'? Also, I gotta hear what 'hypothesis' has been (is being?) developed for ID too! Seriously, this is what everyone's been waiting for!And you continue to misunderstand me. I am not saying ID (as presented by Dembski in his original work) is unscientific. I laid out 6 general steps for a scientific method in post #82. IMO Dembski successfully completed the first 3 (maybe 2.5) of those steps.
The fact that he did not successfully complete all 6 does not suddenly make what he did pseudo-science. If that were true, Newtonian mechanics (your example that I'll discuss more later) would also be pseudo-science.
What scientific foundation, or evidence, or even facts are there in support of any kind of 'intelligent designer' in biology?The only way I can rescue your statement and give it some credence is to say those who promote ID as a complete theory - who claim it went farther than it did - would be promoting pseudo-science. So, I don't agree with you that the original source material makes unfounded assumptions, is ridiculous, or is pseudo-science. All I have said is that it encountered a logical roadblock and failed to produce a feasible test.
I'm okay with that, I said this earlier that some ideas such as the Multiverse have their foundations in Science, but aren't useful in any way yet (if ever). What you don't hear though is the multiverse being taught in schools as factual science. those theoretical physicists who research it are up-front about it being nothing more than an 'idea' despite being borne out in the data way more than ID ever was. Regardless of the possibility we are the product of a multiverse, this is currently unfalsifiable with no working scientific model. See Multiverse - WikipediaRegardless, my impression of what you're saying is: Yes, an idea must successfully complete all 6 steps before it can be considered science. Well, OK. I disagree, but I've been around long enough to realize people almost never retreat from a position once they've stated it in an Internet forum.
I perhaps should clarify 'useful' to be of practical use in some form to the progress of humanity. I guess being able to discern knowable and unknowable things in reality is useful, so perhaps ID is useful in that aspect?I disagree that usefulness is "the entire point of science". I've heard scientists at CF reject that position, and I'm pretty sure I can dig up quotes from some well-known scientists that reject that position.
But wait, there's an exception. If you find it useful, it's also science. I already mentioned why I found ID useful, but this exception only applies if you think it's useful.
Let me rephrase that - What makes an idea scientifically relevant?That's a personal preference. For me, baseball (and specifically, the KC Royals) are relevant to my life. For you, maybe not. There may be stuff people are working on, hoping to codify it as science but will never succeed, but still trying because it's relevant to them. There may be valid scientific possibilities lying around that no one has ever looked at because no one has ever thought it relevant.
I'm sorry you feel so insulted, I'm certainly not any kind of professional psychologist diagnosing anyone with any legitimate condition but my partner is a practising psychologist and I have every respect for people suffering from any form of psychological disorder. Also, being a cognitive bias, you won't be committed to an asylum for 'accute' dunning-kruger (if there ever was such a diagnosis!You might want to go back and read that defamation link again. Then note this: Dunning-Kruger is a legitimate, accepted "cognitive bias" recognized by professional psychologists. If you are a licensed therapist trained to diagnose it, then please explain to me how this is done by reading random posts on the Internet about people you've never met. As it happens, I have spent decades dealing with family members who suffer from mental disorders, and I find it highly (repeat highly) insulting that you are amused by throwing these terms around like candy at an Easter parade. If you insist on continuing, I will need to withdraw from the conversation.
Cool, I can agree with that (since it seems you're just repeating my point of view from the other end) - emphasis on learning the subject matter as understood by the incumbent community first, of course.Sorry, but all this sounded to me like yes, but no. My answer would be: No, not everyone can do every science. That wouldn't lead me to restrict anyone. I think they should get the chance to try. But they need to demonstrate the ability. Further, I see no shame in admitting what one can't do. I'm a horrible swimmer. I can't draw worth a hoot. And I'm pretty weak in chemistry.
Of course you don't nee a degree in science to do science - but it helps if you want to be serious about it. If you want to categorise Dembski's pontification about science topics as science (which I don't really have a problem with if point be pressed) then sure. He does science. I still don't see it legitimate reason to include ID as high school science curriculum, and that's not just me who sees it that way. What you're doing here though is highlighting the very thing we were talking about earlier regarding one's ability to do science appropriately - Dembski doesn't have a Phd in Biology or genetics, and that he didn't start with the axioms and theorems of biology when he writes about biology is plainly apparent to those who are working in these fields. You've also noted that his idea doesn't have practical application either, no matter how useful he (or anyone else) thinks it'd be if it worked... On that though, the concepts of the Theory of Evolution do have practical applications and does have real world testable results that prove useful outside of biology - whether it be in design or predictability in resource location, etc., it continues to produce reliable results.Are you adding yet another requirement for science? One must hold a degree to do science? So, up until someone graduates from college they've never done science? There are reasons for degrees, but I wouldn't say that defines who can and can't do science.
Further, it only continues to highlight your unfamiliarity with ID. What Dembski laid out was not built upon the axioms and theorems of biology. Dembski's background is mathematics and statistics, and that is largely what ID depends upon. As such, the idea (had it worked) could have been applied to anything designed - cars, houses, paintings, whatever. It is not specific to the origins of life.
As you wish...Until we get some of the above issues straightened out, I'm not inclined to do that. I mean, after all, since I never completed all 6 steps, what I did wasn't science.
lol! I'm quantifiable, so my existence IS scientific...( I Think, therefore I Am! )Did I say you didn't?
The fact that you can't falsify your axiom means you're existence is unscientific.
Fine ... you exist.lol! I'm quantifiable, so my existence IS scientific...
My 'Not' existing has been falsified - you have the null hypothesis around the wrong way... Thus, Science!Fine ... you exist.
Bravo.
Now show it is science by demonstrating how it can be falsified.
I have every respect for people suffering from any form of psychological disorder.
Science is Science and the Law is the Law.
I still don't see it legitimate reason to include ID as high school science curriculum ...
What scientific foundation, or evidence, or even facts are there in support of any kind of 'intelligent designer' in biology?
Oh, This'll be Good! - What is the scientific question being asked then, and how much of it has its foundation in 'Science'? Also, I gotta hear what 'hypothesis' has been (is being?) developed for ID too! Seriously, this is what everyone's been waiting for!
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like a distraction. You've been shown why what you said was in error with respect to cognitive bias and actual psychological disorders and your footstamping over this seems somewhat odd given you on one hand chastise me for apparently 'diagnosing a psychological condition from internet posts alone', then on the other hand claiming to know me well enough from my posts alone to conclude I fail to have enough humanity for your liking. It could be that you might need to exercise a modicum of humility and respect in regards to your own posts here.I flat out don't believe that. One can't simply say one has respect - one must exhibit respect. You have failed to do so.
It is easy to misinterpret when only the words are available and not the accompanying body language, but I am always amazed by the lack of sensitivity and understanding of human interaction demonstrated in Internet forums.
I agree. That it took a court to tell both the dover board of education as well as the 'cdesign proponentsists' such a thing ought to be a huge concern for anyone who values science education.The above statement can go unsaid. I left the two separate: law in reference to your defamatory statements, science in reference to ID, Newton, biology, etc. It was you who mixed them, quoting a court case to defend your position that ID is not science. I find it sad that people resort to having lawyers tell them what is and is not science.
Cool. I wasn't directing my disdain for ID's attempts at bypassing the scientific process to get straight into school text books specifically at you, sorry for being sloppy in my conversation...I will further note that nowhere have I defended the actions of those pushing ID in that case. I stated a distinction between legitimate consideration of the question and incorrectly presenting it as a tested theory. It's disappointing you can't grasp that difference.
Awesome! Then I've misunderstood. That said, you agree then that Dembski, Behe and Mercer are wrong to (continue to) present ID as if it did pass that stage?Using terms like "scientific arena" and "scientific foundation", etc. are much too vague and sweeping for the distinction I have made. Further, I have already noted that the original ID proposition was unrelated to biology. Having noted that, why would I suddenly try to present evidence from biology? I've already said that those who try to apply ID in a biological context are in error. That you failed to note that makes me question if you've understood anything I've said. It doesn't give me much hope for answering your question.
ID only and ever reached the stage of formulating a hypothesis. It never successfully went beyond that stage. Those who present ID as if it did pass that stage are in error. Therefore, it's pointless to ask me for data.
If you have a legitimate hypothesis then it will stand on its own merit. My gleeful demeanour I'll admit has come from a long and arduous history of being let down by ID's proponents demanding it is science and ought to be treated as such, then failing to front said hypothesis. Feel free to table your hand and pleasantly surprise me.I don't share your enthusiasm or find encouragement in your glee in preparation for throwing to the ground whatever I might say next. You seem to have already made your decision that whatever I might say, it will be wrong.
Yes.As such, the only offer I give you is to slog through a long and tedious examination of the issue at hand. We start with: Is intelligence a valid scientific topic?
... claiming to know me well enough from my posts alone to conclude I fail to have enough humanity for your liking ...
That said, you agree then that Dembski, Behe and Mercer are wrong to (continue to) present ID as if it did pass that stage?
If you have a legitimate hypothesis then it will stand on its own merit. My gleeful demeanour I'll admit has come from a long and arduous history of being let down by ID's proponents demanding it is science and ought to be treated as such, then failing to front said hypothesis. Feel free to table your hand and pleasantly surprise me.
Yes.
Defamatory? Disrespectful? As much as I might've apologised for such an unintended conveyance, I'm offended that you assign them such malice without so much as an inkling of doubt it wasn't so. Again with the double-standards, you've leapt to condemn me and my comments as deliberately vexatious but not a whit of contrition in your own posts...I don't claim to know you at all - only the defamatory and disrespectful statements you've made here.
Awesome! We agree on way more than I thought, after all!Anyone who does that is in error.
Oh, okay... (?) now I'm a little intrigued because I did think that.My hypothesis has nothing to do with ID, though it is understandable why you drew that conclusion.
Of Course.I'm surprised. I expected some qualifications.
Next: If we have before us a legitimate scientific topic, is it legitimate to measure the effects of that phenomena?
As much as I might've apologised for such an unintended conveyance, I'm offended that you assign them such malice without so much as an inkling of doubt it wasn't so.
Oh, okay... (?) now I'm a little intrigued because I did think that.
Of Course.
My impression of your posts as a whole is that you are too ready to buy into the "They're just rejecting creationism (or ID, or whatever) because it leads to God" propaganda. You also seriously underestimate how much reading most of us have done of creationist and ID sources.I didn't detect an apology. It came across more as telling me it was all a misunderstanding on my part without any intention to change on your part. So, if I missed your apology, then I will apologize to you.
Hence my comment about growing weary of overlong preambles. It's not any fault of yours but simply par for the course. After reaching post #152 I'm sure most who might have been interested in the topic have long since stopped reading, so most will leave with a mistaken impression ... and 'round we go again.
I can't help but be amused with all the people passionately debating ID when few to none of them have ever even read the source material. There was a National Geographic article a few years back on scientific myths that hang around forever, and at one point it commented on the way most people are really only part of a club - in this case either the EVO Club or the YEC Club - passing on vitriol they've heard from others without ever really knowing anything about its veracity.
But I'll not claim complete innocence in that regard. Just as much as many evolutionists have never read The Design Inference - assuming it's false simply because a creationist wrote it, I'll bet many YECs have never read it - assuming it's true simply because a creationist wrote it. The only reason I read it was because of my Christian leanings. And that's the point I was making when I first joined this thread. It seems abundantly clear to me that for people of all stripes, their approach to science is impacted by their world view.
I could give you another example - another political football called Of Pandas and People. I'll bet it's in the same boat, where few to none on this forum have ever read it. I have, and in this case I own a copy of it. I was surprised by what I read for two reasons. It does have the criticisms of evolution which led to its complete rejection and revilement by evolutionists. But I bet YECs would be surprised to know it also contains criticisms of YEC and an acceptance of certain theories within the evolutionary field. Second, a common charge against creationists is that they don't have a viable theory to replace evolution. That book mentions some preliminary work done at the same time as Darwin on a theory called "species stabilization". Given that evolution consumed all of biology, it never became a complete set of theories, but it had a very interesting beginning. Even more interesting is that it is now accepted as true and included in the evolutionary set of theories - hence my comment that I don't accept or reject theories in biology based simply on people gluing the "evolution" label to them. Some on both sides would probably be surprised to realize one small piece of the puzzle called evolution was contributed by a creationist.
It was that realization that prompted my idea.
I don't know. My attitude may come in part from my training in history (I just passed my written comprehensives for an M.A. in history and will have my oral exams this week). As part of my history courses we read excerpts from Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, Hitler's Mein Kampf, etc. It's a necessary part of a historian's job to read texts which may be personally repulsive while trying to understand the part they played in history.
OK. But are those measures always available beforehand, or might a new hypothesis require proposing new measures? We seem to be in step with this little exercise so far, so I'll note a fun little historical tidbit. Newton faced a very difficult problem with his Principa. Calculus didn't exist at the time (of course, since he developed it). So, even though so much of modern physics depends on calculus, he knew he couldn't use calculus for his proofs. Therefore, he had to prove everything twice - once using calculus but also once using older methods combining geometry and qualitative arguments.
My impression of your posts as a whole is that you are too ready to buy into the "They're just rejecting creationism (or ID, or whatever) because it leads to God" propaganda. You also seriously underestimate how much reading most of us have done of creationist and ID sources.
1. you are entirely ignoring that transitional fossils were discovered even in Darwin's time.That is what Darwin did. Transition forms will be discovered later. Always the double standards.
Like these (although, Darwin never mentions human evolution in Origin of Species) https://ncse.com/files/images/Fossil_homs_labeled.img_assist_custom.jpgLike common ancestor between apes and man.
Popularized by him? No, there was just a general interest in fossils already.A theoretical extinct nonhuman creature. Nowhere near conclusive popularized by Darwin.
Aside from all the bodies. For the transitions between humans and other apes, not winged horses.An imaginary creature with no more evidential basis than winged Pegasus.
Excluded portions
Excluded portions of what? Again, Origin of Species didn't go over human evolution, so I don't know what you are talking about. Also, we are the ones that make labels for organisms. I thought it was obvious that living things don't come with built in labels.includes not knowing the identity of the creature in the first place.
-_- real bones. Ones you could see at a museum if you wanted, or even dig up yourself.They are all theoretical and yet are treated as real.
-_- no one actually in the scientific community is asserting that any fossil species is a direct ancestor of humans. However, we can determine the physiology of organisms from bones. For example, bones are partly shaped by muscle connections to them, so we can tell where muscles attach. Eye orbits are obvious to anyone with functioning eyes.News flash bones don't come with pedigrees attached.
These are all made up after the fact and can be interpreted make the data fit the desired conclusion.
I don't think their conclusion is reasonable or based on evidence. It's way cooler to be the creation of a god than the result of natural processes, to be special, etc. Alas, there's no conclusive evidence for it.No it is not. They come to a more reasonable conclusion, and you don't like the answer.
As a person that actually hates being an atheist and has been a seeker for 9 years, this amuses me. I don't support conclusions based on what I like. If I did, I'd believe in an afterlife, dude.You, et al., prefer fiction and double standards.
Nothing to applaud; if one is going to argue against a position it is best to know something about it.
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Henry Gee.Like these (although, Darwin never mentions human evolution in Origin of Species)
That is like saying a man dresses up in women's clothing and hates it but has to be true to himself or some such nonsense. You may buy it but don't expect it to get a lot of real weight with others who would take the time to think about it.As a person that actually hates being an atheist and has been a seeker for 9 years, this amuses me. I don't support conclusions based on what I like. If I did, I'd believe in an afterlife, dude.
As a person that actually hates being an atheist and has been a seeker for 9 years, this amuses me. I don't support conclusions based on what I like. If I did, I'd believe in an afterlife, dude.
I have no issue talking on here if it is on topic, but given the subject matter you were drawn to, it probably is not. PM it is, then.I don't expect I would be especially helpful to you. I've not had the experience of changing too many people's minds. And you are probably deluged with offers if you make comments like this. But, I can't let it pass. We can talk here or you can PM me if you would like.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?