Proof of ID the World is Looking For

It was, but then came Darwin and turned it into a religion

- Con

No MIMS it's rigged because scientists are not objective. Science and philosophy are linked. If you assume the consequent by a default materialist philosophy you can only come to a material conclusion. Assuming the consequent is a fallacy so science is rendered unable to find the truth of ID one way or the other as intelligence is not material.

Also materialists are working on blind faith and ignoring the evidence. Materialist reductionism as practiced by the Darwinist demands that life arose from chemicals. The evidence says life never comes from non life. For evolution to occur there must be a single cell life form present. Well the DNA in a single celled life for has a ton of information. The evidence points to intelligence as information always has an intelligent source.

Its rigged because too many scientists are atheists and are dogmatically clinging to there materialist philosophy instead of following the evidence. They are guilty of the precise thing they accuse religious people of. ITS BAD SCIENCE.

Dave, your mastery of sarcasm, ad-hom, innuendo and staggering intellect, might impress the guys at your last jamboree but I seriously doubt, your understanding on any topic could be anything more than a pimple on my intellectual butt.




Well dave, this now the 27th time I have asked you this, and I will predict that it will answered in the manner that your description of me, actually fits YOU like glove.

Show us what ya got Dave, it isn't I making an idiot out of Dick Dawkins. He seems to do that all by himself and unless you can come up with something more subtantial than your usual contradictions while you refute things I have said and not had the intellectual debate savvy nor the science acumen to substantiate your sophomoric cookie cutter copy pasted posts so well known among members of ATS we call them the Super Dave Form letter.

"name here" then "clearly blah blah you don't understand blah blah etc.
So, Dave,, you are either going to show us what ya got smart guy or I can assume the consequent that your post is what you got when you haven't anything more intelligent to say other than your self proclaimed expertise, and your usual attempts to get some chuckles from the peanut gallery of your peers in tears, I have no interest in seeking the approval of juveniles, acting like a class clown.




No Dave, what I have ,

you covet

- Con

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

Very, true.

Materialistic science is guilty of the very thing ID has been accused of in this thread: assuming the method at the onset. If all you are interested in is a naturalistic explanation then that is all you are going to find. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the secular explanation for our origins has so many gaping holes and things it cannot explain. They are purposely boxing themselves inside a very limited parameter.

And if anyone doesn't understand what we are saying and accuses us of violating the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy or not understanding the scientific method, so help them, God.

Not all truth can be validated by the scientific method. It is great for certain things but can only take us so far. So do you only want science or do you want the truth? I'm equally as interested in reason. And reason tells me, it didn't just happen.

[edit on 5/12/2008 by AshleyD]

Yeah,, you summed it up just right and as we see with the zoo keeper Dick Dawkins, if Atheists, really cared about science, you would think they would learn a thing or two about it rather than majoring in minors trying to talk themselves into thinking what they understand makes a lick of sense when their best man, Zoo Keeper Dick Dawkins gets stumped by that question about the genome.

Spare me the the incredibly riddled with sour grapes excuse he used later to "explain his way " out of that mess

It doesn't seem to match his face, his actions, his reason for giving that pathetic "take two" Roll em,. Dawkins: Spinning spun and spent.

Never even came CLOSE to answering the question

When THAT is what the Science community is said to be the creme de la creme, then it's time to get rid of the Dead Weight replacing it with some REAL Scientists and finally

get some damn work done.

- Con



[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

I posted on the wrong topic within this thread and am now deleting that content. Sorry about the mistake. This is where I wish we were allowed to delete our entire post so no one saw it.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org...

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I figured that out after it was too late. Sorry about that.

That's right ashley and if Atheist/evolutionist were honest about it, they would know that their precious Scientific method will crush evolution like a house of cards on lazy susan during an earthquake. You Can't vascillate from one standard to falsify evolution the babylonian way then switch back when you want to present it for peer review.

The thing is, Atheist Evolutionist are begining to trip over their own intentionally contrived confusion and obfuscation. They made species a problem for over a hundred years and now the latetst of the Atheist spin is being done with the fossil record.

I have seen Dave say it, Astyanax and several others say "The fossil Record has not disproved evolution at all not one fossil not one!"

You see the point that makes and how it could be said of the Flying spaghetti monster just the same?

I remember a time when Scientists looked for fossil to either support a theory or refute it. Never to say words to the effect "welp harlan, looks like we won't ever find one them thar inter mediate fawcils, so we may as well give the lab back to the fundies"

"You nuts jethro, just cus we didn't find one dun mean nuthin cuz none them can disprove it either"

Yeah,, I feel for them, you know how they always said proving God doesn't exist is proving a negative?

God sure does have a way with irony

heh lifes a bitch

eh Darwin

- Con



[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Careful of the slippery slope.

If science used to be the search for the truth and it turned into a religion, then it implies that religion doesn't search for the truth.

Nope not a slippery slope at all. When was the last time you seen a religion that didn't assume it already had the truth?

Whether it IS the truth or not, most thinking they have it,

stop looking for it.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology

---

If all that is true, why hasn't one of the Creationist Scientists you talk about delivered the coup de grace to the theory of evolution? If modern science is so corrupt (as you say), then why hasn't this happened?

If science is as screwed up as you say, then creationism must be even worse, as even the "lame duck" of science has managed to fend off every single creationist criticism thrown at it.

Science is not a religion. It has no ideas that can not be found false, and everything discussed in science has to be verifiable by evidence. Both of those do not apply to religion, where certain accepted truths are deemed to be fact, without any evidence at all, and can never be reversed, even with evidence. That's about as unscientific, and illogical, as you can get. Any scientific theory can be demonstrated wrong. Any one. Pick one - evolution, gravity, anything. All anyone has to do is to find evidence. They don't have to be a scientist, they just have to have found proper evidence in a clinical setting. That's it. Heck, they can even send an email to a real scientist and ask them some questions, the scientist will happily do the work for you if you're actually on to something. For such a low barrier to entry, it seems strange that not one creationist has managed to "defeat" evolution. Either they're all ignorant of how science actually works, or they're too lazy to come up with the evidence. It has to be one or the other - there is no third option. Apart from "God did it", obviously :-P

It's like being attacked by someone with a wet fish, eh dave

Oh noes! Meterology is a materialist endeavour, it doesn't take supernatural intervention into account.

Oh noes! Forensic science is a materialist endeavour, it doesn't take supernatural intervention into account.

Oh noes! Medicine is a materialist endeavour, it doesn't take supernatural interventions into account.

Oh noes! Geology is a materialist endeavour, it doesn't take supernatural intervenetions into account.

Oh noes! etc etc etc

They don't even know what science is. Ignore them.

Some homework for those whining about science. Put down the bible and other vacuous texts, check out 'methodological naturalism'. You might even want to read Ronald Numbers' book. Like whammy noted, science was originally formed by people of faith - not likely to be any different in those days of theistic dominance. It is those same people that set science on the course of methodological naturalism. Even the term was coined by some christian dude.

The beauty of science is that it just doesn't care about your pet magical theory. It allows people like me, and people like Ken Miller, muslims, hindus, and Taoists to do our sciency thing, and then hold whatever philosophical position we like.

However, people like those in this thread want to take science back to the days before the dark ages. To be harsh, get stuffed! Thankfully, you people have no say in the matter, and that's cool. You can whine and moan, but few in science, apart from some of your collective, really care.

Their faith is obviously not sufficient to allow them to hold magical theories in the face of real-world evidence.

reply to post by melatonin

---

Call me prescient but I knew someone would compare what were saying about the scientific method in relation to our origins to forensics (although you did surprise me with your other comparisons).

Mel, I know you are a smart person. Biased due to your blind faith in your atheistic religion but smart nonetheless. However, if you cannot understand the difference between how the SM works in those fields but how it is inadequate in determining our origins, I'm not sure if there is anything I can say to help you understand.

So, I guess we're just left beating you with our wet fish. But remember, our wet fish trumps the wet noodle of Ad hom's you attempt to thrash us with.

An ad hom would be of the form:

"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

Whereas my arguments might well take the form:

"You are wrong because of a, b, and c. Oh, and you are an idiot."

Which is not an ad hom, just insulting or possibly true. However, I'm usually cute enough to not call people idiots, so that's just hypothetical of course. Not always mind. The problem is that the methodology behind biology or cosmology is the same as assesses everything else in science. It wouldn't be science otherwise.

However, you would like to see science change to something that would now also include such rigorous endeavours as astrology.

No thanks! You can make your magical stories fit science, or not. Couldn't care either way. But you won't be allowed the chance to meddle with the most powerful tool to examine nature we have.

Perhaps you could go and get yourself a PhD in philosophy of science and try. You might do better than Dr^2 Dembski.



[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]

Ya. Cool, Mel. Here are some more examples, although phrased a little more craftier:





No worries, though. I can handle the wet noodles and fight back with my wet fish.

And? They're opinions.

You don't appear to know what science is, and you don't appear capable of understanding what it is.

You don't appear to be able to handle the presence of scientific findings that challenge your supernatural position.

Possibly facts rather than opinions, TBH. So, i guess facts or opinions that you don't like are now ad homs?

Haha.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by AshleyD

---

Ash ignore mel's sophistry his faith blinds him.

reply to post by melatonin

---

Mel what you can't seem to face is that your materialist philosophy is incapable of making an honest determination of truth in this case. In fact, if materialism is true there can be no truth. Truth isn't composed of atoms and subject to the laws of physics and neither is intelligence.

The intelligent design network proposes we find a method that removes religion and materialism from the equation. Seems fair enough to me, what are you guys afraid of? Kind of get used to having the deck stacked in you favor huh?

Since the origin of life is a one time event in the past. We aren't going to be able to use traditional methods. Forensic principals provide the best way i have encountered so far.





[edit on 5/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

You can keep using the word 'sophistry', but I fail to see where my deceptive and specious arguments are.



OK. But science uses methodological naturalism rather than metaphysical naturalism. I think it was science which we were originally discussing. Are we going onto another discussion now?

I guess I am a naturalist though, but the outstanding success of the scientific method, and the complete failure of supernaturalism, suggests this is not a bad position to take. Although, like most of my positions, I'm open to evidence that suggests otherwise.

You don't have to be though. Your choice.



Certainly nothing you guys have to offer. Science says nothing about such things. It's essentially agnostic.

Are we talking about something which is not related to science now?



And forensic science principles don't involve magic. Sorry. Again, you are taking a very fatalistic position - 'oh noes, science just won't cut it, we only discovered DNA 50 or so years ago, and we can never find an answer, all is lost. Lets invoke magic'.

However, the origin of life might actually not be a one time event in this universe. We only have a sample of one to assess at this time, so not surprising we appear to have a single event thus far.

Although, I think you hold to repeated origins of life, don't you? You know:

Poof! bacteria.

Poof! jellyfish things

Poof! Fishies

Poof! Dinos

Poof! Birds

etc

Poof! Humans

Ashley already pointed it out above... I would add any hint that you make about science being objective is sophistry as well. It is clearly biased toward atheism. I'll explain futher below



Its the way you define what is science that is the problem. So yes another discussion will be necessary for those interested in truth. Science doesn't have a corner on the market for truth.

If I see a man get up, walk across the room and buy a coke. I know that man is thirsty and wants a drink of cola. Now if you try to describe that event in naturalist materialist terms of chemicals atoms and physical laws it will sound like non sense. But that's materialistic science. It is quite limited for determining truth.



I see evidence for supernaturalism all the time so I don't consider it a failure at all. You are blind to it because you assume a materialist consequent in all cases.

In fact your obstinate blindness is actually further evidence of the supernatural. Since I actually think you are intelligent, your blindness to the obvious is mysterious to me. But scripture tells me you are supernaturally blinded. Which is the best explanation, as I don't really believe you are just plain stupid.




Yes I am talking about the search for truth.



Oh you must mean magic like life arising form non life? Yeah you atheists do believe in magic don't you. So why not God? There's a lot more evidence for God, What happened to following the evidence? Oh yeah screw evidence - magic doesn't threaten your moral status does it?

I mean forensics like a detective uses. Forensic principles like in a court of law - not biased naturalistic science. The central principle in forensics is the principle of uniformity. Causes in the past are like the causes we observe today.

Uniformity like : Life always comes from similar life.

Uniformity like: if a piece of information written in a code today requires an intelligent cause then an even more complex message written in a chemical code from the past also requires an intelligent cause.



Going back to point one- this is your sophistry.

The Bible says God made made man from dust... the creatures from the land... not a poof from nothing. Well all life is carbon based so that gives an amazingly accurate explanation for your organic chemistry materialism. Especially considering it was written thousands of years ago for primitive goat herders, as your so fond of pointing out.

Darwinism claims life appeared from a magic poof in some "soup" and the Bible says God made man from dust and breathed life in it. Where's the conflict here again?

Oh yeah God vs. Magic.