It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof of ID the World is Looking For

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

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]


The most powerful tool to examine nature we have is the Scientific Method? or? I think it really has nothing to do with the price of tea in china and Science above all things, should be held to a standard of integrity and honesty. Without it, your Scientific Method becomes just another slogan like the American Dream

- Con




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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.


Did I say anything like that?

Just asking...


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.


Science is methodological naturalism. So far that's my only claim in the definitional realm.

Anyway, he might also be buying it for his friend. Did you think about that? heh.

Are we talking about mind and behaviour now? Rather than use physics, we'd probably go up a few notches and use neuroscience/biology, think that would be most effective. Do you really want to go there?

How far do the goalposts need to go?



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.


Oh no, maybe I'm blind and very stupid. Depends on how you define terms, and I know how you like to determine your very own.

I just don't make stuff up to fill gaps in knowledge, sorry! If that makes me blind and stupid, oh well.


Yes I am talking about the search for truth.


And thus far your methods have provided little of use. If it gives you nice fuzzy feelings, go for it. But experience tells us that if we want to understand nature, science is the most effective and efficient method.


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.


You have no real-world evidence. In fact, you're not meant to need it dude. Is faith not sufficient for you anymore? Is science such a destructive influence on your faith? Does it scare you that much?

I hope so.


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.


Didn't say poof from nothing. I said poof!

Not just once, not just twice...

Think n' poofs? Or does god have hands and laboratory equipment?


Darwinism claims life appeared from a magic poof in some "soup"


Darwinism is about the origin of species. Your god-based dude could create the first organism and darwinism still be true.

So for abiogenesis - nope, not magic. Chemistry and biology.


and the Bible says God made man from dust and breathed life in it. Where's the conflict here again?


Now that is magic.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
The most powerful tool to examine nature we have is the Scientific Method? or?


Yes, it is.

It essentially is meant to say 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It works. It does what it is meant to do. It provides an understanding of nature. Sorry it doesn't care about your pet belief, Hey-ho...

You can see it as uncovering the work of god if you like, your choice. Or you can whine about it doing what it is meant to do.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

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


Of course you fail to see them but that is the deception, as you fail to see them so you don't have to fail to deny them.




OK. But science uses methodological naturalism rather than metaphysical naturalism. I think it was science which we were originally discussing


Mel, you seem to think supernatural is a phenomena that can't be quantified, is that true?

My next question is what you think evidence for supernaturalism would be?



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.


what things? and if there are "things" then I guess you can't say "nothing we have to offer in the same sentence you say science says nothing about such things. When it says something at all, for or against, will that not seem like a contradiction wrapped in bias

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


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.




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'.


You guys steal more of our material, as making the claim it was magic was what WE came up with to refute the same argument for much of Darwinian evolution and "God did it"



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


Well you're forgetting all those intermeadiate poofs that for some reason are supposed to make the poof theory that much more plausible.

sheesh

- Con



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Of course you fail to see them but that is the deception, as you fail to see them so you don't have to fail to deny them.


Is this like how I fail to see magic in the universe?


Mel, you seem to think supernatural is a phenomena that can't be quantified, is that true?

My next question is what you think evidence for supernaturalism would be?


I have absolutely no idea. Not really my problem. I'm a naturalist after all. However, because science is actually based on methodological naturalism, we can actually assess claims of real-world effects of the supernatural.

Hence, why people can examine the effects of prayer. That's why I was asking if you had been praying for me, lots of good things happening recently. Must be an answer somewhere.


what things? and if there are "things" then I guess you can't say "nothing we have to offer in the same sentence you say science says nothing about such things. When it says something at all, for or against, will that not seem like a contradiction wrapped in bias


Oh, say like claims that lots of gay people result in hurricanes and stuff/other associated silly babblings from people of faith about things they don't like.


Well you're forgetting all those intermeadiate poofs that for some reason are supposed to make the poof theory that much more plausible.

sheesh

- Con


Heh, well whammy was talking about a single origin of life, so I was interested. I have always thought he was a multiple-creationist, rather than a one-timer and then let evolution do its thang.

Reasonable question I thought.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
It now appears that I am blind and very stupid.

Doublee post...

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

How far do the goalposts need to go?


Now we see ashleys material lol



Oh no, maybe I'm blind and very stupid. Depends on how you define terms, and I know how you like to determine your very own.


Oh I get it about how you define terms for intelligence, especially when it comes to intelligent design where NOTHING can be defined as anything more than just DUMB LUCK



I just don't make stuff up to fill gaps in knowledge, sorry! If that makes me blind and stupid, oh well.


Oh but you have argued in favor of just that sort of practice when supporting Dawkins who apparently makes stuff up too. His reason for being the better more reasonably made up stuff is what we take issue with .


Yes I am talking about the search for truth.




And thus far your methods have provided little of use. If it gives you nice fuzzy feelings, go for it. But experience tells us that if we want to understand nature, science is the most effective and efficient method.


That's all well and good, it's the whacked out conclusions of Scientists attempting to advance the undercurrent of Atheism so prevalent in Science that we get such asinine explantions for the cork screw shape of a Ducks penis



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.




You have no real-world evidence. In fact, you're not meant to need it dude. Is faith not sufficient for you anymore? Is science such a destructive influence on your faith? Does it scare you that much?
I hope so.


Doesn't scare me, just pisses me off they lie so damn much because Atheists are on a mission to make their globalist NWO worldview a reality without any religious implications that may thwart their ability to do that



Didn't say poof from nothing. I said poof!

Not just once, not just twice...

Think n' poofs? Or does god have hands and laboratory equipment?


See there ya go mel, YOU DO have an interest in how God gets things done and as is the case with much of what Science finds out, it doesn't seem like magic anymore once the trick is taught to someone else.

It's only magic when you don't know how to do it, but rather than do the smart thing and ask the magician , we just change the resolution on the fractal making it more gradual but we still see the same exact design patterns following their own kind.


Darwinism claims life appeared from a magic poof in some "soup"




Darwinism is about the origin of species. Your god-based dude could create the first organism and darwinism still be true


yeah perhaps but Atheists would never accept the idea the God based dude created the first living organism no more than we would believe Darwinism is true which almost had my pepsi flying out my nose when I read that.

so their is the rub

So for abiogenesis - nope, not magic. Chemistry and biology.


Now that is magic.


and magic is defined as?


It essentially is meant to say 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. It works. It does what it is meant to do. It provides an understanding of nature. Sorry it doesn't care about your pet belief, Hey-ho...



Oh I am afraid it does mel, and it is the same weird Atheist pre-occupation with the God they are so busy disbelieving while their obsession with it rivals are very own. When you have a majority of them with a bent against that, what you get isn't science what you get is the ever lieing illusion of evolution supported by a religious zealot like sect of dogmatic Atheists with a desire to make religion go away and a proven track record of fitting data to their theory. The Scientific Method is useless in the hands of zealots with an agenda, Religious or Atheist.

- Con



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by melatonin
Did I say anything like that?

Just asking...


You said...

originally posted by melatonin
Science says nothing about such things. It's essentially agnostic.


When we come to the question of intelligent design naturalism is not agnostic. It amounts to a priori atheism.


originally posted by melatonin
Science is methodological naturalism. So far that's my only claim in the definitional realm.


So due to its philosophical limitations, we need something more than science as it stands today to determine origins and the validity of design.


originally posted by melatonin
Anyway, he might also be buying it for his friend. Did you think about that? heh.


Excellent point! Naturalism and materialism would be even more at loss to see that truth. heh?


originally posted by melatonin
Are we talking about mind and behaviour now? Rather than use physics, we'd probably go up a few notches and use neuroscience/biology, think that would be most effective. Do you really want to go there?


Duh? You are making my point for me. Intelligent Design Materialism doesn't explain intelligence or even consciousness.

Sure you guys are grasping at straws to say that consciousness is just a weave of neurons, blindly dancing to the primal Darwinian voodoo drum rhythms of DNA. But if that's the case you can't trust your brain to be able to determine truth to start with. Materialism disproves itself.


originally posted by melatonin
How far do the goalposts need to go?


All the way to the goal.

Mine is truth. What's yours?

Comfort in your faith?


originally posted by melatonin
Oh no, maybe I'm blind and very stupid. Depends on how you define terms, and I know how you like to determine your very own.


Well I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt out of Christian charity.



originally posted by melatonin
I just don't make stuff up to fill gaps in knowledge, sorry! If that makes me blind and stupid, oh well.


Of course you do. What is assuming a materialist reductionism for life and consciousness other than than the Atheism of the Gaps?


originally posted by melatonin
And thus far your methods have provided little of use. If it gives you nice fuzzy feelings, go for it. But experience tells us that if we want to understand nature, science is the most effective and efficient method.


Again by assuming the consequent is material you are committing that error to provide your warm fuzzy comfort that God is not watching you.

Science is the best method to determine why a rock rolls down a hill. But its not the best reason to determine if or why I pushed it.

The truth of intelligent design is in both camps.


originally posted by melatonin
You have no real-world evidence. In fact, you're not meant to need it dude. Is faith not sufficient for you anymore? Is science such a destructive influence on your faith? Does it scare you that much?

I hope so.


Sure I take some things on faith. Like my hope the sun will come up tomorrow is an article of faith. There is a ton of evidence for my faith though.

Hmm I'm not meant to need evidence? Yet God in his mercy provides it.


"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (rom 1:20)



originally posted by melatonin
Darwinism is about the origin of species. Your god-based dude could create the first organism and darwinism still be true.


Now your making some progress. But evolution would be true - NOT Darwinism. I'm afraid atheists have ruined the mans good name.


originally posted by melatonin
So for abiogenesis - nope, not magic.


Would you like me to help find you a place to be Baptized?


Welcome to the theism family brother mel!


I had hoped you'd come around!








[edit on 5/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Oh well, answer one, answer them all


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Now we see ashleys material lol


ZOMG! You are joking, yes?

You mean that ashley has now claimed such words as her own? Does she need royalties now?

2 ATS cookies?




Oh but you have argued in favor of just that sort of practice when supporting Dawkins who apparently makes stuff up too. His reason for being the better more reasonably made up stuff is what we take issue with .


You mean using our imagination and playing with ideas?

Heh, you want to destroy science and also restrict people using their imagination playing with hypothetical scenarios?

The wedgie goes further than I ever knew.


That's all well and good, it's the whacked out conclusions of Scientists attempting to advance the undercurrent of Atheism so prevalent in Science that we get such asinine explantions for the cork screw shape of a Ducks penis


Are they really that shape?

Never knew that. Cheers. Learn something new every day.


Doesn't scare me, just pisses me off they lie so damn much because Atheists are on a mission to make their globalist NWO worldview a reality without any religious implications that may thwart their ability to do that


Atheists are part of a NWO globalist conspiracy? I never get the memos.

Oh, sorry, has ashley ever used that term before?

2 more cookies?


See there ya go mel, YOU DO have an interest in how God gets things done and as is the case with much of what Science finds out, it doesn't seem like magic anymore once the trick is taught to someone else.

It's only magic when you don't know how to do it, but rather than do the smart thing and ask the magician , we just change the resolution on the fractal making it more gradual but we still see the same exact design patterns following their own kind.


Heh, you do like to take stuff and run with it. I was interested in what whammy's ideas were on such a concept. I'm inquisitive like that.

Passing tricks on? Sounds like memes. There's a cream for them.


yeah perhaps but Atheists would never accept the idea the God based dude created the first living organism no more than we would believe Darwinism is true which almost had my pepsi flying out my nose when I read that.

so their is the rub


Of course! It might take some sort of evidence to change that. Darwinism, that is, evolution by natural selection is true. We have ze evidence.


and magic is defined as?


The supernatural stuff. I certainly wasn't thinking of David Blaine.


Oh I am afraid it does mel, and it is the same weird Atheist pre-occupation with the God they are so busy disbelieving while their obsession with it rivals are very own. When you have a majority of them with a bent against that, what you get isn't science what you get is the ever lieing illusion of evolution supported by a religious zealot like sect of dogmatic Atheists with a desire to make religion go away and a proven track record of fitting data to their theory. The Scientific Method is useless in the hands of zealots with an agenda, Religious or Atheist.

- Con


Yup, we should give it to you, con. I'm sure you'd use it very wisely. I can see the massive advances in technology and understanding you and your 'congregation' would provide for humanity.

What has happened before is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till the fundies take it over. I can remember something like that happening in the muslim world.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
ZOMG! You are joking, yes?

You mean that ashley has now claimed such words as her own? Does she need royalties now?

2 ATS cookies?


Hey, if Paris Hilton can trademark that's hot, I'm demanding my royalties for goal post shifting.

Since it was used without permission, though, there will be added penalties.

Just kidding. But I will take the cookies.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You said...

originally posted by melatonin
Science says nothing about such things. It's essentially agnostic.


When we come to the question of intelligent design naturalism is not agnostic. It amounts to a priori atheism.


Well, I guess 'agnostic' and 'objective' sort of sound similar if you put one finger in an ear and shout 'bibble'.

No, there is no such thing as 'intelligent design naturalism'. Did you just make that up? What does it even mean? Science makes no claims over such things. Doesn't deny them at all. Just says 'how do we test it'.

The ID hypothesis is just a dead end. 10 years, and nothing. When you and others can actually create some way to test it, then we might get somewhere.


So due to its philosophical limitations, we need something more than science as it stands today to determine origins and the validity of design.


You can go and dream about it, write it in a little book. Then post the results on the intertubz?

You can say it's a limitation if you want. Up to you.


Excellent point! Naturalism and materialism would be even more at loss to see that truth. heh?


Not really. I used my prior real-world experience to raise new possibilities.


Duh? You are making my point for me. Intelligent Design Materialism doesn't explain intelligence or even consciousness.


ID doesn't explain anything. So far we have ID naturalism and ID materialism. I like these neologisms, quite creative.


Sure you guys are grasping at straws to say that consciousness is just a weave of neurons, blindly dancing to the primal Darwinian voodoo drum rhythms of DNA. But if that's the case you can't trust your brain to be able to determine truth to start with. Materialism disproves itself.


Dunno, when I see a disembodied consciousness I might think we need to grasp new straws.

Minds are what brains do.




All the way to the goal.

Mine is truth. What's yours?

Comfort in your faith?


Banoffee Pie?


Well I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt out of Christian charity.


Awww, shucks. You're such a sweetie.


Of course you do. What is assuming a materialist reductionism for life and consciousness other than than the Atheism of the Gaps?


It's basically assessing the way in which methodological naturalism kicks ass. We don't need your stinkin' supernaturalism.

So far anyway...


Again by assuming the consequent is material you are committing that error to provide your warm fuzzy comfort that God is not watching you.

Science is the best method to determine why a rock rolls down a hill. But its not the best reason to determine if or why I pushed it.

The truth of intelligent design is in both camps.


OK.


Sure I take some things on faith. Like my hope the sun will come up tomorrow is an article of faith. There is a ton of evidence for my faith though.

Hmm I'm not meant to need evidence? Yet God in his mercy provides it.


So what's the problem then? Worship the dude. Or does he tell you that you must destroy science?


Now your making some progress. But evolution would be true - NOT Darwinism. I'm afraid atheists have ruined the mans good name.


You still don't understand what Darwinism is?


Would you like me to help find you a place to be Baptized?

Welcome to the theism family brother mel!

I had hoped you'd come around!


Yeah! hallelujah! What's next?



ABE:


Originally posted by AshleyD
Just kidding. But I will take the cookies.


You haz a noo ATS cookie. I'll pass t'other on later. Wouldn't want you to go all Yoko on my ass.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



No, there is no such thing as 'intelligent design naturalism'. Did you just make that up? What does it even mean? Science makes no claims over such things. Doesn't deny them at all. Just says 'how do we test it'.


Punctuation error and you know it. Read: "When we come to the question of intelligent design [insert semicolon] Naturalism is not agnostic. It amounts to a priori atheism."

But maybe that's what we should call the new branch of science I am proposing




The ID hypothesis is just a dead end. 10 years, and nothing. When you and others can actually create some way to test it, then we might get somewhere.


By assuming naturalism before the test - your just jerking around.

So I agree as far as traditional materialist reductionist science goes it is dead.

But that doesn't make ID false it makes science inadequate.



Not really. I used my prior real-world experience to raise new possibilities.


Brilliant mel ! Exactly ! real-world experience like "It takes life to create similar life". and "Information comes from an intelligent source."



ID doesn't explain anything. So far we have ID naturalism and ID materialism. I like these neologisms, quite creative.


Sophistry - Just punctuation and you know it. ID was in italics. I said "Materialism doesn't explain intelligence or even consciousness." And avoid with sophistry because you have no answer for that.



Minds are what brains do.


Circles are what round things do.



It's basically assessing the way in which methodological naturalism kicks ass. We don't need your stinkin' supernaturalism.

So far anyway...


Ohh so life from no life is natural now?




So what's the problem then? Worship the dude. Or does he tell you that you must destroy science?


The problem is weeny boys like Dickie Dee claiming science has dispensed with God.



You still don't understand what Darwinism is?



Yeah it's the atheist religious spin on the scientific theory of evolution.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin



ID doesn't explain anything. So far we have ID naturalism and ID materialism. I like these neologisms, quite creative


Hey if you guys can do it,, (punctuated equilibrium) so can we.



It's basically assessing the way in which methodological naturalism kicks ass. We don't need your stinkin' supernaturalism. So far anyway...


Awe mel ya don't know what your missing,,
or do you?


So what's the problem then? Worship the dude. Or does he tell you that you must destroy science?


Yeah, mel, that's it, we want to destroy Science. That's why you see all the Christians in the Quantum threads and the Physics or Chemistry threads debating them telling them Lise Mietner was a witch.

It isn't Science we have a problem with, it's what Atheists are using it for and why THIS particular area of Science is not just a coincedence. It isn't JUST a coincedence most atheists are so absorbed in evolution. If Ashley made a thread titled the gullibility of Chemistry arguing exothermic heat is the cause of friction while others argue friction is what caused the heat, I highly doubt I's see any of the zeal I saw in gullibility of evolution.

Their is a reason and a method to the madness and it has NOTHING to do with Science.



You still don't understand what Darwinism is?


We know what it isn't and

it isn't science

- Con



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Punctuation error and you know it. Read: "When we come to the question of intelligent design [insert semicolon] Naturalism is not agnostic. It amounts to a priori atheism."

But maybe that's what we should call the new branch of science I am proposing


But later you even created a similar thing called ID materialism. Like con, I'm getting to the point where I can't take you serious.

Anyway, so 'naturalism is not agnostic'. Yeah, probably not. I suppose if you conceive of some sort of god-thing that was constrained by nature, then maybe we have something different. I suppose some forms of pantheism comes close to such a thing. However, naturalism and methodoligical naturalism aren't quite the same thing.


By assuming naturalism before the test - your just jerking around.

So I agree as far as traditional materialist reductionist science goes it is dead.

But that doesn't make ID false it makes science inadequate.


But science doesn't assume naturalism. It just uses plain old methodological naturalism. It says nothing about such things, yet again for the umpteenth time. That's why some people like to test for particular supernatural claims that have been suggested to have real-world effects.

Listen, it might bother you. But few people in science care. You can be a supernaturalist or a naturalist and do science. But science is constrained to test things that are real-world.

When you can find a test for things that are not real-world, then go for it.


Brilliant mel ! Exactly ! real-world experience like "It takes life to create similar life". and "Information comes from an intelligent source."


Whoo-hoo!

So humans made life? Or was it dolphins?


Sophistry - Just punctuation and you know it. ID was in italics. I said "Materialism doesn't explain intelligence or even consciousness." And avoid with sophistry because you have no answer for that.


Heh, and I don't know it actually, whammy. That's what I really thought you meant. You did it twice, so lay off the accusations. If you made an honest error, fine, just say so. I won't bite you.


Circles are what round things do.


Heh.


Ohh so life from no life is natural now?


Probably.


The problem is weeny boys like Dickie Dee claiming science has dispensed with God.


And others claim it can support their pet belief in superdudes. So what?

I think it might well have done. But I guess it depends on what conception you have. If your variant depends on a 6000 year old earth and/or creation genesis stylee, then certainly. Just like Zeus up on Olympus. If you make real-world claims, it's very vulnerable.

But Oom is still hiding in obfuscation.


Yeah it's the atheist religious spin on the scientific theory of evolution.


Don't quite remember that being part of Darwin's theory.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Hey if you guys can do it,, (punctuated equilibrium) so can we.


Heh, nothing wrong with coining new concepts. Although it's a bit passe to name it after yourself, so whammy did well there. But 'Whammy's Magnificent ID Materialism' does have a ring to it.

However, would be a rather counterintuitive description.


Awe mel ya don't know what your missing,,
or do you?


No thanks, I've seen what faith can do to people.


Yeah, mel, that's it, we want to destroy Science. That's why you see all the Christians in the Quantum threads and the Physics or Chemistry threads debating them telling them Lise Mietner was a witch.


Burn her!


It isn't Science we have a problem with, it's what Atheists are using it for and why THIS particular area of Science is not just a coincedence. It isn't JUST a coincedence most atheists are so absorbed in evolution.

...

Their is a reason and a method to the madness and it has NOTHING to do with Science.


No, it is. Evolutionary theory is a part of science. And the grubby fingers of the ID wedgie goes much further than evolutionary biology. I know, I've seen their manifesto to 'renew' culture.


We know what it isn't and

it isn't science

- Con


Con, then you also don't know what science is.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

But later you even created a similar thing called ID materialism. Like con, I'm getting to the point where I can't take you serious.


And that was the same thing - you justtook a word in italics and grafted it on- your making excuses- to avoid the real issue -

Materialism can not detect intelligence. Apparantly materialists can't either.


originally posted by melatonin
Anyway, so 'naturalism is not agnostic'. Yeah, probably not. I suppose if you conceive of some sort of god-thing that was constrained by nature, then maybe we have something different. I suppose some forms of pantheism comes close to such a thing. However, naturalism and methodoligical naturalism aren't quite the same thing.


See the problem isn't so much with Science as it is scientists. You can not help but bring your atheist world view to your work. You guys go further and assume materialist reductionism as well and you know it.


originally posted by melatonin
But science doesn't assume naturalism.


Ahh but scientists do.


originally posted by melatonin
It just uses plain old methodological naturalism. It says nothing about such things, yet again for the umpteenth time. That's why some people like to test for particular supernatural claims that have been suggested to have real-world effects.


We are not talking about walking on water here. We are pointing out that information always comes from intelligence and life is based on information.


originally posted by melatonin
Listen, it might bother you. But few people in science care. You can be a supernaturalist or a naturalist and do science. But science is constrained to test things that are real-world.


Like I said before. I think science the way it is is awesome for most things. Like why the rock rolls down the hill. But it sucks for if or why I pushed it. You agreed with that.

Well I am an intelligence pushing the rock. The same with what ever put the information in the DNA that got life started.


originally posted by melatonin
When you can find a test for things that are not real-world, then go for it.


Like macro evolution? Yeah how the hell can we test for that?


originally posted by melatonin
Whoo-hoo!

So humans made life? Or was it dolphins?


That's just silly - of course it was dolphins.


Humans make more humans. Dolphins make more Dolphins.

Sorry still no observed data for retard fish frogs breeding with monkey-squirrels to make humans. Juries still out.



originally posted by melatonin
Heh, and don't know it actually, whammy. That's what I really thought you meant. You did it twice, so lay off the accusations. If you made an honest error, fine, just say so. I won't bite you.


Yeah It sure looked like you were taking advantage of a punctuation error to create me saying ID-materialism. I'm bitching enough about scientists materialism that I would think its rather obvious I don't want to claim it.


originally posted by melatonin
Probably.


Now that's a scientific answer.



originally posted by melatonin
And others claim it can support their pet belief in superdudes. So what?

I think it might well have done. But I guess it depends on what conception you have. If your variant depends on a 6000 year old earth and/or creation genesis stylee, then certainly. Just like Zeus up on Olympus. If you make real-world claims, it's very vulnerable.

But Oom is still hiding in obfuscation.



Well there are a host of religious reasons why it matters. Putting those aside. I would genuinely like to know the scientific truth - to the limits we can take it. Maybe we're at the limit. I think things like the anthropic principle in physics are doing a marvelous job of proving Gods design. I'm not threatened by the theory of evolution. I think society is threatened by atheists. Evolution very well might have been Gods way of doing it. The data so far does look that way. But materialist reductionism prevents honest inquiry into the intelligence behind evolution.


Don't quite remember that being part of Darwin's theory.


Exactly my point. Darwinism is now a religious and political stance not a scientific one. Atheists drug his name through the mud of anti-theism by using his theory to attack God.

As evidenced by your own words...

originally posted by melatonin
Is science such a destructive influence on your faith? Does it scare you that much?

I hope so.


Is intelligent design such a destructive influence on your faith? Does it scare you that much?


I hope so.

[edit on 5/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Con, then you also don't know what science is.


Oh,, I'm real sure, I know what Science is every bit as much as you do although I do depend on science calculators and Science Writer Software. I think if ID had a haeckle the jekyl JavaID, ID theory by Piltdown and Lucy and a cult like following of arrogant stuck up snobs using the Government to spy on people and ruin the lives of anyone with a dissenting opinion, ID would have had taken root just as Chucks Darwininian Dumb Luck theory did.

Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in atheist secularism, you know, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity.

That Thing

- Con



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Originally posted by dave420
You have such venom towards evolution, yet you clearly don't understand it.


Well, if you lot didn't keep on demonstrating your ignorance of evolution with every post you make, dave420 wouldn't have to keep on mentioning it. Take a few lessons; then we'll see.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
You have such venom towards evolution, yet you clearly don't understand it.



Originally posted by melatonin
Con, then you also don't know what science is.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Well, if you lot didn't keep on demonstrating your ignorance of evolution...


Is the Atheist Tag Team taking some pointers from Super Dave the Auto-Responder Bot or do all of you read out of the same book entitled, An Idiot's Guide to Annoying a Christian Without Even Touching Their Arguments?

Because when I see someone terribly botch something of which I am knowledgeable, I like to take the time to tell them why they are wrong not and not merely that they are wrong. Not sure why- must be something to do with Denying Ignorance.

But please do not misunderstand me- I don't believe for a single minute you guys think we're stupid. It is obvious the redirects only show the atheist borg has squat in terms of an actual rebuttal.


...dave420 wouldn't have to keep on mentioning it.


So Dave's redundant insults attacking the intelligence of thread participants is acceptable to you but you accused me of being 'repetitive' and 'monopolizing the thread' when I was actually on topic and discussing ID instead of resorting to juvenile tactics. No worries, though. I'm biased in favor of my buddies, too. Take it easy, Asty.

[edit on 5/14/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Where Are We Now?

Gratified that after several years on ATS I have finally managed to start a thread that runs for twelve pages, I popped back to see whether anyone had yet posted any proof of ID the world is looking for.

Unsurprisingly, they haven't. Instead, the thread has degenerated into the same tedious, circular evolution-versus-creation argument you can read on every other thread in the Origins & Creationism Conspiracy forum. I started this one in hopes of bringing a fresh perspective -- and until it slewed wildly off topic, it did make an interesting read.

Not any more, though.

My respectful congratulations to dave420, madnessinmysoul and melatonin for continuing to reason patiently with our faithful (so to speak) friends long after I had given up trying to do so. I now respectfully suggest that they stop, too. The thread has achieved its object.

By all means let the Godly have the last word. The thread is now bursting at the seams with evidence of how irrational and ultimately futile the intelligent-design argument is. The IDers can't meet the challenge of simple scientific proof, so they cry foul and try to obscure the issue instead. But they have failed even to do that. Quad erat demonstrandum, and it will stay that way.

Also displayed on this thread for the world to see is the stunning contrast between the words and actions of those who embrace nature and reason as the bases of their morality, and those who receive their morals by ancient prescription (and, of course, proscription).

The truth, so to speak, is in here. There is nothing left to add.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



The IDers can't meet the challenge of simple scientific proof


Yes you are correct you have proven science as practiced today is an inadequate method to determine truth. It is not evidenced based but philosophically based on naturalism and reductionist materialism.



Also displayed on this thread for the world to see is the stunning contrast between the words and actions of those who embrace nature and reason as the bases of their morality, and those who receive their morals by ancient prescription


It is stunning to see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in perpetrating a ruse to determine the truth of an immaterial question "intelligence" by using a material standard naturalist science. Its was a farce - a scam - and if you have morals -you should be ashamed of yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join