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: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.


Same as it ever was?

When science accepts repeating the same old vacuous non-verifiable claims over and over ad nauseum as scientific evidence, I think they're onto a wiener winner.

Waterloo will happen, you'll see, you just wait, it's just around the corner, Dembski and Behe will do it, they haz a supersecret lab in Casey Luskin's mother's basement, teh science iz coming! And god is on their side, don't ya know?





[edit on 14-5-2008 by melatonin]




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


It is stunning to see the blatant intellectual dishonesty

Show us.


in perpetrating a ruse

Explain -- in terms penetrable to simple understanding rather than puffery and ersatz outrage -- what the ruse is. There is no ruse.


to determine the truth of an immaterial question "intelligence"

Why do you assume it is immaterial? It is a property of material beings. Show us evidence of an immaterial entity that has intelligence. Show us proof of intelligent design.


by using a material standard naturalist science.

Amazing it is, meeting people in this day and age for whom the word 'science' is a term of derogation.


Its was a farce

I don't see you laughing.


- a scam -

I don't see you out of pocket.


and if you have morals -you should be ashamed of yourself.

On the contrary, I think I have contributed the derisory shaving of a fraction of a mite towards the future survival of the human race.

Remember: Floyd Rose is not mocked.






posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


originally posted by asty
Show us.


Here AshleyD already did.


originally posted by asty
in perpetrating a ruse


By pretending like you honestly wanted to discuss proof for ID - the thread was a ruse.

Then making up impossible requirements like this as you go along...


originally posted by asty
Sorry, that will not answer. In order to prove intelligent design (though it's more like 'intelligent creation' in this case) you will have to prove that life cannot evolve from non-life.


That's like me saying that you have to prove God doesn't exist. It's an intellectually dishonest standard and it's not scientific. The whole thread was atheist baiting game disguised in the proverbial "white lab coats" of scientific terminology.


originally posted by asty
Why do you assume it is immaterial? It is a property of material beings. Show us evidence of an immaterial entity that has intelligence. Show us proof of intelligent design.


Science is at a loss to explain human consciousness let alone intelligence. We are mot merely material beings. A rock is a material being - are you more than rock? Ok you are alive. So are trees. Are you more than a tree? What is this thing 'reason' that you worship? Can you put some in a jar for me? It's more than brain chemistry... it's a product of intelligence and its immaterial.

Try to explain why music is beautiful using material reductionism to break it down - after all- as the Dick Dawk says we are just chemistry and physics dancing to the rhythms of our selfish genes.



originally posted by asty
Amazing it is, meeting people in this day and age for whom the word 'science' is a term of derogation.


Science is cool. But atheistic scientists have ruined it by exchanging evidence based inquiry for a religious philosophy.


originally posted by asty
I don't see you laughing.


Oh you have cameras in my studio now? We've been laughing at you guys the whole time.


originally posted by asty
I don't see you out of pocket.


Maybe I went too far with scam. Sorry... I'll hold with dishonest ruse.


originally posted by asty
On the contrary, I think I have contributed the derisory shaving of a fraction of a mite towards the future survival of the human race.


The human race - but Dick Dawk says we're all apes right?

Wow! Maybe you'll get the nobel prize for the simian excrement toss?



originally posted by asty
Remember: Floyd Rose is not mocked.


I like the wilkinson tremolo.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I apologize for the big quote but it is relevant:


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Then making up impossible requirements like this as you go along...


originally posted by asty
Sorry, that will not answer. In order to prove intelligent design (though it's more like 'intelligent creation' in this case) you will have to prove that life cannot evolve from non-life.


That's like me saying that you have to prove God doesn't exist. It's an intellectually dishonest standard and it's not scientific.


Exactly, Whammy. I can see why Astyanax shunned Con when Con wanted to talk about falsifiability. Astyanax would have been no match for Con. Apparently Astyanax is not as aware of the standards of falsifiability as Con was willing to give him credit for if Asty truly does not understand the difficulty of proving a negative if he expects us to prove the impossibility of life from non-life as a required step.

Furthermore, this only shows more goal post shifting as the OP does not ask for something that is 'impossible' but what 'science cannot satisfactorily explain.' Glad to see you point out your favorite.

Now here is my favorite. Like the segment you quoted from Astyanax, the following is also in reply to me when I finally answered the eight steps... even when I pointed out I was being forced to ignore all the logical fallacies we had been warning about the entire time and that I was only doing it to make a point:


Originally posted by melatonin
For the inquisitive lurkers and users, the now missing post (ABE: which has now reappeared) could be distilled down to this old chestnut:

Science can't explain x, therefore goddidit.


To which I replied:


Originally posted by AshleyD
It is also interesting you word it as 'science can't explain x' when... *drum roll* the OP asked for something science could not explain. Oops! God of the Gaps.


The very first step in the OP mentioned something science could not explain therefore the steps would have obviously been answered off a premise science could not satisfactory explain. But then Mel accused me of violating the God of the Gaps fallacy.

The steps in the OP were flawed and set up in a way anyone who dared to answer them would fail. You already linked to my post explaining why. But let's not take it to heart. The only thing they have now, as evident by the last few posts on this thread, is high-fives to each other and attacks against our intelligence. That should be a big clue as to who has been the winner in this thread.

Since Astyanax congratulated his chums in his comment, I must now take the time to do so:

Congratulations to Con, BW, CS, Dbates, and the other members who dared to venture into the shark infested waters of this thread, plodded on in spite of personal attacks and insults aimed at our intelligence, provided evidence for ID, dissected the OP for its fallacy-filled contradictions, had a good laugh, and who dished it out as much as we got.


[edit on 5/14/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
To which I replied:


Originally posted by AshleyD
It is also interesting you word it as 'science can't explain x' when... *drum roll* the OP asked for something science could not explain. Oops! God of the Gaps.


The very first step in the OP mentioned something science could not explain therefore the steps would have obviously been answered off a premise science could not satisfactory explain. But then Mel accused me of violating the God of the Gaps fallacy.


But that was essentially as far as you went, that's what it leads to.

The starting point - you say 'look this has no valid explanation'. You chose abiogenesis. Which is cool, because evolutionary theory doesn't even go there. So 1 and 2 are covered fair enough. But it doesn't falsify evolution. No matter.

Then you work though the steps.


3). Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Intelligent Design [and interference] because:

Of the intelligent complex code in the design of DNA that we believe to be the blueprints of an intelligent designer and 2) the fact life has never been observed to have occurred spontaneously in spite of various experiments. However, due to 'intelligent interference' on the part of scientists, some interesting things have occurred...


Eh? DNA code is intelligent? You believe it is a blueprint of an IDer? OK, scientifically you can invoke a bit of intuition, suppose it's a very basic argument. We haven't observed x. We don't have a good evidence-based answer. OK, you've identified a problem. So lets test it!


4). This can be tested by means of the following experiment (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from DDI):

I already provided links to some examples of experiments and their results on previous pages. Numerous experiments have been set up in the hopes of showing how life was spontaneously formed (including but not limited to replicating the atmosphere and conditions of the earth in prehistoric times). The results were poor.


The experiment(s) you invoke failed to produce life spontaneously forming - I'm not sure they mean to. They aimed to produce basic building blocks of life, organic material. They did. They were a success. So, we're beginning to go downhill now.

But you still have an identified problem. You can still redeem yourself. What's your test?

4.Cont.

On the other hand, once scientists (intelligent designers) began to get involved in the process and take a proactive part in the attempts to create organic matter, Shazam!. We're finally making headway.

Spontaneous: No success. Intelligent Interference/Design: Progress.


This is laughable. Sorry.

IDers will do science. Sometime. Not sure when. But they have a supersecret lab in Casey Luskin's mom's basement. J/K.

Of course, all you really cite is scientists manipulating DNA - doing science. If you want to say that humans can/will create forms of life, therefore ID is true, that's a bit crappy and not in the least convincing as supportive of some intelligence creating life at origin.

However, you haven't ruled out a natural cause, and if you want to argue this, it really at best suggests that humans created life. I don't want to know what you'll say when the physicists create their mini big-bang. This just shows how you can take anything and make it evidence for ID.

So, at 4. we have science can't do x at this point, and I predict they never will, but humans will do something, don't know what. But they will. Trust me. And we can do science, look mice with ears on their backs!

You've lost me now. At this point you're failing. But lets carry on, lulz need picking.


5). If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment: & 6). We [As in scientists: I don't have a lab in my back bathroom or anything] ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).

Spontaneous life from inorganic matter will never occur even if experiments are executed an infinite amount of times. Furthermore, the experiments that have had intelligent interference linked to on previous pages have been able to make progress in both manipulating and creating the code for the desired outcome.


So the prediction (usually presented before data) you make is that science will never produce a useful answer. But because we can manipulate genetics, and maybe even create a synthetic genome, ID is true?

That's not a testable and falsifiable prediction. You make a prediction and try to falsify it. How can you falsify 'science can never do x'?

Eternity is a long time to wait. This is where the science can't do x thing comes in. You use it as support for your argument. As long as humans are intelligent and do science, you create a situation where that would support your hypothesis. To falsify, we would need to find a natural answer - a bit like god of the gaps, no? And for that we would have to wait eternity to complete the experiment.

I know you're used to bible predictions, but wars and rumours of wars style predictions aren't really useful.

You need to test for design. You need to make a prediction where you can falsify your own hypothesis. Where the prediction would hopefully lead to a different outcome for each competing hypothesis/theory. For example:

Design = The bible says that DNA will have a message saying 'God rules Alpha to Omega. Worship me suckers'. This will be conserved and present in all life. Very specific, and potentially testable and falsifiable. We could do some genetic analysis, find identical areas of genomes that are conserved and present in all species. A bit of data crunching = message? Of course, we'd have to ensure false positives are kept to a minimum, so bible-coders need not apply.

Evolutionary theory = Probably not. I suppose it could happen by chance, but such a message would be pretty convincing, even to me. But as I said, no bible-code style lameness.

Look. I makes a test for you. Would it work? Dunno. Better than yours. But the bible says no such thing. Oh well. Just have faith.


The steps in the OP were flawed and set up in a way anyone who dared to answer them would fail. You already linked to my post explaining why. But let's not take it to heart. The only thing they have now, as evident by the last few posts on this thread, is high-fives to each other and attacks against our intelligence. That should be a big clue as to who has been the winner in this thread.


They're not flawed at all. A bit restrictive in places, perhaps. The flaw is in the conception of intelligent design. It ain't science. That is why people who pretend to know ID have tried to change science itself. However, if you think what you presented is a robust argument for intelligent design, write it up and submit it somewhere.

In sum, I agree that the thread was bound to fail. Not because of what was required, but because ID can't meet scientific standards. Perhaps it can make it, but at this point, no way jose.

Anyway, birds tweeting outside. beddie-boes.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
First of all, Mel, kudos to you for finally taking the time to break it down and for that I will give you a star. That was a lot of work and you were able to find the scientific flaws (more on this in a moment). However, I think I made it pretty clear I submitted the post only to prove a point when I said the following:


Originally posted by AshleyD
My commentaries to these steps have already given HERE to show the flaws in the OP. However, I am forced to ignore them for now in order to make a point.



Originally posted by AshleyD
At the risk of being called a schemer, my entire answer was a bait to begin with to see just how many logical fallacies I would be called out on in my reply...



Originally posted by AshleyD
Insidiousness at its finest. The player got played.


The 'player got played' comment was in reference to how my post was originally set up and refuted. You are taking the time to break down the science in my comment from pages ago now after being called out for it never being done whereas before the only thing I was called out on were the logical errors- the same errors many of us had been warning about due to how the OP was set up.

I even told another member in private that it was amazing none of my scientific points were being broken down- only the logical fallacies. The reason I was amazed was because my answers had some pretty obvious gaping scientific holes, as your rebuttal proves, and I couldn't believe how they were not being noticed- only the fallacies were. Scientifically, yes- my post was full of holes and I even admitted that I had previously been making a serious effort to answer the eight steps but came to a standstill and was no longer taking it seriously after noticing all the contradictions with the way the OP was set up:


Originally posted by AshleyD
Note: While beginning this comment last weekend (I've been working on it a little at a time while saving it in the form of drafts), I had started out directly answering the questions outlined in the eight steps.... However, I began to notice some fatal flaws in the way test was posed so I'm changing my 'theme' for the time being to address these issues. If anyone wants to see what I have done in terms of the original, actual answers, I will be happy to post my progress although it was impossible to complete after realizing the flaws in the OP's request.


I then fully admitted my actual answers were only finally being posted in order to make a point- not to take the OP seriously- and to respond to Astyanax's whining about how the steps weren't being answered:


Originally posted by AshleyD
Ok, Asty. I'll give you what you want and what I wasn't going to submit due to already showing how your OP is fundamentally flawed on so many levels.


My point was later proven by the subsequent replies that focused on the logical errors and not the scientific errors. After seeing it all unfold, that is what finally clinched my suspicions, what made me understand what Con had been trying to tell me all along, and what opened the floor for me to make THIS POST to explain it all to everyone.

That is what I find so amusing and it only confirms Con's suspicion: That the test was intentionally rigged from the onset in some sort of sick joke. Originally I was only being called out on the fallacies and not the science. Now and only now is the actual information/science being refuted- and it took me making a fuss about it to make it happen.

This thread was never looking for evidence of ID but instead was, again, a Heads I win, Tails you lose set-up. You guys didn't attack my easily attackable science- you only attacked my fallacies that would have occurred no matter how the steps were answered. You guys weren't looking for the science in my post- you were looking for the logical errors that you already knew you'd find. Get it?

I know this post is going to make me look like a total scheming, manipulative snot but so be it. I did it to prove what Con, Whammy, and myself are trying to get across: It was a test designed to fail any which way we turned. The best reply to the steps on this thread came from Dbates and even he was ridiculed for it. So, I think I've made my point. This thread was a set-up and the search for evidence of ID was never the goal.

Anyways, enjoy the star I am giving you for rebutting my argument. Hopefully it will help me get over my guilt for punking the baiters. I'm not going to take the time to refute your arguments about DNA and everything else because providing arguments in defense of ID is no longer my goal in this thread (that and we already discussed the DNA argument way back when we were still taking this thread seriously). Such an attempt would be pointless and I would rather discuss and debate ID in a thread that isn't rigged. So, I'll step out of character and allow you to have the last word in that regard.


That's not a testable and falsifiable prediction. You make a prediction and try to falsify it. How can you falsify 'science can never do x'?


You can't and I wholeheartedly agree with you. This is why Whammy and I are laughing at being told we have to prove the impossibility of spontaneous life (when the OP only asked for something science could not explain- not that which was impossible through naturalistic means). Whammy equated it with saying one must prove God does not exist in order to prove a natural cause for our origins. It's proving a negative. That is also why I mentioned pages ago that the OP is flawed for pitting ID against evolution and asking the thread participant to work off the premise of something science cannot explain. It's a game we're bound to lose because of the God of the Gaps fallacy and the standard of falsifiability Con mentioned pages ago.


This is where the science can't do x thing comes in. You use it as support for your argument....To falsify, we would need to find a natural answer - a bit like god of the gaps, no? And for that we would have to wait eternity to complete the experiment.


God of the Gaps? Absolutely. Something I already mentioned pages ago. Falsifiability? Absolutely. Something Con already mentioned pages ago. Again, your problem is with the OP. Not me. With the way the OP was set up, we would hit the God of the Gaps fallacy and run into problems regarding falsifiability by default.


In sum, I agree that the thread was bound to fail. Not because of what was required, but because ID can't meet scientific standards. Perhaps it can make it, but at this point, no way jose.


On this part, I think just about everyone in this thread- including those advocating ID- agree. Whammy also noticed this on the very first page of this thread and debated it in depth later on. This is what led us into the debate about the impossibility of using a material method to prove the immaterial. And I have to say, it is just another way this thread is flawed.

This 'Internet Vandal For Jesus' is over and out.

[edit on 5/15/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
For the software engineer, who is into playing around with such concepts and ideas of genetic algorithms in computer programming.

The fundamental principle that drives these algorithms is the principle that has driven all life to evolve from a common ancestor. As the algorithm modifies small amounts of code in each program in each generation, some of those changes will make a given program more efficient at completing whatever task it is supposed to do.

Now here is the rub, just what IS it supposed to do? Does it know? Doest it have an end game in mind or does it suddenly stretch out its currently progressed appendage that have for no other reason for being, then to offset pressures effecting the mechanistic properties inherent in Natural Selection whereby on this occassion the creature suddenly has a suicidal urge to throw itself over a cliff and lo n behold it discovers it can fly! Not only that but this creature has had other dumbfounded adaptations take place. Anyone ever see a Bird take a leak? nope. Wow lucky it doesn't have to process water like that.

Does the end justify the means or meaning?

It confounds me why some people, namely atheists have this sudden melt down when certain constructs of science and communication come to this perplexing nexus of sudden "dumbness" where as often seen with mel, madness, N'asty the contrast in our differences of what we think science is. Here we see so many critical areas of Science the Scientific Method has become so tweaked by personal bias and a complete break down of ethical morality, bending ones data to fit a theory is so common place anymore they should call it the scientific "crystal methID" as we see things being fixed, that are not broken and things that are broken, not being fixed. Ashley keeps cajoling me into creating a thread on research I have been working on for the past year but I am so apprehensive to do so as I told her, I don't think I am objective enough to facilitate a thread like the one she is eager to have me make. I am not fond of Atheists and a year ago I would have never imagined I'd say something like that.

Their are so many problems using the current scientific method to falsify test and exploit a theory when we have "experienced" phenomena that just contradicts everything we know about the laws of physics and matter as we see in Quantum Science and Evolution is not immune as I am convinced beyond any doubt what so ever that under PURELY STRICT protocols for testing theory using ONLY purely logical critical thinking to arrive at a hypothesis, Darwinian evolution, Neo evolution, ALL of memetics and just about every other area of Quackery Dick Dawkins, Bowel motivated Bio-babble wouldn't see the light of day in pure unadulterated Science.

I see this isn't a problem with Ashley and I don't believe for one second that mel is being honest and objective, not even close.

I don't believe you would agree to intelligent design NOT for any flaws in the argument but simply because you don't want to.

None of you Vocal Atheists want to. As long as the polarity in Science is one of our belief in a Deity and Atheists detest for same, we got a real problem here. We have an elevated atmosphere of coniving deceitful wretched dogmatists who just happen to be the same Angry Atheists I have grown to distrust and disdain, mostly for the same reasons they dislike the thought of Christians having what is OUR RIGHT to have a voice in. Don't EVEN give me that crybaby crap about taking science back to the stone age. Hell as long as atheists are spending our tax dollars spying on us to find out if we are Republican or Fundamentalist, they are aren't busy doing what they are supposed to be and are more about keeping the status quo.

Well the status of Science today,,

is woe.

but that is just ONE problem.

Ill tell you Mel, you are so absolutely wrong to say "it ain't science" furthermore it ain't science for an atheist to say it ain't science but to expose NOT the truth, but the FACTS of why Atheists have no damn business saying such slogans when the slogan "it ain't science" was conjured up as a construct to make the landmark case in Dover, case law with a familiar "jingle" that was made by the ACLU and given as 90% of the Judges comments which went down in history as the knock out punch for creationists.

The facts however show Atheist and Im adding Ken miller because that guy ain't no Christian, they show the absolutely desperate illegal, un-ethical dispicable cloak and dagger BS they went to to not only make sure the "fix" was in regarding dover, but that judge would be prejudice and re-miss in his duty as an impartial Judge by reading a 6000 word judicial decision prepared by the ACLU at the start of that trial, which included the strategically placed words "ID is NOT Science" and was made the lyric like mantra for Atheists ever since.

Did the judge think that?

Nope, If he knew what Science is he wouldn't have accepted the ACLU offer to prepare his statement, especially when it had not been established by the judge yet whether or not it was science. This was a pre-meditated bias. Atheist are no stranger to enlisting the dark side of our legal system joined at the hip with the ACLU. You know, the guys that defend pedohiles and want to decriminalize that crime while Atheists badger priests. People like Madness, Mel and any Atheists I have seen have an aversion to admiting they are wrong and even when they do, it is diluted with being no worse than everyone else so they are ok with that. The Men in Black have nothting on Atheists who would stop at nothting to keep their control of what is left of Science. The will spy, lie cheat and steal.

So asking any of us whether you or astyanax would play fair

Yeah, Atheists ruining the life of any scientist to the point they are so arrogant to admit to it, the U.S. Senate has to step in to tell them HEY, THIS IS ILLEGAL!

I guess setting up an un-fair test here would be over the line for you guys huh? Yeah Riiight.

When I read the senate report on this I wonder what else has been going on. I was shocked we are both so embroiled in this fight.


House Bill 923, introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives by David Grimes (R-District 73) on April 24, 2008, and referred to the Education Policy Committee, is the latest in a string of "academic freedom" bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution.

House Bill 6027, introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives on April 30, 2008, and referred to the House Committee on Education, is the very latest so-called "academic freedom" bill aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution, joining similar bills currently under consider ...

With drastically different House and Senate versions of what was once the same antievolution bill in the Florida state legislature, it remains uncertain whether antievolution forces will be able to devise a compromise bill to be sent to the governor before the legislature adjourns on May 2, 2008 -- especially with a host of other issues crowding ...


Senate Bill 733, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was unanimously passed by the Louisiana Senate on April 28, 2008. If enacted, the bill would call upon the state board of elementary and secondary education to "allow and assist" teachers and adm ...

At its April 24, 2008, meeting, the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board unanimously voted to deny the Institute for Creation Research's request for a state certificate of authority to offer a master's degree in science education through its graduate school, recently relocated to Texas, as the Houston Chronicle (April 24, 2 ...

Oakland, California, April 23, 2008 -- "Teacher Expelled Over Religion," the first in a series of videos produced by the National Center for Science Education, is currently among the most-watched and most-discussed videos on YouTube. NCSE's brief video, fe ...

House Bill 1168 (PDF) was introduced in the Louisiana House of Representatives on April 21, 2008. Dubbed the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act," HB 1168 is a counterpart of the original version of Senate Bill 561, which was passed, in amended form, by the Senate Educ



In a statement issued on April 11, 2008, the Geological Society of London denounced young-earth creationism, "creation science," and "intelligent design" as "a trespass upon the domain of science," and described the great age of the earth, the great age of life on ...



The antievolution bills -- the so-called Academic Freedom Acts -- in Florida are progressing, despite protests from teachers, scientists, and the Florida ACLU, and despite the criticisms of the legislature's own staff. On March 26, 2008, the Senate version of the bill, SB 2692, was passed by a 4-1 vote by the Senate Education Pre-K-12 Commit


Missouri's House Bill 2554, introduced on April 1, 2008, would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific q ...

The defendants in the ongoing case Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al. won a legal victory when their motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied, in a March 28,
2008, ruling from Judge S. James Otero. The plaintiffs in the case ...

A day after the legislative session began in Louisiana, the sponsor of Senate Bill 561 was in the news, denying that the so-called academic freedom bill would pave the way for creationism to be taught in the state's public schools. According to the Baton Rouge Advocate (April 1, 2008), state senator Ben Nevers (D-District 12)

I read expelled exposed and I laughed so hard at the reach Atheists will go to to lie about Ben Stein. It like Hey YA GOT BUSTED now admit it and apologise but like Dawkins who never did the Rabbi or Madd who I have tried for a year to tell him he says things that offend. He will never hear me be sympathetic to his sensitivities much less apologise to him ever again. As for the cosmonauts landing on the sun?

Sorry maddness, you don't have a right to tell me, that is bigotry because like everything else Atheist wont take responsibility for, they weren't landing on the sun,,in the name of Atheism.

I have learned never to apologise to an atheist.

Do I really think that joke on my profile offended you? Hell no, but it makes for a good tattle huh mad huh tell us mad,,

Rather than consider the sensitivities of others madness goes right ahead and cares not for anyone else who might be offended and POSTS it again. He got upset when he "tattled" on me but didn't know I had already had that checked out incase. Then we waited,, BINGO alert alert. None of us play that crap on you guys and you can check.

It seems to me, the only way Atheist operate in to badger their opposition with ridicule being deteremined to NOT be fair and honest just like the U.S. Congressional inquest said recently when re-veiwing dover and the Smithsonian.

Because they won't and don't hesitate ro demand it from us where more often than not, they would get one. I have seen ashley prove that point to me in a little experiment just to see if the "no quarter" "no mercy" to fundie political policy is alive and well here on ATS.

I see now while you accuse Ben Stein of misrepresenting Darwin with Hitler, the facts in that movie are undeniable and have been proven in a court of law. Dawkins in a speech recently called a Jewish Rabbi Hitler repeatedly and never apologised. Ben, I wouldn't if I were you and I sure wouldn't concern myself with their silly sensitivities. Dawkins BOASTS not ever admit to being wrong to a fundie. I have all the atehsist books and have read em all and what they all add up to is this. Atheists have no intention of being anything other than contary, combative as an active adversary.

So is their a way to test and show evidence of intelligent design

Who the hell cares anymore, I'd rather see us wreck science, than let Atheists bully and badger us while viloating our civil rights like street thugs Crips for Atheism.

Now having said all that, I would gamble many of you feel the same way about us. I would Gamble that their are Christians who like me have had with Atheists calling us stupid when stupid is as stupid does.

This is either going to end up in our hands or yours but I don't see any compromise and I sure as hell wouldn't settle for one.

Maybe we should start posing as Atheists

Like Ken Miller poses as

A Christian


- Con



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
But as I noted quite a while back, ash, the eliminate all other explanations is a bit restrictive. That's the only real problem I see. Best explaining is usually sufficient (i.e., parsimonious etc). But none of you really were able to meet it.

A way to see why this can be restrictive is with big bang vs. steady state. When big bang was first formulated, it made specific predictions which were different than steady-state, as it was. The evidence was found to support BB, steady state fell from favour. As it was a daring and elegant hypothesis, nicely confirmed.

But like with all science, that's never the end of the story, some proponents of steady-state now alter their original theory to cover the new findings. And so we still have steady-staters to this day - with a reassessed theory, but generally with little impact (bit like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic). So, eliminate all, probably not. We could easily conceive other ways to explain a finding - some more reasonable than others.

Anyway, so same with what I posted. We have a confirmed hypothesis, but then maybe there are other explanations. It shows some form of support for this hypothetical bible, but what? Does it mean the form of god who is separate from time and space, listens to your prayers? Or maybe an intelligent alien dude who maybe created life which previously evolved? Maybe this alien was just intelligent enough to do some genetic engineering? An intelligent alien could pass information in book form easy enough. Can we eliminate them? Not straight away. That's why science normally answers one question and raises several more.

Heh, I open myself up to the disingeuous by speculating and playing with such ideas. Maybe we'll see posts saying how now I'm a raelian. Rofl.

So I think you're way off target with claims of astyanax being disingenuous in forming this thread and the way it was conceived. The flaw is actually in ID. This is a bit of problem I see with, maybe not you (I'll leave that open for now), but some theists. You have the answer, you believe in your heart you're right, so if something can't confirm it - if science won't do it, if the method in a thread can't allow it - then that must be flawed. The idea is preconceived and absolute. The fault must obviously lie elsewhere. Therefore, lets change science, lets accuse astyanax's approach of being faulty, lets deny various well-supported scientific findings, lets vehemently attack the integrity of science.

As I said, the steps in the thread are generally fine. I could mix my hypothetical bible-based scenario into the right format and meet it in some way. It's a bit of a special case of ID, though, to be sure.

But none of you came even ballpark close really. But I wouldn't have expected anything less (because of the scientific vacuity of ID).


con
I see this isn't a problem with Ashley and I don't believe for one second that mel is being honest and objective, not even close.


And so what I said is well-illustrated. Not you, not a flaw in your reasoning. No, it's me. I'm being dishonest and subjective. I walked through your explanation, I picked it apart peer-review stylee, and even presented some form of improved hypotheticial answer that was meant to help show how we might conceivably meet the challenge in some way.

But, no, I'm dishonest. Just like science is flawed because ID is scientifically vacuous, and expecting it to meet some form of evidence-based standards is seen as dishonest and disingeuous.

Special pleading for ID. Like the little 'special' child in the class who need 'special' treatment - we shouldn't expect them to meet the standards required for all others.

I don't take you serious anyway, con. You nor whammy. Too Poeish.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I should quit while I'm ahead but, hey, I've never denied being a dead horse beater. You and I seem to agree on quite a few things so I'm only going to respond to the following:


Originally posted by melatonin
Special pleading for ID. Like the little 'special' child in the class who need 'special' treatment - we shouldn't expect them to meet the standards required for all others.


I have a huge problem with it being worded as 'meet the standards required for all others.' The OP was requiring some mighty strange things, as you can even admit to in some aspects. Con, Whammy, and myself already pointed out how the OP could not have been answered had the steps been spun around and rephrased with evolution in mind. Astyanax even agreed with us that it would be impossible for him to answer the steps from an evolution angle due to falsifiability and all that jazz. Therefore, this test was absolutely not a 'standard test' that all others are held to. It muddied the waters by adding in impossible requirements already explained in depth.

On the other hand, if you're strictly talking about the scientific method in the above quoted segment and its relation to ID, then absolutely. Again, we all agree on the difficulty of using a naturalistic method to prove the immaterial. Most of us joined this thread because we love a good challenge and debate- not because we're arrogant enough to think we can actually prove on a message board what scientists have found impossible to do thus far.


...lets accuse astyanax's approach of being faulty...


We didn't just make an accusation- we proved it repeatedly. And this was only done after numerous serious attempts to honestly discuss evidence of ID but only to find ourselves being belittled and ridiculed after every post or argument we submitted. So, yes. We turned it around and began to point out the flaws in the OP: Flaws that were obvious from the get-go and that only became more obvious as the thread progressed.


I don't take you serious anyway, con. You nor whammy. Too Poeish.


Now that's just rude, Mel, but I guess we're all entitled to our own personal opinions of each other and I admit to not being too fond of certain members here, to put it mildly. To be more straight forward, there are certain members here I recently find myself detesting. Yet something tells me Con and BW's hearts won't be broken by your opinion of them- not that it comes as any surprise to you, I'm sure. I'm also sure Con's opinion of you lacking objectivity won't make you lose any sleep. However, for what it's worth, I adore the hell out of those two- not that it isn't obvious they're two of my favorite members here.

[edit on 5/15/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I have a huge problem with it being worded as 'meet the standards required for all others.' The OP was requiring some mighty strange things. as you can even admit to in some aspects. Con, Whammy, and myself already pointed out how the OP could not have been answered had the steps been spun around and rephrased with evolution in mind. Astyanax even agreed with us that it would be impossible for him to answer the steps from an evolution angle due to falsifiability and all that jazz. Therefore, this test was absolutely not a 'standard test' that all others are held to. It muddied the waters by adding in impossible requirements already explained in depth.


Only the 'all other explanations' would bother me. Not too sure what the problem is with falsifiability, I'm not traipsing through the thread, but evolutionary predictions are certainly falsifiable. If that was the original issue, Ken Miller's videos which I've raised a few times outlines how. But if you mean 'eliminate all other possibilities', then it would be pretty much impossible to do that, always a way to make up some silly explanation post-hoc. So parsimony and logical consistency would apply.


Again, we all agree on the difficulty of using a naturalistic method to prove the immaterial.


Aye. what we can do is test real-world claims. Problem is, when we do, people deny them. And then they may well go on and attack science for doing its job.

I hear UC Berkeley are being sued for pointing out some religious beliefs contradict science. How dare they!


Flaws that were obvious from the get-go and that only became more obvious as the thread progressed.


Just one I can see. But I suppose repeating stuff over and over might make it true eventually.


Now that's just rude, Mel, but I guess we're all entitled to our own personal opinions of each other and I admit to not being too fond of certain members here, to put it mildly. To be more straight forward, there are certain members here I find myself detesting.


Hate leads to suffering, or so said the great Yoda. Must be better ways to express your emotions.

Anyway, cool. Just my opinion. I call Poe's law. They are just too much of an atheist's idealised example of fundie - everything we see wrong with faith. An absolute gift.

Plus, I generally go tl;dr to con's posts anyway, occasionally just a quick scan for names. So much content, so little substance. I can't even see the point, often too tedious for words.

But my ideas go beyond that anyway



Yet something tells me Con and BW's hearts won't be broken by your opinion of them- not that it comes as any surprise to you, I'm sure. However, for what it's worth, I adore the hell out of those two- not that it isn't obvious they're two of my favorite members here.


I would go and get a quote from a recent response from you to MIMS, but I won't bother and just rofl instead.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Not too sure what the problem is with falsifiability, I'm not traipsing through the thread...


Basically, Con foresaw before anyone else did how we would have been left assuming the consequent regardless of how we went about answering the eight steps. So, he pointed out the need to offset that problem by specifying a different standard of falsifiability.

He also noticed how the test was proposed by having us work off the premise of something evolution could not explain would then automatically force us to mention a phenomenon that was unfalsifiable to some extent (which did indeed end up happening when we used abiogenesis as a starting point).

And with that, I have positively, absolutely said everything I can say in regards to this thread.

Toodle.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Basically, Con foresaw before anyone else did how we would have been left assuming the consequent regardless of how we went about answering the eight steps. So, he pointed out the need to offset that problem by specifying a different standard of falsifiability.


A 'special' one?

See ya around, ash.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
[edited] Ill save it for another day

if I don't today



[edit on 15-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
[edited] Ill save it for another day

if I don't today


Where do you get the time dude? I briefly saw it, did a 'tl; dr', but wow! T'was a biggie.

Has anyone ever mentioned that it's not how big it is, but rather what you do with it that counts?

I even cringe looking at some of my own longer posts above. I suppose you have at least two avid readers.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I have a huge problem with it being worded as 'meet the standards required for all others.' The OP was requiring some mighty strange things, as you can even admit to in some aspects. Con, Whammy, and myself already pointed out how the OP could not have been answered had the steps been spun around and rephrased with evolution in mind. Astyanax even agreed with us that it would be impossible for him to answer the steps from an evolution angle due to falsifiability and all that jazz..

Absolutely untrue. As melatonin states, the requirement is the same as for testing a scientific concept. Don't twist his words to make it seem as if he agrees with you, the way you tried to do with mine. I know it's typical creationist behaviour, but try to be more honourable than that, will you?

As for my 'agreement' about the impossibility of using the experiment to prove a creator -- not 'from the evolution angle', your pants are on fire again -- that is simply another way of stating that 'God did it' is an unfalsifiable explanation. You weary us with your childishly wilful misunderstanding of what has already been explained (clearly enough for a child to understand) many times in this thread.


Therefore, this test was absolutely not a 'standard test' that all others are held to. It muddied the waters by adding in impossible requirements already explained in depth.

Melatonin has already explained numerous times that is is a standard test, just a little strict in one place. Can you do nothing better than repeat yourself?

As for muddying the waters, I leave that to you and your cohorts. It makes no difference to me whether the waters are muddy or clear; remember my name is Astyanax. Look it up.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Absolutely untrue...

Don't twist his words to make it seem as if he agrees with you, the way you tried to do with mine...

I know it's typical creationist behaviour, but try to be more honourable than that, will you?

your pants are on fire again...


I see you're tossing around the accusations of 'creationist dishonesty' once again although I have backed up everything I have said on this thread time and time again, never wavering, while citing previous quotes and linking to previous posts to the point of being accused of repetition and thread monopolizing. When you keep hashing out the same accusations, expect the repetition of previous defenses.


I'm no longer taking this thread seriously topic-wise but I have no problem coming in here to defend others or myself against false accusations. We can take this thread to 50 pages if you'd like although I don't suggest it. All one has to do to see that your accusations are being pulled out of you nether regions is to read this thread from start to finish. Of course, it would be my pleasure to post links to the specific posts if the need arises. Everything has been backed up repeatedly and your accusations of dishonestly are easily refuted.

I'm seriously considering starting the thread The Gullibility of Those-Who-Took-Asty's-Thread-Seriously-ists. Sounds like self-effacing fun.


 



Originally posted by melatonin
Where do you get the time dude? I briefly saw it, did a 'tl; dr', but wow! T'was a biggie.


Oh. I assumed he had been taking tips from you on how to find the time to post. Looks like you have mastered the art of time management this past week.


[edit on 5/17/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think someone has already mentioned that Popper's falsifiability is equally as valid as evidence, if not more desirable. If people can find flaws in the apparent evidence of evolution then they should be encouraged because it is the scientific method. You guys cannot have it both ways. Your deductive hypothesis framework in the OP is not always the way that Science develops, IMHO, and Popper would disagree, induction is proabably a more holistic and powerful method of scientific enquiry. Maybe if we look back, the most powerful scientific theory comes from induction. Look at the atom hypothesis of Democritus or Einstein's thought experiments as an example.

IMHO, I think an alternative theory also deserves a mention at this juncture. I will let the author state it but, in other words, it is the undeniable evidence of the values of the fundamental forces and constants in the Universe that are measurable, reliably measured, sometimes to many decimal places and absolutely contigent for life to exist.


Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.
The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.
If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.

The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long


From

The last phenomenon, the existence of carbon, did not hypothetically arise until the third generation of stars. Is this one of the Days (yaum/phase/aeon) of Creation? Who knows?



[edit on 17/5/2008 by Heronumber0]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Heronumber0
 


Popper's falsifiability is equally as valid as evidence, if not more desirable.

Does this statement mean anything? Could you please explain what you think it means?


If people can find flaws in the apparent evidence of evolution then they should be encouraged because it is the scientific method.

Absolutely. And there are plenty of threads in which to do so. This thread exists to allow those who think they can come up with an experimental procedure to provide falsifiable evidence for intelligent design to post an outline of such procedure.

Well, Heronumber0, do you have any to post?

If you don't -- as I suspect is the case -- but you just want to discuss philosophy of science, well, I'll make an exception for you. In fact, I'll let you launch the first broadside. Fire away, my friend.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420


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?


Gee Dave, you answered you own question ie; Modern Science is so CORRUPT


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.


Yeah,, I Dave and like I said before,, the US Sentate Busted em for the way they "fend off" the other .

They're crooks Dave ok

Charlatans, huxters

Carnival guys

- Con

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Can you actually come up with any evidence to support your claims AT ALL? Any?

Until you do that, you're just talking for the sake of talking.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join