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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
THIS IS LONG BUT I PROMISE IT IS WORTH THE READ.

 


CONSPIRIOLOGY: Con, you have no need to apologize or offer disclaimers about going off topic on this thread any longer. What you have been trying to say since the very beginning of this thread only to be bullied into silence was extremely relevant as this post will prove.

It all finally just hit me.

 


ASTYANAX: Way back in the thread, Con tried to discuss falsifiability with you. You should have taken him up on it. I didn't understand what he was trying to imply at the time but now I do.

You see, as Con had desperately tried to mention since first joining this thread only to be harassed, he wanted to set the boundaries for the standard of falsifiability because he saw the contradictions long before we did of assuming the consequent. Therefore, he saw the need in setting a different foundation for testing since we could not avoid assuming the consequent by the very way the thread was set up.

Here I was thinking I was so clever to have discovered it a little bit at a time but there he was sitting pretty knowing all along. Massive kudos to Con. I have never been so impressed with and proud of him. However, he was shut down and accused of being off topic although I assure you it was very much on topic as you now realize.

Then, he tried to explain the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Not just the fallacy itself that had already been brought up in the thread, but how the actual steps outlined in the OP was an assumption of the consequent. He was ignored and ridiculed by all sides once again.

Then, he did what I refused to do: And that is, give you the benefit of the doubt that you really were that smart, that cunning to have set up your OP on what I already referred to as a 'heads I win, tails you lose' basis.

This is where Con and I disagree yet it shows for the third time he has been 'the good guy.' Why? Because he was generous enough to believe you knew what you were doing all along in THIS post (only to be criticized by you). I, however, will not give you the benefit of the doubt as it is my observation you goofed and didn't begin to realize this thread's test for the series of fallacies it was later proven to be until about halfway through the thread.

 


WHAT THE PROBLEM IS

Fallacy One. Regardless of our answer, we'd be left assuming the consequent due to the way the OP is set up. Oops!

Fallacy Two. The actual steps in the OP are a false dichotomy by assuming only evolution or ID can be true. Oops!

Fallacy Three. Not even evolutionary theory could have completed the OP had the situation been reversed. Oops!

Fallacy Four. God of the Gaps. The OP asks us to find a flaw that science cannot answer so it must be a divine/intelligent act. Oops!

Fallacy Five. No standard was set for falsifiability to offset the inevitable fallacy of assuming the consequent. Oops!

This brings us back to the predicament you put me in before, Astyanax, where you accused me of either being dishonest or stupid (both false). However, now it's your turn and this time there are only two options. There is no option of 'misunderstanding.' You were either:

As Con believes, that cunning to create a no-win scenario: "Dishonest."
As I believe, had no idea your process was as full of contradictions as it has been proven to be: "Being Very Stupid."

You decide. I will withhold judgement.

 


Many apologies to Con. He was ridiculed by Asty for not providing actual evidence of ID. But not because he doesn't know what the evidence is- rather, because he was the only, yes only, one who saw the set up for what it was from the very start:

A mind-
-ing farce of fallacy.

Even though much evidence was provided in this thread in support of ID, Con knew and was the only one who did know that it could never be conformed to the construct of the OP. And I also need to apologize to him because I thought he was off base when he accused me of 'not getting it,' in essence, when he turned out to be absolutely correct: I didn't get it. Until now.

 


AND HERE IS THE PROOF IN THE PUDDING HOW IT ALL TIES IN TOGETHER

That is why I finally submitted my actual Eight Answers to this thread even after the standards set in this thread had been proven to be Fundamentally Flawed. I did it on purpose to show even when the eight steps were answered even as requested, it was still flawed in every way possible and violated the fallacies mentioned above. My post was subsequently critiqued by Asty and Mel for violating the very fallacies we have been warning about as was then explained in my My Follow-Up Reply to their critique.

Insidiousness at its finest. The player got played.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by AshleyD]




posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I don't see you calling mel on doing the same thing with his pom poms supporting you while he has never offered a lick of proof for ID the world is looking for either HAS HE?

Nope.


Aye, Nope.

I was just reminiscing and encouraging Astyanax to not give up on his hope of someone presenting something akin to a scientific hypothesis and experiment to test ID creationism. In fact, I can tell him where to go if he wants to talk to people who still pretend to be able to do such things - and it's most definitely not here, or even Dembski's blog.

Why would I want to present evidence of ID? It's hogwash, I'd be just as likely to present evidence of astrology.

This is just one in a series of threads asking a similar question that has been posted over my time here. In every one the result is essentially the same old tripe. For example, in the first few posts the zombie 'irreducible complexity' is pulled from the crypt and given an airing - it died as an argument years ago - but this sort of thing never registers with the target audience. It's still being pummelled by proper science even now (check Pandasthumb for some recent blood clotting data from Russell Doolittle's research group). The only one who has come close has long fled this forum.

So, if anything, I don't see why the thread was posted at all. Same request, same old response. Hence my circular argument post. Round and round we go, where we stop I certainly know.

ABE: and just for note, the steps required by Astyanax are fair enough, although the 'eliminate all other explanations' may be a bit harsh - just being the most logically consistent, coherent, and parsimonious could be sufficient for tentative acceptance.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


( borrows mels pom poms )



Insidiousness at its finest. The player got played.


To go back to a theme from the beginning of the thread. That's why we are NOTORIOUS.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I am sort of unsure of all the science details but I believe God is the intelligent designer created all the life and animals through the process of evolution. Why does everyone in the thread act like they are diffenet things? I mean a kid can see the evolution process obviously has an intelligence behind it. Evolution as a function was designed and created too, it didn't just happen. Nothing "just happens". Thats moron material there. Life is sooooooo figgin' obviously not accident !



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
As Con believes, that cunning to create a no-win scenario: Dishonest.
As I believe, had no idea your process was as full of contradictions as it has been proven to be: Stupid.


There's really not a third option this time is there?


Great work Con & Ash!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I am called a "notorious" creationist by the threads reptilian author. My problem is not so much with evolution but Darwinism and it's blind faith anti-theist adherents. I believe MicroEvolution happens by intelligent design. I have seen no real evidence for Macro. Yes there is a big difference in the theory of evolution and Darwinism that escapes most atheists. As most atheists are parishioners in the church of Darwinism.



It should be clear from all this that the problem is not with evolution. The problem is with Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution. As a theory, evolution is not hostile to religion. Far from disproving design, evolution actually reveals the mode by which design has been executed. But atheists routinely use Darwinism and the fallacy of the blind watchmaker to undermine belief in God. Many scientists have been conned by this atheist tactic. They allow themselves to slide, almost unwittingly, from evolution into Darwinism. Thus they become pawns of the atheist agenda.
D'Souza



[edit on 5/11/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Proof of ID the World is Looking For

According to Conspiriology and his friends, by using the above as the title for a thread that requests the proof in question, I have assumed the consequent.

'Assuming the consequent' is the logical fallacy of assuming what has to be proved. It takes a very specific form: All X are A, Y is A, therefore Y is X. Here is an example of it.

1. All women are human beings.

2. The Pope is a human being.

3. Therefore the Pope is a woman.

If someone can point out how this formula fits the OP or the thread title, I shall be very grateful indeed.

Is the thread title dishonest, as claimed? You, gentle reader, must decide. The OP does not assume intelligent design or claim to offer proof of it. It merely sets out a structure by which such a proof might be advanced. I have already confessed that I used that title in order to attract readers to the thread. The title advertises the topic under discussion, no more. Anyone thinking such a proof was on offer in the OP had only to read it to understand what I was getting at. If it had been my intent to deceive, surely I would have tried to maintain the deception at least until the end of the original post. On the contrary, its real character is perfectly clear.

I will give Conspiriology the benefit of the doubt and assume that his understanding of logic is deficient. The alternative is to believe that he is deliberately attempting to mislead readers of this thread -- that's you, dear reader of this post. A committed Christian wouldn't do that, would he? Would he?

And I did take up Conspiriology's offer to debate falsifiability -- on another thread, since this one covers a different topic. He has not started any such thread, of course.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
A Modest Proposal

My good friend Conspiriology has presented, on another thread in this forum, a list of 'top world famous secular evolutionary scientists who have finally seen the light about evolution', as he puts it.

Very well. Among these scientists, there must surely be at least one who is interested in finding solid proof of intelligent design.

Here, then, is a modest proposal. Let anyone believing that a convincing scientific proof of intelligent design has truly been presented on this thread make contact with a scientist or scientists on Conspiriology's list, show them the 'proof' and ask them to comment on it.

Alternatively, I propose that they request one of more of these scientists to take up the OP challenge.

I'm sure the scientists' response, whatever it is, will be very interesting and instructive.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Ok, I'm not sure where to begin so I'll start off by saying, "Hello, Asty." Now let's tackle these two quotes together because they are so closely related to what I said before:


Originally posted by Astyanax
If someone can point out how this formula fits the OP or the thread title, I shall be very grateful indeed.



And I did take up Conspiriology's offer to debate falsifiability -- on another thread, since this one covers a different topic. He has not started any such thread, of course.


Now go back and read your reply to me after I answered your eight steps.

You accused me of assuming the consequent and also told me it didn't come anywhere near the method for scientific falsifiability. Now, I am not surprised you called me out on either of those. 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- the exact fallacies we have been warning about and the exact reason why we had been asking for clarification regarding falsifiability. That is why I had previously deleted my post only to restore it once you and Mel already replied. I felt guilty for setting a trap in order to make a point.

This is what Con was getting at and why he wanted to know what methods you wanted to use for falsifiability in this thread. And no, I don't think it should have been relegated to an entirely new thread as what needed to be done and what he was suggesting was so closely entwined with what you wanted to see concerning answers to your OP and eight steps.

It makes me wonder if you were purposely avoiding having a discussion with him on this thread not because you were concerned it would derail the topic, but because you knew at the time he would have pretty much killed the thread for showing it to be the set-up, intentional or unintentional, for what it was, due to the fact these types of things happen to be his area of expertise.

As for how this thread assumes the consequent: It is as we have been saying all along: No matter how the steps are answered and no matter what evidence is provided of ID (regardless of whether or not they were provided according to the eight steps throughout this thread), we would still be left assuming the cause. Look very carefully through this thread to find your answer. I don't want to get accused of being repetitive once again but this has all been explained from both sides, including you, so I'm a little surprised to see how you don't understand it now.

In all honesty, Astyanax, I must ask: Did you or did you not believe from the very start of this thread with the way you set up the eight step process that it was a construct doomed to fail due to contradictions? At this point I am simply curious and would like to hear either a 'yes' or 'no.' I promise to hold off on the either 'stupid or dishonest' option we've all been putting each other through this entire time.

Truthfully, I'm so burned out on this topic now and this will most likely be my last reply unless this post stirs up a hornet's nest, although I don't see why it would but you never know. I'm really just curious at this point.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Fallacy One. Regardless of our answer, we'd be left assuming the consequent due to the way the OP is set up. Oops!

Not at all. See this post on Page 9.


Fallacy Two. The actual steps in the OP are a false dichotomy by assuming only evolution or ID can be true. Oops!

Not at all. I presented a logically consistent argument for intelligent design that also meets the terms of the OP in this post, on Page 5 of the thread. The reasoning explicitly considers other possibilities besides evolution and intellligent design.


Fallacy Three. Not even evolutionary theory could have completed the OP had the situation been reversed. Oops!

This is a reference to your long post on Page 6, whose illogic and false equivalences I already exposed in this post on Page 7.


Fallacy Four. God of the Gaps. The OP asks us to find a flaw that science cannot answer so it must be a divine/intelligent act. Oops!

Also dealt with in the post on Page 5 referenced above.


Fallacy Five. No standard was set for falsifiability to offset the inevitable fallacy of assuming the consequent. Oops!

The standard of falsifiability is always the same; a theory has to be so devised that it can be falsified by experiment. Yet again, you display patent and fatal (to your arguments) unfamiliarity with the scientific method.


This brings us back to the predicament you put me in before, Astyanax.

Thank you for having -- somewhat belatedly -- adopted the courtesy of addressing me by name. As for your predicament, you have only yourself to blame for it. You easily could go on believing what you believe, accepting that belief is (i) undemanding of proof and (ii) a private matter. You would avoid the stress and moral hazard of arguments like this and have more time in your life for the things that really matter. Or you may choose to muddle religion and science in this foolish way, make a mouthpiece of yourself, and suffer the consequences. As I said to you before, beware the taint.

I live in a multicultural society. Among my friends, colleagues and indeed relations are Buddhists, Christians (all major denominations), Hindus, Muslims and followers of Chinese folk religion. One very old and very dear friend is a leading doshi in the Sukyo Mahikari faith. I have broken bread with gurus and god-men. I get on very well with all but the handful of proselytizing fanatics who want to stuff their way of believing down everybody else's throats. Each to his own poison and down with all pushers, that's my philosophy.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Oh, we're going to play it like that? Wow. We really must have covered everything then if we're just pointing each other to where we explained it all before. I almost got sarcastic and was going to do nothing but link you to all of my past comments in return that already refuted your above rebuttal. And as funny as that would have been (to me at this hour, at least), it really just would just prolonged our little ego contest. Instead, I will go this route:

I know we must have cracked this thread if your last resort is this:


I get on very well with all but the handful of proselytizing fanatics who want to stuff their way of believing down everybody else's throats. Each to his own poison and down with all pushers, that's my philosophy.


And:


A committed Christian wouldn't do that, would he? Would he?


The rest of your post was nothing but ramblings and Ad Hom attacks that merited no real reply.

I guess when you can't beat them, just call them all bad Christians. Okie Dokie. I guess we're done here.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

In all honesty, Astyanax, I must ask: Did you or did you not believe from the very start of this thread with the way you set up the eight step process that it was a construct doomed to fail? At this point I am simply curious and would like to hear either a 'yes' or 'no.' I promise to hold off on the either 'stupid or dishonest' predicament we've all been putting each other in this entire time.


Oh yeah ash jeez that post between asty and myself is so OLD but yeah even back then I respected his intelligence on falsifying theory but like I did here as soon as I saw his Atheism got in the way of his ability to be honest and OBJECTIVE,,,,,

I left.

YOU were the one making another thread an un-necessary extra step asty moreover another thread getting underway would not have fixed this one. Yeah I think it would have taken one post from you and it would have me exploiting you as an angry atheist attempting to take out his ya ya's on those Christians your anger exposes for "forcing their religion down your throat" the same anger you had long ago when I first encountered you and see you haven't gotten over it. NO ONE here has done that to you asty NO NONE so get over it.

I knew back then he had an issue with GOD or people believing in God and was much more conciliatory then I am here. I saw somewhere on another thread in another forum someone with an avatar exactly like mels saying he knew someone better than he should.

I am assuming from hearing through the grapevine that was me he was talking about and if it was he knows me from the many editorials I used to write about falsifying game theory. Software writers hear things in like minded circles like that.

I hinted at back in this thread, when I said it is sort of a hobby of mine. as for asty breaking bread with guru's

GuFaW!! I don't believe a word of it in fact your vitriolic demeanor and candid opinions of those who are Christians is legend asty I don't believe it anymore then I believe anyone has tried to "shove anything down your throat" or was that just more of your honest objectivity.

Ya GOT BUSTED SON and you don't want to admit it.

To the gentle reader I will say I have not been trying to derail this thread and again to the not so gentle thread creator who I would have suggested ashley just go right ahead on this one when she asked you that yes or no question,, and just go ahead and

ASSUME the damn CONESEQUENT.

The answer is

YES

- Con


[edit on 11-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


In all honesty, Astyanax, I must ask: Did you or did you not believe from the very start of this thread with the way you set up the eight step process that it was a construct doomed to fail?

As melatonin (who is a real scientist) has testified, the 'eight steps' are just the standard basis for setting up a hypothesis and testing it experimentally. It is the way science operates, no more, no less. As he says, the standard of proof referred to in Step 4 is a little harsh; his ameliorated version is perfectly acceptable to me.

Look, AshleyD: I was simply asking for someone to supply a rigorous scientific proof of intelligent design. If ID is really a science, then it should be able to supply such a thing without any great effort. I was asking proponents of intelligent design to put their money where their mouths are. That's all.

Did I believe that the eight-step process was a construct doomed to fail? No.

Of course I did not -- and still do not -- know that, because it isn't. It's just the scientific method set out in eight steps.

But what I do know, as you do not appear to, is that no convincing evidence for intelligent design has ever been presented. The closest the ID community ever came was Michael Behe's attempt to prove irreducible complexity in bacterial flagellae -- which failed. Please recall that I mentioned that failure in the very first line of the OP, even before Clearskies presented it as 'evidence'.

Knowing the failure of ID to produce any scientific support for itself, I was pretty sure that the OP challenge would not be met. But there is nothing in the 'setup' of the OP that makes it impossible to prove intelligent design -- as I have shown (Page 5).

I have dealt with you and your fellows with complete honesty and fairness from the outset. It is essential to my purpose that I do so, because part of my purpose is to contrast the intrinsic honesty of scientific materialism with the deceptions, falllacies and/or ignorance that lie at the heart of the chimera known as intelligent design. Your friends Bigwhammy and Conspiriology have served that aspect of my intent well. You have conducted yourself a little better.

It is possible you think atheists are people with no respect for morality and no sense of honour. Believe me, I have both, and they have guided me closely in my conduct on this thread. You have been re-reading my posts; I believe they speak for themselves.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


Look, AshleyD: I was simply asking for someone to supply a rigorous scientific proof of intelligent design. If ID is really a science, then it should be able to supply such a thing without any great effort. I was asking proponents of intelligent design to put their money where their mouths are. That's all.

Did I believe that the eight-step process was a construct doomed to fail? No.



of course he says the same thing about me in a veilled ad hom about my being deficient in logic and falsifying theory. You don't know know jack squat about what I know asty. Mel might but you sure as hell don't seem to remember I have had this discussion with you long ago.

I know you knew enough that this whole thing would end up just like mel was trying to say and I already kinow also.

Until Science gets off its butt and attempts to create a method to test that which can't be testable. Rather than confront me directly on this you go and bring up another thread asking questions for another debate side stepping me AGAIN! What it has to do with THIS thread is?

NOTHING thats what.



I have dealt with you and your fellows with complete honesty and fairness from the outset.


No you didn't, just those you knew you could flim flam with your superior knowledge of logical fallacy. Anyone else and I mean ME you avoided and attempted to eliminate with extreme prejudice. She was correct too all along I was emailing them articles to get them to understand and said astyanax is right.

Why? Unlike you, I CAN be objective EVEN if it means telling my freinds they are wrong in favor of the Atheist who only talks a good game about it but hasn't demonstrated an iota of it.

The other reason?

I know it as well if not better than you do and know an entire gaming community that would tell you the same.

- Con




[edit on 11-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Problem is that they will just keep repeating the same vacuous bluster and hope it sticks. I suppose you could say you're being swiftboated. You're expecting intellectual honesty from many who tend to be unable to attain it.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh get off it Mel, YOU said the same thing yourself wondering why a thread like this was even being attempted did you NOT?

The whole thing was a loaded question in the form of a statment played with loaded dice in a loaded game.

YOU know it and I know it.

Like astyanax was going to get this proof he has known all along greater minds than ours couldn't furnish under better circumstances than these.

I'd love to see asty's answer to that yes or no question given with a polygraph because frankly, I know the type and at this point he shouldn't even like the reflection he sees in the mirror but knowing asty,,


He'll blame the damn mirror

- Con







[edit on 11-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh get off it Mel, YOU said the same thing yourself wondering why a thread like this was even being attempted did you NOT?


Well, I think I know why they are posted. Probably a reponse to posters running around attempted to pick at evolutionary theory, claiming the majesty of creation and ID. However, when pinned down at a scientific level - nada. It's a nice shot of realism for the wishful thinkers.

I just feel it is repetitive. But I think that of this whole subforum. Like I have just had to point out quote-mines for the brazillionth time.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Let's see you complete all the steps for evolution then - subject to the same standards.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Let's see you complete all the steps for evolution then - subject to the same standards.


I don't think astyanax would want the thread to go that way. However, just watch the Ken Miller videos on youtube. The one for human evolution, and then the one for whale evolution. Both show how predictions sourced from evolutionary theory are applied, and how they are testable and falsifiable. Both were shown to be confirmed by evidence.

That's science baby!



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I don't think astyanax would want the thread to go that way. However, just watch the Ken Miller videos on youtube. The one for human evolution, and then the one for whale evolution. Both show how predictions sourced from evolutionary theory are applied, and how they are testable and falsifiable. Both were shown to be confirmed by evidence.

That's science baby!


evolution HAS BEEN TESTED. For nearly 100 years now Mel and scientists have been nuking fruit flies with mutagens, chemicals, radiation and other things that we know cause mutations.

The results have usually been teenage mutant ninjaflies and a whole lotta dead ones. Since today is sunday, I am going to make the drive downtown 80 miles for me JUST to watch those movies you suggest as I am on dialup here in the sticks. I suggest you list anymore you got to so it be worth your while and mine as you are aware the price of gas these days lol.

I still have a sneaking suspicion however that this is also going to have a Bias just like religion did when it controls science I truly believe Atheism has one just as much and bends the data to fit their theory and many have admitted it. If this isn't on the up and up if their is a flaw in it Im gonna find it I can guarantee you that "baby"

BTW, Good to see you posting again Mel

- Con



[edit on 11-5-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
BTW, Good to see you posting again Mel

- Con


Temporary. So some will be relieved.

I don't know what you were expecting the fruit-fly studies to do. Produce an elephant? They have resulted in speciation. They have provided important knowledge. The fact we can produce legs in place of antennae is useful information, although it's probably over the heads of some.

And the videos I mention are from the christian biologist, Ken Miller. So I'm sure he won't pollute his position with baby-consuming atheistic thinking. He has written a good book (only when I ignored the quantum woo-based theological babblings), 'Finding Darwin's god', and has another on the way.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by melatonin]




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join