Author Topic: What can we do?  (Read 12263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2012, 01:49:10 PM »

The problem is not that you don't subscribe to the ToE in its entirety. The problem is that your "worldview" completely ignores evidence, logic and reason - the very basis of reality. That is why you are labelled an idiot.

You just don't get it, do you? Most non-theists I encounter are not opposed to examining evidence that might sway them in another direction. They are more than willing to acknowledge that a 'god' might exist.....even if they feel the possibility is a fraction of a percent. Even you, if you were being honest with yourself, cannot dismiss the possibility, however remote you feel it may be. To even begin to suggest otherwise makes you the clear fool in this argument.....so, seriously, do the world a favor and just shut your big arrogant know-it-all mouth.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11129
  • Darwins +293/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #88 on: January 28, 2012, 01:51:05 PM »
You just don't get it, do you? Most non-theists I encounter are not opposed to examining evidence that might sway them in another direction. They are more than willing to acknowledge that a 'god' might exist.....even if they feel the possibility is a fraction of a percent. Even you, if you were being honest with yourself, cannot dismiss the possibility, however remote you feel it may be. To even begin to suggest otherwise makes you the clear fool in this argument.....so, seriously, do the world a favor, just shut your big arrogant know-it-all mouth.

Reread my post, look up the difference between "evidence" and "proof", reread my post a second time and rewrite your reply.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #89 on: January 28, 2012, 01:56:23 PM »
You just don't get it, do you? Most non-theists I encounter are not opposed to examining evidence that might sway them in another direction. They are more than willing to acknowledge that a 'god' might exist.....even if they feel the possibility is a fraction of a percent. Even you, if you were being honest with yourself, cannot dismiss the possibility, however remote you feel it may be. To even begin to suggest otherwise makes you the clear fool in this argument.....so, seriously, do the world a favor, just shut your big arrogant know-it-all mouth.

Reread my post, look up the difference between "evidence" and "proof", reread my post a second time and rewrite your reply.

Your post presumes to know what I do and do not know. To suggest anyone is an idiot without having a solid understanding of what they have examined, researched, studied, and considered is the epitome of arrogance.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11129
  • Darwins +293/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #90 on: January 28, 2012, 02:00:49 PM »
Your post presumes to know what I do and do not know.

Actually, it presumes that you've looked at the evidence and dismissed that which disagreed with your worldview. I am giving you a lot more credit than it's due, judging from your posts here.

To suggest anyone is an idiot without having a solid understanding of what they have examined, researched, studied, and considered is the epitome of arrogance.

I think the belief that a being created a near-infinite universe for one single species is the epitome of arrogance.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 02:07:11 PM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #91 on: January 28, 2012, 02:05:41 PM »
BibleStudent, what is your take on that comment I made? Does entropy support the fall from Adam?

I feel like I am sitting in a restaurant and the waiter just set four automobile tires down in front of me. Where did this come from and how does it apply to the topic in this thread?

Why the snub? I just wanted your opinion about a point of view I presented elsewhere that was in support of what you submitted. You said;

Then he said that most mutations are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person.  For the coup-de-grace, he said that there seems to be a “Platonic ideal” of the human makeup (wild-type referring to natural) from which we all “fall short.”  This is the opposite of Darwinian evolutionary ascent from slime; it is descent with modification downward from an initial ideal state.  Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam!

I added the bold to highlight where my comment applied to what you were arguing. If what you are arguing doesn't apply to the topic of the thread then why are you making it? Did you read the comment I pointed you to?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #92 on: January 28, 2012, 02:11:46 PM »
deleted
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 02:14:29 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #93 on: January 28, 2012, 02:13:54 PM »
BibleStudent, what is your take on that comment I made? Does entropy support the fall from Adam?

I feel like I am sitting in a restaurant and the waiter just set four automobile tires down in front of me. Where did this come from and how does it apply to the topic in this thread?

I had no idea which part of my post you were referring to. If you would have cited it, as you did above, I could have figured it out. I'll go back and re-read your post.

Why the snub? I just wanted your opinion about a point of view I presented elsewhere that was in support of what you submitted. You said;

Then he said that most mutations are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person.  For the coup-de-grace, he said that there seems to be a “Platonic ideal” of the human makeup (wild-type referring to natural) from which we all “fall short.”  This is the opposite of Darwinian evolutionary ascent from slime; it is descent with modification downward from an initial ideal state.  Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam!

I added the bold to highlight where my comment applied to what you were arguing. If what you are arguing doesn't apply to the topic of the thread then why are you making it? Did you read the comment I pointed you to?
I had no idea which part of my post you were referring to. If you would have cited it, as you did above, I could have figured it out. I'll go back and re-read your post.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #94 on: January 28, 2012, 02:26:23 PM »
These probability arguments are empty.  Life is here.  Probability = 1.  We don't have a clear understanding of how life started, so we are working on different hypotheses, one of which is this chemical replication idea.  And for someone to come along make the claim that the probability that some specific combination of chemicals and replication is far too low to have started life, they would have to show their math, and all of the variables involved, and how no other combinations could be considered.

This reminds me of the ultra-stupid idea that humans could not be here without the exact set of conditions we find ourselves in.  And then they continue this stupidity by then claiming that the odds of this perfect combination of conditions being what they are, are 10-5000000, or some other stupidity.  It never occurs to them that the conditions happen to allow what we now see, instead, they insist that the conditions were made this way on purpose.  Fucking stupidity and willful ignorance is unbelievable.

With all due respect, Jetson, these comments point to severe willful ignorance on your part. Probability is a branch of mathematics that you have just trivialized into a meaningless form of stupidity….. and I’m sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well educated people who would serve you up a good verbal lashing for your comments. Cripes, probability theory is even used in theoretical biology.

Please. Actually read what I wrote before you make such silly replies.  Nowhere did I say that math or the use of probabilities are trivial or stupid.  Seriously, read.  Jesus Christ on a stick...you're not helping yourself.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #95 on: January 28, 2012, 02:53:04 PM »
Please. Actually read what I wrote before you make such silly replies.  Nowhere did I say that math or the use of probabilities are trivial or stupid.  Seriously, read.  Jesus Christ on a stick...you're not helping yourself.

Yep. You're right. I apologize. My bad.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #96 on: January 28, 2012, 11:12:30 PM »


Your post presumes to know what I do and do not know. To suggest anyone is an idiot without having a solid understanding of what they have examined, researched, studied, and considered is the epitome of arrogance.

However we do all have a solid understanding of what you do and do not know. We have over a thousand posts spelling it out for us.

We have seen that you have no knowledge of how either evolution or science works. In fact we've seen that you don't even understand your own ID arguments very well, certainly not well enough to actually form them into your own words at least. You've repeatedly demonstrated that it's highly unlikely you have ever even examined a science book in anything but the most cursory manner. There is a mountain of posts which shows over and over again that you are, in fact, an under-educated buffoon that in any decently run world would be relegated to the coveted position of village idiot.

If you would like me to provide evidence of your utter stupidity and incompetence, feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to do so.

The bottomline however, is that the comment is eminently justified. If you want to actually demonstrate that it isn't accurate, I once again invite you to actually start making legitimate arguments and learn about the issues you are arguing about first.

The dispute arises when proponents of evolution starting stretching what we know and have observed into things like micro=macro. That’s where things start getting tangled up.

The proponents are not stretching anything. Micro and macro evolution are terms made up by IDer's. The term displays absolutely no understanding of how evolution works.

It's so wrong it's not even remotely close to being accurate, this is the problem with IDer's trying to attack evolution. You have so little knowledge of it that there's little point in even trying to correct you because your knowledge is even less than non-existent.

It's like if I looked at a baseball game and said "I don't get how people like this game. How can anyone enjoy watching those players run around in circles while hopping on one foot and wearing sailormoon costumes?"

The fact that such a question is asked displays such a fundamental lack of knowledge that it makes it nearly impossible to actually educate and just hearing it makes the brain start to scream in agony. This is where you fit in, BS.

Is it necessary that ID “works in application?

Of course it is, BS. If it doesn't actually work, then it's clearly wrong isn't it? I don't want to come at you with any of these bizarre ideas or anything, but what's the point to a method that can't actually accomplish anything. The reason we think of science as the "supreme ruler" is because it's the only method we have found so far that actually works. If you could actually demonstrate that ID was capable of doing anything useful then it might be worth a second glance. But from your question it's clear that it can't.

So by your own admission, science is the "supreme ruler". Glad to see we finally agree on something.

You really have not given much effort to examining ID science, have you.

By the way, BS. I'm still waiting for a response on the fact that ID clearly advocates a Christian theistic agenda and the Christian God. I provided evidence showing that you were wrong. Where is your evidence to the contrary, or do you concede the point?

And furthermore where is your evidence of an ad hominem that you backhandedly tried to claim that I engaged in?

While we're on the subject, I forgot to also point out that the courts don't seem to agree with you about it not being about god either. That's why it was rejected from being taught over and over again. That's why even in the Dover trial the conversative Christian judge said that it was advancing a religious agenda and threw it out.

ID is based on the teleological argument, which is one of the three basic religious arguments for the existence of god. The same tired argument that Aquinas tried to use. It is an attempted redefinition of creation science after they realized that they couldn't get it past the courts. At the dover trail the lawyer for the evolution side pointed out that many of the old creationists documents had just had a find replace done to change a few words around. As Wikipedia says:

The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.[35]
A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term".[36] In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design",[13] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists". [sic][35] In June 1988 Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[23] and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.[37] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".[38]
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement.[39]


Or we can take the words from the Discovery Institute itself.

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

This is a statement from the infamous "Wedge Document". This outright states the Institutes every intention to use ID to promote Christianity. The document then proceeds to say this:

""I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."


This very well indicates the nature of what ID really is. They are not interested in anything intellectual. Their stated mission starts off by just assuming that anything science says about evolution is false right out of the starter gate. They say that it's false and terrible logic but by their own admission they are taking that as the default position, with no mention at all of the evidence involved. They then go on to state that the only way to get the truth is to start from the position of the bible being true, and that anyone who doesn't use that position is automatically in delusion.

So where exactly in this so far is the evidence that ID isn't really about promoting Christianity? Why didn't you mention any of this when you were trying to tell everyone about ID? Did you just not know? You who claims to know so much about ID.

Let's move onto another ID proponent. The aforementioned Philip E. Johnson who also stated:

"My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."

This man (who I remind you is one of the leaders of the movement) not only says that the Christian god is one of the defining concepts of ID, but also declares his god to be objectively real and that the reality of his god is tangibly recorded in science and biology. Funny how that evidence is never actually presented, but I digress.

He also defines realism itself along the lines of his theistic views.

I would also point out that he's clearly lying here when he says that god is 'objectively' real, as an objectively real god would be undeniable to everyone and we would not actually have over 40,000 different religions in the world. So not only is he wrong but he is obviously, stupidly, and easily verifiably wrong. More to the point we once again have rather clear evidence that ID truly is all about promoting the Christian God, despite what they might attempt to say in public.

So how exactly do you support your claim that ID is not at all about promoting a Christian agenda? Did you need more evidence because I can most assuredly provide it.

As an aside, I'm also curious about what you have to say about the words and testimony that Barbara Forrest gave during the Dover trial when she was asked about ID.

""What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. [...] Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural".

In light of everything that I have pointed out to you do you really disagree with her assessment of it? And if so why? Do you have an actual reason that you can articulate, or is this just another one of your inabilities to admit that your 'reasoning' has failed yet again?

I don't know, BS. It seems to me as though it's your knowledge of ID that is severely lacking since you don't even seem to know about these things.

Maybe that's why you have to rely on quoting other people rather than making your own arguments.

Just a thought.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 11:15:41 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6605
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #97 on: January 28, 2012, 11:25:27 PM »
The good Dr. Walton spent an hour showing that the primordial soup idea seems to have the odds stacked against it.

If he is right in general, then perhaps life started a different way. He only discussed one of many ideas about how biogenesis occurred.

He is also assuming there was only one way for those little bitty thingies to combine and make life, when it may have been possible for tens of thousands of combinations to work. In that case, one of them showing up early in the game would not be so perplexing.

Plus, being stunned at the odds of the right combination being so high and not being stunned that there was an intelligent force guiding things seems rather one-sided. The intelligent component that he thinks guided the amino acids, etc. seems far less likely, because whatever combo is needed to make simple proteins seems far more probable than the odds that anything intelligent anywhere could ever happen.

We are here. We exist. We are not sure why. At this point in human history, it is inevitable that there will be a wide variety of guesses as to how we got here. Some are simplistic and unrelated, like the literal acceptance of the genesis story or those tales from other religions of the same ilk. Others will speculate based on loose observations of the natural world. And some will think they have a fairly good theory because they have a lot of good science behind their various conjectures.

Nothing else in my life has the track record of the various sciences that affect and study my life. No other methodology or philosophy or guessology has so admirable a record. For me, religions are at the opposite end of the the spectrum because they haven't succeeded in explaining anything, as far as I know. Equally inept are the paranormal fans and/or new agers. And Intelligent Design, whether BibleStudent wants it to be or not, is a religiously based point of view that exists only because it's inventors have been told to keep their genesis story out of biology classes. Were it not for America's inconvenient separation of church and state, it wouldn't even exist.

Now I am sure there are actually people who look at life and wonder if intelligent, non-human forces had anything to do with the start of life or the course of life on earth. And some of those people are not considering the religious possibilities at all. But because the religious ruined the term "Intelligent Design", they need to find another word or phrase to describe their theories. (Alzael posted while I was writing this and thoughtfully included the specifics. BS can't deny the connection unless he is actually posting out of ignorance).

If any intelligent guiding force designed or influenced life on this planet, said intelligence would have to have a natural history of it's own. And Dr. Walton would insist that the odds against the existence of that intelligent life form existing are also astronomical.

And anyone who allows themselves to be perplexed by life but not be in any way shape or form perplexed by how a god could exist is obviously not the least bit interested in the truth. If the innocently worded phrase "he just always was" satisfies them, then I doubt that person can effectively judge anything that is real effectively.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #98 on: January 28, 2012, 11:47:49 PM »
<snipped to conserve space>

You are free, just as anyone else is, to seek out and examine information and come to your own conclusions....which you have apparently done. If you are convinced that ID science is driven solely by a desire to promote Christianity, despite the claims that it isn't, then so be it. Your choice.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6605
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #99 on: January 28, 2012, 11:58:53 PM »
BibleStudent, we really would like to see the claims that it isn't. Other than yours, of course. Any sources we could go to?

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2012, 12:04:47 AM »
<snipped to conserve space>

You are free, just as anyone else is, to seek out and examine information and come to your own conclusions....which you have apparently done. If you are convinced that ID science is driven solely by a desire to promote Christianity, despite the claims that it isn't, then so be it. Your choice.

So in other words you have no actual response to the fact that every major proponent of ID has outright said that they are promoting Christianity. Which utterly tears your ignorant claim to pieces.

Your problem, BS, is that you can't just write it off as my conclusion. I have shown repeatedly where it has been outright said by the leaders of the movement that you are wrong. It is clearly not my conclusion, it is their own words and statements.

You are quite simply a liar and a coward, BS. You can't defend your own ignorance, so you run away everytime. It's actually so pathetic that it circles back around and becomes almost cute.

Surely you can provide at least some degree of evidence to support your claim. After all, I did.

I said this once to you a long time ago, BS, but I think it bears repeating.

"In order for a discussion to be fruitful and to move forward one side cannot suddenly decide that it doesn't want to respond because it might have to put
some thought into its position. In fact it's usually when the questions are asked that one doesn't like to answer that a person finds the deepest insights. For some people
this is an opportunity to better develop themselves as human beings. For you, clearly not so much. However it was you who started this discussion, there was no one who
forced you. You brought your ideas into the forum for discussion and many here have obliged you, given you a chance to maybe learn something and expand yourself. Instead
you have essentially spit in their faces. Worse than that, you lied unabashedly and without hesitation, and lacked even the decency towards others or yourself to respond
to the accusations. You are a coward, completely and totally and lacking even the shame to acknowledge your mistakes or indecent actions.

I suppose that it can be likened to a prison movie or perhaps one of those traditionally-awful gang movies. When a character is challenged, he either fights and
risks taking a beating, or is revealed as a coward among his contemporaries. An object of ridicule and shame that deserves only to be mocked. Well you challenged, we stood up
to fight, we stood up several times in fact. And it was you who backed down. You were asked to show your integrity and failed.... repeatedly.

And this is the difference between you and most of the others here. One group gets to
be the butch, and the other is just a bitch.

Bitch."


"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #101 on: January 29, 2012, 12:14:49 AM »
BibleStudent, we really would like to see the claims that it isn't. Other than yours, of course. Any sources we could go to?

Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.
Source: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
            http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php


Intelligent design theory is a scientific theory even though some religions also teach that life was designed. One can arrive at the conclusion that life was designed through both the scientific method, or through religious methods (i.e. faith/divine revelation). Science is a "way of knowing" using observations and the scientific method. Religion is a way of knowing using faith and divine revelation. Intelligent design theory detects design through only the scientific method. Intelligent design theory tells us (i.e. "knows") that life was designed by using the scientific method and uses no reliance upon faith or divine revelation. Some religions, via faith or divine revelation, also may tell us that life was designed. However that does not make intelligent design theory a religious or theological concept. Something is religion or science based upon the methods it uses to make its claims, not based on the claims it makes. Simply because religion coincidentally does make many of the same claims does not make intelligent design a "religious concept." Religions may tell us that life was designed (some religious traditions teach that life developed from lower life-forms, which developed from non-life) but intelligent design theory makes the claim that life was designed purely through the scientific method. Intelligent design theory is a strictly scientific concept. Thus, sometime ID proponents talk about intelligent design from a religious perspective. This is possible to do without negating the strictly scientific basis for intelligent design. Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1162



Although intelligent design is compatible with many "creationist" perspectives, including scientific creationism, it is a distinct theoretical position. This can be seen by comparing the basic tenets of each view.
Legally, scientific creationism is defined by the following six tenets:
•   The universe, energy and life were created from nothing.
•   Mutations and natural selection cannot bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
•   "Created kinds" of plants and organism can vary only within fixed limits
•   Humans and apes have different ancestries.
•   Earth’s geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily a worldwide flood
•   The earth is young—in the range of 10,000 years or so.[1]
Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:
•   Intelligent causes exist.
•   These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity).

Source: http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Isn%27t%20%27intelligent%20design%27%20another%20name%20for%20%27scientific%20creationism%27.htm


Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. Since it studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer; much less, can it detect the identity of the “designer’s designer.” Science, per se, can only discern the evidence-based implication that a designer was once present. Source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2012, 12:25:14 AM »
<snipped to conserve space>

You are free, just as anyone else is, to seek out and examine information and come to your own conclusions....which you have apparently done. If you are convinced that ID science is driven solely by a desire to promote Christianity, despite the claims that it isn't, then so be it. Your choice.

So in other words you have no actual response to the fact that every major proponent of ID has outright said that they are promoting Christianity. Which utterly tears your ignorant claim to pieces.

Your problem, BS, is that you can't just write it off as my conclusion. I have shown repeatedly where it has been outright said by the leaders of the movement that you are wrong. It is clearly not my conclusion, it is their own words and statements.

You are quite simply a liar and a coward, BS. You can't defend your own ignorance, so you run away everytime. It's actually so pathetic that it circles back around and becomes almost cute.

Surely you can provide at least some degree of evidence to support your claim. After all, I did.

I said this once to you a long time ago, BS, but I think it bears repeating.

"In order for a discussion to be fruitful and to move forward one side cannot suddenly decide that it doesn't want to respond because it might have to put
some thought into its position. In fact it's usually when the questions are asked that one doesn't like to answer that a person finds the deepest insights. For some people
this is an opportunity to better develop themselves as human beings. For you, clearly not so much. However it was you who started this discussion, there was no one who
forced you. You brought your ideas into the forum for discussion and many here have obliged you, given you a chance to maybe learn something and expand yourself. Instead
you have essentially spit in their faces. Worse than that, you lied unabashedly and without hesitation, and lacked even the decency towards others or yourself to respond
to the accusations. You are a coward, completely and totally and lacking even the shame to acknowledge your mistakes or indecent actions.

I suppose that it can be likened to a prison movie or perhaps one of those traditionally-awful gang movies. When a character is challenged, he either fights and
risks taking a beating, or is revealed as a coward among his contemporaries. An object of ridicule and shame that deserves only to be mocked. Well you challenged, we stood up
to fight, we stood up several times in fact. And it was you who backed down. You were asked to show your integrity and failed.... repeatedly.

And this is the difference between you and most of the others here. One group gets to
be the butch, and the other is just a bitch.

Bitch."


I thought I would test the waters and see if perhaps you could carry on a discussion minus the insults and other adolescent remarks....but you are still intent on littering your arguments with these types of comments and accusations. As such, despite my hopes that you would turn off the unnecessary and immature attacks, I will revert back to the position I took in a prior thread and will no longer respond to your posts. A jab every once in awhile I can tolerate but the repeated and consistent harassment is just plain rude childish behavior.     

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2012, 12:33:33 AM »

            http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php



This doesn't actually link to the discovery institute though. Just a website talking about them.

Let's see what they actually have to say from their own website.

"Religion and Public Life. The worldview of scientific materialism has been pitted against traditional beliefs in the existence of God, Judeo-Christian ethics and the intrinsic dignity and freedom of man. Because it denies the reality of God, the idea of the Imago Dei in man, and an objective moral order, it also denies the relevance of religion to public life and policy. Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith to public life within a pluralistic democracy. Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government. Thus, it also seeks to protect religious liberty, including its public expression in pluralistic democracies."

"Economics and Business. Technological innovation has become the engine of economic progress, but it also has attracted new efforts by government to take over areas traditionally handled by private enterprise; at the same time, it has fueled a technocratic mindset that believes morality is somehow irrelevant to wealth creation. Our program on Technology and Democracy examines the destructive consequences of the over-regulation of new technologies, while our Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality explores how free enterprise and the Judeo-Christian moral tradition create a culture of entrepreneurship that makes technological innovation, and thus economic prosperity, possible."

You also haven't explained why every major proponent of ID has outright stated that they are trying to promote Christianity. This is especially true of the Discovery Institute. I quoted parts of their own documents. So how do you explain it?

I thought I would test the waters and see if perhaps you could carry on a discussion minus the insults and other adolescent remarks....but you are still intent on littering your arguments with these types of comments and accusations. As such, despite my hopes that you would turn off the unnecessary and immature attacks, I will revert back to the position I took in a prior thread and will no longer respond to your posts. A jab every once in awhile I can tolerate but the repeated and consistent harassment is just plain rude childish behavior. 

In other words, you can't respond so you're going to cower away again. Incidentally that behaviour was exactly what the impetus was for that post I quoted in the first place.

That was from the first time you retreated and whined like a child, remember that? You said this same thing to half the forum, that you wouldn't talk to them because no one was, how did you put it? Ah yes, "fluffing your feathers" in the way that you liked. So please don't try to pretend that this has anything to do with my very accurate assessments of you and the type of coward that you are. You've already played this card many times with just about everyone, and you've revealed long ago that it's not about offence but purely about your own ego.

As for harassment, I've said before, try to act like someone who is actually worthy of even the slightest level of respect and you'll get it. It's simply that you don't. So you don't receive it. Everything I have said about you is perfectly accurate and can be demonstrated by your record here.

Edit: Hmmmm, actually I think I'll have to at least partially take that quote of mine back. Apparently I got my theists confused. That comment was a conversation was one that I had been having with University Pastor (you remember him right, BS? You ran away from your debate with him long ago). It actually had never been directed at you before. However it's still entirely relevant to the situation right now so I'll let it stand.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 12:41:53 AM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #104 on: January 29, 2012, 12:49:52 AM »

 As such, despite my hopes that you would turn off the unnecessary and immature attacks, I will revert back to the position I took in a prior thread and will no longer respond to your posts.

As a sidenote BS, I find it very interesting how you always find a reason to not respond to the questions and arguments that are hard for you to answer.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #105 on: January 29, 2012, 01:09:04 AM »

 As such, despite my hopes that you would turn off the unnecessary and immature attacks, I will revert back to the position I took in a prior thread and will no longer respond to your posts.

As a sidenote BS, I find it very interesting how you always find a reason to not respond to the questions and arguments that are hard for you to answer.

Actually, I would like to discuss some of the points you raise....but I will not be the little side show you use to show off your bullish behavior. If that's really who you are and that is really how you treat people, then so be it....but I no longer wish to discuss anything with you...and won't. Have a good day, sir.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #106 on: January 29, 2012, 02:55:50 AM »
Actually, I would like to discuss some of the points you raise....but I will not be the little side show you use to show off your bullish behavior. If that's really who you are and that is really how you treat people, then so be it....but I no longer wish to discuss anything with you...and won't. Have a good day, sir.

I will say this much in all honesty.

I would be rather reluctant to engage in ANY conversation with someone who was responsible for 50% of my negative karmas. Don't even matter what the reason is because at the end of the day those little karma thumbs don't amount to much in my life but they are an indicator of how people are approached or handled on this particular forum.

Seems to me like you have a stalker BibleStudent.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #107 on: January 29, 2012, 02:58:34 AM »
Actually, I would like to discuss some of the points you raise....but I will not be the little side show you use to show off your bullish behavior.
Alzael only speaks that way towards people who earn it, and you have earned every sentence of what Alzael has written.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #108 on: January 29, 2012, 07:30:46 AM »
BibleStudent:

Thanx for posting about your son, but I don't know exactly what to do with that information.I don't know weather to commend you or condemn you. On the one hand, should I commend you for encouraging him to think critically, or condemn you for indoctrinating him in the first place? Should I be grateful you are letting your son wake up to reality, or chastise you for letting him dance with the devil?
 
And I do feel compassion for you. You must be heartbroken at the prospect of a son spending eternity in hell's torment. I feel compassion for you for the same reason that I feel compassion for my aunt when she cries as she tells me she loves me and wants to see me in heaven. The same as I feel compassion for my niece when she shows me a laminin molecule and is all excited that this symbol of torture is evidence for her faith. I feel compassion for my  brother when I have to tell him, no that is not science. All this because they come to me with it. I'm not trying to cram anything up their asses.

Of course, I'd like to see you change your name to BibleBurner, but I didn't come looking for you to "sell you a bill of goods." Yet you come into this thread with misplaced anger, telling us you don't want crap shoved up your kid's asses, when it's the creationist/ID folks trying to to bring religion into science class and shove it up our kids asses.

This is not a game for me. I don't enjoy calling you an IDiot. If you look at my posts you'll see you are the first one. You accuse me of unsubstantiated babble, yet you have a whole Tower of Babel! I can substantiate what I say, but can you?

Quote
You just don't get it, do you? Most non-theists I encounter are not opposed to examining evidence that might sway them in another direction. They are more than willing to acknowledge that a 'god' might exist.....even if they feel the possibility is a fraction of a percent.
You just don't get it. Many non-theists that you encounter here at WWGHA have already examined the evidence and it didn't sway them in the least (speaking of ID). However, the problem now is, you have not provided any evidence to support intelligent design. If you have any evidence, then provide it.

If you are talking about your "worldview" most here have examined the "evidence" and that is why they are non-theist in the first place. Once again, if you have evidence for god, then provide it.

Just say what you believe and why, in your own words, then supply supporting evidence.You can't just give opinions of negative evidence about ToE, you must supply positive evidence for ID. IOW,

if you can make a case for irreducible complexity, design inference, or specified complexity (or anything else ID says) then do so.


Finally, as previously stated, it is not necessary to "study" a counterfeit in order to recognize it. If one has studied science, it is usually quite easy to recognize pseudoscience when one sees it. However, I have already offered to let you school me on the subject by comparing and contrasting ToE with creationism, or intelligent design or any other version of godidit, that you care to propose.

But enough with the links or the long cut and paste jobs, with no personal comment.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 07:32:56 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Karl

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #109 on: January 29, 2012, 08:57:51 AM »
Coming back to the initial question. What can we do? I think it doesn't really matter. So maybe it is a good question to ask, does it make sense to do anything at all? A lot has been done already and the results are not to encouraging.

Leaving the planet would be the same approach as killing everybody on the planet you are on, at least the ones you do not consider fit for further existence. God supposedly tried that technique a few times. Didn't work either.

I think I'll get my antidepressiva now.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11129
  • Darwins +293/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #110 on: January 29, 2012, 09:07:18 AM »
A lot has been done already and the results are not too encouraging.

After all, acceptance of the ToE and other "controversial" theories hasn't increased in the last 50 years. Atheism hasn't increased at all... Yup, the results suck.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #111 on: January 29, 2012, 10:24:15 AM »
A lot has been done already and the results are not too encouraging.

After all, acceptance of the ToE and other "controversial" theories hasn't increased in the last 50 years. Atheism hasn't increased at all... Yup, the results suck.

Evidence that atheism has not increased?  Surveys indicate non-belief as the fastest growing group IIRC?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11129
  • Darwins +293/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #112 on: January 29, 2012, 10:27:22 AM »
Evidence that atheism has not increased?  Surveys indicate non-belief as the fastest growing group IIRC?

I was being sarcastic.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #113 on: January 29, 2012, 11:21:56 AM »
Evidence that atheism has not increased?  Surveys indicate non-belief as the fastest growing group IIRC?

I was being sarcastic.

Oops.  I'm getting too old for this!

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #114 on: January 29, 2012, 01:33:19 PM »
The only ethical thing we can do is promote education.
But but, they will mate and reproduce even after that! I propose sterilization. Forget the school. Give them TV and food.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #115 on: January 29, 2012, 02:42:11 PM »

And I do feel compassion for you. You must be heartbroken at the prospect of a son spending eternity in hell's torment. I feel compassion for you for the same reason that I feel compassion for my aunt when she cries as she tells me she loves me and wants to see me in heaven.

Well, thank you for that, but I am not much worried about what my son will ultimately conclude. Once he discovers the folly of trying to explain the origins of life on a naturalistic basis, he will see the light. Once he realizes he has been duped in the classroom into believing that the entirety of the ToE is a “fact,” he will experience the same disdain for the establishment that lied to him that many others have.  Logic and reason will soon rule the day and I’m anxious and excited for that day to come….but only on his terms, of course. He will soon realize that the academic version of the ToE (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ010631.html) he was presented with was nothing more than a “religious” and philosophical viewpoint that did not afford the proper critical analysis and then he will find the truth he seeks.  The fact that the challenges to the ToE are sweeping and that academia’s dogmatic one-sided version is littered with problems will soon be revealed to him.

I am confident that he will soon come to know that there are millions of molecular machines in each cell that perform thousands of functions and these machines use billions of pieces of information from the most complex  data storage media (DNA) known to man. Each one is incredibly more complex than even the most advanced machines man has ever built.  Science cannot explain even the most rudimentary assembling of the building blocks of these systems. It is impossible for this to have “just happened.” None of life as we know it originated naturally and it did not randomly evolve into the mind-boggling levels of layered complexity and systematized integration.

Again, I appreciate your concern and sympathy but my son is a freethinker who will follow the evidence where it leads……. and I am confident that the evidence will soon demonstrate to him that the universe and all living things are the creation of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.