Author Topic: What can we do?  (Read 12714 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7313
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #203 on: January 31, 2012, 07:39:22 AM »

I wasn't asking about anything in specific. Just trying to get a general flavor since we are talking about bias and all. I will admit that I have a hard time believing that man has as much of an impact on the global environment as suggested by some. But over all it is very very difficult for me, as a layman, to decipher who is right and who is over-exaggerating or down playing the issue of catastrophic climate change in conjunction with man's contribution to it all.

The hard science of it does me no good because I am not trained in the sciences. Or math...or anything really. So when I read certain articles which explain how our global environment is on the brink of disaster due to certain activities carried out by man, it sounds very credible to me. However, when I read certain articles explaining how the models used by the other guys don't factor in natural cyclical cycles and earths position and rotation and the activity of the sun etc. it sounds very credible.

It could be the same for people like biblestudent when it comes to the argument of intelligent design vs. evolution.

without the proper indoctrination instruction education, how are we supposed to tell the difference? Who do we trust?

You don't have to be trained in sciences.  You always trust the science.  The key here is that the science, even when initially wrong, will eventually get closer to accurate than any other known approach.  It is certainly possible that initial hypotheses are not accurate, but as more studies pile on, the bias is worked out.  As far as sources that refute the science, while it is possible that early refutations are accurate, if they don't successfully falsify, then the original work remains.

The other key is that any particular group of non-scientists that opposes a scientific finding has to provide actual science that falsifies, or clearly puts the original research in doubt. 

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 #204 on: January 31, 2012, 08:24:34 AM »
It's a new day and my hand is feeling pretty good.

Yes, there is much more that you can do. You can build up a reputation of honesty and integrity, instead of building upon a reputation of intellectual dishonesty.

This is really a pointless, unfounded thing to say. I’m not even going to respond to this.

This is a response!
See what I mean BS? You lie so much that you don't even know when you do it!
Quote
[snip]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. [snip]

If you are so sure that logic and reason will rule the day, why not invite BibleStudent Jr. to come visit us here at WWGHA?

I'll bet you that once he realizes the folly of trying to explain the origins of life with creationism/ID/lies/pseudoscience and pure-d-ole-BS he will experience the same disdain for his dad's religion that lied to him. I also bet that you are not so anxious for that day to come and we won't be seeing little BS anytime soon.

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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #205 on: January 31, 2012, 08:52:25 AM »
I wasn't asking about anything in specific.

I'm unaware of any actual science done on the topic that is not specific.  So that's a big problem.

Just trying to get a general flavor since we are talking about bias and all. I will admit that I have a hard time believing that man has as much of an impact on the global environment as suggested by some. But over all it is very very difficult for me, as a layman, to decipher who is right and who is over-exaggerating or down playing the issue of catastrophic climate change in conjunction with man's contribution to it all.

Which means that you should take a bold position on it without trying to educate yourself, right?

The hard science of it does me no good because I am not trained in the sciences. Or math...or anything really.

That's why they usually include an "Introduction" section and a "Conclusions" section.  If the "Conclusions" section isn't justified by the hard science within, then it's bad science and someone can come along and shred it.  Which is good for their ego.

So when I read certain articles which explain how our global environment is on the brink of disaster due to certain activities carried out by man, it sounds very credible to me. However, when I read certain articles explaining how the models used by the other guys don't factor in natural cyclical cycles and earths position and rotation and the activity of the sun etc. it sounds very credible.

Then you need to learn to tell the difference, actually think about what each one is claiming, and try to get at the truth.  Or back off from the topic.  Either way.  There's no dishonour in the latter; I've mostly done so myself and I'm in a related field of science.

It could be the same for people like biblestudent when it comes to the argument of intelligent design vs. evolution.

His behaviour does not agree with your suggestion.

without the proper indoctrination instruction education, how are we supposed to tell the difference? Who do we trust?

If you know you're too ignorant to tell the truth, then you realize you're not qualified to trust anyone and you remain undecided on the topic.  You don't come blustering into a forum of people who aren't ignorant on the topic and pretend they're the ones who are wrong for their heresy.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

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 #206 on: January 31, 2012, 09:32:13 AM »
Interesting, the debate between theistic evolutionists and Creationists. Also interesting to note, is that John Walton (remember the video that our resident IDiot linked us to?) is affiliated with BioLogos (founded by Francis Collins).
Quote

All of us here at BioLogos are Christians; many of us are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators; but we’re all concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith.

We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but we also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation.

So we bring people together to engage in this conversation, and you’ll find on our website—www.biologos.org—great thinkers: Pastors, theologians, public scholars and scientists such as N. T. Wright, Mark Noll, Tim Keller, Ard Louis, Joel Hunter, Alister McGrath, John Walton, Os Guinness, Nancey Murphy, Peter Enns, Francis Collins, and more.

We’re here to address the escalating culture war between science and faith, promote dialogue, explore harmony between the two . . . and help you develop a worldview that embraces both of these complex belief structures.


http://biologos.org/science-and-faith-coexisting-peacefully?gclid=CLWd8vWw-q0CFSleTAod9wFDnw


Notice the parts I put in bold BS? Way to show you don't even check out the sources that you provide, let alone the ones that we provide you.

And from Evolution News also linked to a number of times from BibleStudent's pro ID posts:

Quote
A Misguided Attempt to Critique Intelligent Design: A Response to John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One - Casey Luskin

This weekend I'm giving a presentation on the scientific evidence for intelligent design (ID) at a conference in Chicago where the keynote speaker is the BioLogos-affiliated Old Testament scholar John Walton. On the plane flight here, I decided to read Walton's book The Lost World of Genesis One (InterVarsity, 2009), which aims to convince readers that the best way to interpret Genesis 1 is to assume it carries no meaningful scientific implications for the modern reader. As I'm not an expert in ancient Hebrew language or Biblical hermeneutics, I have no intention of expressing an opinion on Walton's basic thesis about how to interpret Genesis 1.

But there were two surprising elements that struck me as I read Walton's book: (1) How much space Walton devotes to ID, Discovery Institute, and public education (all topics far removed from interpreting Genesis), and (2) How inaccurate Walton's discussion of ID was. Here I will express some opinions on Walton's claims.

Walton Misses the Positive Argument for Intelligent Design

Like many BioLogos-affiliated ID-critics, Walton critiques false characterizations of ID rather than the actual theory of ID as defined by its proponents. In that regard, Walton frames ID as a purely negative argument against Darwinian evolution:

    In other words, ID does not offer a theory of origins. It offers conclusions from observations in the natural world and posits that those observations argue against the reigning paradigm of Neo-Darwinism. It must be noted, however, that even as many might grant weaknesses in the reigning paradigm, ID would only be one among many possible alternatives ... Its basic premise is a negative one: "that natural selection (i.e. natural selection, random mutation) cannot fully account for life as we know it."
(pp. 126-127)[/i]
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/a_lost_attempt_to_critique_int050431.html


And then evolution News goes on quoting from John Walton's book:

Quote
    Science is not capable of exploring a designer or his purposes. It could theoretically investigate design but has chosen not to by the parameters it has set for itself ... Therefore, while alleged irreducible complexities and mathematical equations and probabilities can serve as a critique for the reigning paradigm, empirical science would not be able to embrace Intelligent Design because science has placed an intelligent designer outside its parameters as subject to neither empirical verification nor falsification. (p. 127)

Thanx for making our points for us John (and BS).
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 09:34:55 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 velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #207 on: January 31, 2012, 10:20:03 AM »
Quite to the contrary. All I am suggesting is that we let science move in any direction that has the potential of getting us closer to finding some of the answers we seek. If the science of Intelligent Design fails because it cannot providence enough evidence to support it, then so be it. It will fail without help from you or anyone else. As it stands, it would seem that IDT is gaining ground and becoming more widely accepted as a plausible means of explaining the origins of life.
  Science already moves in any direction that follows *evidence*.   Christians, and other theists have no evidence that their god even exists, much less does anything.  We have no evidence for yoru claims at all.  We find the answers, not just the answers “we seek” and want to find.  And the answers we have gotten from science is that there is no “intelligent designer” or “god” or “aliens” etc.  Intelligent Design is not science, no matter how many times you try to claim it is.  Creationists have promised for years that “real soon now” they’d have real experiments that show that their claims are right.  They have *never* come up with any and it doesn’t look promising that they ever will. Intelligent has already failed, BS since nothing it promised has been shown to be true.  It is also not gaining ground, no matter how many times you claim it is.  That’s just a baseless lie, BS, something that Christians consistently tell.
Quote
At present, there is no known scientific evidence that provides for a ‘naturalistic’ origin of life. On that basis, I see no good reason to dismiss a working theory such as ID solely on the basis that some believe it is a religious movement rather a scientific discovery. Cripes, we could make the same argument about the dogmatic, one-sided, religion of the ToE. The argument goes both ways.
  And another lie.  Yes there is scientific evidence that provides for abiogenesis.  Again, you seem to think that everyone is just as willfully ignorant and lazy as you are, when you try to sell your baseless claims as some “truth”.  Your denial does nothing to make the evidence disappear.  Just google “abiogenesis” and you’ll see your claims be shown repeatedly as utter nonsense. We see plenty of theories on how molecules can become self-replicating, on how cells walls could have developed, etc etc.  All which is evidence derived from using the scientific method to support a godless origin of life.  Your opinion on what consists of a “good reason” has been repeatedly shown as worthless and really, BS, why should anyone believe a liar who lies so ineptly like you? You might try to make the “same argument” for evolutionary theory, but you have failed ever single time you have tried it.  The theory of evolution is not dogmatic nor is it one-sided; it is what the evidence supports. There is no similar evidence for any god or alien having done anything.  All we see is how there is no “design” involved in life, no magical guiding hand that makes things work so very well. We see redundancy, such poor design that any child could make a better one, etc.  You may as well claim that there was a designer but it was a chimp with anencephaly for how things have turned out.
Quote
No one is suggesting that the ToE be abandoned. Well, at least I’m not and I am quite certain many of the ID proponents are not.  Besides, the ToE is not even intended to provide an explanation for the origin of life. What we are asking, though, is that it be taught accurately in academia and that any militant attempt to educate the theistic idiots be abandoned.  The more this agenda is pushed, the more resistance it will meet….and that is what I believe will happen, if it already isn’t. Generally speaking, people do not like to have ideologies shoved down their throats, especially when it’s done on the basis that they are too stupid to know what is good for them.
Bullshit.  There are many people who are claiming that evolutionary theory is wrong and should indeed be abandoned. 

As far as I can tell, BS, you haven’t a clue what evolutionary theory really is considering your posts on the subject since you have consistently conflated it with abiogenesis.  BS, as soon as you show equivalent evidence to support creationism (and yes, that’s all ID is because no one is so stupid to think that Christians mean anything else no matter how many lies you tell in a pathetic attempt to disguise your intentions), I’ll be happy to support the teaching of it in a science class.  But since you and your creationist friends have failed every single time you’ve claimed to have any evidence, your claims are simply nonsense. That’s the accuracy already taught in academia, that intelligent design is purely nonsense and it has nothing to support its claims.

The reality of scientific support for abiogenesis has allowed research to move ahead and it has forced any “god” or any other “creator” further into the gaps which are shrinking every year.   

It’s so cute to see you call theists idiots, BS.  The reason that everyone needs to be education on reality, and not lies from theists, is that reality works in certain ways and to advance research and knowledge we have to follow where the evidence leads and not make up nonsense.  The theory of evolution is what has allowed us to understand disease and how to cure those caused by other organisms.  Ignoring reality gets us nowhere.  Declaring that “goddidit”, ends paths of inquiry by saying that there’s no reason to look any further.  Happily, many people ignore people like you BS, and they question and find out the actual truth, not depending on lies and primitive ignorance to make themselves feel better. 
Quote
There is no reason to feel threatened by Intelligent Design Theory.
  Oh ther’s no reason to feel threatened by such idiocy, but allowing incompetent lies to be spread is rarely a good idea.  Claims of intelligent design have nothing to support them.  Not one iota of evidence.  And it’s so cute to see how desperately creationists try to distance themselves from their god when they think that lying about such things will benefit this god in the end.  For people who supposedly worship a god that hates lies and liars, it’s pretty damn amusing to see just how much you pick and choose and ignore when convenient in your desperate quest to be “right”. 

oh and BS, I do expect you not to ignore my requests and questions.  If you make a claim, I expect support for it.  So again, Please BS, do show how your "nonnaturalistic science" does anything but reflect poorly on theists like you. 
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 10:28:00 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #208 on: January 31, 2012, 12:35:43 PM »
I am unable to answer each post individually. I mean no disrespect. I will address what I am hearing as follows:

1.    Alleged bias is one of the chief refutations I am hearing. Frankly, that is a poor and weak argument to make. I have been repeatedly reminded that the scientific method along with peer review is fully capable of weeding out bias. The existence of presuppositions, greed, and ego will mean that bias can be present in just about field of scientific endeavor. Simply because creationists and other religious beliefs use ID as a means for showing evidence of God does not make the science wrong. In fact, I think Jetson spelled this out quite well in post #203:

You always trust the science.  The key here is that the science, even when initially wrong, will eventually get closer to accurate than any other known approach.  It is certainly possible that initial hypotheses are not accurate, but as more studies pile on, the bias is worked out.  As far as sources that refute the science, while it is possible that early refutations are accurate, if they don't successfully falsify, then the original work remains.

The other key is that any particular group of non-scientists that opposes a scientific finding has to provide actual science that falsifies, or clearly puts the original research in doubt.



2.    "Intelligent Design is not science" is another common contention. Well, that is simply not true and it has been demonstrated that Intelligent Design Theory employs the scientific method. The real argument at the heart of this contention is that ID is incapable of making empirically testable claims. This, too, is untrue given that ID uses data from biology and other physical sciences. Many of the published peer reviewed papers make this very clear.


3.    The other thing I am hearing is that Intelligent Design Theory is a construct of a religious movement that seeks to dismantle the validity of the ToE. While I do not believe this to be true in the least, even if it were true, so what? I would like to think that the scientific community would welcome with open arms anything that challenges other theories. That’s what science is all about. I find it abhorrent and deplorable that any scientific discipline would be cast aside simply because it “threatens” other theories. The ToE is littered with problems and abiogenesis remains a mystery. The exploration of alternative origins should not be frowned upon nor should the valid challenges being made against the ToE.


4.    There was another post that charged the ID publication(s) of containing information that cannot be understood because of the manner in which it was laid out and the terminology used. Granted, some of it can be VERY difficult to understand and grasp but that does not preclude it from being accurate. The same could be said for material coming out many scientific disciplines. Besides, as I recall, there are ID classes now being taught that may help us laypeople better understand it. In fact, last I heard they have had over 100 young up and coming scientists graduate from one of the programs.


5.    There was a comment that abiogenesis is supported by “theories on how molecules can become self-replicating.” To be more accurate, these are hypotheses that are being tested. Abiogenesis is far from being a scientific theory and, frankly, like it or not, abiogenesis will NEVER be anything more than a hypothesis. There are simply too many variables and combinations of those variables that must be assumed in order to turn the hypothesis into a scientific fact. At best, we may someday have a small handful of hypotheses that depict what “might” have happened but it cannot ever be know what actually took place….even if it were true. 


Lastly,

It is also not gaining ground, no matter how many times you claim it is.  That’s just a baseless lie, BS, something that Christians consistently tell.
Well, according to this article it is:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/how_bright_is_t054521.html

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 #209 on: January 31, 2012, 12:53:18 PM »
Well, if finally they are writing peer-reviewed articles (supposedly 50--although I couldn't find them in the article) ID will then be open to review by their peers.

It will be interesting to see if Evolution News will publish the responses to these articles.

ADDED: Evolution News vrs Talk Origins

Quote
Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the "intelligent design" publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 01:00:57 PM 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 Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #210 on: January 31, 2012, 01:35:34 PM »
I'm not being dishonest. I showed you with the previous link how IDT adheres to the scientific method. This latest quote is just clarification as to what the method endeavors to demonstrate. Two different things. If you are genuinely interested in understanding what IDT is all about, then be fair to yourself and dig into the material and get a better understanding of it. It's not going to bite you. I promise you will have no scars.

Yes, it was dishonest.

As for understanding what it is all about, I do. Remember I'm the one that can actually make my own arguments without just providing links. I've told you what it's all about. I'm still waiting for your response to it. Which I note that you avoid with your typicale display of lowly cowardice.


What do you mean by "work?"

You really need me to define this for you? As in actual scientific lab work.
"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 #211 on: January 31, 2012, 01:36:47 PM »
The more I think about this, the more perplexed I become. The position that Intelligent Design Theory be dismissed for the reasons stated makes absolutely no sense to me....even when I look at it from a neutral position. To be honest, my impression thus far is that Intelligent Design Theory is being ignored and criticized primarily because it proposes something contrary to the possibility of  abiogenesis and some of the science of the ToE at the macro level. In other words, because it threatens a worldview. Can someone please tell my why they feel IDT deserves no attention?

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #212 on: January 31, 2012, 01:38:50 PM »

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html


Read the page you posted. Wow, if that is the majority of the best evidence in support of Intelligent design, they have a LONG way to go before they are actually taken seriously. What a joke. Considering that many of the items mentioned don't actually do what they are claimed to do, it doesn't provide much "evidence". Even the ones that could potentially have been subject to peer review were reviewed by unqualified or biased reviewers, or not at all. What a shame. I can't believe we atheists don't consider that "real science" (sarcasm).
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Darwins +73/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #213 on: January 31, 2012, 01:39:07 PM »
Can someone please tell my why they feel IDT deserves no attention?

In short, there is no supporting evidence.  It has been dismissed for the same reasons phrenology has been dismissed - it fails to adequately explain nature. 

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #214 on: January 31, 2012, 01:41:13 PM »
Can someone please tell my why they feel IDT deserves no attention?

Because it provides no evidence. As can be seen by your continued inability to provide any of it.
"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 kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #215 on: January 31, 2012, 01:47:53 PM »
The more I think about this, the more perplexed I become. The position that Intelligent Design Theory be dismissed for the reasons stated makes absolutely no sense to me....even when I look at it from a neutral position. To be honest, my impression thus far is that Intelligent Design Theory is being ignored and criticized primarily because it proposes something contrary to the possibility of  abiogenesis and some of the science of the ToE at the macro level. In other words, because it threatens a worldview. Can someone please tell my why they feel IDT deserves no attention?

Two things: first of all, ignoring evidence because it threatens their worldview is something that religious people do, not scientists (remember the Church's reaction to Galileo?).

Second, Any scientist who DOES ignore credible evidence because it threatens his/her worldview may do so because the evidence has not yet withstood the rigors of the scientific community. Generally there has to be substantial, overwhelming evidence to the contrary before something will be scrapped. Because scientists are actually concerned with being sure they are getting things right, and not seeing something that is a result of error in experimentation, observation, or interpretation. It took the scientific community what, 20+ years to agree that an asteroid collision was the catalyst for the KT extinction. That's because for something that big, there has to be OVERWHELMING evidence before it will be accepted. And guess what? There is. There is however no such evidence for any of the claims made by the Bible or its believers, including Creationism.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #216 on: January 31, 2012, 01:57:53 PM »
The more I think about this, the more perplexed I become. The position that Intelligent Design Theory be dismissed for the reasons stated makes absolutely no sense to me....even when I look at it from a neutral position. To be honest, my impression thus far is that Intelligent Design Theory is being ignored and criticized primarily because it proposes something contrary to the possibility of  abiogenesis and some of the science of the ToE at the macro level. In other words, because it threatens a worldview. Can someone please tell my why they feel IDT deserves no attention?

Two things: first of all, ignoring evidence because it threatens their worldview is something that religious people do, not scientists (remember the Church's reaction to Galileo?).

Second, Any scientist who DOES ignore credible evidence because it threatens his/her worldview may do so because the evidence has not yet withstood the rigors of the scientific community. Generally there has to be substantial, overwhelming evidence to the contrary before something will be scrapped. Because scientists are actually concerned with being sure they are getting things right, and not seeing something that is a result of error in experimentation, observation, or interpretation. It took the scientific community what, 20+ years to agree that an asteroid collision was the catalyst for the KT extinction. That's because for something that big, there has to be OVERWHELMING evidence before it will be accepted. And guess what? There is. There is however no such evidence for any of the claims made by the Bible or its believers, including Creationism.

Save your energy. He knows this very well already. He just likes to play dumb.
"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 #217 on: January 31, 2012, 01:59:46 PM »
BibleStudent, we have already gone down this road before. You are very much aware that none of what you have provided constitutes evidence of the veracity of anything that you have claimed. You are also well aware of why your claims and ID have been constantly rejected. I know that you are aware of this because we have previously spent a 30+/ page thread dealing with this. You have linked all of these things before and they were analyzed and thrown out before by everyone on the forum as being spurious and not what was asked. You were told the reasons repeatedly and in exact detail, and were asked once again to provide the information that was requested to support your claim. You also then were sent to the ER for failing to acknowledge any of this and yet continuing making spurious claims.

If you would like, I can link you to the previous threads so that you can remind yourself.

What you have linked is not valid for what you are trying to claim, you know this very well, please don't bother to lie and pretend that you don't.

So in the interests of avoiding the 30+ page thread and getting to perhaps an actual discussion I will simply cut to the chase.

BibleStudent, can you provide two PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers, submitted by scientists in RELEVANT fields of scientific research and displaying actual and original scientific work and testing based on ID? DO NOT simply link to a page with a collection of random articles. LINK TO THE ACTUAL PAPERS THEMSELVES.

If you can, then we can continue the conversation with the information provided. If you cannot, then do the honest thing and retract your claims.[/color=green]
"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 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 #218 on: January 31, 2012, 02:00:53 PM »
ADDED: Whoops! I didn't see the MOD Post.


I'll try to take a look at more of the so-called peer-reviewed ID publications when I get more time or motivation.

I know it's probably old to most but here is a little about the paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories." It was published and then retracted under controversy. Here are just a few highlights....

Quote
The journal's publisher claims the editor, Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor.

The Biological Society of Washington's president, Roy McDiarmid called Sternberg's decision to publish Meyer's article "a really bad judgment call on the editor's part" and it was doubtful whether the three scientists who peer reviewed the article and recommended it for publication were evolutionary biologists.

As the editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington he controversially handled the review and editing process of the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal advocating intelligent design. The journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.[17]

Of the four "well-qualified biologists with five PhDs" Sternberg identifies, one was Sternberg himself, contributing his double doctorate to the total he cited. Sternberg's claim of following proper peer review procedures directly contradicts the published public statement of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that the proper procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction.[4] In previous years the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington had published yearly lists of all the people who had served as peer reviewers. That list is absent for 2004, the year of the incident. Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the three "well-qualified biologists,"[23] citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them.

In a review of Meyer's article The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations."[20] Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles co-authored by Meyer.[24]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

Quote

Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."[15]

Sternberg has stated that he reviewed the article with a colleague who is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History and a member of the Council, and was encouraged to continue the review process. He then "sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty."[17] In line with normal practice,[18] Sternberg will not disclose the names of these individuals, which has led critics to make accusations that he hand-picked these reviewers for a pro-ID bias, despite Sternberg stating that they did not necessarily agree with the paper's author's arguments or conclusions.[19]

http://conservapedia.com/Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair

Quote

A scientific critique of the paper concludes that the paper is "a rhetorical edifice [constructed] out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations."

In addition, the governing Council of the Biological Society of Washington issued a statement which declared:

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml



« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 02:08:38 PM 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 velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #219 on: January 31, 2012, 02:26:23 PM »
2.    "Intelligent Design is not science" is another common contention. Well, that is simply not true and it has been demonstrated that Intelligent Design Theory employs the scientific method. The real argument at the heart of this contention is that ID is incapable of making empirically testable claims. This, too, is untrue given that ID uses data from biology and other physical sciences. Many of the published peer reviewed papers make this very clear.
It isn’t science and all the attempts in the world to redefine “science” will not make it be so.   Intelligent Design does not apply the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method    ID’s claims cannot be empirically tested.  It doesn’t matter if it claims to use data from biology or other sciences; the claims it makes about such data again, *cannot* be empirically tested.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method  We see that none of those papers do anything like this. Nope, they make an assumption and then ignore anything that doesn’t agree with them, clinging to the initial assumption.  That’s not science at all. It’s just Christians who have so little faith that they will intentionally lie to create anything at all to prop up their myths.   
Quote
3.    The other thing I am hearing is that Intelligent Design Theory is a construct of a religious movement that seeks to dismantle the validity of the ToE. While I do not believe this to be true in the least, even if it were true, so what? I would like to think that the scientific community would welcome with open arms anything that challenges other theories. That’s what science is all about. I find it abhorrent and deplorable that any scientific discipline would be cast aside simply because it “threatens” other theories. The ToE is littered with problems and abiogenesis remains a mystery. The exploration of alternative origins should not be frowned upon nor should the valid challenges being made against the ToE.
It is a construct of Christianity.  We know this because of how creationists are caught in lies about it.  We have the infamous “cdesign proponentists” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22

BS, you wish to ask “so what?” when it can be shown that ID is a pitiful attempt by creationists to lie.  Why should the “scientific community” welcome liars with open arms?  Especially when they have absolutely no support for their claims which are indeed that their god created the universe. Creationists have no hypotheses that can be empirically tested.  Even if anyone was stupid enough to think that ID was about aliens, you also have no evidence that aliens were responsible either and that nonsense only pushes back the purely religious creationist nonsense back one step.  You claim to find it abhorrent and deplorable that scientists ignore your supposed “scientific discipline” but again, ID isn’t a scientific discipline at all.  Such indignation for such garbage.  ID doesn’t threaten science at all but it does waste time and resources with its lies.  You calim that the ToE is litered with problems.  Well, dear BS, what are these problems?  You must know about them all and can tell us exact what they are, so get to it rather than again making vague claims. Where are all of these “valid challenges”?  You also again try to claim that abiogensis is “still a mystery” in an attempt to lie about the current research.  Do we understand exactly how it happened?  Nope, but again, nothing about that says that your god (or any aliens) did anything at all. 
Quote
4.    There was another post that charged the ID publication(s) of containing information that cannot be understood because of the manner in which it was laid out and the terminology used. Granted, some of it can be VERY difficult to understand and grasp but that does not preclude it from being accurate. The same could be said for material coming out many scientific disciplines. Besides, as I recall, there are ID classes now being taught that may help us laypeople better understand it. In fact, last I heard they have had over 100 young up and coming scientists graduate from one of the programs.
Okay, BS, I want you to tell me exactly what this paper said and what it means: Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, 'Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,' Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010)
If it’s so correct in its assertions as you have claimed, I do expect you to know exactly what it’s talking about.  And don’t be afraid to use technical words, I do have a good background in biology. I do note that this paper uses already disproven non-peer reviewed creationist nonsense as references. A rather pretty house of cards that already has fallen down.  He also uses references to random books too, like Dawkin’s The Ancestor’s Tale but where this was used is up to anyone’s guess and seems just to be there to pad out a paper to a hilarious degree in an attempt to give some validity to nonsense from creationist groups like the Discovery Institute.  It’s a shame that creationists assume, quite wrongly, that people are as stupid as they wish they were.     
Considering that creationists have to create their own journals and ignore actual scientific ones, is pretty damning on just what they think of their own work.
Quote
5.    There was a comment that abiogenesis is supported by “theories on how molecules can become self-replicating.” To be more accurate, these are hypotheses that are being tested. Abiogenesis is far from being a scientific theory and, frankly, like it or not, abiogenesis will NEVER be anything more than a hypothesis. There are simply too many variables and combinations of those variables that must be assumed in order to turn the hypothesis into a scientific fact. At best, we may someday have a small handful of hypotheses that depict what “might” have happened but it cannot ever be know what actually took place….even if it were true.
Pity that you can’t actually address me, BS.  but that’s pretty typical.  Yep, I said theories and should have said hypotheses.  Which goes to show one that you do understand the difference when it’s convenient and of course ignore it when it’s not.  At best, ID is a hypothesis but cannot be tested at all in any experiments.  What a shocker!  Thanks for demonstrating yourself that ID is simply nonsense.  And it’s cute to see you stamp your feet and declare all in your own willful ignorance that abiogenesis will magically “never” be anything mnore than a hypothesis.  Poor thing, it must be so disappointing for you to have science showing that your myths are wrong constantly and your creationists failing so badly that you have to make up stuff like this.  Yep, it’s always amusing as heck to see someone who doesn’t even remotely understand the science to suddenly declare that he “knows” that it’s impossible!   

Quote
Well, according to this article it is:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/how_bright_is_t054521.html

Oh golly, BS, an article from a creationist, how could I ever have doubted! It’s twue, it’s twue! &)  Oh my, they’ve declared that they don’t have to worry about their debacle at Dover anymore!  Wow, love to see the history revision going on here.  Again, funny how these supposed creation scientists can’t get one paper in an actual journal that wasn’t formed to do *only* creationist nonsense or peer reviewed by anyone who wasn’t already a creationist.  Nope, nothing but masturbation in the creationist community since they can’t stand up to the light of day.  Repeatedly, the creationists are shown again and again to have failed in any actual science and shown again and again to be quite the masters of deception until they are caught and then repudiated by the sources that they now somehow forget to remove from their deceitful claims since they need all they can get, true or not http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #220 on: January 31, 2012, 02:28:33 PM »
BibleStudent, can you provide two PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers, submitted by scientists in RELEVANT fields of scientific research and displaying actual and original scientific work and testing based on ID? DO NOT simply link to a page with a collection of random articles. LINK TO THE ACTUAL PAPERS THEMSELVES.

http://home.online.no/~albvoie/index.cfm
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #221 on: January 31, 2012, 02:31:25 PM »
ADDED: Whoops! I didn't see the MOD Post.

Oh, don’t worry about that. He likes to get his little mod badge out and wave it at me. He’s done it before for no good reason. He'll probably abuse his authority the same way he did before and 'mute' me or some such thing. It's really rather comical.

« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 02:33:51 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #222 on: January 31, 2012, 02:55:06 PM »
Nice to see BS, making false claims about moderators now.  I guess false witnessing is in the part of the bible he missed.

As for his links,  I'm not seeing that they were peer reviewed or that they are showing any actual science.  I do see the one by Loennig citing disproven claims by Behe about irredoucible complexity, and of course attempting to make it look like Ernst Mayr supported creationist nonsense in the usual attempt to make a evolutionary theorist look like they meant something they didn't.  One can see what Mayr said and meant here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html  and the mechanism that he offered and that Loennig ignored. 

and that other paper by Voie.  Oh my.  BS, what is that paper discussing?  Since you posted it, I'm sure you know exactly how it supports your claims.

EDIT: not suprisingly the "journal" that the Voie article was supposed in, is from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals/   and not suprisingly, seems that shenanigans were up and no peer review was done, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Chaos.2C_Solitons_.26_Fractals
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 02:59:58 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Darwins +73/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #223 on: January 31, 2012, 02:55:30 PM »
Oh, don’t worry about that. He likes to get his little mod badge out and wave it at me. He’s done it before for no good reason. He'll probably abuse his authority the same way he did before and 'mute' me or some such thing. It's really rather comical.

No good reason? Look, if you're unwilling or incapable of grasping information that contradicts your mythological beliefs then your clogging up the threads and wasting people's time.  That's inconsiderate and disrespectful to those of us who come here expecting a sincere and reasonable dialog.  I'm glad to know you've rejected information before because this knowledge inspires me to ignore you rather than take any time conversing with you.  I think that's a considerate move on the part of any mod. 

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #224 on: January 31, 2012, 02:59:46 PM »
Save your energy. He knows this very well already. He just likes to play dumb.

Is it really necessary to include "likes to play"?
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #225 on: January 31, 2012, 03:04:47 PM »
Ok. Fine ya'll. I'll bail from this thread if you think I'm incapable of addressing this topic and am here just to waste your time. I would like to think that after almost 1100 posts that my interest in discussing some of these matters is genuine. I do my best. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #226 on: January 31, 2012, 03:05:02 PM »
http://home.online.no/~albvoie/index.cfm

Not peer-reviewed. Does not contain any actual research either. This is an essay, not a scientific paper. It cites philosophers and Wikipedia among the places where he got his information.


http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.html

You've tried this before. Lonnig is widely regarded as a kook in scientific circles. The same applies here as well. There is no original research shown here. He spends the whole paper talking about the works of others.

Again, this is an essay. Not a scientific paper.

So, in other words, you can't show anything of any relevance to support what you say.

Oh, don’t worry about that. He likes to get his little mod badge out and wave it at me. He’s done it before for no good reason. He'll probably abuse his authority the same way he did before and 'mute' me or some such thing. It's really rather comical.


No good reason? Funny I seem to have had a very good reason last time. Care to go back and look at the record? Remember this is a forum, everything you say or do still exists and is easily found and cited.

Regardless, the fact remains that you were addressed by a mod and asked to provide certain evidence. As of yet you have failed to even begin to meet the criteria. Can you meet it or not?
"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 kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #227 on: January 31, 2012, 03:10:34 PM »
Another thing, BS: If there WAS real and significant evidence to support ID, the real scientific community would be in an uproar. People would be at each others throats at scientific conventions. There would be very much debate, and argument, and criticism, and more of the same. It would not be ignored. When the KT asteroid was first proposed, there was considerable skepticism and debate, often heated. The same goes true for the theory of warm blooded dinosaurs, although that one is still up for contentious debate, some on one side, some on the other, and probably some who think that there were both cold and warm-blooded dinosaurs.

Bottom line: Serious scientific theories get serious scientific scrutiny. The lack of serious scrutiny by the scientific community is due to the fact that ID is such a poor substitute for current scientific understanding. The real, valid, compelling evidence is just NOT THERE. That's why it isn't taken seriously, and rejected by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, as well as most atheists.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #228 on: January 31, 2012, 03:12:05 PM »
.  I'm glad to know you've rejected information before because this knowledge inspires me to ignore you rather than take any time conversing with you.  I think that's a considerate move on the part of any mod.

Oh you have no idea, trust me.

Let his record speak for itself

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20647.116.html

His emergency room thread.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18077.0.html

And the thead that got him there.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17764.msg395061.html#msg395061

I could go on, but you get the point.

Ok. Fine ya'll. I'll bail from this thread if you think I'm incapable of addressing this topic and am here just to waste your time. I would like to think that after almost 1100 posts that my interest in discussing some of these matters is genuine. I do my best. Sorry if I offended anyone.

A 1100 posts that have gone largely nowhere because you continually pretend that you have no idea of what everyone is telling you. Then leave and repeat the same stupidity. Not to mention the dodging and the constant lying. Yes, we do know how genuine your interest is. That's your problem.
"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 velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #229 on: January 31, 2012, 03:14:30 PM »
Ok. Fine ya'll. I'll bail from this thread if you think I'm incapable of addressing this topic and am here just to waste your time. I would like to think that after almost 1100 posts that my interest in discussing some of these matters is genuine. I do my best. Sorry if I offended anyone.

I see no interest in discussing these matters, only in spreading nonsense in a desperate hope for external validation.  If you were actually interested in discussing these matters, BS, you'd have learned something by now, that your claims are wrong.  However, you come and go, making the same failed arguments as if you think that somehow they will become magically right if you repeat them often enough or pray hard enough for your god to change reality.  Neither has happened and your claims about creationism/ID still have nothing to support them.  The only thing that offends me is that you seem to think that the members of this forum are quite stupid and wouldn't catch on to your antics.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #230 on: January 31, 2012, 03:15:34 PM »

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html


From that link

Quote
Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).

I especially wanted to read more about the apparent subversion and subsequent repudiation but the link in the references was dead. So I clicked another link...dead. Here is the complete break down

References
1. "oops google chrome could not connect..."
2.  no link provided
3.  404 - not found
4.  404 - not found
5.  no link provided
6.  404 - not found
7.  Leads to a blog entry containing a poem about getting drunk
8.  no link provided
9.  This content is only for subscribers, of which I am not.
10.  And last but not least...page not found.

So...in essence Claim CI001.4: is an opinion piece with no evidence to support the authors assertions about ID. I am not taking sides on the current topic of discussion. All I am saying is that page was pretty close to useless to me.

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

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 #231 on: January 31, 2012, 03:30:50 PM »

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html


From that link

Quote
Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).

I especially wanted to read more about the apparent subversion and subsequent repudiation but the link in the references was dead. So I clicked another link...dead. Here is the complete break down

References
1. "oops google chrome could not connect..."
2.  no link provided
3.  404 - not found
4.  404 - not found
5.  no link provided
6.  404 - not found
7.  Leads to a blog entry containing a poem about getting drunk
8.  no link provided
9.  This content is only for subscribers, of which I am not.
10.  And last but not least...page not found.

So...in essence Claim CI001.4: is an opinion piece with no evidence to support the authors assertions about ID. I am not taking sides on the current topic of discussion. All I am saying is that page was pretty close to useless to me.

Try the links mentioned here for more details.

Here's the refudiation:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/meyer.cfm


I originally googled the info w/o following the links. Sorry about that! I wanted to see all the different references.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 03:35:22 PM 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.