What can we do?

[BibleStudent]

What you do not understand is that you are describing your own system with the above quote, but attributing it to people who disagree with you, because you have refused to confront those tendencies in yourself.

This is an interesting comment. Could you please describe to me which scientific theory I have dismissed as a result of my presuppositions?

I anxiously await your reply.

[BibleStudent]

BTW, BS: Since you are so confident that you know what you are talking about, and that your son will use reason and logic to arrive at the best conclusion about this, why not have Junior join in on the conversation?
 Or just sit back and watch.

I'm his father, whose side do you think he is going to take?....particularly when he sees the way some of you have insulted and ridiculed me. Trust me, my son and I are close. It wouldn't go too well for you.

I am giving it some thought, though.

[monkeymind]

BTW, BS: Since you are so confident that you know what you are talking about, and that your son will use reason and logic to arrive at the best conclusion about this, why not have Junior join in on the conversation?
 Or just sit back and watch.

I'm his father, whose side do you think he is going to take?....particularly when he sees the way some of you have insulted and ridiculed me. Trust me, my son and I are close. It wouldn't go too well for you.

I am giving it some thought, though.

I don't know what you mean by not go well for me. I'm not invested in the outcome. You or your son's. I'd like to see you out of that silly thinking, but that's your problem, not mine. Of course he wont like the way people are talking to his dad. Start a new thread and he won't have to see any of that other stuff.

[velkyn]

snipped here and there for brevity

These most recent comments continue to project a ……demonstrated how theist efforts to promote an agenda were interfering with their life. I got limited answers and even the ones that were offered did not hold up under closer examination. They were unsubstantiated perceptions.)

You are correct, most theists are ignorant and ill-educated.  There is nothing “dishonest” about how the ToE disproves your myths.  It simply does.  it does not mirror the actions of theist to have their religions forced on people because we have evidence that the ToE is an accurate and useful reflection of reality.  No religion has proven that it is this.  And which thread is this that you claiming you’ve asked for how theists efforts were interfering with an atheist’s life?  I do want to see these supposed “limited answers”. Why?  Because I know you misrepresent these things constantly. 

I, and many others, are particularly concerned about the type of efforts being suggested in the OP to continue making their way into academia and I gave an example as to why these concerns arise. Here it is again, in case you missed it: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ010631.html
Within this thread, I also provided links to websites that are reporting on some of the dishonesty and obfuscation coming out of the scientific community as respects the ToE.

I’m sure that many theists are concerned that their lies are not being accepted as the “TRUTH”.  BS, you are a prime example of what the OP described

They don't understand evolution in the slightest degree, and when you tell them that, they just say that they do and then continue on saying things that prove that they have no clue about what you're talking about. Then when you tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, they get defensive, even if I'm being as respectful as possible.

The article you’ve linked to is the same.  Creationists are constantly promising “any day now” that they will have scientific evidence that supports creationism, and they have yet to provide it.  You have yet to provide that there is any reason to accept your creation myth or any other myth.  They all fail to be shown as a valid and accurate depiction of reality.  You have claimed that there are flaws in evolutionary theory, but when you are asked to demonstrate them, you ignore the question.  That article is quite good since it shows the many ways that ignorant creationists try to attack something that they do not understand in the least.  The usual attacking of superseded information (the Miller Urey experiment), the utter misrepresentation of the Cambrian explosion (no, “all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed” didn’t happen, and wells obviously knows nothing about the Cambrian or fossil formation or anything else he attacks.  Nice to see how a man can have presuppositions just like poor BS complains about and lie and lie and lie.. Pity even Wells has no evidence for creationism even with him being a “scientist”. Gee, BS, do you follow the Unification Church too?), making claims that are simply untrue, like his claim that scientists claim that certain fossils are “ancestors” of archaeopteryx.  AS usual, since creatonists have no evidence, they resort to lies.

In summary, my argument (in simplistic form) goes like this:
1.The ToE does not explain the origins of life nor does…..at I was incorrect and I believe I received more than one response conceding that these terms are still being used, both inside and outside of the scientific community.

Nice to see that like other creationists, BS, still finds it necessary to create strawmen, lie, etc. Cute attempt to invoke a conspiracy here too.  The same events and mechanics of evoluition are present in both “macro” and “micro”. I have picked up “any” scholastic biology book and BS is wrong.  Nice to also see that no matter the evidence, BS won’t chnge his mind.  Gee, he’s just so interested in following the evidence where it leads .  The pervsion of micro and macro evolution by creationists is thoroughly documented.  Biologists and paleontologists do not use microevolution as a way to avoid admitting evolutionary theory works like creationists do.  I do like to see creationists use the word since it shows how far they’ve come in disavowing earlier creationists who would never have admitted that any type of evolution has occurred.  As always, theists are always playing catchup to reality. 

2.Abiogenesis as a means for explaining the origin of life is a hypothetical. To date, no scientific discovery has been made that explains how life arose from non-life. That is a fact.

  No it’s not a fact.  Many scientific discoveries have been made to show the possible sequence of how life could arise from non-life.  For example, it has been discovered that phospholipids can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of cell membranes.  There has been experiments that show that amino acids form in various environments, from ice to ocean vent “smokers” that are the basis for life.  Peptides have been shown to form in models of early earth.  Your claims depend on remaining ignorant of current science and all depend on a baseless claim that we haven’t found the evidence yet so we never will and “goddidit”. 

3.The ToE is a falsifiable theory meaning it should NEVER be interpreted as a bulletproof explanation for  evolution or any implication that it offers a reason for believing that abiogenesis occurred.

Every thing we have discovered and observed has supported the ToE. You have been told that it is not “just a theory”, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html, and you have ignored that.  You have not provide any other falsifiable alternative for either abiogensis or evolutionary theory.   

4.Given 1 - 3 above, people (particularly young ones) deserve to know these truths and they also deserve a level and fair playing field that offers alternative scientific views being offered, such as IDT.

  Ah, the delusion that all opinions have equal merit.  Sorry, no, BS.  You have no evidence for your claims and they are not “truths”.  You can’t even show your god exists much less has done anything.  Evolutionary theory has been proven to work, abiogenesis gains support every year.  You have claimed that there is evidence for creationism/intelligent design and that it is scientific.  We have a level and fair playing field called the scientific method.  If your god and its actions are so evident, why can’t you produce any evidence.

Most people are hungry to discover the truth of humanity’s origins and how we have arrived where we are today. To be told that the science of the ToE and the future discovery of an abiogenesis event fully explains all of this is horribly dishonest. To further suggest that some effort is necessary to educate the ignorant masses of this un-truth is akin to the motives of a dictatorial empire.

And again, an attempt to claim that since we don’t accept your baseless claims, we are close minded.  No, I simply demand the evidence you claim to have and I demand that it be examined by experts in the field for any flaws.  The claims of creationists so far have *all* been found wanting.  Until you provide any evidence to the contrary, the science that supports the ToE and abiogenesis *does* explain humanity’s origins.  A myth about a mud man and a rib woman created by a god that is no more intelligent than a human, a myth about a god that came from a cosmic egg or a myth that a cow licked gods free from magical ice, are all equal in their ridiculousness and total lack of matching up with the evidence.

People do need to be educated with the facts and again the ToE is supported totally by those facts.  You have yet to show that it isn’t, BS.  People used to believe that some magical god was responsible for all illness in the world, its “wrath”.  But we found that this was totally wrong.  Now educated people know that humans can cure illness and we can avoid getting sick too, just by doing certain things, no god needed.  It’s so funny to see you make such claims that educating people is “dictatorial”.  Was it dictatorial to teach people that breathing during the evening wouldn’t make them sick?  Was it dictatorial to teach people that eating bacteria tainted meat would make them sick? Your indignation only comes up when your religion’s claims are under scrutiny.  What a hypocrite.

If the ToE is truly falsifiable, then you are constrained by logic to concede that there could be an alternate view that explains what you feel the ToE and any abiogenesis hypothical explains. …… admittedly incapable of presently offering an absolute truth…..and that is what people are looking for….a truth.

The ToE is falsifiable and does reflect reality e.g. the truth.  Come on BS, you’ve been asked how many times to provide the evidence that it’s wrong and you fail to provide anything that can stand up to the scientific method that you claim to respect.  Show how the ToE is wrong and your claims are a better explanation.  I don’t have to concede that any of your baseless nonsense is a viable alternate view.  People have been looking for alternatives for at least a hundred year and no surprise, they’ve not found one.  The facts don’t care about curiosity or creativity.  Hypotheses are formed from observations and depend on facts to support or disprove them.  All of your claims have been disproven by the facts.  No facts have been presented to support creationism/ID, only lies told by creationists.  Why should we teach demonstrable lies, BS? To make you feel better?

Only educated people can make decisions based on facts. We still have ignorant people who kill children because they still believe in witches.  Do you believe in witches, BS?  Many Christians are intent on taking away those decisions by lying about evolution and abiogenesis like you do. You seem to think that you have some right to take away the chance to make a truly informed decision. 

But I’ll tell you what, BS, if you really advocate teaching all sides, let me teach science in your church: biology, archeology, paleontology, geology, etc and let me teach about other religions.  It’d be easier to get a church to let me in rather than working through the bureaucracy of a school district.  Let me show  every theist exactly how reality demonstrates that your religion is based on myths just like every other one and that your religion’s claims aren’t born out by evidence.  Then everyone can make their own decision about religion and science.  If your religion is some “truth” it should become very evident very quickly because you would show me your evidence for it compared with my evidence for the various scientific theories.  This would be the first step in showing just how interested you are in really finding a truth. So, how about it?  If I’m not close enough to teach, I’m sure someone on this form would be willing to.   

[BibleStudent]

You have failed to provide evidence that supports creationism/ID.

You won’t accept the papers I have introduced, so, here, tackle these:

--->  The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 1050 is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 102,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 1030 picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory. http://chiefcornerstone.info/tag/intelligent-design/


--->  Francis Crick, molecular biologist, physicist, and Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA, once commented on the miracle of constructing a single protein from evolutionary combinatorial selection: "all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?... the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 10E260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!" [1] 

Dr. Robert L. Piccioni, Ph.D., Physics from Stanford says that the odds of 3 billion randomly arranged base-pairs matching human DNA is about the same as drawing the ace of spades one billion times in a row from randomly shuffled decks of cards. 

Dr. Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life  (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation of life from a combination of the standard life building blocks are one chance in 10E100000000000 (you read that right, that's 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros). [2]

By the way, scientists generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 10E50 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion).  So, it seems that the likelihood of life forming via combinatorial chemical evolution is, for all intents and purposes, zero. http://www.theuniversesolved.com/a_dna.htm

[BibleStudent]

And which thread is this that you claiming you’ve asked for how theists efforts were interfering with an atheist’s life? 

Link to thread:http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20647.87.html

Conversation started in post #114.

[BibleStudent]

But I’ll tell you what, BS, if you really advocate teaching all sides, let me teach science in your church: biology, archeology, paleontology, geology, etc and let me teach about other religions.  It’d be easier to get a church to let me in rather than working through the bureaucracy of a school district.  Let me show  every theist exactly how reality demonstrates that your religion is based on myths just like every other one and that your religion’s claims aren’t born out by evidence.  Then everyone can make their own decision about religion and science.  If your religion is some “truth” it should become very evident very quickly because you would show me your evidence for it compared with my evidence for the various scientific theories.  This would be the first step in showing just how interested you are in really finding a truth. So, how about it?  If I’m not close enough to teach, I’m sure someone on this form would be willing to. 

I may just take you up on this. Now that I’ve learned here at WWGHA what this ToE thing and claims of abiogenesis are really all about and just how unsupported some of the claims being made are, I have been giving some thought to forming a small study group to discuss and learn about it. I would certainly welcome a guest from the opposing view. In fact, I might even be willing to pay for your airfare and accommodations if you are not within driving distance.

[BibleStudent]

You have failed to provide evidence that supports creationism/ID.

You won’t accept the papers I have introduced, so, here, tackle these:

--->  The French expert on probability, Emile Borel, developed the “single law of chance” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 183). Any process or entity having a probability of existence lower than 1 chance in 1050 is said to never occur. This denominator is incredibly large, but for the benefit of evolutionary theory, it will be used as an example to logically falsify the possibility of any evolutionary process. David J. Rodabaugh, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, explained that “the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations ‘is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility’—the chance that it could have happened ‘anywhere in the universe…is less than 1 [chance] in 102,999,942’” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 182). This probability is 102,999,892 smaller than the “single law of chance” and therefore, must be treated as strictly impossible. For a slight comprehension as to the magnitude of this small possibility, Ankerberg and Weldon write, “A picosecond is one-trillionth of a second. In 15 billion years, there are 1030 picoseconds” (Ankerberg & Weldon, 1998: 185). The age of the earth proposed by evolutionary theory is only 5 billion years. Surely, an evolutionary event with a probability less than 1 in 1050 is proof enough of the irrationality of evolutionary theory. http://chiefcornerstone.info/tag/intelligent-design/

This quote from one of my above posts is not displaying the numbers correctly. Click on the link so that you can how they are actually presented. Sorry. Not sure why that happened.

[monkeymind]

Here's the thing, even if all those claims about probability are correct, it doesn't support in any way another theory.

[monkeymind]

Stop dodging and provide a theory. Do you need for me to explain to you what a theory is?


ADDED:

I may just take you up on this. Now that I’ve learned here at WWGHA what this ToE thing and claims of abiogenesis are really all about and just how unsupported some of the claims being made are, I have been giving some thought to forming a small study group to discuss and learn about it. I would certainly welcome a guest from the opposing view. In fact, I might even be willing to pay for your airfare and accommodations if you are not within driving distance.

If you are willing to do this, you should be willing to have your son present here in the forum.

However, I will agree to come to your church, if BS Jr. will be there, and your church pays for the trip. Unless you are close to Austin, Texas, I'll pay for my own transportation. If you are wanting a debate, here are the rules. No notes allowed, only a blank pad and pencil. Only positive descriptions of our "theories" are allowed to be discussed. I won't mention ID, you won't mention Evolution. I present my case in 12min, you present your case  in 12min. I follow up addressing your comments (6 min) and you followup addressing my comments (6 min). We explain the rules to everyone, before we begin.

If you are not wanting a debate, just wanting me to speak, I need at least 30 minutes and access to a copier so I can pass out notes.

[BibleStudent]

Stop dodging and provide a theory. Do you need for me to explain to you what a theory is?

I already have--->  "Intelligent Design Theory"

[jaimehlers]

These most recent comments continue to project a position on me that I have in no way taken. I am not criticizing or condemning science. Consider the simple fact that I have asserted that IDT employs the scientific model...the same one you endorse. A blatant and gross contradiction exists on my part if I profess the virtues of the scientific method out one side of my mouth and then level a condemnation against the field of science out of the other side. Makes no sense.

If intelligent design employed the scientific model, it would be demonstrable through the scientific method.  Yet you have argued that the decision on whether intelligent design is valid is a personal one, implying that it isn't demonstrable through the scientific method, which in no way depends on personal decisions.  There's one blatant and gross contradiction on your part.  Shall we continue, or are you willing to concede that you have blatantly and grossly contradicted yourself on this subject?

Remember what we’re talking about here as it pertains to the OP and let go of your perceptions that I am here to sell you on the God I believe in. I joined in the discussion merely to point out that any effort to train  us ignorant and intellectually deficient theists that the ToE dismantles our beliefs would be dishonest. Further, it would be an effort that mirrors the very efforts you are so quick to accuse the theist of engaging in. (Interestingly, I asked in another thread for people to give me examples that demonstrated how theist efforts to promote an agenda were interfering with their life. I got limited answers and even the ones that were offered did not hold up under closer examination. They were unsubstantiated perceptions.)

So you joined this topic "to point out that any effort to train (you) ignorant and intellectually deficient theists that the ToE dismantles (your) beliefs would be dishonest".  I'd be happy to address that, if I could determine just what you were trying to say, but that sentence is an offense against the English language.

I, and many others, are particularly concerned about the type of efforts being suggested in the OP to continue making their way into academia and I gave an example as to why these concerns arise. Here it is again, in case you missed it: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ010631.html

Yes, because a sarcastic comment engendered by frustration at persistent creationist misunderstandings about evolution is in any way indicative of what Alkan really thinks.  Other than that, Alkan didn't suggest any type of efforts that should make their way into academia.

Incidentally, I read that article and was unimpressed.  Wells gives the impression that he's being reasonable and the NCSE is being evasive and using falsehoods, but his answers reflect his preconceptions about the subject rather than a serious effort to consider the evidence.  This is extremely ironic coming from an article titled "Inherit the Spin".

Within this thread, I also provided links to websites that are reporting on some of the dishonesty and obfuscation coming out of the scientific community as respects the ToE.

Yet you have ignored criticism of the dishonesty and obfuscation in those very websites regarding how they address the subject.  You cannot simply point to websites that claim dishonesty and obfuscation in the scientific community and expect them to serve as proof positive.

In summary, my argument (in simplistic form) goes like this:

1.   The ToE does not explain the origins of life nor does it attempt to yet it is continually and cleverly used as a means for suggesting that if the ToE is true, then abiogenesis is true. It goes even further than this, though, and claims abound that the fact of macroevolution is just as much a reality as microevolution. Just pick up any scholastic biology book and you will see what I mean. I provided a good example of this in another thread. And, please, don’t lecture me on the fact that  micro vs. macro is a construct of us  IDiots. You are not going to change my mind on this.  I got into this discussion in another thread and suggested to that those who did not believe should me do a Google search. As I recall, no one could demonstrate that I was incorrect and I believe I received more than one response conceding that these terms are still being used, both inside and outside of the scientific community.

This is not true.  You make the claim that the theory of evolution is used to suggest that abiogenesis is true.  Except that the scientists who do the actual research do not suggest it, and people who discuss evolution and abiogenesis in the scientific sense do not suggest it.  So who does?  The only people I've seen "suggesting" it are creationists, who generally do so in order to try to discredit both theories.

You further repeat your belief that macro-evolution is somehow a fundamentally different thing than micro-evolution, despite the fact that you haven't shown that there is a qualitative difference between the two and have provided no citations of anyone in the scientific community who considers the two to have any fundamental, irreconcilable differences.  Sure, the two are quantitatively different, but you have been completely unable to show that a large number of micro-changes do not add up to a macro change.

And then you declare that we are not going to change your mind on this.  This is probably the only part of your post that I'm going to agree with.  But it is not something to be proud of.

2.   Abiogenesis as a means for explaining the origin of life is a hypothetical. To date, no scientific discovery has been made that explains how life arose from non-life. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that, to date, there is no evidence whatsoever that some being, whether in the universe or outside it, deliberately designed life as we know it.  Furthermore, there is much circumstantial evidence to argue against it, such as the various and numerous flaws in the makeup of organic life.  No competent designer of anything deliberately leaves flaws in without doing their best to correct them, yet we see that time and time again in every life-form we've ever examined.

3.   The ToE is a falsifiable theory meaning it should NEVER be interpreted as a bulletproof explanation for  evolution or any implication that it offers a reason for believing that abiogenesis occurred.

This is sophistry.  The fact that the theory of evolution is falsifiable has no bearing on anything, certainly not abiogenesis.  And nobody who actually knows the subject would suggest either that the theory of evolution is somehow bulletproof or that it somehow demonstrates abiogenesis.

4.   Given 1 - 3 above, people (particularly young ones) deserve to know these truths and they also deserve a level and fair playing field that offers alternative scientific views being offered, such as IDT.

This is again sophistry.  Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and it cannot possibly be one until proponents can demonstrate evidence for it using the scientific method.  Demanding that intelligent design (creationism) deserves a level playing field without proving that it is a scientific theory in the first place is completely inappropriate.

Most people are hungry to discover the truth of humanity’s origins and how we have arrived where we are today. To be told that the science of the ToE and the future discovery of an abiogenesis event fully explains all of this is horribly dishonest. To further suggest that some effort is necessary to educate the ignorant masses of this un-truth is akin to the motives of a dictatorial empire.

The only people making that claim are creationists, and they are doing so in order to discredit both without actually confronting either.  So perhaps you had better look to your own side in this debate instead of inventing motives that only exist in the imagination.

If the ToE is truly falsifiable, then you are constrained by logic to concede that there could be an alternate view that explains what you feel the ToE and any abiogenesis hypothical explains. Rather than risk stifling people’s curiosity and the creativity that could potentially form new and innovative scientific hypotheses, let the ToE, abiogenesis, and Intelligent Design be taught and endorsed side-by-side. Let people make their own decisions. Don’t endorse efforts like those being suggested in the OP because it would be done so only to promote the agenda of a worldview that is admittedly incapable of presently offering an absolute truth…..and that is what people are looking for….a truth.

Naturally, there could be an alternate view that explains it.  But it is the responsibility of intelligent design advocates to demonstrate that this particular "alternate view" fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory by utilizing the scientific method.  Until they do, saying that intelligent design should be taught and endorsed side-by-side with evolutionary theory (which has fulfilled that criteria) is both a flawed idea and a dishonest one, because it suggests that scientific reality is something that is subject to personal beliefs and decisions, rather than rigorous testing.

And it is blatantly dishonest to suggest that efforts to promote education about science, such as evolutionary theory, are only to promote an agenda.  It is even worse to suggest that since people want easy answers, that science should be obligated to give equal time to an idea which pretends that it can give them.

What you do not understand is that you are describing your own system with the above quote, but attributing it to people who disagree with you, because you have refused to confront those tendencies in yourself.

This is an interesting comment. Could you please describe to me which scientific theory I have dismissed as a result of my presuppositions?

I anxiously await your reply.

Given that you're trying to claim that there's a qualitative difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, that somehow the former exists while the latter doesn't, that you've stated quite blatantly that we won't change your mind on this...I consider that to be dismissive to say the least.  Given that you're also arguing that something like intelligent design should get equal time and be presented side-by-side to the theory of evolution, despite the fact that intelligent design is not even to the "formulating the hypothesis" stage, let alone "testing the hypothesis" stage, and that you think people should be able to decide for themselves which they want to believe because they want the absolute truth that science by its nature cannot provide...I consider that to demonstrate your preconceptions in this matter.

I expect you to ignore this, like you have virtually all of my posts.  Feel free to prove me wrong.

[monkeymind]

Stop dodging and provide a theory. Do you need for me to explain to you what a theory is?

I already have--->  "Intelligent Design Theory"

You keep mentioning something you call IDT, but have not presented it. If you are talking about the Discovery Institute brand of ID, and I am pretty sure you are, then we have already shown you how that is not a theory. A theory must be falsifiable and must make testable and predictable claims.

[velkyn]

You won’t accept the papers I have introduced, so, here, tackle these:

  You’re right since they are not scientific papers, peer reviewed by experts in the field, and are only submitted to “journals” that were created for only presuppositional nonsense.

Again, BS, why no creationist papers in actual journals if they are so sure that they are indeed following the scientific method?  Surely, if they reveal some truth that can be replicated and observed, they would be sure to win a Nobel? 

As for your posts, really, more shit flung at the wall. Still no papers still no evidence.  I do enjoy watching you post things that you have no clue about.  So, BS, in your own words what does your cut and paste say?  I know what it’s tries to claim and why it’s wrong, do you?  And golly, an associate professor of mathmatics is now an expert on mutations and biology!  It’s also so nice to see people like Ankerberg, and the the fellow at chiefcornerstone who didn’t even think to question anything, totally misrepresent Borel by claiming he said things he never did.  It seems that creationists are too stupid to look for new arguments and keep using the old ones that have already been disproven: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html   I guess it makes sense to Christians, if you don’t have any evidence, just make stuff up and hope that no one will actually call you on it.  Oh and you should remember to use the superscript function on the forum so your cut and paste doesn’t read incorrectly.  And it’s quite a moronic thing for your article to claim that evolutionary theory proposes the age of the earth.  No, dear, we get that information from geology and physics.   

Let’s look at the next one.  Oh my, it’s another typical creationist fest.  BS, I sugest that you actually do some research yourself when told something by your creationist friends.  A brief search for information on what Crick did and did not say is found in the wiki entry about him.  I’ll direct you to this part

In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[59] In a retrospective article,[60] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Directed_panspermia  You see, creationists are too deceptive and desperate.  If they think they’ve found something to support their cause, they never revisit that information, content to remain willfully ignorant.  Scientists can change their positions since science allows for that.  Religious nonsense doesn’t.  I know it can be painful to realize that your fellow Christians lie to you but it does happen.
And then we get a physicist weighing in. I do hope you don’t take your car to a pediatrician in hopes they will have a good but baseless opinion on what’s wrong with it.  Dr. Piccioni seems to think that DNA magically has appears wholesale, again more willful ignorance on what actual experts in the field think happened.  and one more physicist.  Creationists must think that it sounds impressive if they say that word enough. The book is the Beginnings of Cellular Life, btw and this is the synopisis of it

Harold J. Morowitz postulates that the first step toward the origin of life was the spontaneous condensation of amphiphilic molecules to form vesicles (or protocells). This hypothesis provides a framework for reexamining the emergence of cellularity. Morowitz further proposes that core metabolic processes have not changed for some 3.8 billion years, so we can use a study of modern biochemistry to advance our knowledge about the chemical processes of the earliest protocells. Morowitz views origin of life issues from the perspective of certain constructs in the philosophy of science that provide guideposts to formulating and assessing hypotheses. This book presents a unique discussion among origin-of-life books on the relation between science and epistemology on the difficult problem of learning about the very distant past.

  Hmm, I see no claim that any god was involved at all.   I also note that one can look in this book on google books and it has nothing like this claim in it.  I did find that creationists have been caught mangling Dr. Morowitz’s book before and as always, even when quoted correctly, unlike what this webpage did,  the creationists ignored the actual context of what was being discussed: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Morowitz  Always nice when others have already pointed out the lies. 

By the way, scientists generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 10E50 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion).  So, it seems that the likelihood of life forming via combinatorial chemical evolution is, for all intents and purposes, zero. [/i]http://www.theuniversesolved.com/a_dna.htm

Oh they do, do they?   It seems that I can’t find this magically invoked  scientists agreed on “impossibility standard” anywhere except on this one little pathetic website. 

So, again, we have no actual evidence from BS, nor any scientific papers and more evidence that creationists can’t think for themselves to question anything that they want to believe.  Pray harder, BS so you can fail again.

[velkyn]

I may just take you up on this. Now that I’ve learned here at WWGHA what this ToE thing and claims of abiogenesis are really all about and just how unsupported some of the claims being made are, I have been giving some thought to forming a small study group to discuss and learn about it. I would certainly welcome a guest from the opposing view. In fact, I might even be willing to pay for your airfare and accommodations if you are not within driving distance.

ROFL.  Oh my my my.  The lies you tell, BS.  I just love watching you.  Which claims are “unsupported”, BS?  Please do tell me which ones since you make the claim.  I’ll be happy to support them for you.

If I don’t get lucky and change jobs, I’ll have a bunch of vacation time this year (like 5 weeks worth, only thing I’ll miss about this job).  Even if I start a new job, I’ll still be more than willing to take some for you.  So any time any place, BS.  I’m pretty sure a couple of us would love to come to talk to your study group.  Ray, our recently deceased friend and I were going to go to Chicago (I think) to watch a preacher supposedly create gold teeth in people, but the theist claiming such nonsense never agreed to it.     

[monkeymind]

Here is the wiki definition for theory (well, part of it). If you do not understand this or disagree with the definition, then please ask questions or give an alternate definition. I believe that if you think ID/creation science are alternate theories, you must have an alternate definition, or you simply do not understand.

In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.

A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures, while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

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

[caveat_imperator]

Most people are hungry to discover the truth of humanity’s origins and how we have arrived where we are today. To be told that the science of the ToE and the future discovery of an abiogenesis event fully explains all of this is horribly dishonest. To further suggest that some effort is necessary to educate the ignorant masses of this un-truth is akin to the motives of a dictatorial empire.

To demand that the un-scientific falsehoods in Creo/ID must be taught as truth in public school science classes or any other class is akin to the motives of a dictatorial empire.

[velkyn]

One thing that BS seems unable to understand (and there are many) is that if one teaches creationism/ID even as a simple idea (something intelligent and powerful created life/man/the universe, depending on the variant), it becomes a comparative religions course plus aliens.   Do we teach all creation myths?  To be fair, we would.  Every bit of ridiculousness would have to be looked at to see just who the creator was responsible. 

Oh teacher, I see the hand of Tezcatlipoca in creation!  I see the hand of Q'uq'umatz and Tepeu!  I see YHWH!  I see Allah!  I see the Goddess!  I see the reptiloids, Teacher!

Well children, let's go out to the altars and you can each call upon your god so we see which one is true!  Jimmy, you'll have to go get Queen Elizabeth and have her give a talk on how her lizardy species created man.   

I admit I'd love to see a class like that.  It'd be a great way to have kids realize just how willfully ignorant humans can be and how being an adult doesn't guarantee that you know anything.

[BibleStudent]

One thing that BS seems unable to understand (and there are many) is that if one teaches creationism/ID even as a simple idea (something intelligent and powerful created life/man/the universe, depending on the variant), it becomes a comparative religions course plus aliens.   Do we teach all creation myths?  To be fair, we would.  Every bit of ridiculousness would have to be looked at to see just who the creator was responsible. 

Oh teacher, I see the hand of Tezcatlipoca in creation!  I see the hand of Q'uq'umatz and Tepeu!  I see YHWH!  I see Allah!  I see the Goddess!  I see the reptiloids, Teacher!

Well children, let's go out to the altars and you can each call upon your god so we see which one is true!  Jimmy, you'll have to go get Queen Elizabeth and have her give a talk on how her lizardy species created man.   

I admit I'd love to see a class like that.  It'd be a great way to have kids realize just how willfully ignorant humans can be and how being an adult doesn't guarantee that you know anything.

Intelligent Design Theory does not posit any specific creator. It simply points to evidence that suggests an “intelligence” of some kind was responsible for the origins of life as we know it. People are free to attribute that evidence to any god they so choose.

You are projecting a scenario that does not harmonize at all with IDT and could be extinguished by any capable teacher.

[Alzael]

insert psychotic rant

Yeah, see here's the thing, BS. You tried to claim previously that you wanted to discuss and were open to such. Yet you have just now come out and admitted that you were truly interested in no such thing. In fact you have just made it clear that you never had any intention of contemplating what the others were trying to explain to you.

Your previously made claim that you had no idea why your papers and evidence wasn't acceptable is contradicted by your rant in that you state you were already well aware of the fact that they did not constitute scientific evidence and would be rejected. By your own admission you knew when you said that there were many peer-reviewed articles that you could not provide them to the satisfaction of what was asked for. You knew from what ParkingPlaces showed and explained to you what made up a scientific paper (also because others had done so many times previously).

Instead what we see is that you want to use your redefinitions of science and evidence to support your ideas. We can see from what you said in the previous post that you acknowledge that the science does not support your position. However rather than admit to this from the start you tried to portray your claims as having legitimate scientific backing. Only dropping this tactic now when you have seen that it does not work.

So we can conclude that your entire posting in this thread up to now has not been in good faith because you have been well aware from the beginning that you had no scientific proof and that you fully comprehend why you had no such proof to offer. In fact you are trying to redefine such words and the accepted standards for these concepts in order to justify your position. Your entire position is an attempt not to adhere to the standards of evidence, but to change the standards of evidence so that your ideas fall within them. In other words, rather than having your views match reality; you are simply trying to adjust reality until it matches your views. Then claim that your views matched reality all along. A typical ID position, but hardly an honest one (like most ID positions).

So you can go on a rant about me and what you perceive my failings to be all you like. Unfortunately it doesn't alter the fact that my opinion is as entirely justified now as it was the last time you showed up, and the time before that, and the time before that. You are a liar. I have justified this position repeatedly. Just as I justified when I called you a horrible person the last time you came (which you notably never managed to make a single valid argument against, despite ample opportunity and invitation to do so). Just as I have always justified my opinion of you.

Moving on......

These most recent comments continue to project a position on me that I have in no way taken. I am not criticizing or condemning science.

Which is why you said this.....

"The problem is that, like many others, I will not be hounded or bullied into bowing before the ideology you worship that dictates what type of evidence is acceptable and which is not."

You are directly talking about science here, as that is what everyone else is using to debunk your claims. It is what says what type of evidence is acceptable or not. We are using it's standards that it has set down.

"Your presuppositions have concocted a system that will only allow in what you deem to be credible and worthy."

That system is science.


In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. "

Again, you are talking about science.

"The reality we live in is vast and full of mystery yet you treat it as though it can be discovered within the confines of a single worldview ruled solely by natural law.The truly devastating reality to all of this is that you have boxed yourself in and by proclaiming what is the equivalent of a Papal edict, you are discouraging the intellect, intuition, and creativity of people who would truly like to discover whether something else exists within and beyond our reality."

The bold is a description of science. The rest is you saying that the methods science employs are discouraging intellect and creativity of people who aren't using science.

So it seems that yes, you are criticizing science.

Consider the simple fact that I have asserted that IDT employs the scientific model...the same one you endorse.

You have said this. You have failed to show it. In fact you have been repeatedly shown why this is not true. In very great detail, in fact.

(Interestingly, I asked in another thread for people to give me examples that demonstrated how theist efforts to promote an agenda were interfering with their life. I got limited answers and even the ones that were offered did not hold up under closer examination. They were unsubstantiated perceptions.)

Prove this please. Just point out the thread and the responses. We can do the rest.

Within this thread, I also provided links to websites that are reporting on some of the dishonesty and obfuscation coming out of the scientific community as respects the ToE.

Both you and those websites have claimed dishonesty. Neither you, nor they have actually shown that there was any dishonesty. There exists a considerable difference between the two.

1.   The ToE does not explain the origins of life nor does it attempt to yet it is continually and cleverly used as a means for suggesting that if the ToE is true, then abiogenesis is true.

The ToE is not supposed to explain that. That you think that it should is why you're an idiot and an object of mockery. Because you react with amazement that a theory not intended to explain the origin of life does not explain the origin of life.

Abiogenesis explains that.

It goes even further than this, though, and claims abound that the fact of macroevolution is just as much a reality as microevolution.

That's because the distinction was invented by Iders. But ok, let's play. What is the actual difference and why is there one?

You are not going to change my mind on this.

Interesting......

"In your world, there is only one way of seeing things and that is through the goggles of what you perceive to be the only valid epistemic structure. It’s akin to tunnel vision driven by a high dose of arrogance and a superior sense of intellect which, ironically, is held in place by the same element of faith you are so critical of. "

Sorry, was just having a flashback to something really stupid someone said a while ago.

As I recall, no one could demonstrate that I was incorrect and I believe I received more than one response conceding that these terms are still being used, both inside and outside of the scientific community.

Then it should be easy to provide these threads. I would like to see them. Why didn't you link them?

If the ToE is truly falsifiable, then you are constrained by logic to concede that there could be an alternate view that explains what you feel the ToE and any abiogenesis hypothical explains. Rather than risk stifling people’s curiosity and the creativity that could potentially form new and innovative scientific hypotheses, let the ToE, abiogenesis, and Intelligent Design be taught and endorsed side-by-side.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever stupid idea appealsto you.And without verifiable evidence or proof that it works al you have is a very stupid idea.

[Alzael]

Intelligent Design Theory does not posit any specific creator. It simply points to evidence that suggests an “intelligence” of some kind was responsible for the origins of life as we know it. People are free to attribute that evidence to any god they so choose.

Liar. We covered this. You're so pathetic.

[Cyberia]

Intelligent Design Theory ...

Please stop calling it "Theory".  It is in NO way a theory, at very best it is a hypothesis, IDH.

[nogodsforme]

I just finished blind peer-reviewing two papers in my own area of research (third world development). It did not matter whether I liked the papers personally or if they corresponded to my "goggles" or "worldview".

What mattered to me as a reviewer was 1) what development theory/ies were being applied and 2)how well they were applied to the situation being discussed. The theories had to be recognized by the experts in the field as valid, ie there had to be source material that supported the existence and validity of the theory. I do not "worship" the ideology of development theory. That is the simply field the papers are supposed to address.

I read the papers, evaluated the research, examined the sources and critiqued the writing. My summary was based on a point system: did the paper get the number of points needed or not? That is what a peer reviewer is supposed to do. Not “like” or “dislike” research due to unsubstantiated personal biases, as if we in academic life are no more objective than teenagers evaluating "Twilight" characters on Facebook. Team ID or Team TOE? Click one: Jacob is hotter= Yes, No Edward is hotter=Yes, No.

Suppose a paper stated that all current development theory itself was invalid, and there was a different way to look at why people in some countries were poor. Suppose this different way was based on something that could not even be proven to exist, like a divine creator who made some people poor, using  some magical invisible force. "Haitians are poor because their ancestors made a pact with Satan. Conventional development theory does not address the importance of demonic forces in the perpetuation of poverty."

For this paper to be worthy of any academic interest whatsoever, it would have to overthrow all current thought about development, and about the reality of the world we live in. Unless the paper presented amazing original evidence of the existence of Satan, and that magical powers emerge from pacts with such a being, I would not even waste my time reading the intro and conclusions of such a paper.

I would recommend that the author "revise and re-submit" or if they did not want to do the work of real research, to submit the paper to Satanic History Quarterly instead of pretending that it is development.

ID pretends to be science when it is really demonic development theory.

[nogodsforme]

Intelligent Design Theory does not posit any specific creator. It simply points to evidence that suggests an “intelligence” of some kind was responsible for the origins of life as we know it. People are free to attribute that evidence to any god they so choose.

Liar. We covered this. You're so pathetic.

Of course ID does "not posit any specific creator". Because it has no evidence of any specific or even general creator!

Isn't it disingenous to say that you can attribute creation to any god you want? You mean it really doesn't matter whether the designer is Jackie Chan, Jesus, Batman, Allah, Thor, Cthulu, Xenu, or the entire Greek Pantheon? Really? Then I pick Batman. He's hot and has a kick-a$$ car. Plus, he's an American, just as a god should be.

C'mon. The nature of the supposed designer has to matter. Does the human esophagus seem more like it was designed by Ra the Sun God, Satan or Zeus? What objective criteria are we supposed to use for our evaluation? Seeing how often humans choke, seems to me that it was probably designed by SATAN just for the snicks. Or Bacchus by mistake when he was drunk.

If this all wasn't so sad and ridiculous, it would be hilarious that people seriously expect anyone to believe this sh!t.

[monkeymind]

Although the definitions have been given for hypothesis and theory many times on this forum, and even in this thread, to help BS (who just can't seem to understand it) and others (who may be unfamiliar with the definitions)  I have provided this link to Berkeley (again):
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Here are a couple of excerpts:

Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

Theories on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. In fact, theories often integrate and generalize many hypotheses.

Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.

Some theories, which we'll call over-arching theories, are particularly important and reflect broad understandings of a particular part of the natural world. Evolutionary theory, atomic theory, gravity, quantum theory, and plate tectonics are examples of this sort of over-arching theory. These theories have been broadly supported by multiple lines of evidence and help frame our understanding of the world around us.

Such over-arching theories encompass many subordinate theories and hypotheses, and consequently, changes to those smaller theories and hypotheses reflect a refinement (not an overthrow) of the over-arching theory. For example, when punctuated equilibrium was proposed as a mode of evolutionary change and evidence was found supporting the idea in some situations, it represented an elaborated reinforcement of evolutionary theory, not a refutation of it.

ADDED:O h yeah...
BS, please ask questions, if you don't understand something. Be sure and let me know where you disagree.

[monkeymind]

If he says that ID does not suggest his god one more time the cock will crow!

[BibleStudent]

If intelligent design employed the scientific model, it would be demonstrable through the scientific method.  Yet you have argued that the decision on whether intelligent design is valid is a personal one, implying that it isn't demonstrable through the scientific method, which in no way depends on personal decisions.  There's one blatant and gross contradiction on your part.  Shall we continue, or are you willing to concede that you have blatantly and grossly contradicted yourself on this subject?

So, people are not permitted to decide on their own if they will pledge allegiance to the ToE? They are expected to just buy it hook-line-and-sinker because YOU think it is valid? Do you understand the implications of what you are suggesting ? This is a rather ludicrous assertion you are making here.

[monkeymind]

BibleStudent, it's bad enough that you don't understand even the basics of science, creationism or evolution, but you dodging questions and popping in and out makes it impossible to carry on a discussion.

[BibleStudent]

Of course ID does "not posit any specific creator". Because it has no evidence of any specific or even general creator!

That is because it does not seek to identify the existence of a specific creator. I do not mean to come across as condescending but if you had any genuine knowledge about IDT, you wouldn’t even make a comment like that.

C'mon. The nature of the supposed designer has to matter.

Why?