Poll: Does Buzsaw Deny Obvious Error?

Yah sure, melady. It's ok for you folks to use all kinds of nonsense adnausium when it comes to debating theology and the Bible, but it's a virtual tea party of required mutual thought in this board when it comes to science. Only evo creo's are accepted and welcomed for scientific debate and discussion here at EvC. Who, madear, stepped up to the plate for the first officially structured great debate and who debated a host of counterparts in the subsequent thread on that debate, none of whom empirically trounced my position in that GD? But to make it so brutally exacting as to insist on majority views as if they were proven to be THE SCIENCE to the point of squelching debate and discussion of id and other alternative hypothesis is not, imo, effective and useful.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

True to form, Percy. It's always been that way and always will. You doggedly defend your own regardless of how much sense they make. Like I said, my advice to you is to go fishing and let your good administrative folks take care of business here. Then you might have some apprised id folks come aboard for your ideological friends to debate.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

quote:

---

Yah sure, melady. It's ok for you folks to use all kinds of nonsense adnausium when it comes to debating theology and the Bible

---

Well, that's the thing about Theology and the Bible. The Bible can be interpreted in a billion different ways, and there's no way to test any of those interpretations, and nobody who believes in the bible will ever accept any evidence which would falsify it outright.It's the faith thing, that scientific investigations do not incorporate at all, that makes faith-based claims so arbitrary, and why they can survive without any evidence. They don't require evidence the way science does.

quote:

---

but it's a virtual tea party of required mutual thought in this board when it comes to science.

---

There is only one scientific method, buz.Either you follow it's tenets or you are not doing science.

quote:

---

Only evo creo's are accepted and welcomed for scientific debate and discussion here at EvC.

---

If you follow the tenets of science, you are doing science. If you don't, you aren't.It's very simple, really.

quote:

---

Who, madear, stepped up to the plate for the first officially structured great debate and who debated a host of counterparts in the subsequent thread on that debate, none of whom empirically trounced my position in that GD?

---

It seems to me that people are saying that you never presented any real evidence in that GD, but I could be misremembering.Anyway, one GD does not erase the rest of your history here.

quote:

---

But to make it so brutally exacting as to insist on majority views as if they were proven to be THE SCIENCE to the point of squelching debate and discussion of id and other alternative hypothesis is not, imo, effective and useful.

---

If you want to do science, you follow the tenets of science.If you refuse to do so, you aren't doing science.The ID folks don't do science. They do not test their hypothesis. Nor do they have positive evidence of ID, only a lack of a naturalistic explanation for certain molecular phenomena.It is really that simple.

Thanks for this post, buzsaw.I appreciate that you don't want to spend a lot of time on this, and so I won't be turning this into a debate. My concern is to ensure that if you have a concrete complaint about posts or posters, then it is considered seriously. This post is long, because I see it as a careful formal judgement within a tribunal to consider grievances.I regret I ran out of time to make this as fully careful as I would like. I began reviewing a few related threads as well; but as others are starting to chime in I think I need to make this response timely.You’re a valued contributor. Most people here are evolutionists, and will disagree with you strongly. Some folks have raised concerns about your methodology in argument. But even despite this, and even including many of your critics, there is a wide appreciation of how you have stuck with the forum and contributed over an extended period. Thank you. I think Percy would endorse that also, albeit with qualifications. That is all beside the point. From here on in I’m in friendly admin model, concerned for seeing that forum rules are properly and fairly applied. Here is a highly abbreviated summary of the rules:

topic	progress debate
respect others	defend points
no bare links	no plagiarism
no misrepresentation	one id
focused topics	limit cut-n-paste

I am inclined to apply stronger scrutiny to the evolutionist side, given that they (we) have greater numbers. But I am bound to work with the guidelines in any case.The first point you raise is a response to my mention of the rule 4 clause. It is a basic forum rule that claims should be supported by argument or evidence as the discussion proceeds, if requested. There is no formal distinction between hypothesis and theory in the rules; simply a comment about defending claims. The full statement of rule 4 is as follows:

quote:

---

4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

I do not interpret this as a requirement that the defence has to be persuasive, but claims need to be given with a clear understanding that the claimant is willing to present some kind of case from argument or evidence, if required.Disagreement is fine, and substantive discussion should be able to illuminate the foundations of a disagreement. The idea of rule 4 is that threads should actually make some kind of progress, not necessarily towards resolution but at least towards progressively increasing detail in the argument. When progress stops, the thread should stop also. Rule 2 comes to play here also.

quote:

---

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

---

I respect Percy a lot, and I think he sets an excellent standard which is usually a model for how debate should be handled. But I don't think he is perfect, and I think he or anyone can sometimes go wrong. See, for example, Message 48; a caution I gave to Percy in my admin role. Percy defended himself, but I was completely serious and I think my criticism was valid in that instance.In your post, you mention the list of scientists exchange, with the list given in Message 74
I don’t think anyone has denied that the list was given in good faith. Many have felt it was nave, and have explained why.Percy’s initial response to the list was Message 78. This is a model of constructive engagement. Percy put a fair bit of effort into checking up the names, and argued that they were not scientists. I’m not going to arbitrate here on the facts of the matter; I have another thread in my non-admin mode for that purpose. There was no threat, no mention of suspension in that post, and nothing that stood out as being unusually mean-spirited.The expected guidelines allow for strong disagreement and for highly critical commentary on other people's arguments. Respect for persons is expected by rule 3; but this allows for strong disagreement with the positions they argue and the arguments they use. I need to tread really carefully in these comments, because I had a pivotal role in that exchange myself and have a definite viewpoint on the matters of substance. I declare this as a possible conflict of interest, and declare also I am trying my very best to transcend that, and consider exclusively the conduct of discussion.Your major concern, then, appears to be Message 96. The exchange leading to this post went very roughly like this:

• buzsaw in Message 69: many scientists support an expansionless universe
• Sylas in Message 71: I don’t think so! Please defend,
• buzsaw in Message 74: read this; it documents the claim.
• Percy in Message 78: No it doesn’t; they aren’t scientists. Here’s why.
• buzsaw in Message 87: They are too scientists; you’re biased.
• Percy in Message 92: No, they really aren’t scientists. Take this example. Here’s more why.
• buzsaw in Message 93: Ok, I don’t actually know the individuals all that well. Sylas accepts the list was given in good faith. I’m done.
• Percy in Message 96: Here are lessons you should learn.

In my view, Message 96 was not mean-spirited, and the advice it offers is good. The threat of suspension was very mild. The context of this post includes also the formal admin warning back in Message 45, and Message 61. I interpret #96 as an attempt to help you comprehend the earlier formal warnings.Critical advice is rarely welcome; and often comes across as presumptuous. Yet it is allowed in the guidelines, and there are times a bit of advice is a reasonable thing. Given that there have been some real concerns with progress of your threads, attempting a bit of advice was worth trying.A consistent concern is that you are way out of your depth on cosmology, citing stuff that is a mix of some maverick ideas with a lot of truly crackpot stuff, and repeating claims that have been addressed without even understanding the discussion. There was an echo of this in your post with this remark. To be blunt, that is a very stupid remark. People have put an enormous effort explaining a few of the basics of what Big Bang, as a scientific model, does and does not involve. I am pretty sure this has included pointing out the big bang model does not include or make assumptions about prior states that could justify raising violation of the first law of thermodynamics as problem with the model.The thread of suspension in #96 showed up as follows: The point Percy is making here is that once discussion has moved on to look at specific names and the basis of their claim to be scientists, you need to move with the debate and address the concerns being raised. Merely nay-saying and continuing to insist that the persons challenged are scientists, without giving a response to the reasons for saying that they are not, is what causes a thread to bog down.More generally, a thread should progress in the sense that both sides move on to address the actual arguments raised by the other side.You have apparently chosen not defend further the qualifications or arguments of the names considered. I’m okay with that. Taking the time to give the list stands as your defence of your original claim. But it does not mean you get a win in the whole debate; and I wonder if part of your bad feelings is simply because so many others don’t simply take your declarations at face value but go on to refute them.With respect to Percy’s Message 96; the guidelines permit harsh estimations of another person’s argument. Meta-discussion of styles of argument can be a serious distraction. Ideally, people just get on with debate. But there is sometimes a problem with debates bogging down, and admin sometimes steps in to give a warning or guidance.I can understand your frustration. I hope you stick around, but I will understand if you choose to leave.The posts you have listed here show no basis for a formal complaint that you have been poorly treated, or that Percy in particular has been vindictive. If you don’t agree with that judgement, I can see it becomes that much harder for you to remain with what you see as unrecognized but legitimate grievances.My recommendation is that you let this thread drop entirely. You remain welcome to engage in new threads and topics at any time, and I hope you’ll feel free to do so.Best wishes -- Sylas

PhatBoy doesn't generally participate in the science forums. I don't know his specific opinions on Creation/evolution, but he's a sincere Christian, much closer to your religious views than mine I'm sure. And anyway, the definition of science is not a function of religion. It is the same for you as it is for me.The point PhatBoy was trying to make is an important one. In science, hypotheses are proposed to explain natural phenomena, not religious views. Hypotheses are validated by identifying supporting evidence, not by the reverse process of choosing which evidence to ignore. Just because you're certain your religious beliefs are correct does not mean empirical support must exist.You raised cosmological and thermodynamic objections because these fields are part of the fabric of science that conflicts with so much of what sincere evangelicals believe, but evolution remains central to Creationist objections. An important question often insuffiently explored with Creationists is how the Bible disallows evolution. The Biblical injunction that creatures reproduce according to their kind is the same as what evolution says about species. Obviously children are not identical to parents, and the Bible says nothing that disallows changes from parent to child within a kind, or that requires that kinds remain unchanged over time. The Bible only says offspring will be the same kind as parents, and evolution agrees. In other words, the most fundamental Creationist objection to evolution is based upon a point about which the two actually agree, and for this reason Creationism has a fundamentally weak foundation.But that's another thread. The point that would be on-topic for this thread is that science does have a definition and a methodology, and in the science forums it works much better to work within that framework.--Percy

1. No, the Bible cannot be interpreted in any more diverse ways than can what is observed in the science arena. Not all secularist scientists agree on any one scientific interpretation of what is observed. The redshift controversy is a good example, as to the interpretation of it, as I have shown to be the case. Go on google and you'll see that to be so.2. There is a way to test Biblical interpretations. Which interpretation does history support? Which interpretation do archeological discoveries support? Which interpretation is based on reliable text and context? Which interpretation can be corroborated with other scripture? These are to name but a few tests.3. There are people here on this board, as I understand some of their statements who once believed in the Bible and who have been convinced in their own mind that the Bible is falsifyable to the extent of the renouncing of it by them. Science does not require evidence for the bb singularity and how it came to be. Nor does it require the bb to satisfy td law 1 as I have shown my hypothesis to do. All I hear from every secularist on this is "we don't know," or something like "a particle of submicroscoptic space became energetic and began to expand." Biblical intelligent design hypothesis can get no more mysterious and faith based than that, imo. No there isn't only one method of doing science. That's obsurd. Even one of your own faith/ideology Robert Carrol (Skeptics Dictionary) and a host of others would take issue on that.Carrol: Note that though scientific explanations are not in supernatural terms, the supernatural is neither accepted nor rejected by science. Science then, allows for the possibility of the supernatural. Good scientists should assume by that that open debate and discussion should be allowed so as to determine whether the unseen supernatural dimension does exist in the universe. We do that also by logic as well as observation, testing, etc. My gd hypothesis was in a sense a test as to whether id hypothesis satisfied scientific laws which are observed in the universe. Informational study of things like DNA as well as fulfilled Biblical prophecy are all physical stuff we can observe in formulating our determinations on ID.If I am dissallowed the right to discuss and debate my science methodology here fair and square with you people, I see no reason to be here. I came here with the understanding that this was a debate forum, but alas it appears to be, ultimately, a consortium of likeminded ideological fellows. (fellows as in fellowship.....women allowed )

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Hi Buz, I read the GD with you and Jar, - the one where he said he'd only need one reply. No offense to anyone, but you quite clearly won that debate Buz.People at EvC are part of a synergetic system. What that means is that they work together to refute, in their own minds - any Id creationists that come on this site. This also means that evos will read the previous evo post and agree with it, and never ever ever agree with anything the likes of you and I say.What I end up doing is simply letting them have the last word. Because they've always got to have it.I really like your posts at EvC Buz. They're interesting to read, and I hope you don't leave because of the synergetic cohorts. Like you I am stubborn when I know I am right about something, but really - they're never going to admitt that A creo/Christian like you and I, are right about anything. Take my Hypothesis of consciousness for example, a complete logical cock-up by every evo-contender against me, yet they thought I was refuted.It's easy game set match for any evo here - all he has to say is "erm, yeah - what that previous guy said", and hard working creos like yourself are ignored.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-18-2005 20:34 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-18-2005 20:35 AM

---

As for me - I'm a constantly verying potentially undefined diffused mass, intrinsically shape shifting thus forming and re-forming in various gaseous nebulae. To locate my form in the context of energy, as defined by the limited homo sapien brain - one can follow the equation; energy = mike x creo speed² = Thus we now know the relevant nature of my true being to be 90000000000000 omni-mikes ~ mike the wiz ~

Science and space has been redefined by the bully pulpit majority to eliminate minority views from the forums of discussion and from the schools. There's a whole lot of science relative to creationism which should be allowed for discussion and debate. Pseudoscience is science, both creationism science and secularist scence methodologies which claim THE SCIENCE status, closed-minded to alternative views. I do not do that. You and your's do. I debate my minority view hypothesis against your theory. You threaten to suspend my posting rights when I debate my hypothesis effectively. That's the way it's always been and it's when I begin to become effective that you move in to admonish and threaten.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

You misunderstood. By the definition of science I was referring to what I described in the same post. Science is about the natural world of the five senses, not the spiritual world of God and the soul. Hypotheses are proposed to explain natural phenomena, not religious views. They are validated by evidence, not by choosing which evidence you'll ignore. Theories become accepted through supporting evidence, not because no contrary evidence exists. If you would like to discuss your ideas of how science should be defined then you should open a thread in [forum=-11].In order for discussions in the science forums to have a common foundation, EvC Forum applies this fairly traditional definition of science. The Forum Guidelines require that positions be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.--Percy

I've not asked for a judgement on the debate, though I've not seen that my hypothesis relative to td laws, i.e. my gd position, has been empirically refuted by Jar or subsequent folks who've tried. Had Jar's argument been as much on the offense as mine was and had mine been as weak as Jar's I've a notion a judgement would've been made, but I'd rather just do as observer Charles Knight suggested, that each read the debate and make their own judgement. Thanks for your willingness to offer your sincere opinion supportive to something of mine. That's a rather risky, unusual and unpopular thing to do here in town, you know. May God bless you richly for that, my dear brother! Tell me about it! I've lived with it for about 2 years and have come to expect it, but when talk of "suspension" emerges, it becomes time to lay the chips on the table and show your hand. LOL, my good bud. That didn't work for me. Sooner or later, they'll come at you for thread abandonment. Keep an eye on your message profile. They are watching it! Too many "yeses" tell them you're not responding enough. Imo, too few "yeses" show that the poster is likely the type who'll say something....anything, whether it makes sense or not for the sake of talking last. I won't name names, but there's a couple of heavy posters who have abnormally few "yeses." I know what you mean, Mike. There's the saying, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flaps it's wings like a duck it must be a duck." By this analogy, if they expect me to look like, talk like and think like an evolutionist to operate on this board, they're telling me I'm not welcome here, because I aren't one of them people.Edited to add: Imo, the number of message profile "yeses" may be regarded by others as indicative of a poster's conduct but not necessarily accurately profiling one's posting conduct negatively or positively.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 02-19-2005 17:52 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Ok, so that includes hypothesis discussion/debate on thermodynamic laws, origins and space. If that hypothesis involves questions as to the possibility of things we don't understand, i.e. the unseen on the id/creo side of the debate, how is that any different than the unseen aspects of the evo debate, such as the alleged singularity, energy emerging spontaneosly from nothing, infinitely dense black holes and particles going in and out of existence?I'm not advocating a discussion in this thread on that, but I'm simply addressing your premise of what you consider as legitimate discussion as to forum guidelines. If it is not legitimate, man, you really do need to be honest and change the name of this board, so as not to deceive folks like me into coming here to be maligned, demeaned, threatened and insulted for expressing our ideology in debate and discussion. Percy, please understand that I'm laying my chips and cards on the table. I'm not posting in another thread until I have the assurance that I can discuss and debate as an ID creationist without these threats and this meanspirited harrasment in doing so. This's not asking for special treatment at all. It's simply asking for the same playing field position you people enjoy. It's time for you to put up as to whether you want me on that basis. If not, simply say so and I'm outa here. I've had it with this personal stuff and like I told Sylas, this is not going to be a long thread, so far as my participation goes.Having said the above, I do commend you, in that, unlike some boards I've heard about, you at least allow discenters to speak our peace and put up a defense, even when you, the owner, are under fire, rather than just suddenly logging us out without comment or warning. From what I hear, sadly, that's more Christian than some web Christian boards exemplify.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

The foundation of any argument from either side must be evidence. We try our best to make sure that no one gets special treatment. Whether your actions attract the attention of moderators will depend upon how well you adhere to the Forum Guidelines.--Percy

I maintain that I've pretty consistently provided equally as good evidence in my posting as the average here. I take it from your answer that the implication is that this is not so and that my modus operendi is/has been in violation of Forum Guidelines. I do not intend on changing my modus operendi, other than the improvements I have made as to message profile and work on doing the best I can. I repeat, I do not wish to change my modus of debating on ID creationist science. Unless you are willing to compromise on that and allow me the same courtesy as your people get with your/their ideology, I see no alternative but to find another avenue of web talk. If you are unwilling to allow me that, I will begin posting elsewhere for the most part and stay logged in here for occasional casual posting until you log me out. Yours is the third forum I've participated in, Newsmax being the first, which discontinued forum operation. I've never been threatened by others as you are doing nor been suspended and don't intend to have that happen if I can avoid it.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

I think the feedback you've received in your time here has pretty consistently been that you generally fail to support your arguments with valid evidence. Okay. I can only promise that moderators will be trying to hold all members to the Forum Guidelines.You might find it helpful to reread PhatBoy's observation about there being no requirement that spiritual beliefs have empirical support. You believe your position is correct, but you appear to conclude that because your position is correct that any arguments offered in support must also be correct. But the strength of an argument in favor of a given position is measured by the supporting evidence, not by whether the position is right. Poorly supported arguments can still be offered in favor of correct positions. In other words, you have to measure the quality of an argument on the objective basis of the strength of its evidence, not by whether it's being offered for a correct position.I think your belief that your positions are correct is leading you to misinterpret spurious information as evidence, and to overestimate the value of the legitimate evidence you do find.--Percy

quote:

---

1. No, the Bible cannot be interpreted in any more diverse ways than can what is observed in the science arena.

---

Do various Biblical interpretations have to be supported by evidence, or be falsifiable, to be generally accepted within the entire Christian community?If so, what is the methodology that Theologians use to test their hypothese, and does it allow for potential falsifications of any part of the Bible? What testable, specific, unambiguous predictions do they make, and if they have made them, have they been shown to be correct or false?

quote:

---

Not all secularist scientists agree on any one scientific interpretation of what is observed.

---

That is true, but there is only one scientific method used by all scientists, and it is used to put all of theses various interpretations to the test. The hypothese which survive repeated and vigorous tests and have accurately predicted specific, unambiguous future events or discoveries are the ones which persist. Nevertheless, even the most durable hypothesis or theory in science can be potentially shown to be wrong.What single method is used in interpreting the Bible, and how can those interpretations be tested? What potential falsifications can be observed which would render the Bible false for Theologians?

quote:

---

The redshift controversy is a good example, as to the interpretation of it, as I have shown to be the case. Go on google and you'll see that to be so.

---

The method used to gather data and formulate hypothese about any scientific phenomena is the same around the globe.More testing is needed when there are many conflicting ideas about a phenomena. Eventually, the hypothese which survive repeated tests and are able to make accurate predictions will come to be agreed upon as the best current explanation, which, regardless of it's strength, could still be wrong.

quote:

---

2. There is a way to test Biblical interpretations. Which interpretation does history support? Which interpretation do archeological discoveries support?

---

True, but historical or archeological evidence cannot support any claims to the divine.

quote:

---

Which interpretation is based on reliable text and context?

---

One Christian's "reliable text and context" is another Christian's "highly specualtive and wishful thinking."

quote:

---

Which interpretation can be corroborated with other scripture? These are to name but a few tests.

---

That is not a really a test. Just ablout any piece of literature can be shown to be internally consistent, does that mean that all of the events in them really happened?OTOH, if the Bible can be shown to not be internally consistent (and this has been done), will this falsify those parts of the Bible to you?I doubt it.

quote:

---

3. There are people here on this board, as I understand some of their statements who once believed in the Bible and who have been convinced in their own mind that the Bible is falsifyable to the extent of the renouncing of it by them.

---

Well, yeah, one of them would be me.However, I wasn't talking about that issue specifically. I was bringing up the issue of non-falsifiability of the many, many interpretations of the Bible, because faith doesn't need evidence.

quote:

---

Science does not require evidence for the bb singularity

---

Sure it does.

quote:

---

and how it came to be.

---

If science made much of a claim about this, it would need evidence, sure.What, do you think scientists just made up the BB one day and decided to promote it, with no basis in evidence at all?

quote:

---

Nor does it require the bb to satisfy td law 1 as I have shown my hypothesis to do. All I hear from every secularist on this is "we don't know," or something like "a particle of submicroscoptic space became energetic and began to expand." Biblical intelligent design hypothesis can get no more mysterious and faith based than that, imo.

---

We can test this hypothesis, however.What are the testable predictions of ID? What is the positive evidence? How has ID expanded our understanding of the way natural phenomena work? What technology or new therapy or product has been developed using ID ideas?

quote:

---

No there isn't only one method of doing science. That's obsurd. Even one of your own faith/ideology Robert Carrol (Skeptics Dictionary) and a host of others would take issue on that.

​

Carrol: science*
Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural.
Science is also the organized body of knowledge about the empirical world which issues from the application of the abovementioned set of logical and empirical methods.

​

Science consists of several specific sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy, which are defined by the type and range of empirical phenomena they investigate.

​

Finally, science is also the application of scientific knowledge, as in the altering of rice with daffodil and bacteria genes to boost the vitamin A content of rice.

​

the logical and empirical methods of science

​

There is no single scientific method. Some of the methods of science involve logic, e.g., drawing inferences or deductions from hypotheses, or thinking out the logical implications of causal relationships in terms of necessary or sufficient conditions. Some of the methods are empirical, such as making observations, designing controlled experiments, or designing instruments to use in collecting data. ......................

---

Excellent! I am delighted that you are using this definition.Now, please explain how ID follows these rules. In specific, the essay you quoted goes on to say:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

Note that though scientific explanations are not in supernatural terms, the supernatural is neither accepted nor rejected by science.

---

Correct. That is because science is not designed to detect the supernatural. It ignores the supernatural entirely.

quote:

---

Science then, allows for the possibility of the supernatural.

---

True. Science ignores the supernatural since one cannot detect the supernatural with the five senses.

quote:

---

Good scientists should assume by that that open debate and discussion should be allowed so as to determine whether the unseen supernatural dimension does exist in the universe.

---

How do you propose to use science to determine if the supernatural exists? Science is not designed to examine the supernatural, since the supernatural is outside of nature. Science ignores the supernatural.

quote:

---

We do that also by logic as well as observation, testing, etc.

---

The supernatural has never been observed in any vigorously controlled observation or test.

quote:

---

My gd hypothesis was in a sense a test as to whether id hypothesis satisfied scientific laws which are observed in the universe. Informational study of things like DNA as well as fulfilled Biblical prophecy are all physical stuff we can observe in formulating our determinations on ID.

---

What are the predictions of ID?

quote:

---

If I am dissallowed the right to discuss and debate my science methodology here fair and square with you people, I see no reason to be here.

---

The thing is, Buz, you have a very hard time being "fair and square" yourself. You can discuss anything you want, but I am thus far unconvinced that you often understand the basic premises of the science you attempt to refute. When people try to correct you, to explain why you are wrong, you complain about "secualar bias" or similar. You misunderstand things constantly, and you do not take kindly to vigorous logical analysis and criticism of your claims or your assertions.I think if you tried harder to ask more honest questions about subjects you do not have a good understanding of, if simply to understand the scientific findings without agreeing with them, you would do much better.

quote:

---

I came here with the understanding that this was a debate forum, but alas it appears to be, ultimately, a consortium of likeminded ideological fellows. (fellows as in fellowship.....women allowed )

---

I do not hold scientific findings up as some kind of personal "ideology", buz.I have observed that this kind of "team" mentality is common among groups which require belief without evidence (Islamic and Christian Fundamentalists, Radical Right Republicans).The people in these groups believe that all of the people who disagree with them hold just as dogmatically to their own beliefs as they do.While such people do exist, buz, it is completely false that all of us who disagree with you share an ideology.Jar believes in the Christian God, Percy just believes in God, Crashfrog does not, and I don't know if God/gods exist or not.How's that for radically different ideologies?However, we all share a trust of a basic investigative tool, a method, which has been demonstrated to be a very powerful tool for understanding the natural universe.This is far from idologically identical.

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson