Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-27-2017 6:40 PM
364 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,746 Year: 19,352/21,208 Month: 2,111/3,111 Week: 332/574 Day: 46/82 Hour: 2/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1874 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 211 of 230 (655515)
03-11-2012 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
03-10-2012 8:50 PM


Re: purpose in science
Percy: I thought you were an administrator of this site. Didn’t you remove my posting privilages when I had problems figuring out the methodology? Was that or was that not you??
This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:50 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2012 9:17 AM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 03-11-2012 9:29 AM jchardy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9747
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 212 of 230 (655528)
03-11-2012 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jchardy
03-11-2012 1:15 AM


Re: purpose in science
off topic; removed by poster

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 1:15 AM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 213 of 230 (655529)
03-11-2012 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jchardy
03-11-2012 1:15 AM


Re: purpose in science
Hi John,

Yes, I'm an administrator here. In fact, I'm *the* administrator, and I'm also the founder, owner, webmaster, IT guy, chief financial officer, programmer and janitor.

I replied to your PM. It's obvious now that you didn't take the joke the way I intended, and I apologize for that. The point wasn't that you're a jackass, but that like the person in the joke you just didn't seem to be comprehending the situation.

You also don't seem to comprehending or at least responding to much of what people are saying, and this is beginning to raise my concern level, because it causes threads to spiral out of control. As a participant I cannot moderate, though I did step in for technical reasons when you were having trouble with the quoting codes. But if I *were* moderating then I would suggest you focus your attention on the evidence supporting your position.

AbE (Added by Edit): I just noticed this was a reply to the message preceding my joke. If you're objecting to where I rebutted your claims of being a scientist and a zoologist, then all I did was cite facts. If you're objecting to the accusations of word salad, pretty much everyone is accusing you of that. If you're objecting to my pointing out that you have little understanding of ID or science, your words speak for themselves. If you're objecting to the request to answer the question about experiments that would test your ideas, then I don't understand why you object to a request for the information you claim exists. And if you're objecting to the rhetorical question about the qualifications as science of claims for phenomena with no evidence, i.e., God, then I don't understand your objection.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 1:15 AM jchardy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 4:06 PM Percy has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 214 of 230 (655532)
03-11-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by jchardy
03-11-2012 12:43 AM


Re: [quote] Re: purpose in science
I am still at a loss to determine your point here in contrast to my position. Enlighten me!

I'll give it one more go, then you're on your own.

The earth isn't suited to support life that was placed here. Life here evolved to fit the conditions that exist on earth.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 12:43 AM jchardy has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 215 of 230 (655533)
03-11-2012 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by jchardy
03-11-2012 12:54 AM


Re: purpose in science
Rather than going through calculations, none of which would be mine alone, I would ask that you read the summary of Chapter 1 of Mallary's "Our improbable universe" at: http://www.improbableuniverse.com/Chapter1.html .

Rather than painstakingly examining that page, point by point, when there's nobody here to defend it, I'll just say this:


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 12:54 AM jchardy has not yet responded

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1874 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 216 of 230 (655580)
03-11-2012 4:02 PM


A RELUCTANT FAREWELL
All participants in this thread discussing ID and Science: A farewell and some final points.
1. It is good that this forum provided a means of discussion/communications to/with a community (purportedly scientific), which believes that all IDer philosophy is consistently primitive and without reasoned foundation.
In my opening of this thread, and over the past week or so, I hope I have opened some minds to realize that there are those of us who believe the probability argument favors some divine direction to the evolution, both of our universe (from the beginning) and to and through evolution toward human existence.
I hope many see that many of us seek out science --- not to validate our beliefs, but rather to expand our knowledge base, utilizing science without the fear that the foundations of our belief might be destroyed. If challenges to our beliefs occur, we are willing to accept those disruptions without losing respect for and toward those who present those challenges.
As I have said previously, that challenge is bimodal: It exists for we the faithful as well as for those who are immutably skeptics.
2. It is also good that this discussion evolved to controversy and debate. Debate, however is an argument format and some view it as a challenge: I.e., there must be a “winner”.
3. There are those who demand winning, and when they sense they may be losing the argument, will pull out all the stops, ignoring ethical concerns, and use personal attack, false allegations and demeaning rhetoric to undermine credible argument.
THIS IS AN INEXCUSABLE POLITICAL TECHNIQUE used in this case by he who identifies himself as: “*the* administrator, and I'm also the founder, owner, webmaster, IT guy, chief financial officer, programmer and janitor”. --- which means he can pretty much do and say whatever he wants, including scanning for personal information on participants in “his” forums and choose that which he finds most to his benefit.
As I have said: Mixing politics and political argument and science is toxic to both (but particularly to science).
The fact that this was a breach in ethics is irrelevant to him. By means of personal attack, he drives away opinions (and participants) which (who) credibly do not “jive” with his concepts. This is an old political tool, and this is what occurred here. He misrepresented my credentials for purposes of lowering my veracity, undermining the validity of my arguments which he apparently saw were being threatened.

SO, WITH RELUCTANCE, I AM TERMINATING MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS FORUM BUT DO GREATLY APPRECIATE THE EXCHANGES I HAVE BENEFITTED FROM DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS.

I APPOLOGIZE TO THOSE WHO I WAS UNABLE TO SPECIFICALLY REPLY, BUT I WAS GETTING UP TO 20 RESPONSES PER DAY AND COULD NOT PROCESS THEM ALL.

It would be much better if the rules of this forum specifically excluded inaccurate information and slander from inclusion, but then, when you have the power of “God” in any process, you can do whatever you wish. In this case, “God” would be well advised to sell this forum and site to someone (or a group of someone’s) who will provide a more objective direction, an assured open minded forum guarded by some form of supervisory hierarchy.
JCH


Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 03-11-2012 4:58 PM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Tangle, posted 03-11-2012 6:06 PM jchardy has not yet responded
 Message 221 by subbie, posted 03-11-2012 7:58 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
jchardy
Member (Idle past 1874 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 217 of 230 (655582)
03-11-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Percy
03-11-2012 9:29 AM


Re: purpose in science
Percy:
Your posting wasn't a problem because of the "Jackass" joke. No problem there. The problem was your gleaning personal, inaccurate information, diseminating it in a post. This was inappropriately offensive and completely inappropriate. If you are going to put out personal information about me, try to make it accurate. So I will clarify:
First of all, MSAC (Mount San Antonio College) is a Junior college. They don’t give out Bachelor’s degrees. I attended there in 1959-1961 because my parents were poor and I had to work full time while attending. I graduated from there with the usual A.A. degree and moved on to the University of California where I obtained my B.A. in Zoology in 1963.
I was still working to support myself and education as a Licensed Laboratory technician, (they didn’t offer “student loan programs” in those days).
I worked as a Naturalist with the National Park Service for a time (on Anacapa Island) and was then admitted to medical school in 1964 at U.S.C. Keck School of Medicine from which I graduated in 1968.
My Medical education was financed by the May J. Wright Scholarship until I became participant in the Ensign 1915 Program with the USN and then augmented with the U.S.N. doing my internship at U.S. Naval Hospital, Chelsea Mass. (now closed) and then my residency in Internal Medicine at U.S. Naval Hopsital, San Diego, obtaining my Board certification in 1972.
I then served as Chief of Medicine at U.S. Naval Hospital, Naples Italy for 4 years and then returned to serve as Senior watch; Resident Training officer and then Assistant Chief of Medicine at U.S. Naval Hospital, Oakland, CA. I retired from the USN as a Captain (MC) USN in 1987 and took position as Chief of Allergy and Immunology at Kaiser Permanente that year. I retired from medical practice in 2000 and began to pursue my interests in the origin of matter in the universe leading to Cosmology and finally Quantum Cosmology to conceptualize the processes of evolution in the universe.
The purpose of my participation in this blog was to expand an understanding of the breadth of interests those of us who believe the Universe MAY have had divine guidance throughout its evolution. You have effectively undermined that motivation and that is not to your (or your blog’s) credit.
The critical point here is that --- for some reason known only to you --- you’ve gotten personal and offensive. That suggests you are afraid and as a result have become angry. No one in your administrative position should be allowed to use his/their position vindictively and you’ve stepped over the line and obviously want to end this conversation,--- so end it I will.
John S. Hardy, Jr. M.D.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 03-11-2012 9:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Percy, posted 03-11-2012 4:28 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(6)
Message 218 of 230 (655587)
03-11-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by jchardy
03-11-2012 4:06 PM


Re: purpose in science
Hi John,

If you have complaints about the accuracy of the information I provided then you have only yourself to blame because I got it from you. You posted your information on the Internet. You described your history at your college reunion site (http://www.claremont59.com/class_profile.cfm?member_id=32...). You've posted pictures on the Internet of you, your wife, your Navy picture, your house, your beach. I didn't make up a thing and I didn't get anything wrong.

I checked the Internet for information about you because I couldn't actually believe you were a doctor after you experienced so much difficulty using the site (this is a discussion board, by the way, not a blog). It was a degree of incompetence I've never witnessed before. So I checked the Internet to see if you were an imposter, but what I found seemed to indicate that you were who you claimed you were. So I tried to help you use the site as best I could.

But then when you attempted to inflate your credentials I of course knew it wasn't true because I'd already read the history you posted on the Internet.

You claimed you're a scientist. You're not. You're a retired physician.

You claimed you were a zoologist. You weren't. You have a degree in zoology and worked a year as a lab tech. Now you're claiming you were a naturalist for the park service, but somehow that didn't get mentioned in your history posted at your high school reunion site.

If you're leaving then at least be honest about the reason, John. I didn't get personal and offensive, unless you consider the truth about you not being a scientist and a zoologist offensive. If you want to leave in a huff after being called out for dishonesty then that's up to you.

Or you could step up, admit the truth, then get down to some serious discussion.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Add more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 4:06 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 219 of 230 (655594)
03-11-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jchardy
03-11-2012 4:02 PM


Re: A RELUCTANT FAREWELL
jchardy writes:

3. There are those who demand winning, and when they sense they may be losing the argument, will pull out all the stops, ignoring ethical concerns, and use personal attack, false allegations and demeaning rhetoric to undermine credible argument.
THIS IS AN INEXCUSABLE POLITICAL TECHNIQUE used in this case by he who identifies himself as: “*the* administrator, and I'm also the founder, owner, webmaster, IT guy, chief financial officer, programmer and janitor”. --- which means he can pretty much do and say whatever he wants, including scanning for personal information on participants in “his” forums and choose that which he finds most to his benefit.
As I have said: Mixing politics and political argument and science is toxic to both (but particularly to science).
The fact that this was a breach in ethics is irrelevant to him. By means of personal attack, he drives away opinions (and participants) which (who) credibly do not “jive” with his concepts. This is an old political tool, and this is what occurred here. He misrepresented my credentials for purposes of lowering my veracity, undermining the validity of my arguments which he apparently saw were being threatened.

The irony here is that you're doing the very thing you're decrying, personally attacking someone who did nothing but correct your dishonesty. I did not misrepresent your credentials. Everything I said was true. What you said about being a scientist and zoologist was false.

The additional irony is that credentials have nothing to do with veracity. Credentials don't make you right when you're wrong. Having strong arguments built around evidence is all you need, but both seem to be in short supply for you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 4:02 PM jchardy has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 220 of 230 (655598)
03-11-2012 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jchardy
03-11-2012 4:02 PM


Re: A RELUCTANT FAREWELL
jchardy writes:

In my opening of this thread, and over the past week or so, I hope I have opened some minds to realize that there are those of us who believe the probability argument favors some divine direction to the evolution, both of our universe (from the beginning) and to and through evolution toward human existence.
I hope many see that many of us seek out science --- not to validate our beliefs, but rather to expand our knowledge base, utilizing science without the fear that the foundations of our belief might be destroyed. If challenges to our beliefs occur, we are willing to accept those disruptions without losing respect for and toward those who present those challenges.
As I have said previously, that challenge is bimodal: It exists for we the faithful as well as for those who are immutably skeptics.

You'll probably not be surprised to hear that you've been unable to open my mind to, well, what? I simply don't know. You've just spouted mashed-up pseudo-scientific bullshit alongside old philosophy; as though it was an argument in itself to use words like 'quantum theory' alongside 'belief'.

Sorry, if you want to open our minds, just talk straight and save the bullshit for the congregation.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 4:02 PM jchardy has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 221 of 230 (655610)
03-11-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jchardy
03-11-2012 4:02 PM


Re: A RELUCTANT FAREWELL
I hope I have opened some minds to realize that there are those of us who believe the probability argument favors some divine direction to the evolution

You haven't opened anyone's eyes here. Your arguments are very familiar to us all, we've heard them dozens of times before, sometimes by people considerably more adept at presenting them than you were.

I hope many see that many of us seek out science --- not to validate our beliefs, but rather to expand our knowledge base, utilizing science without the fear that the foundations of our belief might be destroyed.

This little bit of self-delusion is a common characteristic of IDers.

If challenges to our beliefs occur, we are willing to accept those disruptions without losing respect for and toward those who present those challenges.

Your time here illustrates quite clearly that this is not true.

There are those who demand winning, and when they sense they may be losing the argument, will pull out all the stops, ignoring ethical concerns, and use personal attack, false allegations and demeaning rhetoric to undermine credible argument.

This is quite true. And, as we see in this thread, it's the anti-science types like yourself who do this.

[Percy] misrepresented my credentials for purposes of lowering my veracity, undermining the validity of my arguments which he apparently saw were being threatened.

If it makes you feel any better, I didn't have a high opinions of your arguments, your credibility or your intelligence before Percy posted anything personal about you. In fact, I strongly suspected that you didn't have even the credentials that you apparently do have. So, if credentials made difference to me, Percy affirming that you were in fact a physician would have helped your case.

SO, WITH RELUCTANCE, I AM TERMINATING MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS FORUM BUT DO GREATLY APPRECIATE THE EXCHANGES I HAVE BENEFITTED FROM DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS.

Your participation here was unremarkable in the extreme, displaying the kind of typical ad hoc rationalizations we have seen time and time again from godbots of various stripes over the years, puctuated nicely by a demonstrated inability to follow even the most elementary types of argument. I truly hope that you have benefitted from these exchanges, although your melodramatic exit strongly suggests you haven't.

In short, you will not be missed and your input will soon be forgotten, unless someone finds some kernel of something useful in the thread other than what you have said.

Enjoy the rest of your retirement.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jchardy, posted 03-11-2012 4:02 PM jchardy has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6843
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 222 of 230 (655699)
03-12-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jchardy
03-10-2012 7:58 PM


Re: purpose in science
I confess, I may be applying that logic. I just disdain the label. “God-of-the-gaps” is such a manufactured concept and obviously prejudicial. I think that’s why I reject the term.

But you don't reject the logical fallacy. That is the problem.

If there are gaps, God already filled them . . .

Based on what evidence? Oh, that's right. You have none. All you have is a lack of any other explanation. That is a God-of-the-Gaps.

But the evidence from astrophysics and quantum mechanics strongly suggests a sequential requirement of absolute necessity to get to where we are.

Me getting up from this chair and walking to the sink also has a "sequential requirement of absolute necessity". However, none of it involves a supernatural deity.

If ID would stick with fundamental real science as argument, they would find themselves less ostracized and more included in conversation.

I would strongly encourage you to follow your own advice and stay away from the woo you are pushing here.

The experiments are being run as we common folk dither on. New information is coming forth every day.

Such a statement is usually followed by examples of those experiments. What are they? Or is this just more empty words?

None-the-less, there will always be those who believe we are simply the result of chaos, entropy and probability and those who believe that, at some layer, our creation and evolution were planned from the beginning by God. Others will sort of mix the two concepts.

Sorry, but this wishy-washy "let me believe what I want" just doesn't cut it. In the real world, beliefs matter. If your beliefs can not stand the rigors of reason and evidence then they are not worth holding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jchardy, posted 03-10-2012 7:58 PM jchardy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12519
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 223 of 230 (655906)
03-14-2012 5:51 PM


Throwing this into summation mode
I don't think jchardy will be returning, so I'm throwing this thread into summation mode.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 224 of 230 (655911)
03-14-2012 6:35 PM


I'll finish where I started.

Tangle writes:

Well, that was a lot of words


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 225 of 230 (655924)
03-14-2012 9:37 PM


Start wrong, resist any attempts by anyone else to correct you and help you understand your errors, then claim victory on your way out the door. The creo gameplan in a nutshell.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017