Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 292 (194169)
03-24-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by CK
03-24-2005 5:45 PM


This is not about evidence. It's about abuse and being reasonable. I've clearly stated this, I've clearly warned about turning this topic into an evidence war, and yet I'm still ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 5:45 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taqless, posted 03-24-2005 6:32 PM commike37 has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 17 of 292 (194171)
03-24-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Let's get back to abuse
quote:
Once again, while I wouldn't mind getting into an evidence war over specific tenets of ID, it is simply unacceptable withing the context of this forum to argue that ID and creation as a whole are unscientific.
Also, no one has dealt with the negative stereotypes problem that I raised in the second post of my argument.
Because you are fulfilling it? as the "we've got the evidence but I just don't want to present it and OH LOOK SOME KITTENS!" creationist.
why don't you stop your dodging and get over to one of the science forums and present it?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Mar-2005 05:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:48 PM commike37 has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 18 of 292 (194174)
03-24-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Let's get back to abuse
Well Mike, the next time you start new topic don't dilute the main point by posting inflamitory remarks that don't address the main topic such as ...
I do not understand how any progress can be made on a creations versus evolution board and how it can have any purpose if people want to maintain that it is a fact that ID has gotten nowhere scientifically,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:48 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:30 PM kjsimons has replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 292 (194178)
03-24-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by coffee_addict
03-24-2005 5:04 PM


A stereotype is a blanket view of a group based on observation of a few. In this case, I don't think we can call this stereotyping when referring to creos.
So you want to maintain that it's OK to call creos bigots, morons, and nutcases, and that this is not stereotyping?
Now, type in "second law" or "2nd law" in the search engine. I think it's safe to say that almost all creos that ever visited this site have tried to use this argument at one point or other.
Actually, I haven't done that. But I've now been stereotyped as doing that just because I'm a creo.
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 06:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 03-24-2005 5:04 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 03-24-2005 8:32 PM commike37 has not replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 20 of 292 (194182)
03-24-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:41 PM


Also, look at Charles Knight and Ooook! Now that I've satisfied some of the users and posted some evidence, they think that my appropiate reward is to mock me for my efforts
You are being mocked because what you have presented is not what is being asked of you. Look at what PS asked you for. For example: don't produce a quote from a creationist website saying that ID is peer reviewed, actually produce the peer reviewed ID study.
If I can't quote evidence without this happening, why should I use evidence at all?
What you have presented is NOT evidence!!!
Please present how ID is a proper scientific theory. Which specific theory within ID has:
a) Proposed a testable hypothesis
b) Make an untested prediction
c) Tested that prediction
And can I at least have an admin or a mod weigh in on my first post?
LOL, ROTF, LMAO etc
Here speaks someone who has not gone through the normal topic submission procedure. Submit a proper topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:41 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:28 PM Ooook! has replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 292 (194183)
03-24-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by pink sasquatch
03-24-2005 5:30 PM


Re: almost what I asked for...
Furthermore, let me point out some more abuse.
That evidence from the Center for Science and Culture said
"[PCID] has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations."
but you want to maintain, using your own words and yourself as a source of credibility
"PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers."
Regarding the point of peer-reviewed literature; I should have been more specific. When I use the term "study", I mean that a hypothesis is tested through experimental data and/or evidence gathering. The "peer-reviewed literature" you list is theoretical/philosophical - no hypothesis tested with evidence:
I thought I just covered that with "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"
---
Unfortunately, when I do present evidence, it's being filtered out through your selective filter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 5:30 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 6:29 PM commike37 has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 22 of 292 (194186)
03-24-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:48 PM


not abuse if assumption is truth
commike-
Hopefully you don't feel I've been abusive in any way - I don't think I have.
I understand you want to talk about "abuse"; but the title of the thread is "abusive assumptions".
Now, before we can determine if an "assumption" is "abusive" or not, we need to show that it is indeed an "assumption". If it is not an assumption, and is true, than stating so is not abusive, it is stating the truth.
while I wouldn't mind getting into an evidence war over specific tenets of ID, it is simply unacceptable withing the context of this forum to argue that ID and creation as a whole are unscientific.
I feel like I've given you a specific test for whether or not "ID is not science" is true or is indeed a false assumption. If ID is science it should easily pass this test - I'm not interested in an "evidence war" either, I'm simply interested in testing the assumption.
Can you show the assumption to be wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:48 PM commike37 has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 292 (194188)
03-24-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by pink sasquatch
03-24-2005 5:30 PM


Re: almost what I asked for...
Furthermore, let me point out some more abuse.
That evidence from the Center for Science and Culture said
"[PCID] has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations."
but you want to maintain, using your own words and yourself as a source of credibility
"PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers."
Regarding the point of peer-reviewed literature; I should have been more specific. When I use the term "study", I mean that a hypothesis is tested through experimental data and/or evidence gathering. The "peer-reviewed literature" you list is theoretical/philosophical - no hypothesis tested with evidence:
I thought I just covered that with "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"
---
Unfortunately, when I do present evidence, it's being filtered out through your selective filter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 5:30 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 292 (194191)
03-24-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:41 PM


Abuse ? Let's be clear that instead of evidence you quoted unsupported assertions from ID supporters. There's nothing frivolous or crude in pointing that out. If you want "crude" I can easily find worse from prominent ID supporters.
Let's face it - it is certainly not a problem with this forum that people are allowed to express views you dislike. Nor is it a problem with this forum that you are unable to refute those views, even though the onus is properly on you to do so. Those are your problems and getting angry will not help you solve them,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:41 PM commike37 has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 292 (194194)
03-24-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Ooook!
03-24-2005 6:03 PM


You are being mocked because...
So I'm understanding that it's OK to mock users, right?
...actually produce the peer reviewed ID study.
Ah, the peer-reviewed study. Yet another argument IDEA refutes. I'm only going to post the link since this isn't my main focus:
FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?
The IDEA website cas also discredit so many of these false perceptions you have about ID. And I want to discuss real ID rather than to have to spend every topic refuting these false perceptions about ID.
What you have presented is NOT evidence!!!
Please present how ID is a proper scientific theory. Which specific theory within ID has
a) Proposed a testable hypothesis
b) Make an untested prediction
c) Tested that prediction
I don't like you think you can simply claim that all of this evidence is invalid with a blanket statement.
And I thought I mentioned this earlier at "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"
It seems that my evidence is being scrutinized in an unfair way.
LOL, ROTF, LMAO etc
Here speaks someone who has not gone through the normal topic submission procedure. Submit a proper topic!
This is more of a complaint than a new topic. And cut the attitude. You continue the mocking attituted with the "LOL, ROTF, LMAO etc."
---
Furthermore, I want to clarify that this is about abuse, not evidence. This point is ignored by many users once again. In fact, I want anyone who posts a reply to this message to specifically quote this part and discuss it, and to do so by focusing on abuse, not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Ooook!, posted 03-24-2005 6:03 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Ooook!, posted 03-24-2005 7:38 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 39 by mikehager, posted 03-24-2005 11:35 PM commike37 has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 26 of 292 (194197)
03-24-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:07 PM


what, me abusive?
I thought I just covered that with "FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?"
No actual tests of a hypothesis were given, just claims that it had been done.
Furthermore, let me point out some more abuse.
That evidence from the Center for Science and Culture said
"[PCID] has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations."
but you want to maintain, using your own words and yourself as a source of credibility
"PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers."
commike, I'm not being abusive if I'm making assertions that can be backed-up by evidence. I'll dissect my comment that you call "abuse" to show you that it is not:
Pink: PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only
PCID is published by ISCID. From the ISCID website:
ISCID: Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication.
First, let me state that acceptance of an article by a single fellow would not be considered legitimate peer-review by a scientific journal. The fewest peer-reviewers I ever had was two (plus an editor), and that was for a review article that was requested by the journal.
But, who is an ISCID fellow? It should be an IDer for my claim to be truthful. From the ISCID website:
ISCID: Fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) have distinguished themselves for their work in complex systems. In addition to fostering the society's intellectual life and guiding its various programs, fellows serve as the editorial advisory board that peer-reviews the society's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID).
So I guess they are all IDers. First part of my statement was truthful.
Pink: is published only on-line,
That's easy:
ISCID: The journal will be published in electronic form only (there will be no print version).
Second part of my statement is truthful; now for the last part:
Pink: and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers.
Because I cannot answer this with a simple cut-a-paste, (because the journal claims to publish experimental work), I'll ask you to do a bit of work:
Go to the PCID Journal website and find a single experimental scientific report.
There, I've demonstrated my statement to be true by citing the journal and it's contents, so you no longer have to consider it a matter of my personal credibility.
If you cannot find an experimental scientific report in PCID, I suggest you owe me an apology for implying I am an abusive liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:07 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:39 PM pink sasquatch has replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 292 (194198)
03-24-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by kjsimons
03-24-2005 5:55 PM


Re: Let's get back to abuse
That is part of my main point. This isn't an inflamatory remark, it's a debate tactic showing how the the assumption is abusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kjsimons, posted 03-24-2005 5:55 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kjsimons, posted 03-24-2005 6:58 PM commike37 has not replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 28 of 292 (194201)
03-24-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:52 PM


This is not about evidence.
This topic? You're right, you seem to be whining.
It's about abuse and being reasonable.
Asking you to provide scientific evidence, since IDers want to join this realm, is neither abusive nor unreasonable.
As a supporter of ID you want it to be taken as equivalent and legitimate as scientific claims, so you must abide by the same rules...so kindly show the scientific ID evidence to back anything that ID has claimed.
...an evidence war...
Huh? Thought you wanted to be in the realm of scientists. I can just imagine showing up to a conference or meeting and not presenting any data to back up my claims...surprise! I'd be in the same boat as you right now!
"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:52 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:42 PM Taqless has replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 292 (194205)
03-24-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by pink sasquatch
03-24-2005 6:29 PM


Re: what, me abusive?
No actual tests of a hypothesis were given, just claims that it had been done.
The long answer [if you follow the link I gave you] will give a more in-depth explanation. I didn't want to post it though, because it's long, and I want to focus on abuse, not evidence. And even without the long explanation, it's their words vs your words. And I believe that it would be reasonable to trust IDEA more than I trust a random user on a random board.
And even with everything you mentioned, you're still turning this into an evidence debate, more specifically an example debate. You want to maintain that in the history of ID, no one has treated it in a proper scientific way, and that all of these scientists, despite their credentials, have misrepresented science. Now that is abusive. Even if you're right on these two [edit: two examples you brought up in your post], these are only two examples. Through all of this evidence I was hoping to give you a broad perspective of what ID had really become. And it's silly to think that this whole scientific controversy and all of its venues were based off of an unscientific theory.
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 06:43 PM
This message has been edited by commike37, 03-24-2005 07:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 6:29 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-24-2005 8:00 PM commike37 has not replied

commike37
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 292 (194206)
03-24-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taqless
03-24-2005 6:32 PM


Asking you to provide scientific evidence, since IDers want to join this realm, is neither abusive nor unreasonable.
Askiing for evidence to prove a certain aspect or tenet of ID is reasonable, but to suggest that all of ID and the creaton side are unscientific is just abusive. It just clutters this board with too many useless challenges. I've covered this in depth in Message 29 and Message 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taqless, posted 03-24-2005 6:32 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 03-24-2005 6:57 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 53 by Taqless, posted 03-25-2005 10:45 AM commike37 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024