Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 271 of 302 (305491)
04-20-2006 1:20 PM


Admin Director is correct. I provided my resume credentials at his request. I will leave them behind if others will stop impugning my integrity. I will take others at their word, if others will take my word.
As for my assertion of there being a 50/50 chance of there being an Almighty God, I offer this explanation.
There’s a big difference between saying whether a statement is true or not true concerning the existence of God, than in determining the chances of whether or not an arrow will hit the target when shot. Either God exists or God doesn’t exist - there is no in between. I did not say there was exactly a 50/50 chance God exists. I said the %s were no worse than 50/50 that God exists.
But when it comes to shooting and hitting a target with an arrow, it depends on many factors - the component quality of the bow & arrow, the skill of the archer, the distance the arrow has to travel, the weather conditions, etc. Therefore, there’s not a 50/50 chance the archer will hit the target. It could be very low when the archer first starts shooting and much higher after much practice.
The same analogy applies to the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. These theories can be offered as theories, but not as science because of the immense times necessary to prove these theories with some degree of certainty. What is at issue here is precisely that - what degree of certainty can the theory of evolution and abiogenesis be proven? Many here believe it’s proven to a very high degree of certainty. On this point I strongly disagree. To prove to a high degree of certainty that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are true would need the immense amount of time necessary to somehow show these theories really work. Therefore, they must always remain as theories, and not as science.
Science must deal with things that can be proven to a high degree of certainty over time with repeatable results, not with theories that can never be proven in their entirety.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ReverendDG, posted 04-20-2006 1:53 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 273 by Admin, posted 04-20-2006 2:19 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 274 by ptman, posted 04-20-2006 2:49 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 289 by simple, posted 05-16-2006 11:52 PM John 10:10 has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 272 of 302 (305498)
04-20-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by John 10:10
04-20-2006 1:20 PM


The same analogy applies to the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. These theories can be offered as theories, but not as science because of the immense times necessary to prove these theories with some degree of certainty. What is at issue here is precisely that - what degree of certainty can the theory of evolution and abiogenesis be proven? Many here believe it’s proven to a very high degree of certainty. On this point I strongly disagree. To prove to a high degree of certainty that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are true would need the immense amount of time necessary to somehow show these theories really work. Therefore, they must always remain as theories, and not as science.
Umm.. So i guess GR,QM, nuclear physics, and just about everything in science isn't science then according to you? Because guess what? They are THEORYS! Your post is pure nonsense and it still shows that you have no clue about what science is or how it works.
since when is a theory not science? its the end point of ideas, or are you using the layman term for the word? which is a hunch?
ToE is accepted with almost certianty because of the evidence and denying that evidence would be paramount to willfull ignorace
By the way you are mixing them, abiogenesis is not as well supported as ToE. We can see evolution in action so there is no need for any more time
Therefore, they must always remain as theories, and not as science.
as you say, then nearly everything in science isn't science, which is a load if i ever heard one. You need to go read about science you don't seem to have any understanding of it at all if you are saying this nonsense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by John 10:10, posted 04-20-2006 1:20 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 273 of 302 (305502)
04-20-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by John 10:10
04-20-2006 1:20 PM


John 10:10 writes:
Admin Director is correct. I provided my resume credentials at his request. I will leave them behind if others will stop impugning my integrity.
You're impugning your own integrity. The people here are just calling attention to it. The credentials you listed are wholly incompatible with the rudimentary level of scientific comprehension you have displayed in this thread.
Either God exists or God doesn’t exist - there is no in between. I did not say there was exactly a 50/50 chance God exists. I said the %s were no worse than 50/50 that God exists.
So you're saying that because God either does or doesn't exist that therefore the odds are better than 50% for the existence of God. It is the disparity between your credentials and this naive (and, of course, self-evidently wrong) understanding of probability that is causing people to question them.
To allow you to continue contributing in the science forums would only be an invitation to people to continue abusing you. I'm removing your posting privileges in the science forums for the following reasons:
  1. Not addressing rebuttals, by ignoring them, by repeating original arguments, and by responding irrelevantly.
  2. Presenting a contradictory picture of yourself. This is covered in the Forum Guidelines under rule 8, and it is so distracting that it keeps drawing the thread off-topic, which is also against the Forum Guidelines. I'm not saying your credentials are false, only that they are belied by your inability to demonstrate any knowledge about anything so far. You could perhaps have offered something like, "Oh, well, probability was never my strong point. In my part of the nuclear industry it wasn't a factor." But you instead continued repeating the fundamental probability errors.
  3. Not following moderator requests.
  4. Not staying on topic.
  5. Making religious arguments in the science forums.
AbE: I've left your privileges enabled in the [forum=-11] forum.
This message has been edited by Admin, Thu, 04-20-2006 02:20 PM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by John 10:10, posted 04-20-2006 1:20 PM John 10:10 has not replied

ptman
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 302 (305504)
04-20-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by John 10:10
04-20-2006 1:20 PM


theory of nuclear decay
The theory of nuclear decay is only a theory and thus not science by your terms. Further, it is based on events in the past that noone has been there to witness, let alone measure. In neither your's nor any other scenario has any human been around long enough to "prove" nuclear decay rates of Uranium. By your argument nothing you do at work has any basis in science and is little more than voodoo. Are you willing to accept this or do you find fault with my logic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by John 10:10, posted 04-20-2006 1:20 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2006 9:07 PM ptman has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 302 (305804)
04-21-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ptman
04-20-2006 2:49 PM


John's privilages restricted
btw, see
http://EvC Forum: Members with restricted posting privileges
if you are wondering why there is no answer

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ptman, posted 04-20-2006 2:49 PM ptman has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 276 of 302 (306339)
04-24-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
03-19-2006 7:30 PM


Re: True Ignorance
Evolution is change in species over time. That this happens is undeniable, in fact it has been observed in so many scientific experiments that it is accepted by all the major adversaries of evolutionary theory. New traits, new species, even "irreducibly complex" systems have been observed to evolve
I am yet to find one ID person to accept what you just mentioned. Can you give some examples of this occuring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2006 7:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2006 9:55 PM inkorrekt has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 277 of 302 (306357)
04-24-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 8:23 PM


Falsified concepts and credibility
See ramoss Message 88 question on this and my reply Message 101.
That you have "yet to find one ID person to accept what you just mentioned" speaks to their credibility, especially when claiming that ID is scientific, as scientific means acknowledging (and abandoning) falsified concepts.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 8:23 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by inkorrekt, posted 05-07-2006 11:35 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 280 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2006 10:39 AM RAZD has replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 278 of 302 (310168)
05-07-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by RAZD
04-24-2006 9:55 PM


Re: Falsified concepts and credibility
New traits, new species, even "irreducibly complex" systems have been observed to evolve
Can you provide some examples of this happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2006 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2006 7:35 AM inkorrekt has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 279 of 302 (310219)
05-08-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by inkorrekt
05-07-2006 11:35 PM


Re: Falsified concepts and credibility
Do you want to read message 277 again before you look really silly?
If Message 101 is not clear enough for you try
EvC Forum: Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*08*2006 07:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by inkorrekt, posted 05-07-2006 11:35 PM inkorrekt has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 280 of 302 (310264)
05-08-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by RAZD
04-24-2006 9:55 PM


ID persons acceptance
Your posts cover IC but there is also the fact that Inkorrect is, again, incorrect about ID persons accepting almost all of evolutionary theory including an old earth and the relationship between other primates and man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2006 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2006 10:03 PM NosyNed has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 281 of 302 (310416)
05-08-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NosyNed
05-08-2006 10:39 AM


Re: ID persons acceptance
But is this a failure of ID or the people that propose ID?
Usually what they end up with is that whatever cannot be explained MUST be evidence of a design\creation.
There are those who say it is independant of a young earth (ie - they can accept geological ages).
But there is also no logical reason for ID to be incompatible with any of evolutionary theory or the relationship between other primates and man -- if they are scientific and follow the evidence trail where it leads.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2006 10:39 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2006 3:22 AM RAZD has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 282 of 302 (310444)
05-09-2006 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by RAZD
05-08-2006 10:03 PM


Re: ID persons acceptance
Sorry RAZD, I worded that poorly.
It is my understanding that the mainstream IDists all agree with almost all of the biologists on almost all of evolution. That is what Inkorrect is wrong (again) about. But I don't think we have shown him that yet.
They disagree (all of them I think) about abiogenesis and a few specific steps of some evolutionary pathways. That's all I've seen.
Of course, they are careful to not be too clear on what they agree with. If they do as you say they have to accept too much for their creationist friends or they show how unscientific they actually are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2006 10:03 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 05-09-2006 7:47 AM NosyNed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 283 of 302 (310456)
05-09-2006 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by NosyNed
05-09-2006 3:22 AM


Re: ID persons acceptance
In my experience, if you talk to an IDist who is conscious of the necessity to promote ID as a strictly scientific discipline, then the views espoused will be as you describe.
Most other IDists, including many of those described above when they feel they're safely in a religious venue or at least are not in the limelight, will blather on about a young earth and the fallacy of radiometric dating and all the other creationist nonsense. And the identity of the designer previously characterized as not relevant to ID research will be freely described as the God of the Christian Bible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2006 3:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 302 (311856)
05-15-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by RAZD
04-18-2006 7:53 AM


Re: Probabilities ... wrong again?
quote:
This is known as a false dichotomy. There could be an completely unintelligent designer. There could be any number of partly intelligent designers.
..
Only if there were no God, of the type, say, the US has claimed to believe in. His creating things eliminates other possiblities. 100%. You have your beliefs, John 10:10 has his.
Edited by whisper, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2006 7:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Jon, posted 05-16-2006 8:25 PM simple has replied
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2006 9:39 PM simple has replied
 Message 287 by ReverendDG, posted 05-16-2006 11:06 PM simple has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 302 (312592)
05-16-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by simple
05-15-2006 1:13 AM


Re: Probabilities ... wrong again?
quote:
You have your beliefs, John 10:10 has his.
This may be, but then both of you should be posting in the [forum=-6] forum, and not the science forum.
quote:
His creating things eliminates other possiblities. 100%.
It most certainly does not. Even if He did create some things, to jump to conclusion that He has created EVERYTHING (which would rule our other possibilities), is a little hasty.
Sorry to join in this so late. I should probably go back and address the opening post before continuing.
Trék
Edited by Invictus, : I was going to reply to the opening post, but I realize that everyone else has done so very well. Not to mention that this late in the discussion talking about the opening post would be almost off-topic (slightly ironic, no?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 05-15-2006 1:13 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by simple, posted 05-16-2006 11:49 PM Jon has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024