Peanut Gallery

Figured I'd start a thread from which to spectate.Looking at A Devine "String Theory"., this oughta be *good*!--Percy

In Message 7 riVeRraT says something that is good advice for creationists everywhere: --Percy

Hi riVeRraT,Is your current approach in this thread really communicating the message you intended? Or is it more revealing about yourself than anyone else?We do agree generally about faith, but about this: This forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be legitimate science deserving of a place along side all other science taught in public schools today.--Percy

The reality is that people here have posted time and again that God is outside the realm of science, and that in the absence of evidence science must remain silent.What I believe you're thinking of is the response to claims that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. Such claims will always draw objections from those who value the principles of science, not because they believe science disproves God, but because they believe it provides no evidence either way.--Percy

String theory explains the available evidence just as well as the standard model, and in addition it has the potential to one day become the long-sought after unified theory of physics. It does make some testable predictions, but they are beyond our technological means at present.If the question was actually something simpler, like what is the evidence that matter is really made up of tiny vibrating strings, then there's no evidence of this that I'm aware of. The best one can say is that string theory builds upon this premise to provide a powerful model of the laws of physics.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Time will tell whether Kelly will ever begin seeking the evidence that supports what she believes about the nature of creation science. For the time being she seems firmly ensconced in a superficiality that prevents any meaningful analysis of the information people are providing her. Hopefully she'll become increasingly uncomfortable with the obvious insincerity of refusals to support her position with evidence.--Percy

Cedre's last post in the Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? thread (Message 109) leaves me feeling like he'll never understand evolutionary views of morality. I'm not talking about convincing him, just bringing him to an understanding.I thought Dwise1's post was excellent, but Cedre's non sequiturs, misunderstandings and misinterpretations, not to mention concluding with a change of topic to argue for a common world morality, deftly deflected and rendered ineffective all Dwise1's careful explanations.I'm out of ideas for how to respond at the moment, and Cedre didn't respond to my post anyway, so maybe someone will join me for some sideline commentary for a bit.--Percy

Yeah, there's not really any dialog with him developing over at Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? either. He does quote what he's responding to, but it's usually just so it can serve as a jumping off point for another of his fallacious examples. And when you explain what's wrong with his latest example he responds with a different example that's wrong in the exact same way. We're a third of the way through the thread and he's still doing this.--Percy

EvC? Did you mean EFT?--Percy

In "cdesign proponentsists" (Fallen and subbie only) Fallen would have us accept at face value the claims of ID advocates like William Demski that ID is "the science that studies signs of intelligence." But there is no evidence of any science in ID. The fundamental claim of ID is that design in nature is readily apparent because of the complexity of life. The rebuttal is that design in nature is as obvious as that lightning is the anger of the gods, or that the planets' perfect orbits are God's handiwork.There is no science in observations of this nature. When Michael Behe claims that "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself," there's no real data for ID's conclusions to flow from. ID is simply an extended observational exercise describing the many ways that life is very complex. Behe can characterize the blood clotting cascade in great detail and draw as many analogs as he likes between flagella and real machines, but in the end these are just detailed observations and descriptions. Life is complex. We get it.The state of ID research is the same this year as last year and the year before that and before that and before that, ad infinitum. This is because research cannot progress if no one is doing research. Statements like, "We cannot learn anything about the nature of the designer or how he worked," are as anti-science as one can get, not to mention the delicious irony of claiming both that the designer can't be studied scientifically and that one is doing research.The Templeton foundation funds work that brings insights into the relationship between science and religion, but they will no longer fund Discovery Institute projects because of its almost wholly political focus. Templeton doesn't want to fund yet another ID video for use in presentations to church groups and school boards, they want to fund research, something that the Discovery Institute doesn't really do. What the Discovery Institute really does is carry out an aggressive advertising campaign promoting the wonders of the research that they're not doing. Unfortunately for them, and as they learned to their regret in Dover, rank and file Christians hear "ID" and think "creationism". ID's popularity among evangelicals stems solely from its perceived value as a weapon in the war against evolution, and its lack of advocacy for a young earth and a global flood comes as a great surprise to them, if they ever even learn about it.The adoption of ID by the evangelical community represents an alliance based upon common goals, not common outlook. Just as our alliance with the Russians against Germany during WWII didn't make us communists, evangelicals alliance with ID against evolution doesn't make them IDists. The only difference is that we knew we weren't communists, while evangelicals don't really know what ID is, and so many of them can claim to accept ID even though they obviously don't.The Discovery Institute is aware that its senior fellows who define its views and guide its activities represent a religious elite whose views contrast sharply with rank and file evangelicals, and so in order to claim a significant constituency it is forced to obscure the fact that ID is a very different beast from the actual creationist beliefs of evangelicals. If ever there was an ivory tower lording it over the masses it is the Discovery Institute, they just have better PR than mainstream science. They carry on with what they see as scientific activities amongst themselves content in the knowledge that the hoi polloi will never comprehend what they're really advocating and will only understand pithy slogans like, "Teach the controversy." (To their credit, ICR's elite understands the Discovery Institute's elite very well and rejects their views.)--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add Title

I originally intended to also comment about Fallen's attempt to pick and choose among definitions, in fact among mere parts of definitions, in order to claim creationism and ID are different beasts, but I was already running long with my first couple points. Anyway, I agree with you.There is a clear difference in the reasons for rejecting evolution of those who truly understand and accept ID versus traditional creationists. If you take their statements at face value, IDist views seem to stem from awe and wonder at the marvelous complexity of life. Young Earth creationist views stem from a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they reject much of modern science, too. There's not much commonality outside rejection of evolution.But I don't take IDist views at face value. No matter what they say and probably sincerely believe about their own beliefs, underneath it all hides not just religion, but evangelical religion. Dembski is now at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who are they kidding?--Percy

I assume you'll now be watching Little Mosque on the Prairie? --Percy

Today we would say "wisdom" rather than "wit," the meanings have evolved.--Percy

I'm disappointed. I've been in a discussion with SO over at What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited), and I thought SO was a fairly sophisticated IDist given how much he uses references and excerpts. He's a little short on the details, but then they all are.But now you mention his behavior over at the Relativity is wrong... thread, and looking it over now it seems possible that he's just a nut who uses references and excerpts as props.--Percy

Recent conversation with 4-year old grandson:

Me: We have to put the game away now.

​

Him: Why?

​

Me: Because we need to use the table for dinner.

​

Him: Why?

​

Me: Because that's where we eat dinner.

​

Him: Why?

​

Me: Well, where would you like to have dinner?

​

Him: In the family room.

​

Me: Why?

​

Him: Um, because we need the plates there?

​

Me: Why?

​

Him: Um, because the cars are on the floor?

​

Me: Why?

​

Him: Um, because I played with them.

​

Me: Why?

​

Wife: CUT IT OUT!!!

--Percy