|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack | |||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I don't know anything about Dembski's course. I don't see anything in science in your cut and paste but it is obvious that those are superficial guidelines. So why would I say that his course doesn't have any science.
I'm sure there are religious or antireligious motives behind a lot of actions. Contrary to what many scientists say, I think many aspects of ID are falsifiable. Take the flagellum for instance. To falsify the ID explanation, just find an unambiguous example of how it evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
To falsify the ID explanation You say this as if there actually is an ID explanation, which of course there isn't. Saying that something can't evolve by random mutation and natural selection isn't an explanation. Can you give us some details of the ID explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Well excuse me. You don't have to reply, you know. But thank you for doing so. When I don't reply I get accused of pulling out when things don't go my way. But then again, why should I really care what they think?
Since metaphysics isn't real physics, "metascience" then isn't real science (it's a made up word in fact). Thank you for proving our point. I will take up some time to study more about it. If ID is metascience, that doesn't bother me a bit. You can't disprove the existence of an intelligent designer with science.
Ok, but follow this logic with me. There are only two possible designers. Aliens, or supernatural beings right? I think supernatural is a term used by people who assume that such a entity doesn't exist because they haven't a clue of the sciences that would determine the composition and the dimensions of such an entity. Other than that I would say yes. But of course according to you, what I think is irrelevant.
traderdrew: Maybe when we die we will meet the one who did it and that would be Master Yoda. Huntard: Wait, that sounds like....yes! Religion! That was just some humor I threw in. You saw what I wrote, ID does not identify the designer.
traderdrew: Of course I just answered this here. Are you asking me who designed the designer? Huntard: In essence, yes. You don't get it. All infinite regression senarios eventually go to a point where people become stuck on a question. Or they lead to an answer that is dubious. The who designed the designer is just a very short example. A regression of Darwinism would soon lead to an abiogenesis model. Which one of those do you believe in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Just show me the natural processes that produce these things and I may or may not buy into your arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
But do think that facts are very important. Evidence is very important. Subjective feelings are not worth much. Everyone has different ideas and impressions of everything. We nee to look at the underlying reality, the facts if you will, in order to figure out what is what. The scientific method helps us to do this. I have no disagreement there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I don't know anything about Dembski's course. I don't see anything in science in your cut and paste but it is obvious that those are superficial guidelines. So why would I say that his course doesn't have any science. Gee, you might try following the link. The course syllabi are linked to inside.
quote: quote: Still no science. Guess that explains why they are PHILO courses. Oh and on the heading for each course syllabus he has the lovely gem.
quote: Facts be damned. All you need is faith. Lovely sentiment for a supposed science class. Oh that would be Pastor Jeremy LaBorde. Yup, ID is not religious at all. No sirree. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I have no disagreement there. Then why do you throw out the scientific method and support ID over the TOE? Unless you can show somewhere how ID has followed the scientific method. Remember the scientific method does not start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
But you continue to claim that you and ID have no religious component. All of your sources are religious. All of their arguments are religious. Back up. Where did you get this impression? I want to know where you see this.
Ahh here is the kicker. No scientists are not hunting for the "truth". They are going where the facts lead them. The pursuit of the truth seems to be a need of the religious. We will never know 100% about much, but science keeps discovering more and more. Yes that is true. They are not hunting for the truth. They are comparing competing theories by looking at which ones are more falsifiable with how well they explain the evidence.
If the creator is not supernatural,(I see you switched form designer to creator, is that telling or what) who created the creator. If it is not supernatural it most be aliens. Yes it is telling. The problem I have with single creation events at the beginning is that they don't explain where and when an intelligent designer intervened such as the Cambrian explosion or ordered rings of marine biodiversity emmantating from Palau, Micronesia.
Do you see where this is going? At some point you and the rest of the IDers must present some sort of EVIDENCE. As yet we ain't seen none. Are you asking me for truth? How about some competing hypothesis that are potentially falsifiable just as science does? And I already stated here on this very thread, an intelligent designer (such as a person) doesn't have a need for orderly rigid process in order to make or build something. Do you see why I think that we agree to disagree and there is no point in arguing with you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I really don't know anything about what Wells is doing on cancer. I have my own thoughts on it. Most of the info in my posts was taken from others but some of it comes from my own thinking.
It occurred to me that if there is a cure for cancer then it is irreducibly complex. That is a series of complimentary treatments for targeting the overall problems that led to cancer in the first place. Why do doctors insist on using chemo and radiation (isolated treatments)? Why does cancer come back more than 80% of the time after treatments? I think they are stuck in the stupid Darwinian paradigm of random mutations as the cause of cancer. Maybe if more of them started to think outside of Darwin's box and into the paradigm of intelligent design, then they might find some answers. Of course what I think is irrelevant according to Huntard. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
They truly believe that if they can show faults with TOE, then they have some how miraculously validated ID. They do not understand that even if TOE is proved wrong tomorrow, this does not make ID any more probable. I think proponents look for other natural explanations outside of Darwinism in order to find answers. This is science. I wouldn't have learned about symbiogensis and Stewart Kaufmann's self-organization model and James Shapiro's (NGE) natural genetic engineering if it wasn't mentioned by IDists. There is something else. I really wonder if many don't want to abandon Darwinism for other natural explantions such as the above for antireligious reasons. Under Darwinism, you don't have room for a designer as argued by Richard Dawkins. Any of those others leave just a little bit of room for a designer to have been involved.
The whole idea of science eludes them, even the scientists in the bunch. I guess that is what happens when your thoughts are consumed with finding the "truth". You are entitled to your opionion. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Can you give us some details of the ID explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum? No I cannot at this time. However, it would stike me as strange if someone actually said that a intelligent designer powerful and intelligent enough to create the big bang wouldn't be able to create a replicating cell. In his paper "The Design Argument," Elliott Sober predicts that "human beings will eventually build organisms from nonliving materials."[1]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Gee, you might try following the link. Your own cut and paste mentions the words science or scientific multiple times. How do you know that Dembski isn't teaching the scientific method?
Facts be damned. All you need is faith. Lovely sentiment for a supposed science class. There you go again. Why should I keep agruing with you? Of course facts are taught in any class.
Yup, ID is not religious at all. No sirree. Neither is Darwin. Darwinism is science I would agree. It cannot be used by individuals as a religion or as an antireligion can it? How about asking Daniel Dennett?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Then why do you throw out the scientific method and support ID over the TOE? Because Darwinism doesn't explain life as I posted in #390. It also doesn't serve as a basis to explain abiogenesis.
Unless you can show somewhere how ID has followed the scientific method. What you are looking for is something that has explanatory power rather than something that finds faults with theories correct? But scientfic methods do find faults with hypotheses and theories do they not? Science is critical of itself. "Signature in the Cell" is one long argument for design. It does find fault with theories. I would be interested in reading why it doesn't follow the scientific method. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Why do doctors insist on using chemo and radiation (isolated treatments)? Because they work.
Why does cancer come back more than 80% of the time after treatments? Because failing to kill even 1 cancerous cell, or pre-cancerous cells, can allow it to reoccur.
I think they are stuck in the stupid Darwinian paradigm of random mutations as cause of cancer. You mean the one that works and for which there is evidence?
Maybe if more of them started to think outside the Darwin's box and into the paradigm of intelligent design, then they might find some answers. No one from the intelligent design camp seems to have had any luck so far, are they just stupid? Why would people switch from a system supported by evidence which has been shown to work to one without evidence which hasn't been shown to work, other than being mad of course.
Of course what I think is irrelevant according to Huntard. On the basis of the post I am replying to I am beginning to agree with him. Are you saying the intelligent designer is intelligently giving people cancer? You are seriously twisted in the head, or rather your designer is. The evidence that mutations cause cancer is overwhelming. If you think you have a cunning method of predicting when a non-random cancer causing mutation is going to strike then I'm sure everyone would be interested. If you just kind of 'feel' they aren't random then you have nothing. As far as I can see the things you post that are just plain wrong are the things you have lifted wholesale from ID sites/publications while the things you say that don't even make any sense are the ones you have worked out for yourself. As long as you are just regurgitating things you don't even understand from ID websites and failing to actually substantively engage anyone you are little more than a troll. TTFN, WK P.S. That Sober paper!? The one from 'The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion', nice job on continuing to show us the non-religious nature of ID Traderdrew. Seriously Drew, do some research which isn't just reading ID propaganda. Maybe study some basic biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
No one from the intelligent design camp seems to have had any luck so far, are they just stupid? Why would people switch from a system supported by evidence which has been shown to work to one without evidence which hasn't been shown to work, other than being mad of course. How do you know? How do you know that complimentary holistic treatments wouldn't work better? Documentation would be required for persuasion. In fact there is an organization right here in Palm Beach called the Hippocrates Health Institute that helps people heal themselves with complimentary alternative treatments. Check their website out and listen to their videos and we will see who is winning this argument between you and me.
Are you saying the intelligent designer is intelligently giving people cancer? You are seriously twisted in the head, or rather your designer is. Twisted in the head? Is this another attempt to equivocate my messages? I say that we have been messing with design by creating unnatural frankenfoods and inappropriate ways of handling stress.
That Sober paper!? The one from 'The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion', nice job on continuing to show us the non-religious nature of ID Traderdrew. It is really convenient that you guys can sit back and characterize my views as inherently religious while you don't have to express any antireligious views or motivations that you all may have. Sometimes it comes through. Just like it came through in that video Huntard posted on nylonase bacteria. That guy was obviously antichristian. Watch the last part of the video.
Seriously Drew, do some research which isn't just reading ID propaganda. Maybe study some basic biology. Maybe I should go back to my studies rather than agrue with all of you. Just think of what I could do if I took some courses in ID and biology. You guys wouldn't know what to do. That being said, I think i'm done for now. Otherwise more Darwinists will come around and I can continue this debate or argument ad infidium ad nauseum. I really wanted to disprove a point that Theodoric made in that other thread. And that was I just go away when things aren't going my way. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024