|
Author
|
Topic: ICR Sues Texas
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5947 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
Message 241 of 549 (578362)
09-01-2010 3:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by Buzsaw
09-01-2010 10:36 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
Perhaps you and Dawn would like to finally answer my question of "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?", which is also the title of the topic I had proposed and which I have now bumped back to the top. If you really want to promote ID as science, then you must be ready to demonstrate just exactly how including supernaturalistic explanations is supposed to work effectively in hypothesis building and testing, etc. You know, the nuts-and-bolts of how science works. Especially since ID's goal is to change all of science to include supernaturalistic explanations (part of their misguided campaign to destroy philosophical materialism, which isn't even a part of science -- methodological, yes, but not philosophical). Please re-read the opening post of that topic to reacquaint yourself with the question. I'm still waiting for someone to actually answer that question, a fundamental question that must be answered if ID's plans for science are ever to even be considered.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2010 10:36 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 242 of 549 (578544)
09-01-2010 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 232 by jar
09-01-2010 12:01 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
jar writes: Perhaps you can start a thread where you can present that alleged evidence. Perhaps you could simply read it in the EvC archives where the evidence has already been presented and debated.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 232 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 12:01 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 243 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 11:07 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 243 of 549 (578546)
09-01-2010 11:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 242 by Buzsaw
09-01-2010 11:02 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
Because you NEVER presented any evidence in any of the previous threads, we are still waiting for some real evidence Buz or even a link to where you presented evidence Buz. This is another reason that ICR will never do any real Science. I'm not sure they even have a clue what presenting evidence even means. It is certainly NOT doctoring and faking the data as was shown to be the norm in the Exodus threads. ICR and the folk like Wyatt Archaeological Research are simply not even capable of doing Science.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 242 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2010 11:02 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 244 of 549 (578549)
09-01-2010 11:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by dwise1
09-01-2010 3:52 PM
|
|
Hit wrong button. Message moved. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by dwise1, posted 09-01-2010 3:52 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 245 of 549 (578559)
09-02-2010 12:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by dwise1
09-01-2010 3:52 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
dwise1 writes: If you really want to promote ID as science, then you must be ready to demonstrate just exactly how including supernaturalistic explanations is supposed to work effectively in hypothesis building and testing, etc. You know, the nuts-and-bolts of how science works. Not being a scientist myself, what I cannot explain all that you are asking. What I can cite is a long list of bonafide accredited scientists who do or have done ID creationist science research in their respective fields of science. These respective ID fields of research include radiocarbon dating, galacial geology, ichthyology, geological coal formation, charting data, chemistry, gas dynamics, rocketry, space research, minerology, comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology thermokinetics, nuclear science, astronomy, insect entomology, electromagnetics, thermodynamics oceanography, genetics, 'paleontology, math, stratigraphy,fluid mechanics,energetics, astrophysics, hydraulics, pathology, pharacology, etc.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by dwise1, posted 09-01-2010 3:52 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 246 of 549 (578564)
09-02-2010 12:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 12:03 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
What I can cite is a long list of bonafide accredited scientists who do or have done ID creationist science research in their respective fields of science. These respective ID fields of research include radiocarbon dating, galacial geology, ichthyology, geological coal formation, charting data, chemistry, gas dynamics, rocketry, space research, minerology, comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology thermokinetics, nuclear science, astronomy, insect entomology, electromagnetics, thermodynamics oceanography, genetics, 'paleontology, math, stratigraphy,fluid mechanics,energetics, astrophysics, hydraulics, pathology, pharacology, etc. What you don't seem to understand is that the method determines what you are doing, not the credentials. The credentials may determine how well you do something. Take a look at the requirements of the various creationist organizations: Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Studies Institute, and Answers in Genesis for example. Each of these groups requires it's members to abide by it's particular statement of faith or whatever it may be called. Here is the first part of the Statement of Faith of Answers in Genesis: (A) PRIORITIES 1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ. (B) BASICS 1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
4. The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man's sin. Now, what do you think an accredited scientist who is a member of this group is going to do? He's going to follow the AIG Statement of Faith, not the scientific method. But the minute someone ditches the scientific method they are not doing science no matter what their credentials. They are using their scientific credentials in a fraudulent manner! I'd be more careful touting how many credentialed "scientists" who are doing creationism and ID. They are just trying to fool people with their abandoned credentials.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 12:03 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 247 of 549 (578568)
09-02-2010 12:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 12:03 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
If this list is of people doing ID research how come none are publishing anything?
quote:
600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
Lets see the list of people and their credentials. Then I want to see the ID research they have done.
quote:
150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
These are the yahoos that claimed they found Noah's Ark earlier this year. How come we haven't heard any more about that? If he invented alloys why don't they list the actual alloys. Everything I can find on him says he "worked" on high tech alloys, not invented. The rest is laughable. A number of these people are not even from withing the last 100 years. Of course Da Vinci believed in creationism. There was no other alternative. When you use arguments like this it really looks like you have no faith in your beliefs. I really don't think Charles Babbage did any research into ID.
What I can cite is a long list of bonafide accredited scientists who do or have done ID creationist science research in their respective fields of science. Either you don't understand or you are being deceptive. No where does it say any of the people on any of these lists are doing ID research. I love this line
quote:
Secular researcher Richard Milton
This guy is more of a nutball than you are.
quote:
According to Milton:[3] * Cold fusion is a real phenomenon. Furthermore, the standard solar model is flawed, and the sun may in fact be powered by a cold fusion process.
* Alternative medical concepts, such as bioenergy, homeopathy and iridology are scientifically valid.
* Paranormal phenomena, such as psychokinesis and remote viewing are real.
* There is evidence for the luminiferous ether, but it is ignored because it contradicts the theory of relativity.
quote:
Milton also appeared on The Mysterious Origins of Man, a television documentary arguing that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed supporting evidence.
Source The link you provided isn't worth the click it took me to get to it. It says nothing and it means nothing. It does not say or imply what you said it does. Thanks for wasting 10 mins of my life that i will never get back.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 12:03 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
DB writes Design is measurable and testable by the fact that it operates orderly, and by laws it was designed to perform, to accomplish a specific purpose. Thats testable A writes No, that's just a petitio principii. An actual argument against what i said above would have been desirable Idiocy beyond belief. Simply show that that process is not taking place as I have described above. When you ask me for designs evidence I give it to you, all you need to do is show that it was not designed to complete its complicated functions by a designer What? You cant do this simple thing, Im sorry, then its structure, ORGANIZATION and obvious design stands alone as its own proof, until you show me why it does not It is evidence of design by any reasonable rule of evidence DB writes: Namely that we must provide evidence of the designer outside of design itself, but you yourself need not worry about your initiator of the evolutionary process, because for some strange reason all the RULES change when it comes to your theory A writes This is, of course, not true. Short but pointless, like most of your responses to my arguments
Logic would actually suggest that two incompatible theses cannot both be "factually demonstrated". I guess I must return to my original contention that you actually add nothing to the debate. Hey, Adequate, actually respond to what is being said Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 249 of 549 (578576)
09-02-2010 1:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
09-01-2010 8:29 AM
|
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
While we have evidence for natural processes, we have no evidence for design and implementation by a designer. All it takes for design to become accepted as a valid inference is for someone to produce evidence that design and implementation by a designer is something that happens in the real world. Yes you do have evidence for design. At its basic sources and beyond to more complicated organism, it operates independently as organism/s in a coherently, orderly fashion following laws to produce a specific purpose. that is observable, testable and predictable Sometimes that purpose is simple organisms operating independently of other organisms, with complicated functions in an orderly and accurate fashion, to produce a desired purpose
All it takes for design to become accepted as a valid inference is for someone to produce evidence that design and implementation by a designer is something that happens in the real world. Why is there a requirement for the implementation by a designer, required for design, but no initiatior required for evo. You dont even seek a source for your initiator, but require evidence of the designer from us
For example, in mutation experiments with bacteria all we see is natural processes at work. Now pay very close attention Percy. HOW do you see those natural processes AT WORK? Do they seem to be operating in a logical, orderly and complicated fashion? And do they OPERATE independent of you and me TO produce a purpose How do the smallest organisms in the process you describe above, OPERATE? Would you say they operate in a orderly designed fashion to produce even a mutation, or would you say they operate in an illogical unorderly fashion? I know what you are going for in mutation, but I will demonstrate that the mutation is a relative production, but the micro organisms that produce that mutation are complicated, designed little productions and demonstrate BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT DESIGN I/we use the exact same techniches you use to determine whether data is factual and evidential. You just dont like the inferences from our scientific conclusions So you pretend its not evidence but never demonstrate why
One of the reasons we reject design as a valid inference is that there's no evidence for the claims you're making about design then simply demonstrate that thier organization IS NOT organization. You cant simply dismiss design by ASSERTING that order is not taking place in these organisims, you have to demonstrate it Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 217 by Percy, posted 09-01-2010 8:29 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 269 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 1:22 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: An experiment for Buz
I would actually like to see a response from DB or Buz, since they are both touting a separate form of science I cannot speak for others, but MY form of science and I suspect Buzz's is exacally the same form, you just dont like the inferences from our conclusions, which are derived in the exact same way
There are millions upon millions of "secular science" experiments that ANYONE can perform with household items, so there should be at least a few "ID/Creation science" experiments we could do. Here is one. Observe an organism, a micro-organism, watch its independent functions of coherently, logical and orderly operation and consistent behavior. Then draw a conclusion after you observe tens of thousands of other organisms, see if they operate in the same orderly, logical fashion, independently and in conjuntion with other organisims Do thier parts operate in an orderly fashion to make the organism function properly and accurate fashion to achieve its purpose Sounds like design to me and all you need is a MICRO scope HOW MANY TEST do I need to do to know my computer is operating and functioning correctly. Should I keep repeating the test to see if its operating and operating correctly, while its operating How many test do I need to do to see that design is designing Give me a break Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5947 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 251 of 549 (578582)
09-02-2010 2:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 12:03 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
No, you may not resort to such a cop-out. You are advocating something that will kill science. Why are you trying to kill science? From the opening post of that thread, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) Message 1 (emphasis added):
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well. In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well. Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science. I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science. The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not? It is totally immaterial and irrelevent that you are not a scientist. That cop-out will not fly! You are advocating a system whose goal it is to transform science into a supernatural-based endeavor. On the face of it, that means taking an incredibly immensely success system and preventing it from working at all by requiring it to use supernaturalistic "explanations". As I described in that opening post (again with emphasis added):
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it. Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck. Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt. Before embarking on this crusade to kill science, surely you had carefully studied ID. Surely you would have learned how it works and how it intended science to function after its transformation. Surely at least one of those ID "scientists" must have described it. After all, the most fundamental question is just exactly how science is supposed to function successfully after its transformation. Regardless of whether you are yourself a scientist, you surely must have read at least one of those ID "scientists" describe that! If not, then why not? Or are you going to tell us that you are completely ignorant of ID as well? That you have no idea what you are crusading for?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 12:03 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 257 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 9:12 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 252 of 549 (578585)
09-02-2010 2:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 233 by Taq
09-01-2010 12:06 PM
|
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
That is my question to you. How do we test for this? If it is untestable then it is not science. Ive already done this numerous times, please read the thread. I cant respond to every single post If you think I have missed some important point out of your post, point it out briefly and i will respond to it especially the part concerning logic Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by Taq, posted 09-01-2010 12:06 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 268 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 1:12 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 253 of 549 (578605)
09-02-2010 4:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 240 by subbie
09-01-2010 2:10 PM
|
|
Re: ICR Science
You are using a computer that was produced by science. You drive a car that was produced by science. We sent men to the moon using science. Millions of lives are saved by medicine that is a result of science. Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? (A University of Minnesota alum I might point out.) He used science to revolutionize farming and has saved tens of millions of lives.
i really hate these type of arguments. not thatit is right but that theyignore the fact that those things came from the intelligence God gave man. science had nothing to do with it. it also forgets that before modern secular science ancient people were practicing perfect dentistry, medicine, construction, and inventing technologies that were far advanced for their time. science has nothing to do with it at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 240 by subbie, posted 09-01-2010 2:10 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 254 by Huntard, posted 09-02-2010 5:00 AM | | archaeologist has not replied | | | Message 264 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2010 12:09 PM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: ICR Science
archaeologist writes: i really hate these type of arguments. not thatit is right but that theyignore the fact that those things came from the intelligence God gave man.
Well, then all science came from god, including evolution, since they all use that same "intelligence".
science had nothing to do with it.
Of course it had, the scientific method was used in inventing all these things.
t also forgets that before modern secular science ancient people were practicing perfect dentistry, medicine, construction, and inventing technologies that were far advanced for their time.
Yes, using the scietific method.
science has nothing to do with it at all.
It had everything to do with it.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
An actual argument against what i said above would have been desirable That was an actual argument. I pointed out the logical fallacy in your statement.
When you ask me for designs evidence I give it to you, all you need to do is show that it was not designed to complete its complicated functions by a designer What? You cant do this simple thing, Im sorry, then its structure, ORGANIZATION and obvious design stands alone as its own proof, until you show me why it does not It is evidence of design by any reasonable rule of evidence * sighs * When you ask me for evolution's evidence I give it to you, all you need to do is show that it was not adapted to complete its complicated functions by evolution What? You cant do this simple thing, Im sorry, then its structure, ORGANIZATION and obvious adaptation stands alone as its own proof, until you show me why it does not It is evidence of evolution by any reasonable rule of evidence --- Now do you see why petitio principii does not make a good argument?
Short but pointless, like most of your responses to my arguments The point was, of course, that what you said wasn't true. This is why you can only assert it but can't argue for it.
I guess I must return to my original contention that you actually add nothing to the debate. I've noticed that you say a lot of things that aren't true. But " must"? You are possessed of free will, are you not?
|
™ Version 4.2