Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 247 of 396 (583610)
09-28-2010 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Just being real
09-28-2010 4:26 AM


Boo Fucking Hoo
Stop crying and move on already. You sound pathetic.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 4:26 AM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 259 of 396 (583795)
09-29-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Could you provide a definition for "abstruse particularized communication" and what exactly would qualify as such? Going off your examples, I could find quite a few instances off the top of my head that blow this experiment out of the water, but depend on how you qualify "abstruse particularized communication".
Also, is this your own work? Forgive me if it doesn't strike me as something coming from someone who fought for so long trying to figure out what science was, then all of a sudden you come out with this.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 270 of 396 (583836)
09-29-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Abstruse: meaning highly complex.
Particularized: to be directed towards a specific object or purpose.
Communication: to exchange or share information.
How cute. You gave me the definition for each individual word when I asked for the definition of the phrase you provided. The phrase seems to be of your own concoction, so we need an exact meaning for the phrase.
The concept of apc is to abstrusely communicate or form an aperatice for the purpose of communicating particularized information.
By "aperatice", do you instead mean apparatus? I fail to see how a stick to get ants is used for communicating, and not eating.
One example that comes to mind is the tobacco plant and how it thwarts off caterpillars so as to not get destroyed by them. Are tobacco plants intelligent?
{abe}
If you are asking me if I came up with the theory of Intelligent Design, then of course not.
Did you post the "theory" of ID? Don't be obtuse.
With the exception of the examples of publications I have accumulated over the years from various sources, which I am pretty sure I copied and pasted the publications and their source references directly. Some I may have entered in manually from various hard copy sources.
Usually when someone cites sources, they do so to support their position or work. You claim your sources to support ID.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 271 of 396 (583837)
09-29-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Within the ID paradigm on origins of life we can examine biological structures and see if we can detect apc.
Here's how this reads to me: "with the priori that we think life is intelligently designed, let's look for things that support our position.". That sound right?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 285 of 396 (583893)
09-29-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
No just well designed.
So, they are designed, but need to wait for NS to kick in to let the design shine through? Given your examples for your "apc", I think the tobacco plant's mechanism shows a non-intelligent/non-designed animal utilizing it; thus negating your experiment. Unless, of course, you would care to actually define your term.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 301 of 396 (584504)
10-02-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Likewise all it would take to disprove the notion that only intelligent agents produce apc is to show some example of it being produced by a non-intelligent agent.
I did that already. Your myth is busted.
But seeing that some seem to be having trouble grasping exactly what I am talking about here let me attempt to define apc a little more clearly.......
On what planet does that count as a workable definition?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 327 of 396 (584933)
10-04-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Just being real
10-04-2010 12:48 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
The one and only example I gave was the tobacco plant. Your "rebuttal" was "it is just well designed.". Try again. Also, for the hundredth time, please define your term.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:48 PM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 330 of 396 (585910)
10-10-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 10:05 AM


Perhaps you could try and use the quote boxes like every other poster on the site so your replies don't look like a jumbled mess of horse shit? Also, maybe you could address the topic instead of crying foul about "darwinists".
I scarcely know where to begin to respond, since you have packed so much disinformation and spin into so compact a space.
Perhaps you could point out my "disinformation and spin"?
There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.
Then you DO have an experiment validating ID or using the ID/creation method? If so, where is it? Surely your card tricks aren't all you can come up with. You do realize that attempting to discredit evolution does nothing for ID/creationism, right?
There is no "separate form of science," as you claim.
Perhaps you should take your own advice by actually reading the thread you are responding to.
Lord Kelvin, then president of the Royal Society, famously declared in about 1899 that "heavier than air flight is impossible for humans."
What does this have to do with anything?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 10:05 AM BarackZero has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 340 of 396 (586263)
10-12-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Just being real
10-12-2010 3:02 AM


But currently we have never observed any natural process produce such specified complexity as we see in the DNA molocule.
I guess 4 people telling you to define your term isn't enough? The example I gave you thus far (tobacco plant) you waved off as "being a good design".
This spider also looks specifically complex (since you now use specified complexity in lieu of your "apc"):
It is the ravine trap door spider
What about phorid flies being used to control fire ant populations?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Just being real, posted 10-12-2010 3:02 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:06 AM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 353 of 396 (586426)
10-13-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Just being real
10-13-2010 8:06 AM


So have you gone wayward on your term "apc", or are you saying it is directly interchangeable with "specified complexity"? If the latter, you are in for a ride because even your buddy Dembski has trouble defending that term, and he friggin coined it.
However, if you are now simply using specified complexity, that really changes your experiment, now doesn't it?
Here again is how I ----->"DEFINED"<----- response.
No one gives a fuck what your defenition for specificity is. You coined a term: "apc". DEFINE THAT. Unless you are giving up on it?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:06 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Panda, posted 10-13-2010 9:37 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 364 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 355 of 396 (586437)
10-13-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Panda
10-13-2010 9:37 AM


Yes, but the ONE experiment in this thread is his and is dependent on his term "apc (abstruse particularized communication)". He has, as of yet, neglected to provide a working definition for this. The examples he has given thus far (in Message 257, where he first coined the term and gave his experiment) do not work the same with "specified complexity". Furthermore, even William Dembski, who coined the term "specified complexity", has trouble backing up the term so I doubt if JBR will fair any better.
I also find it funny how this thread has divulged into something so...........complex. I initially had the intent to try and see if ID was something that could be studied by a layperson the same as "secular science". Obviously, it can't (unless you accept the "it looks designed, so it must be" argument"). Simply put: there just aren't any workable experiments in accordance with the "theory" of ID.
{abe}
Bluegenes has also put forth an experiment, but this thread is so bloody long, I forgot about it. Sorry.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Panda, posted 10-13-2010 9:37 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by bluegenes, posted 10-13-2010 10:06 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 367 of 396 (587513)
10-19-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


I defined for you the concept, I broke down each word used in the term defining them, and I placed the term in the context of examples. If you still are having trouble getting it... I am at a loss as to how else to communicate it to you. But personally I suspect the trouble is not in my communication skills.
Sure, you defined the individual terms, but your examples don't follow. The way you are using the words all together don't work the way you want it to. Furthermore, you haven't defined it in such a way as to have anything more than word salad. You haven't given us a way to tell what IS or IS NOT "apc".
Just to be clear for you my linguistically challenged friend,
I am seriously amused when you bible thumping faggots get sand in your pussies over a few words. Grow up. Now, instead of shedding tears over my particular usage of words, provide a working definition for your hokey ass term (you will notice I am not the only member who has requested this).

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 368 of 396 (587527)
10-19-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
So when one mentions evolution in a contrasting argument to the two, one automatically assumes they are referring to evolution as it relates to abiogenesis.
You seem to have that backwards. Evolution is not a rebuttal to creationism. Creationism attempts to rebut evolution. You folks are the only ones who press on saying that "evolution HAS to involve abiogenesis". That is YOUR assumption. You will notice this in the thread The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY. The ID/creation crowd continue to bring up evolution as if saying "if I can prove one aspect of evolution wrong, ID/creationism is right". You know this is the case.
That is to say, the term for evolution popularized in the media ......
Sorry to burst your bubble, but even if the media did this, the media is not the arbiter of the facts of evolution. Scientists don't judge their findings off of what the media says. The media often times gets shit wrong and misconstrues data so that laypeople don't fully grasp the concept at hand. If you could find me an article that says "evolution is only possible with abiogenesis", that would be great.
...which encompasses not only small changes in the population of a biological organism over time, but also the theory of how the first cell formed, and that all life today can be trace back to one universal common ancestor
You are right on two of those counts. Evolution says diddly about how the first cell formed. It only deals with what happened AFTER life already existed.
To claim that I am the one who brought up origins is a very gross distortion of the truth. The very name of the entire web site implies that "origins" will be the underlying topic of discussion.
Wrong again. "EvC" is short for "Evolution vs. Creation" in that, we are here to debate the facts between the two sides.
Therefore when an evolutionist, in a debate on intelligent design (brings up Lenski's bacteria studies), one must assume that they are at the very least implying that this is evidence that universal common decent is plausible.
What does common descent have to do with the origin of life?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2010 11:46 AM hooah212002 has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 371 of 396 (587542)
10-19-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Wounded King
10-19-2010 11:46 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Thank you for pointing that out. However, I was not trying to imply that life arose with the first cell. I suppose my word usage could have been more clear.
{abe}
Looking back at my comment, I can see just how the confusion arose and it is due to the fact that I SUCK at writing. I never segue and often just throw two thoughts out right after one another.
Edited by hooah212002, : attempted humility?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2010 11:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 394 of 396 (587929)
10-21-2010 1:30 PM


Summary
One of my basic premises for this thread was to try and get some material justifying creationism/ID as valid science. At the time of proposal, this thread was in response to numerous posters that seemed to be implying a difference between "secular science" and "creation science" insofar as creation type science would work as a valid replacement for "secular science". That trend, for the time being, has seemed to have ceased. However, given that premise for this thread, we were confronted with ONE experiment from ONE creationist. That experiment used a term that was extremely poorly defined, if not defined whatsoever. That term ("apc": credit to Just Being Real) was later worked out to be synonymous with an already defined term "specified complexity". The phrase "specified complexity" (coined by none other than William Dembsky of Discovery Institute fame) runs into the same problems as "apc" in that the definition only identifies what may have this complexity. When confronted with counter observations, it is a necessity to repeatedly ask the ID Proponent "does this qualify?", only to be met with the answer "no, it was designed that way".
What we can gather from this thread is that there are no real world tests to test for any sort of design in nature without a creationist/IDist around to tell you if it is designed or not. Dr Adequate summed it up nicely in The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY, Message 356
Dr Adequate writes:
An intentometer, of course. It's a simple yet ingenious device consisting of a large metal box with a creationist in it. To operate it you simply point it at any object whatsoever, bang on the box, and say "Was that designed?" The creationist says "yes", and then you know.
Furthermore, we have yet to be confronted with any creationist or IDist who can propose any test/observation/experiment or method that adequately competes with the scientific method already in use. We see that even though this has not been brought forth, the resident creationist still claims vicory (see Message 385).
As the forum sub-heading asks: Is it Science? The answer is a resounding NO!
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024