Two types of science

I think everyone who has ever posted at these forums knows that. I was more focused on what he said, not who he is. There are a few things that William Provine and Richard Dawkins say that I fully agree with. It's best to concentrate on what is actually said, not poisoning wells. "Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning? That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use.

Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear.

No, a way to get the thread started in a concise, readable way. And expound on it as the thread progresses. If I'd have stated everything all at once it would have been labeled a "rant" by a half dozen opponents. Personal attacks happen no matter what a non-evolutionist does. I asserted nothing about cosmological papers. I'll address, if I choose, what is directly presented to me. I never said it was "inappropriate". Any study, or any activity involving long distances increases chances for error, and greatly weakens the possibility of meaningful testing, or falsification. I'm just comparing it to all the rigorous testing and falsification requirements that were demanded of Intelligent Design. No, because they don't involve long distances. If it were the criteria required for Intelligent Design, it should be a criteria for anything else in science. There's no way to convince you otherwise. Evolutionists are every bit as closed minded as the religious people they criticize for being closed minded. If I get the attention of just one student who may happen to be reading here who isn't quite convinced yet to become a liberal atheist just because their science class encourages him to, then it's worthwhile for me to be here, however temporarily. My words will LIVE ON!!!! (if admin doesn't delete them) In those cases, it may not be. Those blends are best detailed in popular books, such as "How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist", or "The God Delusion", both written by scientists, and receiving no notable objections from the scientific community or its followers. And that all changed with global warming. I wonder if that's the only subject it changed with. From message 2 of this thread; (the one that referred to Weinberg's remark) Just the ones who want to keep their jobs. "Religion gets in the way" good terminology! Gets in the way of Cloning, abortion, transplanting animal organs to humans, embryonic stem cell research, almost countless other morally troublesome things. I'm engaging in the philosophy of science by noting what is actually going on in science education. They're often not performing actual science.

Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true. The addition of MTBE to gasoline to cleanse our air wasn’t shown to work when it actually polluted ground water to a much more dangerous extent. If those who represent science make those conclusions, they need to address them when they enter the political realm in any way, whether it be science education, or major screw-ups like MTBE. We're getting to it, we're getting to it, everyone's so impatient! There are several terms that represent metaphysical science, This link seems to describe them very well, and yes, I realize it's not a conservative Christian link. Pathological science, junk science, hoax science, fraudulant science, scientific misconduct. Or even "bad science". They can come from all worldviews, including atheism. This has largely happened with global warming. A few years ago, an intercepted email from a professor at the Climate Research Unit in England to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania warned him; "Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act", and urged the American professor to delete any emails he may have sent a colleague regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.When a private business accused of fraud begins shredding its memos and deleting its emails, the news media are quick to proclaim these actions as signs of guilt. But after a destruction of evidence by global warming advocates, the big television networks went for days without reporting it, or commenting on it. Very little is widely known about it or discussed about it yet today. The problem is, politicized science has too big of a stake in the global warming hysteria to let it become properly scrutinized, or falsified by actual science. This is only one example of the second type of science that is the topic of this thread. It's not a simple problem to reverse, as isn't the problem with atheism that's become rampant in science education. Not because they conflict with my worldview, because they conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment. It is now, but only partially- only by the naturalist worldview. In some cases, yes. To keep from being accused of a "rant". To help keep the responses more focused. (I don't think that worked too well )

7060 years? Not a problem, you’re two for two. But you've only made a progression of 2000 years, it will take you.....let’s see.....2 1/4 million more messages to get to 4.5 billion years at that rate? Is that right? Sorry, I plan on summarizing before you have time for that. Could you step up the process a little bit?From your later messages; How could the tree rings tell you if those trees (alive or dead) were simply surrounded by water for a period of 40 days? Repeatable and testable, but are they falsifiable at those great distances? Unless we're getting light bursts from some other source at those great distances. If your faith in scientific precision is strong enough, I guess that's all that’s needed for naturalists.The Vangard 1 satellite is one of the oldest still in orbit around the earth. Here is a partial paragraph from Wikipedia describing it;

quote:

---

...Original estimates had the orbit lasting for 2000 years, but it was discovered that solar radiation pressure and atmospheric drag during high levels of solar activity produced significant perturbations in the perigee height of the satellite, which caused a significant decrease in its expected lifetime to only about 240 years.

---

2000 years all the way down to 240 years? Some pretty serious perturbations? Is there a chance that perturbations could also be present in light bursts over a distance of 168,000 light years? Or is there no chance, because naturalists don't want there to be a chance?

Is there a unified, working model that humans cause global warming?

Thanks for telling me what I didn't read. The word "Skepticism" doesn't appear on either of my links I put in message 20. You are really obsessed with science if you think all other forms of knowledge are just little sub-catagories of knowledge that lead up to the mighty scientific method, the great and powerful end all of knowledge. Not in a science, but to determine if a science is actual science or is psuedoscience, junk science, etc. Not a weapon against actual science, a weapon against metaphysical science. Other forms of knowledge can be used to analyze actual, relevant science.

No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. Sometimes it does come natural, and it's always fun. Watching you dance is fun too, but it's also rather sad. YOU knew that, but you were hoping some of your buddies would read what you said, and get their chuckles without bothering to check for themselves and see that those words weren't in the links I posted. The links I posted were complete enough to initiate a discussion among people who are not blind with rage, but I guess my hoping for that type of discussion at this place is only wishful thinking.

I haven't done any debates in a long time that are directly focused on intelligent design, but when I did, (at another site) it was always a combination of amusing and frustrating at how little evolutionists actually knew about intelligent design. And most of them were doing what evolutionists typically do at forums such as these - parroting what they see coming down from on high at the scientific establishment. Clear evidence of the knee jerk reaction that intelligent design receives from a supposedly "disinterested pursuit of knowledge". Sure it does. If it could be shown that complex, orderly biological systems like the bacterial flagellum could have been formed by ONE CERTAIN gradual Darwinian process, then ID would be falsified on the secular scientific grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when natural causes can clearly shown to be able to do the job. So far, no one Darwinian process has been clearly constructed by science to form the bacterial flagellum. Evolutionists demand proof that NO Darwinian pathway could have formed it, requiring an impossible, infinite search. ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution. Historic writings, creation science, and science. A lot of picking and choosing goes on concerning many scientific disciplines, they were described in this link that was in my message 69. Pseudoscience, junk science, deceptive science, etc. Here's a paragraph from that link;

quote:

---

Of course, the pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves elements of intuition and guesswork; experiments do not always test a theory adequately, and experimental results can be incorrectly interpreted or even wrong. In legitimate science, however, these problems tend to be self-correcting, if not by the original researchers themselves, then through the critical scrutiny of the greater scientific community. Critical thinking is an essential element of science.

---

The self-correcting process works only if there is little or no corruption involved. Critical thinking tells some people this when they note the immediate, knee jerk reaction from the scientific community, regarding Michael Behe's work, and the concept of intelligent design.More from that link;

quote:

---

Another term, junk science, is often used to describe scientific theories or data which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be mistakenly used to support an opposing position. There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the use of the term. Thus the arguments in favor of limiting the use of fossil fuels in order to reduce global warming are often characterized as junk science by those who do not wish to see such restrictions imposed, and who claim that other factors may well be the cause of global warming.

---

And;

quote:

---

Fraudulant science and Scientific Misconduct refer to work that is intentionally fabricated or misrepresented for personal (recognition or career-advancement) or commercial (marketing or regulatory) reasons. Suppression of science for political reasons often occurred during the second Bush administration. The tobacco and pharmaceutical industries have been notoriously implicated in the latter category.

---

Bottom line, picking and choosing goes on all the time in science, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. As this link gleefully points out, it can happen in conservatism, but it can happen in liberalism too. The simple fact is, the public scientific community (in education, politics) has NO prominent conservatives who freely combine their science with conservative political views, but it (the scientific community) has plenty of liberal ones. Everything you and the other decent posters are saying here (excluding the 4 or 5 trolls) would be a lot stronger case if it weren't for the lopsided political views of the scientific community. Concerning your statement that I bolded, secular demands and questions of God's actions can be demanded by anyone all day, if they reduce God to the status of a human, an earthly ruler etc. Lots of the mainstream U.S. population doesn't consider humans to be superior enough to do that, and most Christian denominations heed the plain text of the Bible about the wisdom of not doing it. If there's a such thing as another time dimension, as all of Christianity asserts, then the age of the universe can only be partially addressed. If the scientific community can use it's understanding of an old earth to do things like search for oil, then by all means it should have at it. If only it could stop at that, and not come to the conclusion that one time dimension is all there is to reality, then there would be little conflict about what the scientific community tries to do in education, politics etc. But science won't stop, until it gets to atheism. Then, for the countless things it can't figure out, it gives itself unlimited time to work on it, while not giving public studies of intelligent design any time at all.

I understand it, since most of them are atheists trying to downplay what God has done, and yes, I don’t much appreciate it. You got that right! Getting rid of religion and taking God's place, political power and money, that's what they're interested in!

It's "okay" to use them, it's just not okay to come to thorough scientific conclusions about what appears to be discovered with them, to the extent that it's taught as indisputable fact in public science education. Because different standards are applied to their discoveries, compared to the discoveries of intelligent design. I don't think humans are completely capable of smugly making assertions about what's going on thousands, or hundreds of thousands of light years away. The atheist reasoning that top-down species origination research isn't science, while claiming that colliding galaxies and speculations about billions of light years IS science, would be the equivalent of telling the plumber to GET OUT, kissing the electricians ass and telling him to do his thing and get paid for his work as well as the plumbers, then telling the homeowners that they don't get any plumbing work done, and they're not permitted to do it themselves because it might contribute to global warming. And if they're caught going to the bathroom outside, they're in TROUBLE.

Here's what you said in message 37, that I was responding to;

quote:

---

A lot of creationists and ID proponents claim to have theories about different aspects of their ideas. While they don't meet our strict definition of theory, there is no law against attaching the term theory to any idea (ie. hyroplate theory, hydro-sorting theory). So they can then say, "well we have theories about how this or that can happen." "We are all dealing with the same facts." OK, but what they utterly lack is a unified, working model.

​

Ultimately, these arguments are philosophy of science arguments and need to be approached from that direction. No working model ... no science.

---

"NO WORKING MODEL, NO SCIENCE", No, I'm not kidding. Are you saying that when lots of "people spend their entire careers learning and studying an issue", that that is the ONE TIME that a working model is not required? It can be equally frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining a political scandal involved with global warming, complete with news media omissions and cover-ups, and have a half dozen opponents not acknowledge that it could be a serious problem. Have you ever given a moments thought to just how corrupt an application of global warming remedies could become over the years, especially if there can be no working model to provide information to the public showing just how effective it all is? And for me, rather than explaining just how big of a multi-billion dollar cash cow global warming solutions could be for governments and the special interest scientific community worldwide, it's better for me to just suggest that you read some information on past tyrannies of the world, or U.S. founders mistrust of a large, central government. The same multi-million dollar EPA that commanded the U.S. to use MTBE in gasoline? The U.S. EPA has dome some good in its 40+ year existence. It's also proven itself to be an arrogant, power and money seeking bureaucracy, that isn't accountable to anyone when it screws up. Its biggest concern is its political power. My biggest concern is actually to awaken anyone who isn't completely closed minded about actual history, to the fact that factions and tyrants can and have completely destroyed civilizations before. The U.S. founders and original inhabitants of the U.S. had first hand knowledge of it, but 200 years later, many U.S. residents somehow believe it can't happen again. The Christian God did not instruct us to worship the earth. (That's what atheists do) We're to "take dominion" of it. Admittedly, when I see video of people in China walking around with cloths over their faces to breath through, with a hazy background behind them, I think action should be taken. But most everyone can agree on that. We don't need government, or scientific community elites, to tell us how dirty things are. It sure will, when government starts banning older cars and older small engines, requiring new ones to be purchased, and accepting briefcases full of cash from makers of new cars and small engines. Or designating certain days when woodburning stoves aren't permitted to be used. (Woodburning stove control is now happening in parts of California) To retain some of their liberty and money maybe? Have you ever heard the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death"? Is that just a talk-radio joke, or do you think it was actually said during deliberations of the U.S. founding? If you believe it happened, what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty?

No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion. Then why would a"lack of belief" cause so much organization? Why are there so many atheist groups? They have political motives the same (or worse) than any religion, and the founders of the U.S. knew what a worldview, not only a religion, would do to a free society. "Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education? Not all science, just some.

Yes. In some cases they really do fail to find natural explanations. Sometimes they admit it, sometimes they don't. No. Todays scientific community seems to be able to "find" anything it wants to find. Yes. But I don't trust only one special interest to be the only source of knowledge. It depends on where the information comes from. If the scientific community's beliefs can't evolve with new information from sources other than itself, why should it expect others to treat scientific information as some sort of superior, higher level of knowledge? Yes, but it's difficult when they're ALWAYS politically liberal, when they seem to have no appreciation for liberty and limited government. Of course it has, as William Dembski has pointed out; "Darwinism is wonderfully adept at rationalizing its failures and therefore just keeps chugging along". Let's see, 2003 was when the breakthrough happened for the atheistic flagellum explanation? ("Darwin's Black Box came out it 1996) It just makes me wonder if it wouldn't have been for the threat of ID, if that big discovery would have been made. As in many things in science seem to be, a conclusion is reached, then evidence is made to fit it. Because many politically liberal beliefs are considered science, and since science is such a respected subject, those beliefs can find their way into public establishment without going through the political process. That's obviously the desire of the global warming crowd. I accept lots of science, as does anybody, you know that. I just don't have faith in atheistic proclamations that claim to be science. We just have to agree to disagree on it. I just go by the immediate reaction to him in the late 1990's. Not "accept science", but accept all naturalistic explanations for reality. It's a political problem. I like the talk of conservatives about liberty and limited government.Scandals only involve individuals, there are plenty of liberal scandals as well. It gets complicated to ponder about what God may or may not have done, when it's combined with attempts to harmonize his actions with what atheists claimed were natures actions. No, I only have a traditional agenda, about a thing called liberty that follows U.S. foundings. The atheist science individuals have an agenda to re-invent, or destroy the intent of U.S. founders. Did you see the funny link in message 98? Do you believe James Madison was an atheist? Or that the U.S. constitution "guarantees universal health care"? No, as long as I pay the price, in freedom and money, for the ever increasing scientific whims about global warming and other environmentalist hysteria. Sure, until they politically establish their views by labeling them as science. Not censor it, balance it. By asking for some balance in atheist science, and a return to some constitutional liberty? No I haven't seen that one, but I've seen the recent news reports about the global warming scientists who went to Antarctica (during its summer season) to study the effects of melting ice and got stuck on the ice, requiring the burning of a lot of fossil fuel to rescue them.

40 organizations? That "holds water" concerning what I said. "Religious organizations that play in politics" - how do they play? They can't establish themselves in government, what are some examples of what they do that contradict tradition and morals in the U.S.? To promote Biblical principles in how to live our lives and relate to each other. It's a time tested belief. Sure is, the teaching of it in science classes, combined with a recent slew of atheist scientists writing popular books about it. As I don't really care what atheists believe. But I care when they start claiming James Madison was an atheist, or that the constitution guarantees universal healthcare. Do you believe those two things?