Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
70 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, dwise1, jar, Tangle (4 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,176 Year: 4,288/6,534 Month: 502/900 Week: 26/182 Day: 14/12 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 25 of 150 (861199)
08-18-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:02 AM


Re: ID and creationism
The religious affiliations of proponents are as logically irrelevant ...

Except we have the history of cdesign proponentsists.

We know intelligent design is religious creationism dressed up in lab coat with black horn rimmed glasses and a fake beard in an attempt to appear as “science” in a vain attempt to circumvent the Constitution and push their religious indoctrination into the public schools.

We have the transcripts from the Dover Trial where the revealed truth of ID’s religious subterfuge was put on display. The Wedge Document has not been forgotten nor Discovery Institutes continued attempts to infiltrate public schools with religious creationism.

The OP is nothing more than a shill for Discovery Institute and this submission is yet another attempt to further the wedge strategy.

Intelligent design is religious creationism regardless of the cdesign proponentsists protests to the contrary.

This thread is nothing more than religious SPAM.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:02 AM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 38 of 150 (861216)
08-18-2019 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:15 PM


Re: ID and creationism
We learn from it that AZPaul3 does not like the ID folks; he thinks their motives are creepy.

Your motives are not creepy but are a lie, a subterfuge, a cover behind which you work to undermine the rule of law in this country.

At least vocal creationists are honest, open, upfront with their desire to once again have their version of their god with their version of righteousness rule all of American society as they once did.

Your stance is pure charlatanism.

Even if AZPaul3 is hopeless, I trust that some others will respond ( as some have) with logic and evidence.

You and yours have already presented your evidence at Dover and in the Wedge document.

Science, as well, has seen your logic and your evidence and all of it has been rejected many hundreds of times in the last few decades.

You carry your history with you in everything you say. That history is one of fakery, misdirection, and its rejection by science.

Squeal all you want about how illogical your opponents are on this subject.

You are not the first and will not be the last DI shill to fake the non-religious nature of, and the religious goals of, ID.

I have no problem with you and others discussing the faulty logic of the cdesign proponentsists yet once again. You can start by showing us the exact model, the equation, for determining specified complexity.

Have at it.

Just so everyone understands that your position is not one of honesty but is, in truth, religious creationism with a mask.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:15 PM Jedothek has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 2:49 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 49 of 150 (861244)
08-18-2019 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
08-18-2019 5:32 PM


What bothers me most is accusing them of "hiding" the truth.

Creationism: God done it so you can't teach anything else.

Federal Court: Separation of church and state. Get out of my court.

Creation Science: OK, God done it but in a scientific way so we fit in the science class.

Federal Court: Separation of church and state. Get out of my court.

Cdesign proponentsists: OK, OK, how bout this. The Designer (who ever that is) done it and ... uh ... He done it with science, kinda.

Federal Court:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

--Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

Intelligent Design is a hidden god-centered creationism.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 5:32 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 08-18-2019 8:02 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 102 of 150 (861536)
08-22-2019 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research.

Then do that research. You have an entire "Institute" supposedly dedicated to doing just this sort of thing.

I’m thinking you are new to the Intelligent Design movement. You seem not to know that ID has been around a while. When first begun after creationism’s disaster in Edwards v. Aguillard they came up with lots of sciencey sounding hypotheses from specified complexity and irreducible complexity to the tautologies of a fine-tuned universe and the weak anthropic principle.

All of these were seen by the scientific community (yes, peer reviewed) and, in each and every case, these hypotheses were cast down.

Now you come in here complaining that your favorite pseudo-science is not given the respect you think it deserves. ID has already received its due review and has been rejected. No one is going to waste their valuable scientific talents on already reviewed and rejected junk science. That is what the Discovery Institute is for.

I asked you to show us the model, the actual equation, for determining, in the strict rigid way real science requires, the attributes of specified complexity. You probably did not even know that there actually was such a thing. See Specified Complexity.

“Dumbski” himself put it out there but when he went to apply it to his favorite flagellum of E. coli he failed. He could not calculate the specified complexity of the flagellum mechanism and was left to insisting in his prose, not from his formula, that the answer was *huge* and thus the mechanism was designed.

All of ID has been the same kind of fumble bumbling around whenever they were required to show their science in any open revealing way.

As a science, Intelligent Design is a disaster of its own making.

Unless you have something new to present to us, some new hypothesis for the community to inspect and assess, if all you have left is bitching about how unappreciated ID is as a science, then I suggest you go read your bible. It is the only consolation you are going to get.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:28 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 121 of 150 (861590)
08-23-2019 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 12:12 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile.

First the evidence for ID is not just *not overwhelming* it is blatantly non-existent.

Second the term pseudoscientific was both logical and accurate.

The majority of ID arguments are from personal incredulity while their few attempts at some "science" have been incompetent, insubstantial and demonstrably fake.

ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 12:12 PM Jedothek has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 123 of 150 (861599)
08-23-2019 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-23-2019 2:49 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Before I answer that I will need to check my charts.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 124 of 150 (861602)
08-23-2019 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-23-2019 2:49 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
quote:
Aug 23, 2019 - Spend time with someone you love today, Pisces, but keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep, and don't expect others to necessarily feel the things you feel. You might feel slighted when others don't give you the attention that you think you deserve. Don't take it personally. Others may be unfocused and short of attention. Don't expect any major commitments or deep conversations right now.

Hmm ... keep things light and easy. Don't go too deep...

Well, I guess today's not the right day to answer this, RAZD. Maybe tomorrow.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 132 of 150 (861630)
08-24-2019 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by RAZD
08-23-2019 2:49 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.

You think it is worse than astrology?

Today's chart:

quote:
AUG 24, 2019 - You've been so absorbed by your own life lately that some of your friends may be wondering whether something is wrong with you. There's no law against having your head in the clouds once in a while, but be sure not to leave the people you care about in the lurch. Make sure you follow through on an upcoming social commitment—it will give you a chance to show them that you're doing fine and you're just as eager to hang out with them as ever.

Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today.

Yes.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2019 2:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2019 12:03 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6637
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 148 of 150 (891437)
01-30-2022 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by MrIntelligentDesign
01-30-2022 6:51 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
whereas in the new Intelligent Design ..

1. has universal boundary line between intel to non-intel...evolution? None! A must for science!!!

Bullshit. You can't even define what this means. I don't believe you. Show me.

2. new id has universal limit of origin...evolution? none! A MUST for science!!!

Bullshit. You can't even define what this means. I don't believe you. Show me.

3. new id model of origin is intellen creation... evolution?? evolution...no-intelligent change...test?? none!

Yes. Creation. God. We know the liturgy. It's bunk.

4. Change of species? interrelation... evolution?? non-intel change...no test, thus, not science!

You lie. The science is exceptionally rich in evolution. The science is what found evolution and debunked your god.

5. origin of species...interrelation with creation... evolution? change A to B? with no test? no science

You lie. The science is exceptionally rich in evolution. The science is what found evolution and debunked your god.

Thus, evolution will never win against the new ID ... Meyer and all of you should know it or be forever defeated by Evolution!

You lost 250 years ago. Not gonna change. Not with your crap.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 01-30-2022 6:51 PM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022