Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 392 of 438 (519216)
08-12-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Creation
WTF? Faith? The Theory Evolution has no basis in faith, its basis is in scientific evidence. Please show this faith of which you speak.
Copied from post #369:
No,... evolution is not a religion but people can treat is as such. When someone says, "Evolution hasn't explained everything." that means that it falls within pure science.
When someone says something to the effect as the following quote does: "Evolution hasn't explained everthing but, I'm sure that one day the answers will be found and Darwinism will be able to explain it someday." That seems like faith to me.
You are not going to ask me for a person who stated this are you?
Is anyone trying to get Dawkins taught in school?
Is atheism science? I think ID is science. If ID is not science it is a metascience.
Id and its proponents claim an Intelligent designer started it all and designed(created) the species of the world. This is supernatural. You believe in a supernatural designer.
How do you know that it is supernatural??? Supernatural belongs to Creationism. People didn't employ the use of supernatural powers to design sophisticated machines.
You claim to be a follower of druidism. Which flavor do you follow? Druidism can mean many things. Ultimately follows of druidism believe in a god or gods. SO I think it is easy to see how your belief in ID is influenced by your religious beliefs.
Religion can be a powerful motif. Everyone has motives including scientists and people who post on the evcforum. Motives DO NOT automatically render statements as invalid. So why not stick to the subject matter and leave things like motives and atheism and religion out of it?
Now, where are your other questions? I am still going to let you have the last word.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:49 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 12:21 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:10 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 402 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 4:39 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 393 of 438 (519218)
08-12-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
I think I am starting to understand you now. Work with the facts because the facts talk and the rest of it walks. Is that how you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 2:05 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 4:34 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 395 of 438 (519224)
08-12-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Huntard
08-12-2009 12:21 PM


Re: Creation
This is the second time you have stuck your nose between me and someone else. As far as I was concerned, those others had it coming.
Is atheism science? No.
That was not a question for simple inquiry. The question was offered as a counterpoint in an attempt to elucidate another point.
TD: If ID is not science it is a metascience. Huntard: Say what now?
There is physics and metaphysics and there is science and metascience. I got the term from Robin Collins.
Ok, what designed us then? In the case you say aliens (that are then even more complex than us) where did they come from? Other Aliens? Is it Aliens all the way back? Where did the very first life of the universe come from then? A supernatural designer you say? Oh dear, that's religion...
ID doesn't identify the designer. Maybe when we die we will meet the one who did it and that would be Master Yoda.
What are abstract concepts of morality? Are these concepts traceable to personal religious or antireligious views?
TD: People didn't employ the use of supernatural powers to design sophisticated machines.
Huntard: We're not talking about machines or people, now are we.
That wasn't my point. Are you even trying to get it? Aren't you hunting for the truth? Why does a creator have to use supernatural powers to create life? Aren't scientists conducting genetic engineering experiments in the lab?
Who/what is the designer? Aliens all the way back?
Of course I just answered this here. Are you asking me who designed the designer?
Something like this is in "Signature in the Cell":
Why do we need water? Because it is hot out there. Why is it hot out there? Because the sun is out. Why is the sun out? Because it isn't cloudy. Why isn't it cloudy? Because there is a lack of water in the atmosphere. Why is there are a lack of water in the atmosphere?
Do you see where this is going? It is as though every question about a designer renders the previous one as invalid.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 12:21 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 1:51 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 403 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 5:08 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 397 of 438 (519229)
08-12-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Coyote
08-12-2009 1:10 PM


Re: Creation & ID
Dembski and the folks at the Discovery Institute are not pushing ID because it is a science, and because it follows the scientific method. They have no interest in following the data where it leads, as it leads in directions contrary to what they believe.
If you really want to show people that ID is wrong, you can start by commenting on post #390. If that isn't enough, I can post more of what I believe.
I don't think an ID explanation should be used just for the sake of using it. I think naturalistic explanations should be used in an attempt to explain phenomenon.
As I have explored some topics on this forum, I get the impression that some people around here (not you) seem to think that we think that everything is designed. That is just silly. Although, this might be unscientific, I think chaos is part of the unified order. How would you disprove that scientifically?
Especially as both are pushed by pretty much the same crowd, eh?
Whatever man... I have never tried to push it into the education system. I never signed anything that says it should be. It would be hard to pass it through the liberal NEA. (I'm not trying to get into politics here.) I say, let the people exercise their minds with the debate as it has surely has stimulated my thoughts.
By the way, ID does have merit. It is useful. I recently shared a new hypothesis with a scientist. (I'm not going to tell you what it was.) He told me good thinking and wanted us to brainstorm ways that we could prove it. I never would have thought of it if I was thinking from random mutations. I was thinking from design but my hypothesis was completely compliant with Darwinism. "Signature in the Cell" also briefly wrote about the work Jonathan Wells is doing on cancer.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:10 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:47 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 400 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2009 2:13 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 404 by Wounded King, posted 08-12-2009 5:24 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 406 of 438 (519342)
08-13-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Coyote
08-12-2009 1:47 PM


Re: Creation & ID
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2009 1:47 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 10:43 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 411 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2009 11:01 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 408 of 438 (519346)
08-13-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by Huntard
08-12-2009 1:51 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2009 1:51 PM Huntard has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 409 of 438 (519347)
08-13-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Coragyps
08-12-2009 2:13 PM


Re: Creation & ID
Just show me the natural processes that produce these things and I may or may not buy into your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2009 2:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 410 of 438 (519349)
08-13-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Theodoric
08-12-2009 4:34 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 4:34 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2009 11:04 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 413 of 438 (519358)
08-13-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Theodoric
08-12-2009 5:08 PM


Re: Creation
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 5:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 414 of 438 (519359)
08-13-2009 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Wounded King
08-12-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Creation & ID
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Wounded King, posted 08-12-2009 5:24 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 11:57 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 415 of 438 (519360)
08-13-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Theodoric
08-12-2009 5:30 PM


Re: Creation & ID
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2009 5:30 PM Theodoric has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 416 of 438 (519361)
08-13-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Wounded King
08-13-2009 10:43 AM


Re: What an explanation actually is
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 10:43 AM Wounded King has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 417 of 438 (519362)
08-13-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Theodoric
08-13-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Creation & ID
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2009 11:01 AM Theodoric has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 418 of 438 (519365)
08-13-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Theodoric
08-13-2009 11:04 AM


Re: Creation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2009 11:04 AM Theodoric has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 420 of 438 (519376)
08-13-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Wounded King
08-13-2009 11:57 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 11:57 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2009 1:13 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 423 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2009 2:20 PM traderdrew has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024