Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

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

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 407 of 438 (519343)
08-13-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by traderdrew
08-13-2009 10:36 AM


What an explanation actually is
To falsify the ID explanation

You say this as if there actually is an ID explanation, which of course there isn't. Saying that something can't evolve by random mutation and natural selection isn't an explanation.

Can you give us some details of the ID explanation for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:36 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:34 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 responded

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

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 411 of 438 (519350)
08-13-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by traderdrew
08-13-2009 10:36 AM


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.

Gee, you might try following the link.

The course syllabi are linked to inside.

quote:
PHILO 4483 A; Christian Faith and Science

COURSE DESCRIPTION A study of the relationship between faith and science, with special
attention to issues relevant to Christian truth claims (e.g., the creation/evolution debate, the finetuning
of the universe for human life). Prerequisite: PHILO 4313 or 4373. Three hours.
COURSE GOALS This course will help students to reflect with theological accuracy,
philosophical precision, and cultural sensitivity on the relation between science and
Christian faith.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES In this course the student will:
• Understand the main strategies for relating science and the Christian faith.
• Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith.
• Learn to write critical reviews appropriate to the debate between science and religion.


quote:
Course Title: PHILO 7534; Christian Faith, Knowledge, and Science
COURSE DESCRIPTION An examination of the key approaches to epistemology, with special
reference to the knowledge of God. Modern scientific method and theory will be examined, with
attention to issues which impact the Christian faith (such as cosmology, creation, and miracles).
Four hours.
COURSE GOALS This seminar attempts to make sense of the scientific enterprise in light of
the Christian Faith. Of special interest here is the use to which science has been put in
undermining the Christian faith by furthering a materialistic worldview.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES In this course the student will:
• Achieve proficiency in thinking, speaking, and writing effectively and professionally
within a Christian worldview on the role of science in relation to Christian faith.
• Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith.
• Achieve a basic understanding of the history and philosophy of science.

Still no science. Guess that explains why they are PHILO courses.

Oh and on the heading for each course syllabus he has the lovely gem.

quote:
What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.
–Jeremy LaBorde

Facts be damned. All you need is faith. Lovely sentiment for a supposed science class.

Oh that would be Pastor Jeremy LaBorde.

Yup, ID is not religious at all. No sirree.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:36 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:40 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 412 of 438 (519352)
08-13-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by traderdrew
08-13-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
I have no disagreement there.

Then why do you throw out the scientific method and support ID over the TOE?

Unless you can show somewhere how ID has followed the scientific method.

Remember the scientific method does not start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 10:58 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:51 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 responded

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

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 419 of 438 (519369)
08-13-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by traderdrew
08-13-2009 11:25 AM


Intelligent cancer
Why do doctors insist on using chemo and radiation (isolated treatments)?

Because they work.

Why does cancer come back more than 80% of the time after treatments?

Because failing to kill even 1 cancerous cell, or pre-cancerous cells, can allow it to reoccur.

I think they are stuck in the stupid Darwinian paradigm of random mutations as cause of cancer.

You mean the one that works and for which there is evidence?

Maybe if more of them started to think outside the Darwin's box and into the paradigm of intelligent design, then they might find some answers.

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.

Of course what I think is irrelevant according to Huntard.

On the basis of the post I am replying to I am beginning to agree with him.

Are you saying the intelligent designer is intelligently giving people cancer? You are seriously twisted in the head, or rather your designer is.

The evidence that mutations cause cancer is overwhelming. If you think you have a cunning method of predicting when a non-random cancer causing mutation is going to strike then I'm sure everyone would be interested. If you just kind of 'feel' they aren't random then you have nothing.

As far as I can see the things you post that are just plain wrong are the things you have lifted wholesale from ID sites/publications while the things you say that don't even make any sense are the ones you have worked out for yourself. As long as you are just regurgitating things you don't even understand from ID websites and failing to actually substantively engage anyone you are little more than a troll.

TTFN,

WK

P.S. 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.

Seriously Drew, do some research which isn't just reading ID propaganda. Maybe study some basic biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 11:25 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by traderdrew, posted 08-13-2009 12:20 PM Wounded King has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3413 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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019