Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1 of 1725 (500090)
02-22-2009 7:58 PM


Figured I'd start a thread from which to spectate.
Looking at A Devine "String Theory"., this oughta be *good*!
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by onifre, posted 02-22-2009 10:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 10 of 1725 (500254)
02-24-2009 8:00 AM


In Message 7 riVeRraT says something that is good advice for creationists everywhere:
riVeRraT writes:
Trying to prove God, or relate God to science is completely pointless.
--Percy

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 17 of 1725 (500389)
02-25-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by riVeRraT
02-25-2009 7:54 AM


Hi riVeRraT,
Is your current approach in this thread really communicating the message you intended? Or is it more revealing about yourself than anyone else?
We do agree generally about faith, but about this:
riVeRraT writes:
This whole forum is pointless when it comes down to it.
This forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be legitimate science deserving of a place along side all other science taught in public schools today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 02-25-2009 7:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 20 of 1725 (501224)
03-05-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
03-05-2009 7:30 AM


riVeRraT writes:
I say it is pointless, because too many times here, people use science to dis-prove God.
The reality is that people here have posted time and again that God is outside the realm of science, and that in the absence of evidence science must remain silent.
What I believe you're thinking of is the response to claims that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. Such claims will always draw objections from those who value the principles of science, not because they believe science disproves God, but because they believe it provides no evidence either way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 03-05-2009 7:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 25 of 1725 (501592)
03-06-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
03-06-2009 8:52 PM


Re: Evidence
Straggler writes:
What is the objective evidence in favour of string theory?
String theory explains the available evidence just as well as the standard model, and in addition it has the potential to one day become the long-sought after unified theory of physics. It does make some testable predictions, but they are beyond our technological means at present.
If the question was actually something simpler, like what is the evidence that matter is really made up of tiny vibrating strings, then there's no evidence of this that I'm aware of. The best one can say is that string theory builds upon this premise to provide a powerful model of the laws of physics.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 8:52 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 52 of 1725 (502344)
03-11-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by CosmicChimp
03-10-2009 8:57 PM


Time will tell whether Kelly will ever begin seeking the evidence that supports what she believes about the nature of creation science. For the time being she seems firmly ensconced in a superficiality that prevents any meaningful analysis of the information people are providing her. Hopefully she'll become increasingly uncomfortable with the obvious insincerity of refusals to support her position with evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-10-2009 8:57 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2009 8:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 59 of 1725 (505079)
04-07-2009 8:10 AM


Cedre's last post in the Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? thread (Message 109) leaves me feeling like he'll never understand evolutionary views of morality. I'm not talking about convincing him, just bringing him to an understanding.
I thought Dwise1's post was excellent, but Cedre's non sequiturs, misunderstandings and misinterpretations, not to mention concluding with a change of topic to argue for a common world morality, deftly deflected and rendered ineffective all Dwise1's careful explanations.
I'm out of ideas for how to respond at the moment, and Cedre didn't respond to my post anyway, so maybe someone will join me for some sideline commentary for a bit.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 04-07-2009 12:53 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 61 of 1725 (505110)
04-07-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Rahvin
04-07-2009 12:53 PM


Yeah, there's not really any dialog with him developing over at Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? either. He does quote what he's responding to, but it's usually just so it can serve as a jumping off point for another of his fallacious examples. And when you explain what's wrong with his latest example he responds with a different example that's wrong in the exact same way. We're a third of the way through the thread and he's still doing this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 04-07-2009 12:53 PM Rahvin has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 67 of 1725 (505309)
04-10-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Michamus
04-10-2009 12:16 AM


Re: EVC
EvC? Did you mean EFT?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Michamus, posted 04-10-2009 12:16 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Michamus, posted 04-10-2009 8:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 73 of 1725 (509392)
05-21-2009 3:59 AM


"cdesign proponentsists"
In "cdesign proponentsists" (Fallen and subbie only) Fallen would have us accept at face value the claims of ID advocates like William Demski that ID is "the science that studies signs of intelligence." But there is no evidence of any science in ID. The fundamental claim of ID is that design in nature is readily apparent because of the complexity of life. The rebuttal is that design in nature is as obvious as that lightning is the anger of the gods, or that the planets' perfect orbits are God's handiwork.
There is no science in observations of this nature. When Michael Behe claims that "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself," there's no real data for ID's conclusions to flow from. ID is simply an extended observational exercise describing the many ways that life is very complex. Behe can characterize the blood clotting cascade in great detail and draw as many analogs as he likes between flagella and real machines, but in the end these are just detailed observations and descriptions. Life is complex. We get it.
The state of ID research is the same this year as last year and the year before that and before that and before that, ad infinitum. This is because research cannot progress if no one is doing research. Statements like, "We cannot learn anything about the nature of the designer or how he worked," are as anti-science as one can get, not to mention the delicious irony of claiming both that the designer can't be studied scientifically and that one is doing research.
The Templeton foundation funds work that brings insights into the relationship between science and religion, but they will no longer fund Discovery Institute projects because of its almost wholly political focus. Templeton doesn't want to fund yet another ID video for use in presentations to church groups and school boards, they want to fund research, something that the Discovery Institute doesn't really do. What the Discovery Institute really does is carry out an aggressive advertising campaign promoting the wonders of the research that they're not doing. Unfortunately for them, and as they learned to their regret in Dover, rank and file Christians hear "ID" and think "creationism". ID's popularity among evangelicals stems solely from its perceived value as a weapon in the war against evolution, and its lack of advocacy for a young earth and a global flood comes as a great surprise to them, if they ever even learn about it.
The adoption of ID by the evangelical community represents an alliance based upon common goals, not common outlook. Just as our alliance with the Russians against Germany during WWII didn't make us communists, evangelicals alliance with ID against evolution doesn't make them IDists. The only difference is that we knew we weren't communists, while evangelicals don't really know what ID is, and so many of them can claim to accept ID even though they obviously don't.
The Discovery Institute is aware that its senior fellows who define its views and guide its activities represent a religious elite whose views contrast sharply with rank and file evangelicals, and so in order to claim a significant constituency it is forced to obscure the fact that ID is a very different beast from the actual creationist beliefs of evangelicals. If ever there was an ivory tower lording it over the masses it is the Discovery Institute, they just have better PR than mainstream science. They carry on with what they see as scientific activities amongst themselves content in the knowledge that the hoi polloi will never comprehend what they're really advocating and will only understand pithy slogans like, "Teach the controversy." (To their credit, ICR's elite understands the Discovery Institute's elite very well and rejects their views.)
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add Title

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 05-21-2009 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 75 of 1725 (509407)
05-21-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
05-21-2009 8:01 AM


Re: "cdesign proponentsists"
I originally intended to also comment about Fallen's attempt to pick and choose among definitions, in fact among mere parts of definitions, in order to claim creationism and ID are different beasts, but I was already running long with my first couple points. Anyway, I agree with you.
There is a clear difference in the reasons for rejecting evolution of those who truly understand and accept ID versus traditional creationists. If you take their statements at face value, IDist views seem to stem from awe and wonder at the marvelous complexity of life. Young Earth creationist views stem from a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they reject much of modern science, too. There's not much commonality outside rejection of evolution.
But I don't take IDist views at face value. No matter what they say and probably sincerely believe about their own beliefs, underneath it all hides not just religion, but evangelical religion. Dembski is now at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who are they kidding?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 05-21-2009 8:01 AM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 93 of 1725 (514746)
07-11-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
07-10-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Bluejay is a Muslim!
I assume you'll now be watching Little Mosque on the Prairie?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 07-10-2009 5:24 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 10:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 107 of 1725 (516009)
07-22-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Granny Magda
07-22-2009 3:39 PM


Re: Straggler vs RAZD
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
--Polonius in Hamlet
Today we would say "wisdom" rather than "wit," the meanings have evolved.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2009 3:39 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 138 of 1725 (517702)
08-02-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by cavediver
08-02-2009 4:12 AM


Re: I believe Smooth Operator is a Troll
I'm disappointed. I've been in a discussion with SO over at What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited), and I thought SO was a fairly sophisticated IDist given how much he uses references and excerpts. He's a little short on the details, but then they all are.
But now you mention his behavior over at the Relativity is wrong... thread, and looking it over now it seems possible that he's just a nut who uses references and excerpts as props.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 4:12 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 9:33 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 145 of 1725 (518152)
08-04-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Straggler
08-04-2009 7:08 AM


Re: ICANT in the KCA thread
Straggler writes:
Your vid clip reminded me of a conversation I had with my little fella (he's 3) the other day. It started with "Why is it raining?" and proceeded down much the same line......... Maybe I should get him signed up here?
Recent conversation with 4-year old grandson:
Me: We have to put the game away now.
Him: Why?
Me: Because we need to use the table for dinner.
Him: Why?
Me: Because that's where we eat dinner.
Him: Why?
Me: Well, where would you like to have dinner?
Him: In the family room.
Me: Why?
Him: Um, because we need the plates there?
Me: Why?
Him: Um, because the cars are on the floor?
Me: Why?
Him: Um, because I played with them.
Me: Why?
Wife: CUT IT OUT!!!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2009 7:08 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-04-2009 11:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024