Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by timebombted
Intelligent design is not a science - no evidence for it, no tests, just faith.

Science is not faith based, clear and simple really.

Insurance Fraud detection then is not a science according to you.

And the search for Extra Terrestial Intelligence - SETI - is also just faith based, according to you.

Forensic Criminology is also not a science according to you, but is simply faith based.

Archeology also, according to you, would be largly faith based and not a scientific study of possible intelligent causes.

Dream on.

Originally posted by jaywill
Insurance Fraud detection then is not a science according to you.

And the search for Extra Terrestial Intelligence - SETI - is also just faith based, according to you.

Forensic Criminology is also not a science according to you, but is simply faith based.

Archeology also, according to you, would be largly faith based and not a scientific study of possible intelligent causes.

Dream on.

Why don't you ask someone what they think instead of telling them?

I won't speak for him, but there definitely are diffrences between all of the things you mentioned and the pseudo-science of intelligent design and frankly, they've been pointed out to you on this forum before.

Originally posted by jaywill
Insurance Fraud detection then is not a science according to you.

And the search for Extra Terrestial Intelligence - SETI - is also just faith based, according to you.

Forensic Criminology is also not a science according to you, but is simply faith based.

Archeology also, according to you, would be largly faith based and not a scientific study of possible intelligent causes.

Dream on.

Having faith that life is designed is not a science, all of your exmples have nothing to do with that..... clearly.

You can make it a science if you start making testable hypothesis? But that isn't currently happening.

Don't twist my words in the context of the discussion.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Why don't you ask someone what they think instead of telling them?

I won't speak for him, but there definitely are diffrences between all of the things you mentioned and the pseudo-science of intelligent design and frankly, they've been pointed out to you on this forum before.

Obviously they left me unconvinced.

When I examine the criteria someone would use to assume intelligence is behind a series of numbers broadcast from outer space and the probabilty of some other combinations of symbols in biological chromosome formtatio, I see the same kinds of logic at work.

In one instance a scientist is reasonably justified to say "This pattern series we are picking up from radio signals is probably produced by an intelligence source." In the other instance "This chromosome arrangement displays the characteristics of something intelligently designed."

In one case its is valid. In another case guys like you rise in chorus scared stiff that we're going to let God stick a Divine foot in the door of science.

So as often as you guys pontificat that Intelligent Design detection in biology is not science, I still am unconvinced by your obvious bias.

Originally posted by jaywill
Obviously they left me unconvinced.

When I examine the criteria someone would use to assume intelligence is behind a series of numbers broadcast from outer space and the probabilty of some other combinations of symbols in biological chromosome formtatio, I see the same kinds of logic at work.

In one instance a scientist is reasonably justified to sa nt Design detection in biology is not science, I still am unconvinced by your obvious bias.

Obviously they left me unconvinced.

I wonder what would convince you. I'm betting no amount of evidence would, I could be wrong, but that's my bet.

In one case its is valid. In another case guys like you rise in chorus scared stiff that we're going to let God stick a Divine foot in the door of science.

In one case there isn't any supernatural force being added, in the other, there is.

Also, in one case they are comparing things to things we know. The ID/creationism movement doesn't have a living organism that was created to compare against to see whether it was designed or not.

I would also argue that SETI is not a real science per se, although they could use some scientific methods.

I have never (on this forum or anywhere else - and I have looked) seen an ID proponent define specifically what design looks like in biological organism vs what a non-designed organism would look like. That's what is needed.

If you can't define what you're looking for, how do you know you've found it? In SETI's case, they have the regular things that they see coming through every day. They would have to compare any new signal to what they see and hence determine whether there is a chance that it is a real communication or not. That's not a final determination though.

In ID's case they don't compare it to anything and they can't define what design in a biological organism is except to say that it's somehow evident, despite not being able to actually make any real verifiable predictions, or research for that matter to justify their argument.

I have no problem with ID being researched, but it won't be science until they start backing up their claims with well defined evidence, research and predictions that can be verified by anyone.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Obviously they left me unconvinced.

I wonder what would convince you. I'm betting no amount of evidence would, I could be wrong, but that's my bet.

In one case its is valid. In another case guys like you rise in chorus scared stiff that we're going to let God stick a Divine foot in the door of science.

In one case there isn't any s well defined evidence, research and predictions that can be verified by anyone.

Your arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins went so far as to define biology as the study of things which have the appearance of being designed.

And others echo him saying that the scientist has to regularly remind himself that it is only the appearance of design.

Now some are saying maybe it is not merely the appearance. Maybe it is actually designed.

Perish the thought! Like a pseudo Buddhist philosophy the evolutionist must remind himself that it is only the "appearance of design". Similarly the Buddhist sees only an "illusion" of the real world.

Why do some of you evolutionists have to work so hard to constantly remind yourselves that biological systems only have the appearance of design? I think this is warping your own mind and is not mentally healthy.

It reminds me of brainwashing.

Originally posted by jaywill
Your arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins went so far as to define biology as the study of things which have the appearance of being designed.

And others echo him saying that the scientist has to regularly remind himself that it is only the appearance of design.

Now some are saying maybe it is not merely the appearance. Maybe it is actually designed.
...[text shortened]... his is warping your own mind and is not mentally healthy.

It reminds me of brainwashing.

Your arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins

It's funny how you think Dawkins has so much authority. You assign him more authority than anyone in the scientific community would.


Now some are saying maybe it is not merely the appearance. Maybe it is actually designed.

And that's fine - now they have to prove it and provide the evidence and the science to back their claims up.

Why do you put up this incredible strawman argument instead of arguing against something that I've actually said?

You put up these vague references to people whom you can't name (other than Dawkins) and you don't provide any references for any of them yet you claim these somehow are representative of scientists.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Your arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins

It's funny how you think Dawkins has so much authority. You assign him more authority than anyone in the scientific community would.


Now some are saying maybe it is not merely the appearance. Maybe it is actually designed.

And that's fine - now they have to prove it and provide the evidence ny references for any of them yet you claim these somehow are representative of scientists.

=========================================
It's funny how you think Dawkins has so much authority. You assign him more authority than anyone in the scientific community would.
============================================

If he's taken it upon himself to be a very vocal advocate in a combative public sense, don't blame me for that.

It is not my fault that you find him an embaressment.

========================================
Now some are saying maybe it is not merely the appearance. Maybe it is actually designed.

And that's fine - now they have to prove it and provide the evidence and the science to back their claims up.
======================================

In the search for Extraterrestial Life via radio signals from outerspace - is it necessary to prove that a civilization is sending a list of say, only prime numbers, by radio transmission? Perhaps it is enough to research that we are on the right tract to assume so.

If a list of only prime numbers were to arrive at earth by radio, it would be reasonable to look in the direction of an intelligent agent. The proof of such may not immediately follow. Do you agree with this?

So I think you are eager for proof perhaps only as an exscuse not to even consider the possibility. Perhaps you're just raising the bar on others but leaving it low for your own cherished beliefs.



==============================
You put up these vague references to people whom you can't name (other than Dawkins) and you don't provide any references for any of them yet you claim these somehow are representative of scientists.
=========================

You can find the reference in The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins. At at the public library and only have limited time to give you the page number.

Now as for the affirmation of Dawkin's statement on a definition of biology you can check a memo written to Phillip Johnsen by Francis Crick.

Johnsen, wrote this "Darwinian biologists must keep repeating that reminder to themselves because otherwise they might become conscious of the reality that is staring them in the face and trying to get their attention."

That was in response to Crick's statement "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evoloved."

2nd statement - evolutionists Crick

1rst statement a response by ID proponent Johnsen.

Fair enough? See I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist page 119, by Turek and Geisler.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
It's funny how you think Dawkins has so much authority. You assign him more authority than anyone in the scientific community would.
============================================

If he's taken it upon himself to be a very vocal advocate in a combative public sense, don't blame me for that.

It is n ...[text shortened]... I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist page 119, by Turek and Geisler.[/b]

If he's taken it upon himself to be a very vocal advocate in a combative public sense, don't blame me for that.

Umm, I'm not blaming you for that. I'm blaming you for taking him as being the arc-evolutionist and seeing him as the representative of science. That's something you did, not him.

It is not my fault that you find him an embaressment.

I don't find him an embarrassment. I NEVER said that I did. I have no idea where you got this from.

If a list of only prime numbers were to arrive at earth by radio, it would be reasonable to look in the direction of an intelligent agent. The proof of such may not immediately follow. Do you agree with this?

Somewhat, because we have a comparison. If we NEVER see any list of prime numbers coming from space and we suddently get this in a distinct format then that would be worth looking further.

So I think you are eager for proof perhaps only as an exscuse not to even consider the possibility. Perhaps you're just raising the bar on others but leaving it low for your own cherished beliefs.

You are wrong. I have told you more than once that I don't have a problem if ID is accepted - the only condition I have is that it should go through the same rigours every other scientific theory has to go through, and it's not. The proponents of ID have to do the research, show how their falsifiable predictions are well, not falsified, come up with real data and evidence as to how their claims match the existing evidence.

Are you sure you are not doing what you are accusing me of doing?

You can find the reference in The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins. At at the public library and only have limited time to give you the page number.

You mean the reference to the other scientists? That is what I am referring to. I doubt Dawkins necessarily put studies on what other scientists are thinking in that book. Although I am interested in reading that one at some point.

Fair enough?

Better, but not exactly what I was asking for. I was wondering how you have determined that this is representative of all evolutionary biologists?

You realize that no one scientist speaks for all of science?

Originally posted by KellyJay

Bump for KJ to post his detailed explanation (which he's promised) regarding this previous statement:

"I have the same evidence for design as you do for evolution"
(KJ Pg28)

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
If he's taken it upon himself to be a very vocal advocate in a combative public sense, don't blame me for that.

Umm, I'm not blaming you for that. I'm blaming you for taking him as being the arc-evolutionist and seeing him as the representative of science. That's something you did, not him.

[i] It is not my fault that you find him an embare olutionary biologists?

You realize that no one scientist speaks for all of science?

==============================================
Umm, I'm not blaming you for that. I'm blaming you for taking him as being the arc-evolutionist and seeing him as the representative of science. That's something you did, not him.
===========================================

If you find Dawkins an embaressment just quote me someone else and say it represents a more mature viewpoint.

I stand by what I wrote. I didn't say Dawkins was the only evolutionist.


================================
I don't find him an embarrassment. I NEVER said that I did. I have no idea where you got this from.
===========================================

Hush Hush about the guy who says if you're not an evolutionists you must be mentally ill or ignorant, don't quote this guy Richard Dawkins. That's the tone I get from you reply.

Okay, You've established that you're no particular fan of Dawkins. Alright. good for you.


===================================
You are wrong. I have told you more than once that I don't have a problem if ID is accepted - the only condition I have is that it should go through the same rigours every other scientific theory has to go through, and it's not.
============================================

I think that is as it should be. What makes you think that some ID researchers are afraid of these rigours?

=========================================
Better, but not exactly what I was asking for. I was wondering how you have determined that this is representative of all evolutionary biologists?

You realize that no one scientist speaks for all of science?
====================================

Someone on this board just DID speak for all science - pontificating that ID was NOT science but a faith matter.

Why don't you go tell that poster that he ought not to try to speak for all science ?

I will be watching you for consistency. You posture yourself like you want to be fair and balanced.

Okay, I'll be clocking and timing you on that to see if you practice what you preach for others who are not evolutionists, to do.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================================
Umm, I'm not blaming you for that. I'm blaming you for taking him as being the arc-evolutionist and seeing him as the representative of science. That's something you did, not him.
===========================================

If you find Dawkins an embaressment just quote me someone else and say it ...[text shortened]... o see if you practice what you preach for others who are not evolutionists, to do.[/b]

If you find Dawkins an embaressment just quote me someone else and say it represents a more mature viewpoint.

What?!? I do not find Dawkins to be an embarrassment. I said that in my post, did you not read that part?

I didn't say Dawkins was the only evolutionist.

I did not claim that you did. You did put his quote up as if it represented the views of the entire scientific community though.

Hush Hush about the guy who says if you're not an evolutionists you must be mentally ill or ignorant, don't quote this guy Richard Dawkins. That's the tone I get from you reply.

If that's what you get from my reply, then you're not understanding what I'm saying.

Okay, You've established that you're no particular fan of Dawkins. Alright. good for you.

I don't dislike Dawkins. Like many people there are things that I agree and disagree with him on.

I think he knows more about evolution than you or I do - MUCH more and so I would hold his views on evolution with some respect.

What makes you think that some ID researchers are afraid of these rigours?

Because the proponents of ID by enlarge spend more on PR than science. The discovery institute spends more hiring a PR firm than they do giving grants to people researching the supposed science they are supporting.

Someone on this board just DID speak for all science - pontificating that ID was NOT science but a faith matter.

ID right now isn't science. That's not speaking for all science, that's just expressing their opinion. I can't speak for them though, I'm me.

Why don't you go tell that poster that he ought not to try to speak for all science ?

Was he or was he expressing his opinion? Why do I have to do your dirty work and go after whomever you want me to?

I can't and won't respond to every post that I disagree with.

I will be watching you for consistency. You posture yourself like you want to be fair and balanced.

Okay, I'll be clocking and timing you on that to see if you practice what you preach for others who are not evolutionists, to do

Whatever. I honestly don't really care whether you think I'm being consistent or not. I don't say this as an insult, but beware that just because I don't post something in response to someone doesn't mean that I agree with them.

I do want to be fair and balanced, but I don't think that matches what you would necessarily see as being fair and balanced. After all, I don't think it's fair to teach ID alongside evolution in science class as being equal.

I think it's expressly unfair to our students to "teach the controversy" as ID proponents and creationists want.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
If you find Dawkins an embaressment just quote me someone else and say it represents a more mature viewpoint.

What?!? I do not find Dawkins to be an embarrassment. I said that in my post, did you not read that part?

I didn't say Dawkins was the only evolutionist.

I did not claim that you did. You did put his quote up as if it r to "teach the controversy" as ID proponents and creationists want.

===========================================
I do want to be fair and balanced, but I don't think that matches what you would necessarily see as being fair and balanced. After all, I don't think it's fair to teach ID alongside evolution in science class as being equal.

I think it's expressly unfair to our students to "teach the controversy" as ID proponents and creationists want.
==========================

I don't think you have to "teach the controversy" by explicitily mentioning Intelligent Design.

There are enough thoughtful and logical young people who realize the implied contraversy in some of the Evolutionist's ideas.

Many young minds realize that Evolutionist explanations are inadaquate to explain much of the world they see around them.

The fact that you have the blessing of the government to propogandize and reward your students with good grades for the consumption of your propoganda will not cause some to not notice the contraversial side of the debate.

They can always get another opinion from other sources.

I believe it was Mark Twain who aptly said "Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education."

Originally posted by jaywill
===========================================
I do want to be fair and balanced, but I don't think that matches what you would necessarily see as being fair and balanced. After all, I don't think it's fair to teach ID alongside evolution in science class as being equal.

I think it's expressly unfair to our students to "teach the controversy" as ID prop who aptly said [b]"Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education." [/b]

I don't think you have to "teach the controversy" by explicitily mentioning Intelligent Design.

No you don't, but I'm against teaching the controversy and teaching intelligent design as science (until it becomes science).

The fact that you have the blessing of the government to propogandize and reward your students with good grades for the consumption of your propoganda will not cause some to not notice the contraversial side of the debate.

Just because you call it propaganda doesn't make it propaganda.

I really don't think you are trying to be fair and balanced.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I don't think you have to "teach the controversy" by explicitily mentioning Intelligent Design.

No you don't, but I'm against teaching the controversy and teaching intelligent design as science (until it becomes science).

[i] The fact that you have the blessing of the government to propogandize and reward your students with good grades for ...[text shortened]... sn't make it propaganda.

I really don't think you are trying to be fair and balanced.

Mind you propoganda can be true or false.