  |
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Quote: | | they use the canons of science to try and determine what could and what couldn't be produced by natural causes. |
Oh really? And how do they determine this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think you have SETI right. They examine signals from space to see which ones are just random noise and which ones might be attempts to communicate. They are doing EXACTLY the same science as the ID people. |
No they aren't. I don't even see how you can attempt to make that argument.
| Quote: | | it's the same test used to determine whether Mt. Rushmore is designed or the product of unguided random forces. |
...
| Quote: | | that is what ID scientists do. They test the theory that unguided forces brought life into existence or caused a human cell to form. They test that hypothesis in the same way that forensic scientists would test the hypothesis that a given fire was arson and not accidental. |
A forensic scientist scours an area looking for evidence of human involvement aka tangible things like human hair, fingerprints, blood, DNA, etc.. ID "scientists" look for what? GodDNA? God's fingerprints? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timetheos
Known Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
| Quote: | Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | | Quote: | | they use the canons of science to try and determine what could and what couldn't be produced by natural causes. |
Oh really? And how do they determine this? |
Well it is certainly not rocket science. They look for certain patterns. They look to see if certain means are adapted to accomplish certain ends. The question is even simpler tho....if I took you to Mt. Rushmore, why would you think it was designed? If I took you to the Grand Canyon, why would you think it wasn't?
People do this kind of thing instinctively. Everyone recognizes a watch as being the product of ID. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | | No they aren't. I don't even see how you can attempt to make that argument. |
Here is the wiki on SETI:
SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is the collective name for a number of activities to detect intelligent extraterrestrial life. The general approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet – an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science (see, e.g., claims in Skeptical Inquirer [1]).
So the SETI scientist are trying to determine which noise is merely random noise and which noises are attempt to communicate. This is exactly the same thing as ID. It is entirely within the realm of science.
| Quote: | | A forensic scientist scours an area looking for evidence of human involvement aka tangible things like human hair, fingerprints, blood, DNA, etc.. ID "scientists" look for what? GodDNA? God's fingerprints. |
ID scientists look for evidence that a given thing was designed. They run tests to see if there is any possible way this thing could have been formed in a purely unguided way. The same tests a forensic scientist might perform to determine the nature of a crime or not.
I can specifically recall one show on TV where a judge accused a man of murdering his wife. They used blood stains and the location of the wounds on her body to convict the man. Later, another detective actually built a complete replica of the "murder" scene and showed how the lady had very likely died as a result of falling down the stairs.
So this was the question the detectives were up against. Was this woman's death intelligently designed or was it the product of unguided forces? Is that science? Of course it is, and it is the same science as ID.
Just b/c you are afraid of the consequences of ID science is no reason to try and discredit it as pseudo-science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | if I took you to Mt. Rushmore, why would you think it was designed? |
Because I know through rational thought and scientific evidence (the massive amount of documentation of the creation of Mt. Rushmore by humans).
| Quote: | | If I took you to the Grand Canyon, why would you think it wasn't? |
Because of rational thinkers like all of the geologists referenced in this article who have done decades of scientific studies to determine where the Grand Canyon came from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....ref=slogin
Thank goodness they didn't just look at the Grand Canyon and say "wow, this is too complex! It must be God!" like ID "scientists" do. 
| Quote: | | People do this kind of thing instinctively |
Narrow-minded people do.
| Quote: | | Everyone recognizes a watch as being the product of ID. |
ID doesn't deal in watches, Mr. Paley. It deals in causes of life, origins of the universe, etc., and it can provide NO evidence towards design in any of those cases.
You also didn't answer my question. How do they determine that the Grand Canyon must have been designed and not naturally formed? Or anything, for that matter? If there's no evidence that it was created by a human, it must have been designed by someone else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timetheos
Known Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | So the SETI scientist are trying to determine which noise is merely random noise and which noises are attempt to communicate. This is exactly the same thing as ID. It is entirely within the realm of science. |
No, it's not. ID says there are some things that we can't explain; therefore there is an Intelligent Designer.
If SETI said "We got a signal we can't explain, therefore there are aliens." They would be laughed out of the scientific community.
Furthermore, there are already some who are claiming DETI is pseudo-science, so you wouldn’t be wise to hitch your argument to that post to strongly. (RTFW: Read the fucking wikipedia).
| Quote: | | ID scientists look for evidence that a given thing was designed. They run tests to see if there is any possible way this thing could have been formed in a purely unguided way. The same tests a forensic scientist might perform to determine the nature of a crime or not. |
So tell us Corno, what are these tests? Where are their results?
| Quote: | | So this was the question the detectives were up against. Was this woman's death intelligently designed or was it the product of unguided forces? Is that science? Of course it is, and it is the same science as ID. |
1) Don't confuse a court of law with the "court of science".
2) A real scientist couldn't say whether the person was shoved or not. The best they could say it "the likely hood of this fall occurring by anything other than a force of X+-j newtons applied at Y+-i angle is Z+-n percent". Who applied that force if anyone? Motive? Is that percentage a reasonable doubt? Those things aren't science.
And sure, you might be able to find some asshole who will make certian claims, but lots of people will do shit for money or an agenda: again, that's not science.
| Quote: | | Just b/c you are afraid of the consequences of ID science is no reason to try and discredit it as pseudo-science. |
Who's afraid of any fucking consequences?? I believe there is a creator you moron. Even if we could somehow magically PROVE there is a creator, that doesn't make your particular religion correct. Maybe it was Brahma? Maybe the Muslims or Mormons have it right. Maybe the Deists do.
I find it utterly pathetic that some Christians are so insecure in their faith that they need science to somehow justify it. Disgusting really.
I'm concerned about this whole thing because science is a very useful tool, and idiots like you and Johnson want to taint and corrupt it because you have an agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | So the SETI scientist are trying to determine which noise is merely random noise and which noises are attempt to communicate. This is exactly the same thing as ID. It is entirely within the realm of science. |
They aren't the same thing, and ID isn't within the realm of science (how would you know anyway? you know nothing about science). SETI studies noise and attempts to find recognizable or repeating patterns which we can discern as possible attempts to communication.
| Quote: | | D scientists look for evidence that a given thing was designed. They run tests to see if there is any possible way this thing could have been formed in a purely unguided way. |
Let's hear about these tests then! What tests are they running corno and what are those tests proving? How do they prove that something like the universe must have been designed?
| Quote: | The same tests a forensic scientist might perform to determine the nature of a crime or not.
I can specifically recall one show on TV where a judge accused a man of murdering his wife. They used blood stains and the location of the wounds on her body to convict the man. Later, another detective actually built a complete replica of the "murder" scene and showed how the lady had very likely died as a result of falling down the stairs.
So this was the question the detectives were up against. Was this woman's death intelligently designed or was it the product of unguided forces? Is that science? Of course it is, and it is the same science as ID. |
I'm loving this. You keep comparing ID to actual scientific things and saying "ID is just like them! they do the same things!" yet you haven't listed a single thing that ID actually does (the "tests" they perform and the evidence they have to come to the conclusions they do, for two examples). You're being intentionally vague because, just like every other ID "scientist", you have NOTHING TO GO ON.
| Quote: | | Just b/c you are afraid of the consequences of ID science is no reason to try and discredit it as pseudo-science. |
I'm not afraid of the consequences. If there is a god, awesome. If there isn't a god, awesome. I could give a damn less; I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. ID "scientists" have put a lot of money into trying to convince people that creationism renamed is science. It isn't science because it has no evidence to prove its hypothesis. No amount of atheist fear-mongering changes that fact.
I mean you asked me about the situation with the prayer and the river parting and I said I would give points to a god theory if it were to be unexplainable. Where are the documented examples of rivers parting on command? Hell, where are the documented examples of anything happening that supports what ID and ultimately creationism are arguing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I find it utterly pathetic that some Christians are so insecure in their faith that they need science to somehow justify it. |
It's because they know their religion is dying. The majority of young people here don't give a shit about it. And instead of focusing on how to make churches more friendly to kids, modernizing their message, etc., they think that bending science to their will can help their message. It's obviously not working. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Because I know through rational thought and scientific evidence (the massive amount of documentation of the creation of Mt. Rushmore by humans). |
so the only reason you think Mt Rushmore was designed is because people tell you this and you can read that it was so in the history books? Isn't there something inherent in the mountain itself that sorta gives one a clue it was designed?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | If I took you to the Grand Canyon, why would you think it wasn't? |
Because of rational thinkers like all of the geologists referenced in this article who have done decades of scientific studies to determine where the Grand Canyon came from... |
well I hate to sound arrogant here but I am able to discern the lack of design just by looking at it.
| Quote: | | ID doesn't deal in watches, Mr. Paley. It deals in causes of life, origins of the universe, etc., and it can provide NO evidence towards design in any of those cases. |
Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth... Newton.
So evidently there is evidence but it doesn't convince you. It did convince many of the greatest minds in history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Timetheos wrote: | | No, it's not. ID says there are some things that we can't explain; therefore there is an Intelligent Designer. |
not quite. ID says that the origin of certain objects cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation.
It is not just a "God of the gaps" theory.
| Quote: | | Furthermore, there are already some who are claiming DETI is pseudo-science, so you wouldn’t be wise to hitch your argument to that post to strongly. (RTFW: Read the wikipedia). |
people say all sorts of things. the consensus is that it is science.
| Quote: | | So tell us Corno, what are these tests? Where are their results? |
the test for design is called specified complexity.
| Quote: | | 2) A real scientist couldn't say whether the person was shoved or not. The best they could say it "the likely hood of this fall occurring by anything other than a force of X+-j newtons applied at Y+-i angle is Z+-n percent". Who applied that force if anyone? Motive? Is that percentage a reasonable doubt? Those things aren't science. |
so forensics is not a science?
| Quote: | | I find it utterly pathetic that some Christians are so insecure in their faith that they need science to somehow justify it. Disgusting really. |
why is it so disgusting for a person to want a reasonable faith? In other words, a faith that is not just mere belief but belief that is supported by good sound evidence. I think that is a highly commendable thing. It is something the greatest Christians pursued zealously with varying degrees of success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornopean
Forum Elder
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | They aren't the same thing, and ID isn't within the realm of science (how would you know anyway? you know nothing about science). SETI studies noise and attempts to find recognizable or repeating patterns which we can discern as possible attempts to communication.
|
what test(s) would they use to distinguish attempts to communicate from random noise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timetheos
Known Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | not quite. ID says that the origin of certain objects cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation.
It is not just a "God of the gaps" theory. |
Same Shit Different Day. Try again Corno.
| Quote: | | people say all sorts of things. the consensus is that it is science |
Because they don't jump to conclusions.
| Quote: | | the test for design is called specified complexity |
First, I didn't ask for the name of it. List some actual peer reviewed studies (results). Second, one test for a complete field of science is bullshit.
| Quote: | | so forensics is not a science? |
Some is, some isn't. Just like psychology and other soft sciences.
| Quote: | | why is it so disgusting for a person to want a reasonable faith |
There is a yawning gap between "reasonable" and "proven". It's not unreasonable to believe in God. It's unreasonable to try to inject God into Physics, Chemistry, and Biology.
| Quote: | | In other words, a faith that is not just mere belief but belief that is supported by good sound evidence. |
What is love? Can you prove it? Is it seperate from it's physical processes? From it's evolutionary processes? Science can't prove it. It's a different realm than science.
| Quote: | | thing. It is something the greatest Christians pursued zealously with varying degrees of success. |
Prove it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | not quite. ID says that the origin of certain objects cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. |
And they prove that how?
| Quote: | | It is not just a "God of the gaps" theory. |
Yes, it is.
| Quote: | | the test for design is called specified complexity. |
| Quote: | | Specified complexity is an argument proposed by William Dembski and used by him in his works promoting intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept is intended to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory. |
Essentially, "at a certain point in complexity, it's impossible for object X to be made naturally." That's not scientific in the slightest.
Not to mention this:
| Quote: | | The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology.[1][2][3] |
| Quote: | | why is it so disgusting for a person to want a reasonable faith? In other words, a faith that is not just mere belief but belief that is supported by good sound evidence. |
There is no evidence. That's the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | so the only reason you think Mt Rushmore was designed is because people tell you this and you can read that it was so in the history books? Isn't there something inherent in the mountain itself that sorta gives one a clue it was designed? |
If someone were put in front of Mount Rushmore with no knowledge of anything in our society, they would have no idea that it was created by someone. Then I come along. I could PROVE to them providing MOUNDS of evidence that it was created. I could show them documentaries about the process, pictures and video of its construction, and if they still weren't completely sure, I could likely use a bit of forensics to find residue from the explosives they used to shape the faces.
I could PROVE to them that it was designed, and THAT is science. ID "scientists" cannot even begin to provide the slightest bit of evidence to prove that things like the universe or humans were designed, and it's therefore NOT science.
Last edited by Toxic on Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
