• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Intelligent Design and Science – In or Out?

id debate intelligent design is id science god and sience creationism neutral id position

  • Please log in to reply
1221 replies to this topic

#721 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:23 AM

Why can't Intelligent Design and Evolution exist together? ie that a 'creator' designed us to evolve the way we have. Why does the timescale HAVE to be a short 6000 years and that the human race and other animals (and indeed the universe) popped into existance from nothing from that time only?
 
Why cant God and Science get along? Perhaps God occupies another plain of existance or another dimension. Perhaps He/It exists outside of our universe alltogether. Perhaps He/It created it but no longer plays into it's affairs and is gone. Perhaps He/It is just the radiation or dark matter/energy holding everything together and has no conciousness or awareness as we know it.
 
Whoever God is, he is the ultimate and all knowing Scientist. Everything abut the 'big bang' as we know it was so perfect in it's spread that a fraction of a fractions difference would have made life as we know it impossible. Yes however that happened it was a master stroke of genious. 'Intelligently Designed' in the ultimate expression of the word. For Religious people to avoid and hate science is to hate God IMO. Imitation is the highest form of flattery so if you want to please God, then be the best and brightest you can be and uncover and unlock the secrets to the universe!! :) I.D. and Evolution/Science has no reason to not be possible to work as one. You just need to step outside the doctrines a little and open your minds to another possibility.
 
If we except that 'God' is our creator, then it shouldn't matter what it is. If a lump of 'coal' exploded and created our universe. That 'coal' is our God. You might not be happy with what your God is but it is what it is. Accept it :) If our universe was the result of some alien lab experiment, that alien, unknownst to him is our God. Maybe the universe is God's mind/body and we are just byproducts. Do you think the bacteria inside your body knows what it's like in the macro world or who we are or how they came to existance? We might think they live in a micro world but perhaps WE are also in somebodies micro world in an even larger macro universe then we could ever comprehend.
 
 
 


ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. ID makes that clear in its own definition. ID IS NOT THEISTIC EVOLUTION. Prominent theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller demonstrate this very well. Please stop talking about this subject until you know more about it. The more you conflate the words intelligent design with Intelligent Design (the movement) you contribute to the confusion and misinformation, the more you help the creationists legitimize ID in the public's view.

#722 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:30 AM

http://en.m.wikipedi...istic_evolution

Note the excerpt from Darwin's Origin, then mlook lower to see this;


"A number of notable proponents of theistic evolution, including Kenneth R. Miller, John Haught, George Coyne, Denis Alexander, Simon Conway Morris, Francisco J. Ayala and Francis Collins are all critics of Intelligent design."

Edited by Duchykins, 10 July 2014 - 02:31 AM.


#723 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:53 AM

What Addx said. Shadowhawk asks an ancient question: how did life begin? But then shadowhawk asserts that "ID is not about God.". Then Shadowhawk says ID actually is evolution -- but without god? Are you renaming your Intelligent Designer?

Please reread what Duchykins has been patiently explaining for pages and pages. Read this, absorb it, then answer it.

ID has to be a scientific theory of biology, it has to explain the diversity of life and outline a biological mechanism. It needs to be able to produce models that make accurate predictions as evolution does. It needs to be able to unify the disjointed biological subdisciplines as evolution does. It also needs to be useful in other fields of research like evolution is. This is the only way it can be competition for the modern synthesis. ID currently does none of these things, and if it remains in its current state it never will do any of these things. And the more you dodge the question of ID's lack mechanism, the more it becomes obvious to everyone else how morally and intellectually bankrupt you are, ID is.


And I wish EVERYONE would nix the ridicule -- including me. But at this point I find it hard to reach a conclusion beyond the the harsh "liar" tag that's pinned onto your internet chest.
  • Agree x 1

#724 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:04 AM

No kidding, what I am trying to say that all current belief systems could be very well false. Including atheism. The only system out there working towards the truth without propaganda, bias, doctrine or caring one way ot another what the real truth is, is science. And they are doing a pretty good job uncovering data while they are at it (like the pictures of the chromosones I posted above).

 

Any system whether it be ID, young earth, creationism, a mix of all or the other common religions etc are all tied down in a doctrine that prohibits exploration outside of its system of the truth. Anybody in these systems will forever have the 'wool over their eyes'. Even atheists (the hardcore ones that know the difference between atheism and agnostism but still identify as atheist) have 'closed the doors'. Name one great scientist who was a genuine hardcore atheist.

 

ID and evolution might be mutually exclusive, but its all political BS for sides that think the must be opposing. Humans want to identfy with something. Some people like to be part of something, 'a little different', 'unique' or 'extreme'. You wouldn't be noticed if you were part of a club that embraced any and all possibilties. Where is the mind control? :) I just propse something outside of it and ask the question: (not stating any theories I said before as factual) "Why cant they both be somewhat right". Forgot the politics of each side.

 

Every system, every belief that is out these was conceived by a human, therefore it is far from perfect. Science is the truth. It doesn't have bias. It is what it is and never changes. If God is out there, he must be made of pure science. :)

 

 

 

 

 




ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. ID makes that clear in its own definition. ID IS NOT THEISTIC EVOLUTION. Prominent theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller demonstrate this very well. Please stop talking about this subject until you know more about it. The more you conflate the words intelligent design with Intelligent Design (the movement) you contribute to the confusion and misinformation, the more you help the creationists legitimize ID in the public's view.

 

 


Edited by shifter, 10 July 2014 - 03:05 AM.


#725 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:36 AM

Science is a method created and used by humans, it is not a god, it is not godly, and it is not a phenomenon unto itself.


They (evolution and ID) are not both 'somewhat' right. Evolutionary theory does not say anywhere that gods had no part in diversifying life. ID denies natural selection on its face, denies speciation events, as well as denying the ability of mutation alone causing speciation. ID is ANTIevolution, there can be no blend of this. That is all part of ID's official definition (Discovery Institute), do you understand? You are talking about THEISTIC EVOLUTION which is in conflict with ID, and is not in conflict with evolution.

I don't know what you think a "hardcore atheist" is, and frankly I don't care. I also don't know what you mean by "great scientists" but if you mean in a historical context then your argument is stupid because atheism was for a very long time absolutely socially unacceptable and even harshly punished when discovered, ranging anywhere from social shunning to disinheritance to losing homes/jobs/children to violence. The closest things to atheists you see in history are those who were deistic or pantheistic or a mix of both, at least publicly anyway. Those were the the furthest people could get from monotheism and organized religion while holding onto an idea of some Creator, which got them a pass from theists (most of the time). This is back when deists were called "atheists" by theists and before. There was no real choice to be openly atheist in the historical theistic cultures.

Science is not perfect. One of the crucial parts of science is peer review, which is vulnerable to human error. Observations can be unintentionally skewed by cognitive biases, as can interpretations of results. Science is a method developed by humans, it is founded in philosophy, it can change, it has changed before and is very likely to change again in the future precisely because it is imperfect.

Edited by Duchykins, 10 July 2014 - 03:44 AM.


#726 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:43 AM

What Addx said. Shadowhawk asks an ancient question: how did life begin? But then shadowhawk asserts that "ID is not about God.". Then Shadowhawk says ID actually is evolution -- but without god? Are you renaming your Intelligent Designer?

Please reread what Duchykins has been patiently explaining for pages and pages. Read this, absorb it, then answer it.
 

ID has to be a scientific theory of biology, it has to explain the diversity of life and outline a biological mechanism. It needs to be able to produce models that make accurate predictions as evolution does. It needs to be able to unify the disjointed biological subdisciplines as evolution does. It also needs to be useful in other fields of research like evolution is. This is the only way it can be competition for the modern synthesis. ID currently does none of these things, and if it remains in its current state it never will do any of these things. And the more you dodge the question of ID's lack mechanism, the more it becomes obvious to everyone else how morally and intellectually bankrupt you are, ID is.


And I wish EVERYONE would nix the ridicule -- including me. But at this point I find it hard to reach a conclusion beyond the the harsh "liar" tag that's pinned onto your internet chest.

 

I could answer this but I have made it clear so many times.  Study ID so you know what you are talking about.  I am not renaming anything.



#727 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 10 July 2014 - 04:02 AM

Study ID so you know what you are talking about.  I am not renaming anything.


"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, while conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity."

In this "game" as you said, you're an ID gamer who does not believe that the designer is the Christian deity?

#728 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 04:09 AM

Nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by shadowhawk, 10 July 2014 - 04:45 AM.


#729 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:10 AM

Study ID so you know what you are talking about.  I am not renaming anything.

"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, while conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States. Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity."

In this "game" as you said, you're an ID gamer who does not believe that the designer is the Christian deity?

Hell, Wiki should change that to ALL of the proponents at the Discovery Institute are Christians. If there is one there who is not a Christian I've not read a whisper of it in ten years. They're all Christian, and mostly American Protestant to boot.

Read the Wedge document?

#730 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:23 AM

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Wedge_strategy

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[2] The strategy also aims to affirm what it calls "God's reality."[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4] The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public's understanding of science.[5]

Intelligent design is the religious[6] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism,[7][8][9] naturalism,[8][10] and evolution,[11][12][13][14] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[15][16] The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.




Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[22] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[23]

Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the Institute as the source of the document.[24][25] The Institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document".[26] The Institute also portrays the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia."[27] Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the Discovery Institute chose to use an image of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam.[28] Meyer once claimed that the Wedge Document was stolen from the Discovery Institute's offices.[24]







Other statements of Johnson's acknowledge that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."







The Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign is designed to leave the scientific establishment looking close-minded, appearing as if it is attempting to stifle and suppress new scientific discoveries that challenge the status quo. This is made with the knowledge that it's unlikely many in the public understand advanced biology, or can consult the current scientific literature or contact major scientific organizations to verify Discovery Institute claims. This part of the strategy also plays on undercurrents of anti-intellectualism and distrust of science and scientists that can be found in particular segments of American society.[47]

There is a noticeable conflict between what intelligent design backers tell the public through the media and what they say before conservative Christian audiences.[48] This is studied and deliberate as advocated by wedge strategy author Phillip E. Johnson.[49] When speaking to a mainstream audience and to the media, ID proponents cast ID as a secular, scientific theory. But when speaking to what the Wedge Document calls their "natural constituency, namely (conservative) Christians," ID proponents express themselves in unambiguously religious language. This in the belief that they cannot afford to alienate their constituency and major funding sources, virtually all of which are conservative religious organizations and individuals such as Howard Ahmanson.[37]

#731 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:27 AM

The original pdf scan of the manifesto is linked at the bottom.

#732 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:36 AM

Wow, man... I mean just Wow, man, I actually grieve that simple, uncomplicated and mostly nice people fall for this line of eloquence.  This is precisely what Plato warned the young and vulnerable about with the sophists.  Your guy you posted as rep for your view?  He is deliberately spreading poison, man.  If I could go through this transcript with my red pen, we could dissect this shit to study the polygraph.  The lying seems so effortless.  And oh look, he's even mimicking nerdy cute science jokes.  This is the cultural war we're having here in the US for all you international breezers.  The god people over here think they've got science all maneuvered into place.  They're working that shit, man haha...  Next up?  ID Explains so-called "Climate Change" (nudge nudge, wink wink)
  • like x 1

#733 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 06:02 AM

Professional liars. Always to be distinguished from their sheep, who know next to nothing of evolutionary biology and less of science in general. The Discovery Institute bunch actually know what the modern synthesis is, they know they are misrepresenting, and this is most obvious when they quote mine scientific literature. Quotes are painstakingly selected from the literature; they had to read the whole document in order to get the quotes in the first place, or at least the paragraph they are quoting a sentence from (they almost never quote full paragraphs or sentences, they love to quote partial sentences and then string partial sentences together with elipses), so they KNOW what the context is when they choose to quote something and blow it out of proportion. You have to do it carefully so that you don't accidentally include anything that gives away the original intended meaning or anything that detracts from the way you are trying to portray the quote. This means they are *deliberately* misleading their own sheep, misrepresenting and lying by omission.

But to them this is acceptable because it serves the overriding goal: to make science and society in general more theocratic and serving of fundamentalist Christian beliefs, to defeat what they perceive to be atheistic "scientific materialism" ever-increasingly encroaching upon society, which they believe is degrading society through loss of Christian values (whatever those are) in science, in schools, in politics.

#734 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:13 AM

Response to sthira: "What are the biomechanisms of ID?"
 
The same as evolution except ID in place of random mutations.(RM)

Lmao, that means natural selection is part of ID? You're an idiot.

He is either an insane crackpot or one of the best online trolls in existence. No one on this forum takes him or his arguments seriously. Id causing random mutations is about the dumbest things on this entire forum. I cannot believe he just tried to argue that. Now all of probability is intelligent design. OKAY lunatic

Nonsense.
 
 

 
 
 
 

You're an idiot and certainly not a good judge of sense.

#735 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 12:01 PM

Response to addx:
 
One  (1) is no answer at all and thus is pure ignorance.  No evidence or science.


And did you read the explanation under 3)?

May I quote myself:
 

3) is denial of "we don't know" which emotionally motivates investing effort into spreading such denial rather than seeking some truth that would answer the initial question.


The fact, that this comment of yours above is the only thing commented or reacted to from my entire post, and in spite of me actually predicting it, quite literally shows and confirms that it is true what I have written and that your emotional response is quite clearly 3) -> denial and "invention" of deux-ex-machina-answers instead of finding real truths. to deny 1)

I think this deserves an applause, really.


You other people are not grasping the importance of what happened here.

I proved that his emotional response to "I don't know" is strong enough that it caused an emotional reaction.

Look at what was written by him towards the "state of 'I don't know" -> the state of I don't know is described by his own mind as "no answer at all and thus is pure ignorance. No evidence or science."

Can you see the fear, hate and disgust towards the state of "I don't know"?

He only answered to that single thing in my post, proving this the only thing that emotionaly aroused him.

And the emotional arousal caused the response to spew out his utter despise towards the "I don't know" answer showing that it is unacceptable for his mindset.

There must be an answer as ignorance is an unacceptable state and must be removed IMMEDIATELY (path of least resistance).

From there on starts his plight. To remove this despise towards himself he simply decides immediately what the truth is and now has an answer. God did it. From there on start all rationalizations how this came to be. Unfortunately, his brain knows that every person he interacts with will not have the same lie or self-deceat in his head so he is compulsed to ensure it to make himself feel safe about his decision on what the truth is. If people around him agree, there is no danger of anyone finding out he lied to himself - except himself.

Edited by addx, 10 July 2014 - 12:07 PM.


#736 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 10 July 2014 - 02:16 PM

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Wedge_strategy

[SNIP]
The wedge strategy .... [SNIP] goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values...


So Shadowhawk is a tool for this Discovery thinktank.  Do they at least pay you, Shadowhawk, for your time and efforts, or are you doing this for the benefit of humanity?

Freedom of expression is a sacred right to us.  But these shadowhawk threads?  Seriously borderline.  I suppose it's best for all to air this stuff out and investigate their tactics.  But who is the moderator of this forum anyway, and what's your thinking behind "allowing" this sort of propaganda? I mean, this is a website about extending healthy longevity...  What does any of this proselytizing  have to do with this aims of this website?

Moderator?  

#737 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:07 PM

Response to addx:
 
One  (1) is no answer at all and thus is pure ignorance.  No evidence or science.

And did you read the explanation under 3)?

May I quote myself:
 

3) is denial of "we don't know" which emotionally motivates investing effort into spreading such denial rather than seeking some truth that would answer the initial question.

The fact, that this comment of yours above is the only thing commented or reacted to from my entire post, and in spite of me actually predicting it, quite literally shows and confirms that it is true what I have written and that your emotional response is quite clearly 3) -> denial and "invention" of deux-ex-machina-answers instead of finding real truths. to deny 1)

I think this deserves an applause, really.
You other people are not grasping the importance of what happened here.

I proved that his emotional response to "I don't know" is strong enough that it caused an emotional reaction.

Look at what was written by him towards the "state of 'I don't know" -> the state of I don't know is described by his own mind as "no answer at all and thus is pure ignorance. No evidence or science."

Can you see the fear, hate and disgust towards the state of "I don't know"?

He only answered to that single thing in my post, proving this the only thing that emotionaly aroused him.

And the emotional arousal caused the response to spew out his utter despise towards the "I don't know" answer showing that it is unacceptable for his mindset.

There must be an answer as ignorance is an unacceptable state and must be removed IMMEDIATELY (path of least resistance).

From there on starts his plight. To remove this despise towards himself he simply decides immediately what the truth is and now has an answer. God did it. From there on start all rationalizations how this came to be. Unfortunately, his brain knows that every person he interacts with will not have the same lie or self-deceat in his head so he is compulsed to ensure it to make himself feel safe about his decision on what the truth is. If people around him agree, there is no danger of anyone finding out he lied to himself - except himself.

This is a good point and this extreme discomfort with unknowns is typical of theists in general (though not all) and universal among creationists.

#738 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:31 PM

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Wedge_strategy

[SNIP]
The wedge strategy .... [SNIP] goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values...

So Shadowhawk is a tool for this Discovery thinktank.  Do they at least pay you, Shadowhawk, for your time and efforts, or are you doing this for the benefit of humanity?

Freedom of expression is a sacred right to us.  But these shadowhawk threads?  Seriously borderline.  I suppose it's best for all to air this stuff out and investigate their tactics.  But who is the moderator of this forum anyway, and what's your thinking behind "allowing" this sort of propaganda? I mean, this is a website about extending healthy longevity...  What does any of this proselytizing  have to do with this aims of this website?

Moderator?  
I don't necessarily think SH works for the Discovery Institute. Frankly he is too ignorant and inept, he is just one of the sheep. People from the Discovery Institute tend to shut down discussions immediately when questions arise about ID's lack of explanatory power - 'how does ID explaim the diversity of life' is a question they do NOT want to hear under any circumstance. They won't want to talk about it. That's because they are fully aware ID is not a scientific theory for all reasons I've mentioned before.

But most Americans don't know what a scientific theory is, they don't know the difference between hypotheses, laws and theories. Most think a theory = unsubstantiated hypothesis and that a theory can graduate into a law if it gets enough 'proof' behind it. ID proponents cash in on this ignorance. Their manipulative little sayings about evolution being 'just a theory' WORK on the masses. Their pleas for science to be more democratic WORK because it appeals to people's innate sense of fairness and because people don't know how good science is done.

Edited by Duchykins, 10 July 2014 - 03:39 PM.


#739 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:37 PM

Thank you for your public service, Duchykins. (Many) professional biologists, colleagues in my field are too busy mired down in data to get too excited about this backward-thinking movement which Shadowhawk represents here. We're taught to pretty much ignore religion and its cultural effects. But ignoring it, pushing it under doesn't work, either. Exposure is best, I reckon, even in a small, harmless forum like this. Freedom of speech: I'm happy and encouraged people have the needed time and energy to dissect these assaults on science.

#740 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:46 PM

This is a good point and this extreme discomfort with unknowns is typical of theists in general (though not all) and universal among creationists.


It's not so much of a point, but a demonstration. The fact that he literally manifested the predicted thought pattern in spite of reading the prediction in advance shows how deep the denial runs in his psyche. I did not expect it so, on a plate, but there it is. If any of you people still think you're participating in a logical discussion rather than serving as external targets for his projections, you should now seriously reconsider it.

His state of perpetual tension requires antipods to argue with. Arguing deflates the tension temporarily giving the notion of "winning". But what is he winning?

He is winning everyone to accept some truth on his hearsay, or in translation, he is winning a status of a successfull truth owner, not a truth teller. A truth owner can change the truth as he sees fit. A truth teller can't. A truth teller is usually used for what he knows, a truth owner usually uses people by creating false truths around them to cause them to behave in some way.

#741 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:59 PM

Appreciate that, Sthira. :) It's my pleasure.

Edited by Duchykins, 10 July 2014 - 04:00 PM.


#742 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 04:22 PM

This is a good point and this extreme discomfort with unknowns is typical of theists in general (though not all) and universal among creationists.

It's not so much of a point, but a demonstration. The fact that he literally manifested the predicted thought pattern in spite of reading the prediction in advance shows how deep the denial runs in his psyche. I did not expect it so, on a plate, but there it is. If any of you people still think you're participating in a logical discussion rather than serving as external targets for his projections, you should now seriously reconsider it.

His state of perpetual tension requires antipods to argue with. Arguing deflates the tension temporarily giving the notion of "winning". But what is he winning?

He is winning everyone to accept some truth on his hearsay, or in translation, he is winning a status of a successfull truth owner, not a truth teller. A truth owner can change the truth as he sees fit. A truth teller can't. A truth teller is usually used for what he knows, a truth owner usually uses people by creating false truths around them to cause them to behave in some way.

Logical discussion with creationists about science? Nevar, haha.

The ID creationists 'win' if they can turn the topic into defending evolution. If they're allowed to spend one hour making arguments against evolution, with someone else addressing those arguments by defending evolution, and virtually none of the hour was spent scrutinizing ID rhetoric and providing positive arguments for ID, then ID creationists can better create the illusion that ID is a legitimate scientific alternative. This is simply taking advantage of one of our many unconscious cognitive biases and imperfections in reasoning. It doesn't much matter to them if this strategy doesn't work well in the academic and scientific communities, they focus on trying their case in the media and with the public, most people rely on intuitive reasoning and are undereducated in science so it works.
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#743 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 10 July 2014 - 04:30 PM

Undereducated in logic too. ID can be exposed for the fraud it is with exercises in logic alone. Even if someone was never terribly interested in biology and never learned much of it, but was interested in logic and knew more than the average person, they could easily spot the philosophical problems of ID, primarily the arguments from ignorance that fuel the teleological foundations of ID creationism.
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#744 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 06:03 PM

Proteins evolution

 

http://intelligentde...T16_35_28-07_00



#745 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 06:44 PM

Proteins evolution

 

http://intelligentde...T16_35_28-07_00


Duchvkins:  Hell, Wiki should change that to ALL of the proponents at the Discovery Institute are Christians. If there is one there who is not a Christian I've not read a whisper of it in ten years. They're all Christian, and mostly American Protestant to boot.

Read the Wedge document?


Not so and even if they were, so what?  Suppose there was a Jew on board or a moonie.  I have read the Wedge and it is not about Christianity but Naturalism.  The issue here is about science not bigotry.  
http://www.amazon.co...m/dp/0830823956
 

#746 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 06:55 PM

No one, and certainly not me says Natural selection is not true.  I have made this point several times in this topic.  What is in dispute is random mutations.  Of course name calling just reveals that you do not understand ID.  What a bunch of nonsense.  You don't have evolution without random mutations, any idiot knows that.


  • Unfriendly x 1

#747 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 06:59 PM

I noticed no one disagreed with the ID video I posted.  Lets call ID liars and uneducated but not deal with the facts.  Typical.



#748 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 07:35 PM

I noticed no one disagreed with the ID video I posted.  Lets call ID liars and uneducated but not deal with the facts.  Typical.


People refuse to either deal with "the facts" or perhaps they avoid to deal with you.

Since YOU find this typical this suggests that it happens to YOU often. Suggesting that people are avoiding YOU rather than "the facts".

Almost every person on this thread and all other threads of yours has commented at least one of your posts in an honest manner towards a debate. That means none of them avoided facts, they all avoid you once they get to know you.

#749 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 09:21 PM

 

I noticed no one disagreed with the ID video I posted.  Lets call ID liars and uneducated but not deal with the facts.  Typical.


People refuse to either deal with "the facts" or perhaps they avoid to deal with you.

Since YOU find this typical this suggests that it happens to YOU often. Suggesting that people are avoiding YOU rather than "the facts".

Almost every person on this thread and all other threads of yours has commented at least one of your posts in an honest manner towards a debate. That means none of them avoided facts, they all avoid you once they get to know you.

 

You are not dealing with the facts and this is your usual ad hominem.  No facts here so it must be .......   Have a nice day :)



#750 addx

  • Guest
  • 711 posts
  • 184
  • Location:croatia
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2014 - 10:20 PM

You are not dealing with the facts and this is your usual ad hominem.  No facts here so it must be .......   Have a nice day :)


I'm dealing with facts about you. 

 

I've tried discussing your topics but you use every manipulative tactics available hide logical fallacies and won't budge an inch and you do not respect anyone here or expect or want anything from anyone here except to follow your train of logic to your desired conclusion and you allow no possibility of any wrongness in your thoughts and so can not even begin to respect any ones point.  

 

So now I'm amusing myself by dissecting you. 

 

Your psyche that I managed to so clearly explain, predict and then even have you triggered to outright demonstrate the prediction really did make my day. 

 

Thanks :)







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: id debate, intelligent design, is id science, god and sience, creationism, neutral id position

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users