“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#331 Jul 8, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot which contention you are trotting now. Is there no hypothesis, or is the hypothesis not testable?
You need to better delineate your flip-flops.
So are you just going to continue to be a coward here or are you going to post the ID "theory"?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#332 Jul 9, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you just going to continue to be a coward here or are you going to post the ID "theory"?
The theory you reject? To reject it, you should know what it is.

If you were genuinely interested in knowing, you would have learned what it is before you rejected it.

I'll give you a hint - it involves evolution.

I have suffered fools enough.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#333 Jul 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory you reject? To reject it, you should know what it is.
If you were genuinely interested in knowing, you would have learned what it is before you rejected it.
I'll give you a hint - it involves evolution.
I have suffered fools enough.
1. You claimed you know the ID theory. You claimed to have written it on topix.
2. No one's ever seen it. I haven't. Polymath hasn't. DS hasn't. IANS hasn't. So if you posted it, it was before my time.

3. The ID website for scholars - the "Biologic Institute" - claims they don't have a theory. I imagine they would know, since they are the gathering place for scientists who consider their work to be ID work.

4. I've asked you repeatedly to post it - again, if you've done so before - but you refuse.

I can only summarize that one of two things are true:

1. You're afraid to post it
2. You're lying about having an ID theory

Anyways, it doesn't matter your reasons, lying or cowardice. You're proving my point. ID has no theory and you are both ashamed of that fact and unwilling to subject what passes for ID theory to scrutiny - even topix scrutiny.

So when you claim that I am no scientist, you're actually stating your deep seated fear of revealing yourself a fraud. Meh. Whatever, it's all good. I've ridiculed you repeatedly. I can understand why you'd want to flee.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#334 Jul 9, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You claimed you know the ID theory. You claimed to have written it on topix.
2. No one's ever seen it. I haven't. Polymath hasn't. DS hasn't. IANS hasn't. So if you posted it, it was before my time.
3. The ID website for scholars - the "Biologic Institute" - claims they don't have a theory. I imagine they would know, since they are the gathering place for scientists who consider their work to be ID work.
4. I've asked you repeatedly to post it - again, if you've done so before - but you refuse.
I can only summarize that one of two things are true:
1. You're afraid to post it
2. You're lying about having an ID theory
Anyways, it doesn't matter your reasons, lying or cowardice. You're proving my point. ID has no theory and you are both ashamed of that fact and unwilling to subject what passes for ID theory to scrutiny - even topix scrutiny.
So when you claim that I am no scientist, you're actually stating your deep seated fear of revealing yourself a fraud. Meh. Whatever, it's all good. I've ridiculed you repeatedly. I can understand why you'd want to flee.
If ID has no theory, why do you want me to post it?

That would be posted as this:...

Why do you want me to post "..."?

The Biologic Institute is not the only site for ID scholars.

Several scientists think ID has a theory (hypothesis):

Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript; Scott Minnich testimony:

Quesiton - "Did this conference demonstrate the utility of intelligent design as a scientific theory?"

Minnich: "I think so, in terms of our approach and what we found out."

I have a couple of questions for you about scientific theories.

1. What is the theory of undirected chemical evolution that has explained the origin of digital information and self-referential qualities of DNA?

2. Why do you affirm abiogenesis as the present operating theory even though it contradicts what we know from experiment and observation?

3. Is it scientific to accept as true what a theory requires, for the sake of the theory, given that the evidence contradicts it?
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#336 Jul 17, 2014
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, whereas religion is just any old bollocks that isn't required to fit observations of the real world.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>This is not quite correct. It seems dark energy and dark matter are mere theoretical constructs that aims to explain inconsistencies in gravitation (too little matter in universe). The Christian religion is a belief system and an acceptance of Who is our Creator, who is in final control, about who we are, why we are here, etc, It does not exclude application of our intellectual faculties, hence a fair number of some of the greatest scientists were/are believers.
The real world is what? What you understand it to be? If two chaps have different beliefs about the "real" world, what is the "real" world then?
If the Christian faith is bollocks, then one would expect all intelligent people to reject it? As previously suggested, the later discoveries in science seem to support rather than disprove the Bible. The following extract may be of interest: Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago.( http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evoluti... ). Of course there are arguments against it, but it shows that the possibility of "Eve" is not ruled out. So instead of later discoveries disproving the Biblical account, it supports the Bible.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#337 Jul 17, 2014
intelligent design isn't intelligent.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If ID has no theory, why do you want me to post it?
That would be posted as this:...
Why do you want me to post "..."?
The Biologic Institute is not the only site for ID scholars.
Several scientists think ID has a theory (hypothesis):
Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript; Scott Minnich testimony:
Quesiton - "Did this conference demonstrate the utility of intelligent design as a scientific theory?"
Minnich: "I think so, in terms of our approach and what we found out."
I have a couple of questions for you about scientific theories.
1. What is the theory of undirected chemical evolution that has explained the origin of digital information and self-referential qualities of DNA?
2. Why do you affirm abiogenesis as the present operating theory even though it contradicts what we know from experiment and observation?
3. Is it scientific to accept as true what a theory requires, for the sake of the theory, given that the evidence contradicts it?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#338 Jul 17, 2014
Thinking wrote:
intelligent design isn't intelligent.
<quoted text>
Hence he fled the discussion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#339 Jul 17, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hence he fled the discussion.
Oh? If you check, you'll see the last post in the discussion was mine.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#340 Jul 17, 2014
Thinking wrote:
intelligent design isn't intelligent.
<quoted text>
How would you know, since you have no clue what ID is?

Neither does Hiding.

I'll go ahead and tell you what you and she think it is.

You think it is a theory that a designer created and directed the development of the material and biological spheres.

There is no such scientific theory, and ID is not that.

I have explained what it is many times, and still the straw men persist.

I waste my time discussing it in this forum because the members here are deeply entrenched in atheism, to the point that no threat can be entertained.

Richard Lewontin, geneticist and world-renowned spokesman for evolutionary biology:

"... in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#341 Jul 17, 2014
He always does. Or pretends he's in jail again. Where all the Nobel prize winners for the sciences go.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hence he fled the discussion.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#342 Jul 17, 2014
You're wrong.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know, since you have no clue what ID is?
Neither does Hiding.
I'll go ahead and tell you what you and she think it is.
You think it is a theory that a designer created and directed the development of the material and biological spheres.
There is no such scientific theory, and ID is not that.
I have explained what it is many times, and still the straw men persist.
I waste my time discussing it in this forum because the members here are deeply entrenched in atheism, to the point that no threat can be entertained.
Richard Lewontin, geneticist and world-renowned spokesman for evolutionary biology:
"... in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#343 Jul 17, 2014
Thinking wrote:
You're wrong.
<quoted text>
Nice rebuttal.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#344 Jul 17, 2014
Yes.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice rebuttal.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#345 Jul 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh? If you check, you'll see the last post in the discussion was mine.
Nope.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#346 Jul 17, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know, since you have no clue what ID is?
Neither does Hiding.
I'll go ahead and tell you what you and she think it is.
You think it is a theory that a designer created and directed the development of the material and biological spheres.
There is no such scientific theory, and ID is not that.
I have explained what it is many times, and still the straw men persist.
I waste my time discussing it in this forum because the members here are deeply entrenched in atheism, to the point that no threat can be entertained.
Richard Lewontin, geneticist and world-renowned spokesman for evolutionary biology:
"... in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
You have to not quote mine that to understand what Lewontin was saying.

Anyways, he's right. Because when we give up our materialism, we lose explanatory power - and you get all kinds of go nowhere ideas that cannot be tested and disproved and so make for poor science.

Hence your dualism perspective cannot be science as science is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#347 Jul 18, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to not quote mine that to understand what Lewontin was saying.
Anyways, he's right. Because when we give up our materialism, we lose explanatory power - and you get all kinds of go nowhere ideas that cannot be tested and disproved and so make for poor science.
Hence your dualism perspective cannot be science as science is.
As of your announcement that I fled the discussion, your last post in the discussion was #333.

My last was #334.

Lewontin was not just saying we can't give up our materialism. He was saying we must hold to it even if the evidence contradicts it.

He says, essentially, materialist philosophy trumps science. He was affirming what I already knew.

And he was just being honest.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#348 Jul 18, 2014
Puck Frick doesn't even understand heirarchies of infinities. And he gets very angry.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to not quote mine that to understand what Lewontin was saying.
Anyways, he's right. Because when we give up our materialism, we lose explanatory power - and you get all kinds of go nowhere ideas that cannot be tested and disproved and so make for poor science.
Hence your dualism perspective cannot be science as science is.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#349 Jul 18, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
As of your announcement that I fled the discussion, your last post in the discussion was #333.
My last was #334.
Lewontin was not just saying we can't give up our materialism. He was saying we must hold to it even if the evidence contradicts it.
He says, essentially, materialist philosophy trumps science. He was affirming what I already knew.
And he was just being honest.
On the thread I'm seeing, my last post shows up as 345, which is right after your last one. Uh...if we aren't seeing the same thread, that's pretty strange.

My take on the Lewontin article is that materialism makes science (that without it, we would not have science), but I can see why you would draw the conclusion you did. Additionally, I see him as being honest.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#351 Jul 18, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
On the thread I'm seeing, my last post shows up as 345, which is right after your last one. Uh...if we aren't seeing the same thread, that's pretty strange.
My take on the Lewontin article is that materialism makes science (that without it, we would not have science), but I can see why you would draw the conclusion you did. Additionally, I see him as being honest.
Your post where you announced I had fled the discussion was #338.

Your previous post was #333, followed by my post #334.

To put it in sequence:

Hiding posts #333; Buck posts #334; Hiding posts Buck fled discussion,#338, when at that time, Buck had the latest entry in the discussion.

Lewontin acknowledges that materialist philosophy trumps science in science.

Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#352 Jul 18, 2014
Why do you blindly worship Lewontin? I don't.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post where you announced I had fled the discussion was #338.
Your previous post was #333, followed by my post #334.
To put it in sequence:
Hiding posts #333; Buck posts #334; Hiding posts Buck fled discussion,#338, when at that time, Buck had the latest entry in the discussion.
Lewontin acknowledges that materialist philosophy trumps science in science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Denisova 17,037
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 52 min Joe fortuna 235,876
The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr Eagle 12 855
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 4,939
Religiosity 2 hr thetruth 5
What evidence make you believe in God/gods? 2 hr thetruth 34
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr thetruth 1,674
More from around the web