20+ Questions for Theists
Thinking

Poole, UK

#353 Jul 18, 2014
Shotgun!
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.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#354 Jul 18, 2014
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.
I'm not getting the order of the above that you are. No idea why ours are different. Clearly you haven't fled the discussion, so I retract that statement.

Lewontin's point is that we cannot allow nonmaterialist positions within science because they undermine scientific inquiry.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#355 Jul 18, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Why do you blindly worship Lewontin? I don't.
<quoted text>
He's one of the top evolutionary theorists and did a lot of good work on race and genetics.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#356 Jul 18, 2014
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?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I like arguing. You're the only person who champions ID with any decent amount of knowledge about it. Everyone else just links to outdated and disproved papers that are quite meaningless
2. I could be wrong, and learn something - and, if I am wrong, I want to know
<quoted text>
If I'm not mistaken, it claims to be the main one.
<quoted text>
So...he doesn't actually describe their "theory" there or any hypotheses until much later in the discussion and this is what he says:
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory, and it holds that the deep complexity and clearly evident design in organisms is the result of an intelligent agent or cause. Given that even the simplest cells are comprised of nanomachines that currently defy our own intelligent capability to produce, yet have the general features of many machines we have made on a larger scale, intelligent design theory is simply an inference to the best explanation as to the origin of the design." If I could just summarize this perhaps in a more simpler form?"
He goes on to cite "irreducible complexity" as the minimum requirement to make that call.
So, that's a potential testable hypothesis if you can:
1. define what irreducible complexity is
1a. show that it cannot have evolved
1b. show that it must have been designed
You have several problems there. All attempts by ID people to produce something that is irreducibly complex have failed - they're all reducibly complex. Second, irreducibly organizationally complex features can evolve, they are designed by natural selection.
Additionally, design hypotheses necessitate a designer - you're eventually going to collapse to such impossible questions as:
"why did the designer choose this trait?"
"what's the designer like?"
"when did the designer stop? Is it still active?"
etc. So design hypotheses rapidly lead nowhere. They are incapable of making predictions - the best you have is
"the designer designed trait X and so much want trait X"
That's in sharp contrast to Dawkins' "selfish gene theory" which:
1. models gene behavior
2. makes predictions about gene behavior that are testable and disprovable
3. allows many hypotheses to be drawn from the main statement
4. has great explanatory power with regards to novel information (i.e., why does this bit of DNA exist? It doesn't seem to do anything - oh, it's a parasite gene, along for the ride).
Repost for Buck

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#357 Jul 19, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not getting the order of the above that you are. No idea why ours are different. Clearly you haven't fled the discussion, so I retract that statement.
Lewontin's point is that we cannot allow nonmaterialist positions within science because they undermine scientific inquiry.
Your sequence is the same as mine. When you said I "fled the discussion", I had the most recent post in the discussion.

That's not what Lewontin said, that's what you said. Lewontin said materialist philosophy takes priority over scientific observations.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#358 Jul 19, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I like arguing. You're the only person who champions ID with any decent amount of knowledge about it. Everyone else just links to outdated and disproved papers that are quite meaningless
2. I could be wrong, and learn something - and, if I am wrong, I want to know
<quoted text>
If I'm not mistaken, it claims to be the main one.
<quoted text>
So...he doesn't actually describe their "theory" there or any hypotheses until much later in the discussion and this is what he says:
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory, and it holds that the deep complexity and clearly evident design in organisms is the result of an intelligent agent or cause. Given that even the simplest cells are comprised of nanomachines that currently defy our own intelligent capability to produce, yet have the general features of many machines we have made on a larger scale, intelligent design theory is simply an inference to the best explanation as to the origin of the design." If I could just summarize this perhaps in a more simpler form?"
He goes on to cite "irreducible complexity" as the minimum requirement to make that call.
So, that's a potential testable hypothesis if you can:
1. define what irreducible complexity is
1a. show that it cannot have evolved
1b. show that it must have been designed
You have several problems there. All attempts by ID people to produce something that is irreducibly complex have failed - they're all reducibly complex. Second, irreducibly organizationally complex features can evolve, they are designed by natural selection.
Additionally, design hypotheses necessitate a designer - you're eventually going to collapse to such impossible questions as:
"why did the designer choose this trait?"
"what's the designer like?"
"when did the designer stop? Is it still active?"
etc. So design hypotheses rapidly lead nowhere. They are incapable of making predictions - the best you have is
"the designer designed trait X and so much want trait X"
That's in sharp contrast to Dawkins' "selfish gene theory" which:
1. models gene behavior
2. makes predictions about gene behavior that are testable and disprovable
3. allows many hypotheses to be drawn from the main statement
4. has great explanatory power with regards to novel information (i.e., why does this bit of DNA exist? It doesn't seem to do anything - oh, it's a parasite gene, along for the ride).
__________

Your own citation of Minnich disproves your claim that ID proponents admit to having no hypothesis.

Furthermore, you are incorrect in stating they have found no example of irreducible complexity. They have proposed many, and none of them has yet been refuted. The December 2013 mainstream refereed paper supports irreducible complexity in features of DNA.

Finally, your objection based on the "eventual collapse" due to the need to describe a designer is bogus. The hypothesis is modest in that it only follows as far as the observations lead.

Big Bang Theory did not collapse because of the need to describe a cause.

religionisillnes s

London, UK

#359 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I like arguing. You're the only person who champions ID with any decent amount of knowledge about it. Everyone else just links to outdated and disproved papers that are quite meaningless
2. I could be wrong, and learn something - and, if I am wrong, I want to know
<quoted text>
If I'm not mistaken, it claims to be the main one.
<quoted text>
So...he doesn't actually describe their "theory" there or any hypotheses until much later in the discussion and this is what he says:
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory, and it holds that the deep complexity and clearly evident design in organisms is the result of an intelligent agent or cause. Given that even the simplest cells are comprised of nanomachines that currently defy our own intelligent capability to produce, yet have the general features of many machines we have made on a larger scale, intelligent design theory is simply an inference to the best explanation as to the origin of the design." If I could just summarize this perhaps in a more simpler form?"
He goes on to cite "irreducible complexity" as the minimum requirement to make that call.
So, that's a potential testable hypothesis if you can:
1. define what irreducible complexity is
1a. show that it cannot have evolved
1b. show that it must have been designed
You have several problems there. All attempts by ID people to produce something that is irreducibly complex have failed - they're all reducibly complex. Second, irreducibly organizationally complex features can evolve, they are designed by natural selection.
Additionally, design hypotheses necessitate a designer - you're eventually going to collapse to such impossible questions as:
"why did the designer choose this trait?"
"what's the designer like?"
"when did the designer stop? Is it still active?"
etc. So design hypotheses rapidly lead nowhere. They are incapable of making predictions - the best you have is
"the designer designed trait X and so much want trait X"
That's in sharp contrast to Dawkins' "selfish gene theory" which:
1. models gene behavior
2. makes predictions about gene behavior that are testable and disprovable
3. allows many hypotheses to be drawn from the main statement
4. has great explanatory power with regards to novel information (i.e., why does this bit of DNA exist? It doesn't seem to do anything - oh, it's a parasite gene, along for the ride).
__________
Your own citation of Minnich disproves your claim that ID proponents admit to having no hypothesis.
Furthermore, you are incorrect in stating they have found no example of irreducible complexity. They have proposed many, and none of them has yet been refuted. The December 2013 mainstream refereed paper supports irreducible complexity in features of DNA.
Finally, your objection based on the "eventual collapse" due to the need to describe a designer is bogus. The hypothesis is modest in that it only follows as far as the observations lead.
Big Bang Theory did not collapse because of the need to describe a cause.
You're simply an illiterate creationist idiot with no evidence of god to speak of.

Most people would f*ck off and admit they have nothing in your situation, but I guess there's a reason you ended up in prison before you became a creationist ?
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#360 Jul 22, 2014
irreducible complexity - when a creationist is too thick to understand evolution, he opens his loud arrogant mouth anyway, wasting the time of scientists worldwide.
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#361 Jul 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I like arguing. You're the only person who champions ID with any decent amount of knowledge about it. Everyone else just links to outdated and disproved papers that are quite meaningless
2. I could be wrong, and learn something - and, if I am wrong, I want to know
<quoted text>
If I'm not mistaken, it claims to be the main one.
<quoted text>
So...he doesn't actually describe their "theory" there or any hypotheses until much later in the discussion and this is what he says:
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory, and it holds that the deep complexity and clearly evident design in organisms is the result of an intelligent agent or cause. Given that even the simplest cells are comprised of nanomachines that currently defy our own intelligent capability to produce, yet have the general features of many machines we have made on a larger scale, intelligent design theory is simply an inference to the best explanation as to the origin of the design." If I could just summarize this perhaps in a more simpler form?"
He goes on to cite "irreducible complexity" as the minimum requirement to make that call.
So, that's a potential testable hypothesis if you can:
1. define what irreducible complexity is
1a. show that it cannot have evolved
1b. show that it must have been designed
You have several problems there. All attempts by ID people to produce something that is irreducibly complex have failed - they're all reducibly complex. Second, irreducibly organizationally complex features can evolve, they are designed by natural selection.
Additionally, design hypotheses necessitate a designer - you're eventually going to collapse to such impossible questions as:
"why did the designer choose this trait?"
"what's the designer like?"
"when did the designer stop? Is it still active?"
etc. So design hypotheses rapidly lead nowhere. They are incapable of making predictions - the best you have is
"the designer designed trait X and so much want trait X"
That's in sharp contrast to Dawkins' "selfish gene theory" which:
1. models gene behavior
2. makes predictions about gene behavior that are testable and disprovable
3. allows many hypotheses to be drawn from the main statement
4. has great explanatory power with regards to novel information (i.e., why does this bit of DNA exist? It doesn't seem to do anything - oh, it's a parasite gene, along for the ride).
__________
Your own citation of Minnich disproves your claim that ID proponents admit to having no hypothesis.
Furthermore, you are incorrect in stating they have found no example of irreducible complexity. They have proposed many, and none of them has yet been refuted. The December 2013 mainstream refereed paper supports irreducible complexity in features of DNA.
Finally, your objection based on the "eventual collapse" due to the need to describe a designer is bogus. The hypothesis is modest in that it only follows as far as the observations lead.
Big Bang Theory did not collapse because of the need to describe a cause.
You can't pretend to talk about science, without looking like an idiot. Evolution isn't a theory.
Thinking

Salisbury, UK

#362 Jul 23, 2014
Absolutely Lewontin has done some great science. But why does Puck Frick blindly worship his words?
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
He's one of the top evolutionary theorists and did a lot of good work on race and genetics.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#363 Jul 23, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Absolutely Lewontin has done some great science. But why does Puck Frick blindly worship his words?
<quoted text>
No worship here.

Lewontin's words expose Darwinism as a philosophy, which he admits takes priority over science.

Oh,...almost forgot. You are a moron.
Thinking

Salisbury, UK

#364 Jul 23, 2014
Puck Frick is just another religitard with a criminal record.
And I don't mean Cliff Richard's back catalogue.
religionisillness wrote:
irreducible complexity - when a creationist is too thick to understand evolution, he opens his loud arrogant mouth anyway, wasting the time of scientists worldwide.
Thinking

Salisbury, UK

#365 Jul 23, 2014
Prove your claim.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No worship here.
Lewontin's words expose Darwinism as a philosophy, which he admits takes priority over science.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#366 Jul 23, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Prove your claim.
<quoted text>
Prove he stated what he stated??

That's a tough one.

Thanks for the challenge, Stinking.
Thinking

Salisbury, UK

#367 Jul 23, 2014
Puck Frick extends his criminal ways to quote mining and posting incomplete definitions.
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't pretend to talk about science, without looking like an idiot. Evolution isn't a theory.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#368 Jul 23, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Puck Frick extends his criminal ways to quote mining and posting incomplete definitions.
<quoted text>
Incomplete definitions is a crime?

When did they pass that law?

Damn, I need to keep up.

Thanks, Stinking.
Patrick

United States

#369 Jul 23, 2014
Pope Francis prayed for an end to Christian persecution in the Middle East on Sunday, one day after Christians were forced to flee the village of Mosul in Iraq following threats from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), a jihadist militant group.

While leading a moment of silence in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican on Sunday, Francis said that Christians suffering persecution in the Middle East will be the subject of his "constant prayers."

"Violence isn't overcome with violence. Violence is conquered with peace," the pope told the crowd gathered at St. Peter's Square. "Our brothers and sisters are persecuted, they are chased away."

The Catholic leader's plea came one day after thousands of Christian families were forced to pour out of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city with a 6,000-year-old Assyrian history. The families chose to flee to northern Iraq, where they would be protected by Kurdish forces, after members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant demanded that they either pay the "jizya," or tax for being non-Muslim, convert to Christianity, or die.

Members of the jihadist militant group announced the demand on Saturday, reportedly painting the doors of Mosul inhabitants who were Christian. In response, media outlets are reporting that the vast majority of Christians have fled the area, packing up their cars and family members and heading for safer areas in the north.

According to Fox News, while Iraq's Christian population used to be about one million before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the number has since diminished to 450,000 as Islamic militants target Christian churches and pressure them into leaving the country.

Recently, Islamic militants have taken over the Chaldean Catholic and Syriac Orthodox cathedrals in Mosul. Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Louis Sako recently penned an open letter to Iraqis, warning them that the disappearance of Christians from the country could result in a serious humanitarian crisis.

"[…] for the first time in the history of Iraq, Mosul is now empty of Christians," Sako's letter read, in part. "Iraq is heading towards a humanitarian, cultural and historical disaster," the patriarch added.

Since June, the ISIS has made significant advancements in gaining security control in both Syria and Iraq. In response to the recent persecution of Christians in Mosul, Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani has asked international humanitarian agencies to set up relief and aid for the thousands of Christian families displaced from their homes.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#370 Jul 24, 2014
Patrick wrote:
Pope Francis prayed for an end to Christian persecution in the Middle East on Sunday, one day after Christians were forced to flee the village of Mosul in Iraq following threats from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), a jihadist militant group.
While leading a moment of silence in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican on Sunday, Francis said that Christians suffering persecution in the Middle East will be the subject of his "constant prayers."
"Violence isn't overcome with violence. Violence is conquered with peace," the pope told the crowd gathered at St. Peter's Square. "Our brothers and sisters are persecuted, they are chased away."
The Catholic leader's plea came one day after thousands of Christian families were forced to pour out of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city with a 6,000-year-old Assyrian history. The families chose to flee to northern Iraq, where they would be protected by Kurdish forces, after members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant demanded that they either pay the "jizya," or tax for being non-Muslim, convert to Christianity, or die.
Members of the jihadist militant group announced the demand on Saturday, reportedly painting the doors of Mosul inhabitants who were Christian. In response, media outlets are reporting that the vast majority of Christians have fled the area, packing up their cars and family members and heading for safer areas in the north.
According to Fox News, while Iraq's Christian population used to be about one million before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the number has since diminished to 450,000 as Islamic militants target Christian churches and pressure them into leaving the country.
Recently, Islamic militants have taken over the Chaldean Catholic and Syriac Orthodox cathedrals in Mosul. Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Louis Sako recently penned an open letter to Iraqis, warning them that the disappearance of Christians from the country could result in a serious humanitarian crisis.
"[…] for the first time in the history of Iraq, Mosul is now empty of Christians," Sako's letter read, in part. "Iraq is heading towards a humanitarian, cultural and historical disaster," the patriarch added.
Since June, the ISIS has made significant advancements in gaining security control in both Syria and Iraq. In response to the recent persecution of Christians in Mosul, Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani has asked international humanitarian agencies to set up relief and aid for the thousands of Christian families displaced from their homes.
You mentioned Kurds.

What about the whey?
Patrick

United States

#371 Jul 24, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
You're simply an illiterate creationist idiot with no evidence of god to speak of.
Most people would f*ck off and admit they have nothing in your situation, but I guess there's a reason you ended up in prison before you became a creationist ?
and a supporter of Social Darwinism approach of the right wing?

Advocacy groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are suing Tennessee, alleging state officials have prevented thousands of people from signing up for Medicaid to spite ObamaCare.

SPLC, the Tennessee Justice Center and the National Health Law Program (NHLP) said they have filed a class action lawsuit titled Wilson v. Gordon in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee arguing the state has made it tougher for people to enroll into its Medicaid program, known as TennCare.

Sam Brooke, an SPLC attorney, says state officials made changes to TennCare last year in protest of the Affordable Care Act, which aims to increase the number of people who can enroll in Medicaid.

“Tennessee officials are sacrificing the health of the state’s most vulnerable citizens just to score political points,” he said.“They’re throwing a monkey wrench into their own Medicaid program so they can demonize the federal government.”

The advocates said the state last year stopped providing face-to-face counseling for people trying to sign up for TennCare, instead telling people to go online to HealthCare.gov , the federal ObamaCare exchange.

Brooke said the site doesn’t include all the eligibility criteria Tennessee uses to let people sign up, which means many people who are eligible aren’t able to join.

The advocacy groups said they have tried for months to resolve the problem with TennCare officials, but have been told that the state can’t fix the problem without a new computer system, which isn’t expected to be implemented anytime soon.

The advocacy groups say Tennessee is violating the Medicaid Act, which requires state Medicaid programs to process applicants and let them know if they qualify for the program within 45 days. If there is a delay, applicants are supposed to get a hearing.

The groups said Tennessee’s recent changes means it can take applicants two to three times longer to find out if they qualify for TennCare.

So far, Brooke and the other attorneys are representing 11 plaintiffs who have applied for TennCare and claim to have had their applications delayed, in some cases for almost 6 months. The lawyers are hoping bring thousand of more people into the lawsuit.

TennCare spokesperson Sarah Tanksley said the agency recieved "hundreds of pages of documents" Wednesday in connection to the lawsuit and did not have any comments other than they were in the process of reviewing the case brought against them.

War on the poor challenges those of different philosophies to act
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#372 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No worship here.
Lewontin's words expose Darwinism as a philosophy, which he admits takes priority over science.
Oh,...almost forgot. You are a moron.
Dumb creationist can't accept the fact of Evolution because he's too thick.

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
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 19 min Rosa_Winkel 255,308
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 43 min Chimney1 31,282
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr JustASkeptic 13,298
Majority of Scots now have no religion 2 hr emperorjohn 8
News Millionaire Entrepreneur Wants to 'Make Atheism... 3 hr Magic Utah Uwear 2
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 6 hr emperorjohn 51,156
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 7 hr emperorjohn 4,349
More from around the web