religionisillnes s

Exeter, UK

#373 Jul 24, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
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
No proof for god. You may stop lying now, ignorant religious people who don't know when to shut up.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#374 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That's only your interpretation.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#375 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Your own citation of Minnich disproves your claim that ID proponents admit to having no hypothesis.
They claim to have no theory.

I am further claiming that their hypotheses are not genuine science, but pseudoscience. Minnich certainly wouldn't agree with me.
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.
All of them have been refuted and the article you are mentioning was not talking about irreducible complexity in the sense that ID uses the word to mean "could not have evolved as it is, but must have been designed."
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.
False - the BB theory is under investigation to describe causes.

If ID was actually demonstrated, it too would be investigated to find the designer. Since that is an appeal to the non-disprovable and untestable, it is an appeal to ignorance. Hence it immediately loses all explanatory power. ID is not science.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#376 Jul 24, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Absolutely Lewontin has done some great science. But why does Puck Frick blindly worship his words?
<quoted text>
If you take that paragraph out of context, it's easy to interpret it to show a critique of materialism. But that's not what Lewontin is doing - he's arguing that materialism is the only way to investigate science - adding any kind of dualism into science derails explanatory power into worthless dogma.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#377 Jul 24, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's only your interpretation.
"because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism".

pri·or1
&#712;pr&#299;&#60 1;r/Submit
adjective
1.
existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#378 Jul 24, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
They claim to have no theory.
I am further claiming that their hypotheses are not genuine science, but pseudoscience. Minnich certainly wouldn't agree with me.
<quoted text>
All of them have been refuted and the article you are mentioning was not talking about irreducible complexity in the sense that ID uses the word to mean "could not have evolved as it is, but must have been designed."
<quoted text>
False - the BB theory is under investigation to describe causes.
If ID was actually demonstrated, it too would be investigated to find the designer. Since that is an appeal to the non-disprovable and untestable, it is an appeal to ignorance. Hence it immediately loses all explanatory power. ID is not science.
1. I already knew you do not regard ID is not science. You do not get to decide whether it is science, particularly when you have been consistently wrong about what it is.

2. ID does not definte irreducible complexity as "could not have evolved as it is, but must have been designed." You are factually inaccurate.

3. The Big Bang was accepted as a legitimate theory absent any hypothesis for a cause. You are applying a different standard to ID. That is not scientific.

4. You are confusing a hypothesis with the implications of a hypothesis. Implications have no bearing on the legitimacy of the hypothesis itself. The BB theory, to many who initially resisted it, had the implication of a "creator". The hypothetical implication does not detract from the hypothesis itself.

5. Every objection you proposed here is in violation of the standards of science you apply elsewhere. There is a word for that. Starts with an "h".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#379 Jul 24, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take that paragraph out of context, it's easy to interpret it to show a critique of materialism. But that's not what Lewontin is doing - he's arguing that materialism is the only way to investigate science - adding any kind of dualism into science derails explanatory power into worthless dogma.
If that's what he meant, he should have said that.

"we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations"

What he said was the materialist philosophy is "a priori", it takes priority over following the scientific evidence, and we therefore have to create the apparatus of science to give only the explanations that fit the philosophy.

I salute his honesty.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#380 Jul 24, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

All of them have been refuted...
Which proposed examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted?

I think I have kept up fairly well, and I've seen none successfully refuted.

I have seen some attempts. They failed.

You might wish to back this statement up. Or not. I really don't care, since it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#381 Jul 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Which proposed examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted?
I think I have kept up fairly well, and I've seen none successfully refuted.
I have seen some attempts. They failed.
You might wish to back this statement up. Or not. I really don't care, since it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Creationist criminal with no evidence of god.
religionisillnes s

London, UK

#382 Jul 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I already knew you do not regard ID is not science. You do not get to decide whether it is science, particularly when you have been consistently wrong about what it is.
2. ID does not definte irreducible complexity as "could not have evolved as it is, but must have been designed." You are factually inaccurate.
3. The Big Bang was accepted as a legitimate theory absent any hypothesis for a cause. You are applying a different standard to ID. That is not scientific.
4. You are confusing a hypothesis with the implications of a hypothesis. Implications have no bearing on the legitimacy of the hypothesis itself. The BB theory, to many who initially resisted it, had the implication of a "creator". The hypothetical implication does not detract from the hypothesis itself.
5. Every objection you proposed here is in violation of the standards of science you apply elsewhere. There is a word for that. Starts with an "h".
No such thing as god or jesus - you're just another religious liar who is arrogant and wants attention from Atheists who you know are right.

Fairytales are no match for science, grow up and face up to your mortality like everyone else.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#384 Jul 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism".
pri·or1
&#712;pr&#299;&#60 1;r/Submit
adjective
1.
existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.
Quote mining:

"Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#385 Jul 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Which proposed examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted?
I think I have kept up fairly well, and I've seen none successfully refuted.
I have seen some attempts. They failed.
You might wish to back this statement up. Or not. I really don't care, since it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15791.full

"Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an &#945;-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and we identified in &#945;-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general."

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#386 Jul 25, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I already knew you do not regard ID is not science. You do not get to decide whether it is science, particularly when you have been consistently wrong about what it is.
2. ID does not definte irreducible complexity as "could not have evolved as it is, but must have been designed." You are factually inaccurate.
3. The Big Bang was accepted as a legitimate theory absent any hypothesis for a cause. You are applying a different standard to ID. That is not scientific.
4. You are confusing a hypothesis with the implications of a hypothesis. Implications have no bearing on the legitimacy of the hypothesis itself. The BB theory, to many who initially resisted it, had the implication of a "creator". The hypothetical implication does not detract from the hypothesis itself.
5. Every objection you proposed here is in violation of the standards of science you apply elsewhere. There is a word for that. Starts with an "h".
1. The consensus of scientists is that ID is not science.

Oh, and I've become a reviewer for one of the top anth journals in America, so actually I do get to voice my professional opinion on the matter, were I asked to review an article that included ID.

2. You are invited to provide the correct definition. I suspect you won't, though.

3. False. Not only do we have a massive amount of evidence for the BB, it's also predicted by our physics theories that make everyday tech, like GPS, work. There is no evidence for ID and no theoretical framework predicts it.

4. The BB does not have the implications of a creator unless you happen to believe in one.

5. Nope. ID is not tenable. If it were, you would have no issues providing its theoretical position and examples of hypotheses it produces.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#387 Jul 25, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Quote mining:
"Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining
I provided the context, and the full quote.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#388 Jul 25, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15791.full
"Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular machines for protein transport. How these molecular machines evolved is a fundamental question. Mitochondria were derived from an &#945;-proteobacterial endosymbiont, and we identified in &#945;-proteobacteria the component parts of a mitochondrial protein transport machine. In bacteria, the components are found in the inner membrane, topologically equivalent to the mitochondrial proteins. Although the bacterial proteins function in simple assemblies, relatively little mutation would be required to convert them to function as a protein transport machine. This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general."
This refutes no example offered by ID, and ID theorists disagree with no part of it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#389 Jul 25, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The consensus of scientists is that ID is not science.
Oh, and I've become a reviewer for one of the top anth journals in America, so actually I do get to voice my professional opinion on the matter, were I asked to review an article that included ID.
2. You are invited to provide the correct definition. I suspect you won't, though.
3. False. Not only do we have a massive amount of evidence for the BB, it's also predicted by our physics theories that make everyday tech, like GPS, work. There is no evidence for ID and no theoretical framework predicts it.
4. The BB does not have the implications of a creator unless you happen to believe in one.
5. Nope. ID is not tenable. If it were, you would have no issues providing its theoretical position and examples of hypotheses it produces.
1. Scientific conclusions are not derived by consensus. They derive from observation and testing.

In the unlikely event you are asked to review an ID article, you may express your opinion as you wish. Your opinion will not decide the issue. Scientists in command of a much higher level of expertise on the matter than you, like Scott Minnich and David Snoke, disagree with you, and assert that ID is indeed science. When someone like you gets to erroneously define what ID is, you can define it as not being science. But that exercise, in itself, is not science. It is advocacy.

ad·vo·ca·cy
noun,
the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal:

2. If you are going to make a critical judgement on whether an article addresses "irreducible complexity" as ID addresses it, it is incumbent on you to know how the term is used, rather than demand a subsequent definition from others. Again, Minnich and Snoke are more steeped in the subject than you, and both rightly state that the article uses "irreducible complexity" exactly as Behe does.

3 & 4. "No evidence for ID" is simply a mis-statement of fact. I offered no detraction of the validity of BB theory, but simply that objections to its implications are not objections to the validity of the theory. You offered objections to potential implications of ID as evidence against the theory. Scientists resisted BB initially because of implications of a creator. Talk to them if you disagree, not me.

5. I had no problem offering the theoretical framework. That's why I did it.

You argue your position poorly on this subject. I suggest if you are going to attempt an actual scientific rebuttal of ID, you would need to learn something about it other than the elementary popular objections, most of which are fallacious.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#390 Jul 25, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing as god or jesus - you're just another religious liar who is arrogant and wants attention from Atheists who you know are right.
Fairytales are no match for science, grow up and face up to your mortality like everyone else.
Yammer, yammer, yammer....
Patrick

United States

#391 Jul 26, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This refutes no example offered by ID theorists disagree with no part of it.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) dropped his plans to sue President Obama on Friday, explaining to reporters,“I realized it would mean doing something.”

In a brief appearance before the press, Speaker Boehner talked about his gradual realization that “filing a lawsuit requires effort and, yes, work.”

“I came to the conclusion that while suing the President would be the best thing for the American people, it would also require that I do something,” he said, struggling to retain his composure.“And that would be a betrayal of everything I stand for.”

Mr. Boehner’s decision drew praise from fellow Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who called it “courageous.”

“I know this was a very difficult decision for John,” McConnell said.“But at the end of the day you have to be true to your core values.”
religionisillnes s

Exeter, UK

#393 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yammer, yammer, yammer....
Says the proven creationist idiot with no evidence for god or against science.
religionisillnes s

Exeter, UK

#394 Jul 27, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Scientific conclusions are not derived by consensus. They derive from observation and testing.
In the unlikely event you are asked to review an ID article, you may express your opinion as you wish. Your opinion will not decide the issue. Scientists in command of a much higher level of expertise on the matter than you, like Scott Minnich and David Snoke, disagree with you, and assert that ID is indeed science. When someone like you gets to erroneously define what ID is, you can define it as not being science. But that exercise, in itself, is not science. It is advocacy.
ad·vo·ca·cy
noun,
the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal:
2. If you are going to make a critical judgement on whether an article addresses "irreducible complexity" as ID addresses it, it is incumbent on you to know how the term is used, rather than demand a subsequent definition from others. Again, Minnich and Snoke are more steeped in the subject than you, and both rightly state that the article uses "irreducible complexity" exactly as Behe does.
3 & 4. "No evidence for ID" is simply a mis-statement of fact. I offered no detraction of the validity of BB theory, but simply that objections to its implications are not objections to the validity of the theory. You offered objections to potential implications of ID as evidence against the theory. Scientists resisted BB initially because of implications of a creator. Talk to them if you disagree, not me.
5. I had no problem offering the theoretical framework. That's why I did it.
You argue your position poorly on this subject. I suggest if you are going to attempt an actual scientific rebuttal of ID, you would need to learn something about it other than the elementary popular objections, most of which are fallacious.
You don't even believe in science, so your 'scientific' argument FAILS AT THE FIRST HURDLE.

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) 14 min I Am No One_ 238,881
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 4 hr karl44 7,431
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 5 hr thetruth 29
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 5 hr thetruth 79
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 7,176
News .com | What hope is there without God? Wed Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed thetruth 2,171
More from around the web