Dissecting ID

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Another excellent source for peer-reviewed articles:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Thanks, Floortom, for the excellent suggestion.[/quote]

WOW, VERY impresive!! You mean peer-reviewed articles by those those who must agree with the society’s “satement of Faith”:

CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

  1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

  2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

  3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

  4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

ROFLMAO! You guys are truly, truly amazing. Never give up!

442

[quote]Xvim wrote:
…Also, on matters regarding geology and dating methods I’m more inclined to believe the words of a geologist or a physicist than I am a theologist. [/quote] Xvim, No need to believe the words of theologians if you wish. The aforementioned journal has hundreds of peer-reviewed abstracts and articles by geologists and physicists. So start inclining to believing…[quote]I have a pretty fundamental aversion to taking that approach that there is some foregone conclusion,[/quote] You’ve done exactly that. [quote] Evolution theory assumes nothing and tries to draw conclusions based on external evidence, [/quote] Patently false [quote]ID theory makes the presupostion that the Christian [/quote] and Jewish and Muslim [quote]God created everything as laid out in Genesis and then attempts to find support for that [/quote]True [quote]… being totally unable to find that support however,[/quote] False. Please see the numerous articles mentioned earlier[quote] Creationist then turn on the only viable [/quote] a very questionable use of that adjective [quote]theory[/quote] you should have used “hypothesis” [quote] presented so far and try to poke holes in it. [/quote] It’s easy to do with such a prepostorous “hypothesis”,[quote] one is faith based on the Judeo-Christian creation myth.[/quote] Nothing is more faith-based than the underlying foundation of uniformitarianism and evolutionism.

[quote]
One is science, one is philosophy.[/quote] Both are based on assumptions. [quote] This is so, because evolution stands on it’s own,[/quote] It is an unseaworthy ship, captained and manned by devoted disciples that are bailing for their lives. It lazily sails in circles and goes nowhere although those on shore are faithfully waiting for its triumphant return[quote] it does not require attacks on the ‘opposition’ to prop itself up[/quote] Then why the numerous “attacks” by yourself and others on this thread? Hypocrisy at is quintessence, huh? [quote] ID theorists, Creationists have no foundatin to stand on, [/quote] The foundation is much stronger than you think and much stronger than evolutionists foundation. [quote]the result is that any discussion of ID theory or Evolution results in the Creationists cutting and pasting 20 year old, already debunked material from creationist web sites.[/quote] See aforementioned journal for current non-debunked material.[quote]

Science is falsifiable, faith is not. You can argue the semantics of ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ and ‘laws’ vs. ‘theories’ till your blue in the face [/quote] and so far it’s been easy to win this particular argument because you guys have been tossing those terms around as though they were interchangeable but that reflects on YOUR lack of knowledge, not mine…[/quote]

443

[quote]Floortom wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
Another excellent source for peer-reviewed articles:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Thanks, Floortom, for the excellent suggestion.

WOW, VERY impresive!! You mean peer-reviewed articles by those those who must agree with the society’s “satement of Faith”:

CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

  1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

  2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

  3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

  4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

ROFLMAO! You guys are truly, truly amazing. Never give up!
[/quote]

You ask for peer-reviewed journals and articles. So I give you hundreds but that’s not good enough. You want narrower parameters, huh? Some that meet your exacting criteria? You, the guy, that doesn’t know the difference between a “theory” and a “fact”, “proof” and “hypothesis”. You’ve got a ways to go before you can be that critically demanding. Just go read the articles that you requested and then get back to me with your complaints about the website that listed them and their foundational statement. Remember what Iago said, “The truth is the truth, regardless of the source”.

BTW, I thought you were one of the ones who told Iago to quit this nonsense of a non-debate and here you are slugging it out. Way to go, dude. You’re a trooper!

444

Man, I’m glad you guys went home, regrouped and are back at the sandbox! Hope you brought all your toys!

445

I think I’ll confound my critics by devoting this letter not to describing libidinous stroppy-types in general, but Evolution Theory in particular. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care – a large enough number to call a spade a spade. It should be clear by this point that Evolution Theory’s sound bites are a complacent orgy of radicalism. End of story. Actually, I should add that it demands obeisance from its lickspittles. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Evolution Theory forces them to paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures. When Evolution Theory repeated over and over the rumor that free speech is wonderful as long as you’re not bashing it and the bad-tempered tossers in its coterie, its underlings, never too difficult to fool, swallowed it. Do give that some thought

446

[quote]Xvim wrote:
I think I’ll confound my critics by devoting this letter not to describing libidinous stroppy-types in general, but Evolution Theory in particular. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care – a large enough number to call a spade a spade. It should be clear by this point that Evolution Theory’s sound bites are a complacent orgy of radicalism. End of story. Actually, I should add that it demands obeisance from its lickspittles. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Evolution Theory forces them to paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures. When Evolution Theory repeated over and over the rumor that free speech is wonderful as long as you’re not bashing it and the bad-tempered tossers in its coterie, its underlings, never too difficult to fool, swallowed it. Do give that some thought[/quote]

Wow, dude! You’ve come a long way (laterally) from [quote]For the most die hard among them, the response will always be that their God created the world with that kind of evidence in place to ‘test their faith.’ I have a problem with the idea of worshipping a God who’d go through that mouch trouble to mind-fuck you and still allow for things like child molestation and cannibalism but hey, that’s just me. [/quote]

Were you dusting near the whiskey cabinet tonight?

447

I’m only putting as much effort into this discussion as is necessary, half of me was reluctant to respond to this out of concern that Throttle132 may be one of those people who say licentious things for the sole purpose of gaining attention. But given Throttle132’s track record, I have concluded that unrealistic Creationists thrive when the rest of us underestimate the threat they pose or are too weak or unorganized to hold the line, so I’ve decided to proceed. Let’s review the errors in his statements in order. First, “uniformitarianism” is sometimes narrowly defined by deceitful bums. I just want to say that his mentality reminds me of the stereotypical bureaucrat who cannot function unless he can “find it in the manual”. Throttle132’s acolytes probably don’t realize that, because it’s not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, he has failed to provide us with a context in which his drug-induced ravings could be discussed and understood. And I can say that with a clear conscience because he seems to have recently added the word “pericardiomediastinitis” to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Throttle132 intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that implying that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved is no different from implying that his intimations are Right with a capital R. Both statements are ludicrous. The take-away message of this letter is that careful examination of Throttle132’s asseverations have left me no choice but to conclude that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart. Think about it. I don’t want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by Throttle132’s untrustworthy, unsavory perceptions, reminding you that you were warned.

448

^^^ I dont think there’s any question that Throttle literally has no clue what he’s talking about. Please refer to his pushing of Punk Eek and my subsequent questioning of him on this topic. He was unable to respond to any of my points and simply ingored the entire post because he could not find a cut/paste article from his fundie friends that provided him with a suitable and point-by-point rebuttal. He believes that the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted peacefully…apparently, any other belief makes the baby jesus cry and will result in a lifetime in hell. Of course, the overhwelming majority of religious scientists are unaware of this fact and foolishly think that the evidence for evolution speaks for itself.

I would agree with you on the danger of creationists though. Now, obviously they hold no significant powere in the scientific community, nor do they hold any significant positions at credible universities and research centres. Behe is probably the only one I can think of and he accepts common descent and the scientific age of the earth. They are essentially a marginalized group of outcasts who serve more to amuse with their ridiculous claims (See Noah’s Ark article I posted earlier.) So in that sense they are not a threat, but a side-show. Unfortunately, you have these guys sitting in bureacratic positions on school boards telling the scientific community what is and what is not science.

449

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1129038976905.noodledoodlewall.jpg

Xvim, floortom,

why is it so hard for you to be touched by his noodly appendage and convert to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?

Obviously It has created life, the universe and everything and that should be taught in science classes too.

Since FSM?ism is as logical and well tought out as ID and much more fun (you get to dress and talk like a pirate), science classes are clearly where the teachings about FSM?ism belong.

You could alternatively convert to the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but, unfortunately, there are no pirates there.

I swear to, um, whoever, that one day I shall fly to Kansas in full pirate regalia demanding that my voice must be heard.

450

This is a great thread to read and ponder. It has been fun to follow. A warning though…If you f#ckers end up beating out the Ass Worship Thread with your number of posts, we are going to start a different website for you to argue on. This isn’t theology-nation. Lets go lift weights and talk about chicks.

Semper Fidelis

451

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Faith is required when believing in something that can neither be proven nor disproven. When this occurs, you can never know if something is true, or if it is false. If something can be disproven, then one can possibly know that it is in fact not true.

This is why God (and other religions) take faith, his/her/their existences can never be proven or disproven.

But, scientific hypotheses and theories (even laws!) can be disproven.
[/quote]

Then how would you classify a scientific theory that has never been proven; meaning it has been disproved over and over and over again and yet remain unchanged as a valid theory? I call it Evolutionary Science.

You see, the real scientific process involves testing a hypothesis. If the results do not support the hypothesis (pay attention this is the important part) the hypothesis is then modified or totally discarded and a new hypothesis is developed.

So when has the hypothesis that man evolved on a macro scale ever been modified or discarded when it was not proven? The answer is never! The macro evolution hypothesis remains and new ways to try and prove it’s validity are created. THAT, my friend, is bias, and that is NOT true science.

So if it’s not true science, it’s a belief first, and the “science” is trying to prove that belief. THAT, my friend, is religion.

Dude, I don’t care what Darwin did, because he is not my leader. I don’t follow his ideas, you do. So if you don’t believe he recanted, then he didn’t. Remember, it’s all about what you believe and not science anyway, so your belief is what counts.

452

[quote]Floortom wrote:
^^^ I dont think there’s any question that Throttle literally has no clue what he’s talking about. Please refer to his pushing of Punk Eek and my subsequent questioning of him on this topic. He was unable to respond to any of my points and simply ingored the entire post because he could not find a cut/paste article from his fundie friends that provided him with a suitable and point-by-point rebuttal. He believes that the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted peacefully…apparently, any other belief makes the baby jesus cry and will result in a lifetime in hell. Of course, the overhwelming majority of religious scientists are unaware of this fact and foolishly think that the evidence for evolution speaks for itself.

I would agree with you on the danger of creationists though. Now, obviously they hold no significant powere in the scientific community, nor do they hold any significant positions at credible universities and research centres. Behe is probably the only one I can think of and he accepts common descent and the scientific age of the earth. They are essentially a marginalized group of outcasts who serve more to amuse with their ridiculous claims (See Noah’s Ark article I posted earlier.) So in that sense they are not a threat, but a side-show. Unfortunately, you have these guys sitting in bureacratic positions on school boards telling the scientific community what is and what is not science.

[/quote]

So if you can’t logically argue against Throttle’s position you attack him and others like him personally? Nice!

That’s it buddy, you are off the debate team.

453

[quote]BH6 wrote:
This is a great thread to read and ponder. It has been fun to follow. A warning though…If you f#ckers end up beating out the Ass Worship Thread with your number of posts, we are going to start a different website for you to argue on. This isn’t theology-nation. Lets go lift weights and talk about chicks.

Semper Fidelis [/quote]

Well, occasionally one needs to contemplate ideas much deeper than T&A.

Occasionally, but not very often!

457

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Floortom wrote:
^^^ I dont think there’s any question that Throttle literally has no clue what he’s talking about. Please refer to his pushing of Punk Eek and my subsequent questioning of him on this topic. He was unable to respond to any of my points and simply ingored the entire post because he could not find a cut/paste article from his fundie friends that provided him with a suitable and point-by-point rebuttal. He believes that the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted peacefully…apparently, any other belief makes the baby jesus cry and will result in a lifetime in hell. Of course, the overhwelming majority of religious scientists are unaware of this fact and foolishly think that the evidence for evolution speaks for itself.

I would agree with you on the danger of creationists though. Now, obviously they hold no significant powere in the scientific community, nor do they hold any significant positions at credible universities and research centres. Behe is probably the only one I can think of and he accepts common descent and the scientific age of the earth. They are essentially a marginalized group of outcasts who serve more to amuse with their ridiculous claims (See Noah’s Ark article I posted earlier.) So in that sense they are not a threat, but a side-show. Unfortunately, you have these guys sitting in bureacratic positions on school boards telling the scientific community what is and what is not science.

So if you can’t logically argue against Throttle’s position you attack him and others like him personally? Nice!

That’s it buddy, you are off the debate team.
[/quote]

I already thoroughly schooled him on Punk Eek to which he had no cut/paste response from a bible inerancy website.

In addition, I still have yet to hear the evidence of barriers to change above the species level. If you accept speciation, and some creationists even accept evolutionary change in HIGHER taxa as I have already shown, then please provide some evidence of why this mechanism would suddenly stop at a fixed point. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but so-called microevolution. Please, for the love of baby Jesus show me, or explain to me, this barrier. How does it work? Is it a common genetic component? Do all living things exhibit this barrier? Please explain.

You’re right–we need to logically and rationally debate with people who think the earth is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, that Noah’s Ark is a historical event, and that Jonah lived in a whale for one week…LMAO! Right after that I’ll go on to rationally debate FSM followers and Greek mythology belivers.

458

[quote]Xvim wrote:
I’m only putting as much effort into this discussion as is necessary, half of me was reluctant to respond to this out of concern that Throttle132 may be one of those people who say licentious things for the sole purpose of gaining attention. But given Throttle132’s track record, I have concluded that unrealistic Creationists thrive when the rest of us underestimate the threat they pose or are too weak or unorganized to hold the line, so I’ve decided to proceed. Let’s review the errors in his statements in order. First, “uniformitarianism” is sometimes narrowly defined by deceitful bums. I just want to say that his mentality reminds me of the stereotypical bureaucrat who cannot function unless he can “find it in the manual”. Throttle132’s acolytes probably don’t realize that, because it’s not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, he has failed to provide us with a context in which his drug-induced ravings could be discussed and understood. And I can say that with a clear conscience because he seems to have recently added the word “pericardiomediastinitis” to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Throttle132 intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that implying that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved is no different from implying that his intimations are Right with a capital R. Both statements are ludicrous. The take-away message of this letter is that careful examination of Throttle132’s asseverations have left me no choice but to conclude that the falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart. Think about it. I don’t want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by Throttle132’s untrustworthy, unsavory perceptions, reminding you that you were warned.[/quote]

Omigosh. You evolutionists might have a double agent on your hands.

459

[quote]Floortom wrote:

In addition, I still have yet to hear the evidence of barriers to change above the species level. If you accept speciation, and some creationists even accept evolutionary change in HIGHER taxa as I have already shown, then please provide some evidence of why this mechanism would suddenly stop at a fixed point. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but so-called microevolution. Please, for the love of baby Jesus show me, or explain to me, this barrier. How does it work? Is it a common genetic component? Do all living things exhibit this barrier? Please explain.
[/quote]

Glad you wrote this classic piece of unscientific thinking. The hypothesis of evolution assumes no barriers of change at higher taxa levels exist, “assumes”, mind you. It can not reach beyond the level of assumption beeeeeeeecause it has never been observed to happen. It cannot be tested. This is where your “faith” comes into play.

The “evidence” of barriers is exactly that - there is no evidence of change at higher taxa level (above genus). It’s antithetical.

But now, you unreasonably and unscientifically lay out the challenge to creationists to prove that the hypothetical barrier does NOT exist.

Sorry, Tom, but the burden of responsibility to prove the lack of the barrier exists and thereby validate your hypothesis falls on YOU. You have committed a serious error here.

460

[quote]Xvim wrote:
Throttle132…has failed to provide us with a context in which his drug-induced ravings could be discussed and understood. [/quote]

You actually want the faithful readers of this thread to honestly believe that it is me, Throttle who “has drug-induced ravings”?

FloorTom, Lothario, Iago, et al, you had better get this guy out of the game.