Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You don't have to know electromagnetics for that.
I'd like to see more self-criticism by the amateur and professional instigators that use intentional misreprestations to stir up flame wars, but I don't see that happening.
Unless there are a lot of PhD's on FR, I'm seeing quite a bit of self-criticism by amateurs. Although you are only seeing my statements on statistical acceptance/rejection as an attack on non-IDers, it clearly applies both ways. I would point you to my story about the ball on the post, i.e. many people rejected the statistical probability that the ball came to rest on the post, while I stated that I would never believe it if a ball came to rest on every post.
There are obviously other arguments to be made on both sides, but they are already being made, so I felt like pointing out something that I thought was being lost on all. No flaming of anyone.
Do you get any enjoyment or sense of satisfaction from the personal attacks, name calling, and flame wars that these threads often become?
Ones who could have no religious or other non-scientific motives for their opinions?
Pssst- #1 the bible IS scientifically free of error #2 Of course you’d take an oath IF soemthign is scientifically free of error- you’d not be objective if you didn’t-
What declared it free of scientific error? What made it authoritative on the subject of science?
Psssst- the objective evidence DOES fit the bible- Dating methods are only accurate back to 5000 years- Beyond that- the methods used to ‘determine age’ are based solely on ASSUMPTIONS
In other words, don't believe your lying eyes.
You’d better do some reasearch
I did. It was a creationist argument, now it's an ID argument, perfectly supporting my claim that IDers rehash old creationist arguments.
I read the relevent parts and always do
Apparently not.
that quote you listed was in a section fro mthe paragraphs that wasn’t pertinent to the evidneces and explanations being given
Then why post it? It's because you're a copy/paste king who can't make his own arguments. You didn't even set out the copy/paste as the work of others, making you a plagiarist.
that actually wans’t hte original point I was addressing- you claimed your objection to ID was that websites (I’m assuming you were lunmping all websites on ID into one single argument) on ID included opinions that you felt were unscientific or not proven (I assume you had in miund sites liek IRC, DI, AIG, as they are the ones most commonly, associated with hte ID movement- I pointed out htere are many great sites on ID that limit hteir personal opinions and present mostly evidence)
Do some sites delve heavily into opinion and generalized blanket statements? Sure- BUT, do they ALSO present some scientifically relevent material as well? Absolutely. Are htere sites that are nothign but fluff opinion and no science? I suppose, but I’ve not come across them- most sites that I’ve investigated over hte years do tend to offer significant scientific material- some better htan others- and yes, a lot do offer opinion that goes beyond hte sciecne, but which are usually NOT unreasonable opinions given the facts of hte case- however, I do prefer sites that stick mostly to the evidneces myself. Trueorigin.org is a site I like because it tackles the scientific issues scientifically and reasonably and has little i nthe way of opinion on most issues- IRC tends to state opinion more readily- however, that does not mean every article is devoid of scientific merrit- some are quite detailed scientifically- and I’m certainly not put off by opinions as I said, it’s quite easy to seperate opinion from the evidences.
Now- your next point was that htere may be sites which use flawed science, or just plain wrong- I have run across very few of htese sites, and hwen I find a site is consistently wrong, then I avoid those sites- However, if your objection to ID is based o nthe fact that soem sites used flawed, or outright wrong scientific conclusions or evidence to support an artgument, then you certainly MUST write off sites liek Talkorigins, Darwin central, Dawkins site, on and on it goes, because they knowingly cite thigns that are contradictory to the actual evidence- Trueorigins.org is a site that was set up to scientifically refute the deceit at talkorigins, and htye have exposed the blatant outright lies of talkorigins many many many times, yet folks liek yourself, often cite from that site and others like it and think nothign of it, and apparently you don’t object to their tactics? Now, does that mean everythign talkorigins posts is deceitful and wrong? Certainly not- there ARE soem scientifically valid arguments presented there, and I certainly don’t write off the whoel site just because they state opinion and happen ot be wrong a majority of hte time- they DO present some stuff which is credible, and if so, and if relevent to my arguments here or elsewhere, I’ll use htem as a source- that certainyl wouldn’t mean I endorse them where they are wrong though.
Anyway- this discussion is goign nowhere really- I just find it odd that you object to ID because a few sites might be wrong here and there, while right on other scientific issues and discussions, and will accept sites like Talkorigins which have been proven wrong time and time again, without any apparent ‘objection’
Have I said anything that would lead you to think that I do?
Are you aware of how many scientific assemblies quickly devolve into personal attacks and name calling? People don't like to accept that their life's work might be wrong and PhD's are no different.
[[In other words, don’t believe your lying eyes.]]
Lol- this is why arguing with folks liek you is useless- No matter what hte evidnece strongly suggests, you simply wave it all away and claim we ‘can’t trust our lying eyes, and macroevolution might still be possible’ despite all them ountign evidences against is- some so serious, that the hypothsdis can NOT stand
[[Then why post it? It’s because you’re a copy/paste king who can’t make his own arguments.]]
What’s hte matter Antio? Runnign out of arguments and feel the need to start makign htis personal? I’ve made MY arguments, and my points, and I’ve used refernces to back up my poitns- Are you the ‘discussion derailment king who can’t argue the issues ande must resort to attackign hte messenger’?
[[You didn’t even set out the copy/paste as the work of others, making you a plagiarist.]]
I most certainly DID- I posted quote marks AND links, MY comments are not in quotes- and in somep osts I specifically pointed out that the quotes I listed were from previous posts of mine where I got hte quotes fro mthe links I presented- Apaprnetly you’re goign to start digging at me and my posts because you haven’t anymore amminution to defend your arguments with? It’s the same damn thing with folks like you time and time again! Step it up a notch, or else I’m doen with you- I won’t tolorate childish bieckering on your part
[[Ones who could have no religious or other non-scientific motives for their opinions?]]
Yes- knock yerself out searching- They still think evoltuion happens, and that htere must be another mechanism which htey ‘just haven’t discovered yet’- GGG, Myself, Betty Boop, Alamogirl and many others have posted quotes many times form folks like that-
[[What declared it free of scientific error?]]
The evidnce- it’s beyond reasonable doubt- and it doesn’t go beyond hte evidence like macroevolution does- when hte fossil record shows beyond a resonalbe doubt that discontinuity happened, that’s where they stop- they don’t go beyond the science and claim thigns that are contrary to scientific laws like common descent despite htere being no evidnece to support htis claim.
[[What made it authoritative on the subject of science?]]
The eivdnece did
[[I did. It was a creationist argument, now it’s an ID argument,]]
Again your ignroance of ID is showign htrough loud and clear- Creation claims God is the intelligence- ID doesn’t posit who or what hte itnellgience is, only that an intelligence is needed because hte evidence demands that, and hte evidence shows that nature is incapable of beign hte itnellgience- Soem in ID stil lthink nature is the itnellgience, they just have no proof or evidnece to back that beleif up- they keep falling back o nthe same old copout time and time again that they just haven’t foudn the evidence yet to support the belief that nature was capable of producing irreducible complexity- their argument is akin to arguing that 1000 complex cellphones foudn buried were ‘created by nature, but we just haven’t foudn the evidence or mechanisms respopnsible for hte creation yet’ They are welcoem to their beleifs of course, but the evidence is moutnign showign that their stubborn beleif in nature’s capabilities is simpyl an unreasonable argument
[[Apparently not.]]
My points stand just fine- it’s your points that you apparently feel the need to ‘shore up’ by by attacking me instead of the issues brought up- Again- step it up- or I’m done- I explained why that quote made it into the copy and paste- and insulting me as ‘copy and paste’ king is a childish ‘argument’ on your part Most of hwat was pasted was read carefulyl by me, and supports my arguments just fine- That quote was simply in hte middle of hte paragraphs soemwhere, and I simpyl skimmed that part, and copied the several paragraphs al lat once- If you’re goign to glom onto that as your only argument, then this shows an intellectual dishonesty on your part, and an unwillingness to address the issues that were beign discussed, and tactics liek that are best suited to lesser sites liek darwin central where they care nothign about defending their positions, but care only about insultign and belittling their opposition- IF that’s the tactic you’re goign to use here- then Bye Bye fella- not itnerested in such petty bickering. I posted several points- NONE of which you bothered to even address, and instead you glom onto an irrelevent issue as htough it’s the achilles heel of hte whoel argument- it’s not- it’s nothign but a petty sidetrackign avoidance tactic, and I’m not itnerested in playing your little game
Are you aware that this does not answer the question that was asked?
I said "proponents". You answered with a reply about "websites".
Not explicitly, but stepping around the issue of the flame warriors seems to indicate a disinterest in wanting to see that change.
My friend, my entire thread line here has been about the subjective nature of declaring something "natural" or "ID". The flaming has to do with demands that it is an objective scientific fact one way or another. If what I've put forth doesn't qualify as sane common ground, then I don't know what would.
You seem predisposed to see something in my posts that isn't there. I've never made any bones about the fact that I'm a Catholic and therefore fundamentally believe in Intelligent Design. As I think God's miracles are all about us, I don't think he has to break His own laws to perform miracles. I also don't think we are likely to find an objective signature on His creation, as it would violate the basic tenants of free will. I do find the infinity issues of the universe and points on irreducible simplicity to be too many balls on the fence for me to swallow (going back to my analogy), but I also readily concede that irreducible simplicity cannot be statistically eliminated.
I answered that question didn't I? I was making the point, again, that everyone is susceptible to human nature.
You appear to think that I'm hiding something or have an alternative motive here. I've been as clear as I can. Perhaps if you would just make the accusation clearly I could answer it.
Let me try re-phrasing it. Do you think it's appropriate to use these discussions about science as a forum for airing grievances and making accusations that stem from disagreeents between people over differences in their respective religious beliefs?
Okay. Where, in your opinion, did the "flaming" start in this thread?
The problem is you don't have any good evidence against it.
Yes- knock yerself out searching
You need to do that, being the one claiming it's about the science, not about the religion.
The evidnce- it’s beyond reasonable doubt
So, basically, your "ASSUMPTIONS" and "OPINIONS." Science says look at the evidence and let the conclusions fall in line with it. Creationism says look at this book dating back over 2,000 years, and make the evidence fit into it. If the evidence doesn't agree with the Bible, then the evidence must be wrong.
That's not science, it's religion.
They still think evoltuion happens, and that htere must be another mechanism which htey ‘just haven’t discovered yet’
That is true in many areas of science. We don't completely know how gravity works either. So in order to not be a caught in a logically inconsistent position, you must say that God (or "an intelligence") is just making things attract each other.
Basically, you are arguing God of the Gaps, a term coined by a Christian minister BTW.
Again your ignroance of ID is showign htrough loud and clear- Creation claims God is the intelligence- ID doesn’t posit who or what hte itnellgience is
Again you're missing my point. The ID claim is that it doesn't posit on the intelligence, yet I have not yet met and IDer who doesn't believe that intelligence isn't God. IOW, it's still a religious movement pretending to be science.
I'd have to change my opinion about ID if you could show me a significant portion of IDers who are atheists, but you still fail to produce that. In reverse many evolutionists and old-Earthers are religious, even evangelical Christian, so the usual creationist claim of evolutionists being driven by atheism is factually incorrect.
by attacking me instead of the issues brought up
You're the one who made a statement and then backed away from it by claiming it was just a copy/paste. You are responsible for everything you post, even the plagiarized parts. What you post it to support your argument is part of your argument. You don't get to say "I didn't write that."
So back to the salient point, in this thread you used an appeal to a non-scientific factor (negative social consequences if your theory isn't accepted) in order to promote your theory. Thus to me it calls into question its validity and puts it in the exact same category as global warming in this respect.
I don't know. I've been very, very busy the last few days and have just been signing into to FR long enough to answer back to posts made to me and to quickly scan the headlines to see if Obama has been charged with treason yet.
As my interest was a sidebar issue, I didn't really keep up with the thread. I have no doubt there was lot's of flaming, which is why I was only interested in this side issue.
I've brought this up in the past on similar threads and have gotten flamed exclusively by those opposed to ID who claim I'm just trying to be tricky, but I've certainly read some nasty things going back the other way too.
I infer that you believe the ID'ers are principally guilty of being on the attack. I have to admit that I'm probably not up to reading through everything to render an opinion, and I'm not sure what exactly I'd gain. I think most of the flaming is because ID'ers think that the other side overstates known science and the opposition flames because they don't think the ID'ers understand that you can't statistically disprove something that is at least theoretically a matter of chance. Whoever is "most at fault", I would go back to pointing out my baseballs on the fence analogy and saying that people should accept that for now its a subjective and thus differing issue.
Well, I suppose that its asking too much of people when the subject involves the crossroads of religion and science. An atheist scientist can say that religion should never enter into science, while a religious person can ask why an atheist scientist would even care what other people think introduced the initial spark. In short, the nature of the thread probably makes attacks on religious beliefs inevitable.
I of course wish that everyone was as courteous and intellectually honest as me on these threads ;-)
I'd hate to fire someone because of sun spots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.