Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 12:00 am
Thats very interesting, rr. Thanks for telling me all that.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 12:00 am
(December 15, 2016 at 1:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (December 14, 2016 at 1:17 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Of course.... I wouldn't expect the anti-intelligence crowd to read the article or respond to the points made. This was posted for others 
What would be the purpose in responding to points made by people who insist that intelligent design is scientific? ID is neither testable falsifiable nor predictive. It is not a scientific stance, but a philosophical one. Credibility nil.
Boru
How did you come to that conclusion? Tests are preformed, and often in an attempt to falsify the theory. It also makes predictions, such as those verified in the ENCODE project and that convergence will be found to be more common.
I may also point out, that saying it is unfalsifiable is in conflict with a number of people, who seem to believe that it is false. As well, this would mean that aspects believed under the umbrella of evolution which conflict with I.D. are also unfalsifiable.
I would suggest that you check these things out for yourself, and don't just take my word for it.
Posts: 3064
Threads: 3
Joined: July 10, 2016
Reputation:
37
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 12:03 am
(December 16, 2016 at 12:00 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would suggest that you check these things out for yourself, and don't just take my word for it.
Been there, done that. That's probably why I'm not taking your word for it.
Posts: 2292
Threads: 16
Joined: September 28, 2015
Reputation:
24
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 12:08 am
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2016 at 12:25 am by ApeNotKillApe.)
Assuming there's a designer, how do you make the leap from 'a conscious being designed the universe' to 'a humanoid being with human values who is specifically interested in human affairs designed the universe specifically with humans in mind'? I don't see how that follows.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Posts: 11697
Threads: 117
Joined: November 5, 2016
Reputation:
43
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 12:13 am
(December 16, 2016 at 12:00 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: (December 15, 2016 at 1:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What would be the purpose in responding to points made by people who insist that intelligent design is scientific? ID is neither testable falsifiable nor predictive. It is not a scientific stance, but a philosophical one. Credibility nil.
Boru
How did you come to that conclusion? Tests are preformed, and often in an attempt to falsify the theory. It also makes predictions, such as those verified in the ENCODE project and that convergence will be found to be more common.
I may also point out, that saying it is unfalsifiable is in conflict with a number of people, who seem to believe that it is false. As well, this would mean that aspects believed under the umbrella of evolution which conflict with I.D. are also unfalsifiable.
I would suggest that you check these things out for yourself, and don't just take my word for it.
Nothing in science supports ID nor can anything falsify it there is always a magical excuse
EVOUTION IS NOT AN UMBRELLA IT"S A WELL DEFINED SINGLE TERM only creationist trying to muddy the waters us such bs tactics
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Posts: 5664
Threads: 219
Joined: June 20, 2016
Reputation:
61
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 8:46 am
Face the facts creationists! It is a dinosaur tail with FEATHERS! Birds are related to dinosaurs.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 1:05 pm
(December 15, 2016 at 12:42 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't understand where this comes from. I agree that Science is about method; it is not an entity. I don't think that I said anything to be construed as being against science; if I did, then please point it out, perhaps I can clarify a misunderstanding. I just posted some articles which gave more information.
I think that this is based more on an unjustified and incorrect assumption.
You posted ID garbage. It is not an unjustified and incorrect assumption to say that is not, nor will it ever be, science. If you think it is, you fail to grasp what actually science requires.
In fact, as Tonus pointed out, AIG openly admits that they are not being scientific. They declare with pride that if observation ever contradicts the bible, they will believe that the bible says. That is not using the proper scientific process.
So maybe you're not being hypocritical and cherry-picking what science you'll accept and what you won't. Maybe you just don't understand what constitutes science. Either way you're being foolish.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 1:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2016 at 1:51 pm by Tonus.)
The scientific method begins with observations. "That appears to be the result of an applied intellect" could come from an observation, I suppose. The next step is to determine ways to confirm and falsify that hypothesis. This means testing and experimenting and researching so as to find a positive explanation for or against. Claiming "irreducible complexity," for example, is not how you do that. That's an attempt to shut the door on further research and learning.
If your hypothesis is that something is designed by a conscious intellect, then you confirm the hypothesis by finding that conscious intellect. If you do not find him, you should keep looking even if some smartass tells you that perhaps it's an example of "irreducible simplicity." What you cannot do is claim that it exists until such time as you confirm that. Or, in creationist terms, it's "just a theory."
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 16, 2016 at 5:37 pm
(December 16, 2016 at 12:08 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Assuming there's a designer, how do you make the leap from 'a conscious being designed the universe' to 'a humanoid being with human values who is specifically interested in human affairs designed the universe specifically with humans in mind'? I don't see how that follows.
Because JESUS !!!!
(but not Paul's Jesus, gotta be Matthew's Jesus because Paul is a fucktard)
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Posts: 3709
Threads: 18
Joined: September 29, 2015
Reputation:
10
RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 17, 2016 at 3:12 pm
(This post was last modified: December 17, 2016 at 3:45 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(December 16, 2016 at 1:05 pm)Faith No More Wrote: (December 15, 2016 at 12:42 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't understand where this comes from. I agree that Science is about method; it is not an entity. I don't think that I said anything to be construed as being against science; if I did, then please point it out, perhaps I can clarify a misunderstanding. I just posted some articles which gave more information.
I think that this is based more on an unjustified and incorrect assumption.
You posted ID garbage. It is not an unjustified and incorrect assumption to say that is not, nor will it ever be, science. If you think it is, you fail to grasp what actually science requires.
In fact, as Tonus pointed out, AIG openly admits that they are not being scientific. They declare with pride that if observation ever contradicts the bible, they will believe that the bible says. That is not using the proper scientific process.
So maybe you're not being hypocritical and cherry-picking what science you'll accept and what you won't. Maybe you just don't understand what constitutes science. Either way you're being foolish.
Thanks, I think you confirmed quite a bit with the bolded section above. It explains the shifting the goal posts, and question begging.
And I'm not making any arguments for or concerning AIG. As to not understanding what constitutes science, I normally ask what you are basing that conclusion on? (and rarely get an answer). I don't feel that I cherry pick science, but look to what is the best logical explanation given the evidence and the reasons given for the claims being made. I don't feel that I am the one dismissing the evidence, and appealing to the source of the arguments, rather than the reasons given for the arguement. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to point it out.
(December 16, 2016 at 1:51 pm)Tonus Wrote: The scientific method begins with observations. "That appears to be the result of an applied intellect" could come from an observation, I suppose. The next step is to determine ways to confirm and falsify that hypothesis. This means testing and experimenting and researching so as to find a positive explanation for or against. Claiming "irreducible complexity," for example, is not how you do that. That's an attempt to shut the door on further research and learning.
I don't think that anyone denies the claims that intelligent design are capable of producing the results such that are seen. To do so, would be rather self defeating, to science, engineering, and much of what is produced by humans. However we can test, experiment, and research to try to falsify the theory that random and undirected forces can produce the same results. I.D. doesn't stop anyone from researching or learning anything. I don't see how your statement follows
Quote:If your hypothesis is that something is designed by a conscious intellect, then you confirm the hypothesis by finding that conscious intellect. If you do not find him, you should keep looking even if some smartass tells you that perhaps it's an example of "irreducible simplicity." What you cannot do is claim that it exists until such time as you confirm that. Or, in creationist terms, it's "just a theory."
I would disagree, if you are making an implication, that a cause must me confirmed, before you can make a scientific inference (or profile) of that cause. In fact it appears to be against logical inferences in science (as you are no longer making an inference). For example, if the evidence suggest that a force greater than what we know to be possible, is the cause of an event, then I think that it is reasonable to believe that something capable of that type of force, does exist; even if we cannot find it, or do not have other clues to identify the source. A lot of science works this way. There may be other explanations, that we do not know, or further evidence may be found which changes this conclusion.
I would also be curious as to what definition you are using of confirmed. It seems there are a number of claims of evolution, which would not meet your standards put forth here (modern synthesis and even common descent).
I would also ask you to look at who between us, is saying that we should not question or accept evidence, that may alter the theory's in this conversation? Who is seeking to quiet any opposition, and only have cherry picked facts taught along with the theory? You can insult me, and attack the sources of information, appeal to motives and emotion (I actually expect it and think it is helpful to the I.D. position). However in the end, what really matters, is the reasons behind the claim. If you are willing to contribute and look at the reasons, then we are not going to have an honest and productive conversation.
|
