17:59 I won't get into scientific arguments making a case for intelligent design until Miller gets to the science he feels refutes it, later.. However, the science teachers, probably in all innocence, don't realize that by teaching evo they are doing the very thing they think they oppose, i.e. teaching something false. I worked in the school system as a speech pathologist & know they don't reallly understand how to critically analyze it, & are usually totally clueless on logical fallacies. Cont
16:47 "Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critcally considered." What they really mean is "Everything except science that disagrees with evolution!" When did we ever see, in a standard textbook,the truth that evolutionits really don't agree on much of anything, that the primal pond is b.s.,that there is 0 evidence mutations or natural selection lead to anything above the level of speciation? Never! They go to court to squash dissent. Cont
...and no one bothers to mention that it is just 1 of evolution's dataless theories that flies in the face of actual scientific evidence. If you find some "Cambrian" fossils on mountain tops - which is common - well they get into magical thinking again and tell you "the earth moved" and you are expected to believe, with no baseline & no data to back up what they say in the unobservable & untestable "billions & millions" of years, that this explains away the Column's absence.. To be cont.
...and therefore for the health of life on the planet overall? They tell us diamonds took ages to produce yet there is carbon 14 in them and it doesn't last as long as the diamonds supposedly do. They told us there was a Geologic Column with dates of millions of years between each "age" but...uh oh...that was just a 19th century construct with 0 evidence & worldwide digs have since revealed...0 evidence for even 1 such thing. Yet textbooks commonly have pictures of The Geologic Column...
...times have the evolutionists themselves changed the date on the so called age of the earth? Do all of them - in various fields, even in any single field - agree on how old the earth is? No. Gee, what if someone wanted to ask certain Qs., like, how could the sun maintain it's very delicate balance of heat output with the planet's life forms over 4 billion years? Oh, and the moon is not staying still and we need it, also, to stay in its delicate balance for the control of the tides...
...the "elite", don't try to educate yourself on the issues, just believe what you are told by the "experts." Again, we are not seeing any actual scientific evidence for evolution (and we never will - only dataless speculation presented as evidence along with logical fallacies) but are getting only the appeal to authority logical fallacy here. 13:28 Here the audience is invited to ridicule the idea that anyone would disagree that the earth is 4 billion years old. Let's see, now, how many....
Cont. We see the very name of Bush being laughed at in what is presumably a mostly liberal audience (not that I personally think there is any significant difference between Republicans & Democrats). His statement that students should be able to hear both sides is not supported. We are told that the hopes are that Bush will "listen to his science advisor" who is very pro abortion. This is typical of how they want things to go. Don't think for yourself even if you are the Prez. Listen to....
Cont. Again, the 1st half hour of this presentation has virtually no science in it. We see the propaganda technique of poisoning the well continuing, along with the propaganda technique of ridicule as attempts are made to eliciit laughter from the audience. None of those things have anything to do with science and logic and in fact detract from them. The sticker shown at 10:27 is right on. There is nothing wrong with it. The truth is they don't want any students to hear any dissent...
9:17 "How about if we showed them this fossil? How about if we showed them something in the lab, would that convince them?" No, and it's not because of religiion, it's because they never have anything to "show" that is science. After 150+ years, in spite of desperate attempts to prove it is true, in spite of numerous frauds, in spite of attempts to squash dissent in court, evoulution still has the status of a theory, not a law of science. Why? They have nothing to show that it exists. Cont
...and logic it's usually a waste of time. They start doing the Bible Bash dance & can't seem to stop. Yes there is a bias in terms of religion. But it is a bias that swings both ways. That is why I personally try to debate these issues while avoiding religion altogether. If the theory of evolution can't stand up to scientific scrutiny, it should be kicked out of the schools regardless of what the Bible does or does not say because it is dumbing down the students. To be cont.
...exclusive. The truth is that evolution stands or falls on science & logic alone regardless of anyone's religioius beliefs. The truth is that the evo side is just as biased against religion, when pushing evolution. For ex. Dawkins said that any creationist was "crazy, stupid or evil."
Does this sound like someone who is trying to be an objective scientist? I have found when debating evo that the evo-ites almost invariably start attacking the Bible. If I ask them to stick to science...
Cont. There is 0 testable, observable or repeatable to show anything ever happened through evolution. Cell biology, organic chemistry, physiology ARE testable, repeatable & observable so deserve to be called science. 8:27 We are told that sites like AnswersinGenesis have "a very different set of reasons" for being opposed to evolution than science. The truth is they are opposed on scientific as well as moral grounds in that case. It is Miller's assumption that they two must be mutually...
...musing about his "nature studies". Though his book is called Origin of Species, it never showed any origin of any species at all. His comments reflect the kinds of evo-speak we see today in evolultionary literature, namely, "I suppose...I can hardly doubt...I have no difficulty in imagining...may we not believe..." Creationists call what Mendell did "science." We don't call dataless theoreticals, presented as some kind of scientific evidence, any kind of science but pseudo science. Cont.
7:47 "If you are going to take 1 thing out of the biology curriculum, why would you take out evolution." Here we see the use of the equivocation logical fallacy through the use of the word "science." There is the science that produces what is observable, testable, repeatable as for instance what Mendell gave us in genetics. We can actually use his information. He kept careful notes and used the scientific method to get the data. There was not data with Darwin. Just some armchair...
7:20 Here we see the propaganda technique called "poisoning the well". That is, before the debate actually gets full blown there is an attempt to make the audience perceive the other party in a bad light. What does one extremist's remark have to do with the real scientific issues? If one wants to see extremism one can see it on the evo side at least as much. I have been called a 'fundie" a "creatard" & "a liar for Jesus" more times than I can remember, though I was saying 0 religioius. Cont.
...but real observable data, real science, shows us that bacteria stay bacteria, algae stay algae, finches stay finches & people stay people. In order to support the...myth...that fish turn into reptiles then birds etc., one gets a plethora of peer reviewed (all bow at the very words) articles that are replete with faith-based words like "likely....similarities...it is believed...we infer...here's a simulation...millions of (untestable & unobservable) years ago.." To be cont if not Expelled.
...actually antiscience since it flies in the face of the LAW of biogenesis which states that life always comes from life. But the statement just went right on past and the audience was reinforced in a big myth of evolution - one based on....faith...contradicting actual scientific facts....Then we are told things like that nylon eating bacteria are "evolving." Funny thing. They are still bacteria, even the same species. All life shows a LIMITED ability to adapt to new situations...
...Is there a shred of evidence it's progeny produced animals leading to tetrapods. Not 1. Speculation presented as evidence is not science, it is pseudo science. Also on the Colbert show I heard Colbert speaking of the primal pond. Here was a great "teachable momement" for the science professor. He could have told the audience that actually there is 0 evidence whatsoever for any primal pond, that there is 0 evidence life can come from inorganic matter & that the primal pond theory is...
,,,us to believe in its invisible descendants' invsible descendants and draw invisible lines from Fossil A to Fossil B. We see their....faith. We don't see any facts, any data, to back up that faith. So we don't call it science. Miller has said, for ex., that Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets for a transitional fossil." Supposedly it is turning into a tetrapod. The actual evidence is a fossil with a conveniently missing back end that shows something that is 100% lobe finned FISH. Cont.
,,,point to archaeopteryx. However, as with every single "transitional" fossil in the world there is never 100% agreement amongst evoltuionsts that it is a transition. As with every single "transitional" fossil in the world we never have any evidence whatsoever that it isn't just a dead end, extinct, life form which never produced any progeny significantly different from itself. To creationists it is pure magical thinking when they tell us that they know what kind of progeny it had & ask...
say that evolutionists claim to lead a purely scientific movement but that it is actually faith based, in fact so much so that some people call it a religion. Some examples: We are told that fins turned into feet then into wings, that fish turned into tetrapods & then into birds, feathers turned into scales, etc. There are uncounted BILLIONS of fossils around the world, yet nowhere do we see any such things, only 100% fins, feathers, birds, etc. & no inbetweeners. Now some invariably will...
About the 1st half hour of this vid is mostly personal promo, politicing, & propaganda techniques. I will ignore the self promo. As far as the politicing is concerned, I believe it is near the near the end of this talk - perhaps another one I heard, but I think this one - where MIller says a scientist should remain above politics. As we shall see he does not really heed his own advice there. 6:39 Here we see a statement: Creationists claim to lead a purely scientific movement. We would...
...the tooth of an extinct pig! Since that was just one of many frauds in evolution, you might think they would want to distance themselves from that fiasco, but I suppose most of the audience is not going to have seen anything but the Hollywood farce, so won't see the irony of what is going on here. Next we have a man of Gawd showing up, mho to reassure us presumed to be stooopid creationists that you can believe in a Creator - as long as He's not intelligent. To be cont if I'm not Expelled.
...unseen." So, his Creator is...stooopid, as opposed to intelligent? I find it enlightening that this is subtitled "Will the next monkey trial be in Ohio." This is a reference to the Scopes Monkey Trial which is presented by Hollywood, in "Inherit The Wind" as a big win for science. As always with evo, the exact opposite is true when you really look at the data. The so called "scientific evidence" presented at the trial, showing ape to man, was built around what later turned out to be...
Unless I get Expelled - which has certainly happened on YT evo supporting vids before, though I don't push religion & try to be very polite while others who were just the opposite were not Expelled - I am going to critique this whole vid using science and logic. 1st, the title, The Collapse of Intelligent Design. Now, I have seen Miller on the Colbert show - one can see a clip of it here on YT - saying that, as a Roman Catholic, he believes "Jesus Christ created all that is seen &....
There is actually a straightforward method of detecting design in nature. And that is, by observing and comparing human designs to living organisms in the natural world. The best examples of design is the symmetry that many types of species exhibit. Birds, butterflies, moths, etc. They all need to be symmetrical in shape in order to fly. The same holds true for airplanes and gliders.
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
Of course you do. You aren't a moral person who cares about the truth. You wouldn't understand the truth in a simple analogy if it crawled inside your brain and laid eggs. I love when evolutionists laugh at something that is obviously true leaving anyone with any common sense scratching their heads like WTF?
What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
@odinata As of now there is too much hostility directed at Intelligent Design and irreducible complexity coming from some in the scientific community. It is as if Behe wanted to bring down Darwin's theory.
@villontre " too much hostility directed at Intelligent Design"
I don't think ID is treated any less hostile than any other nonscientific theory that masquerades as scientific theory. Scientific theory are tools used to solve problems and make predictions (atomic theory, germ theory) that are testable/observable/falsifiable. If u feel that ID is a scientific theory, then what problems does it solve? What predictions does it make? Do you find atomic theory just as false as evolution? Why?
@blaisingm [If u feel that ID is a scientific theory, then what problems does it solve?] For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder). Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).
@villontre "caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., by accident)"
So, you're saying then that forensic investigators are looking for naturalistic causation when determining cause of death. Or, when investigating a crime scene, only naturalistic explanations are considered (animal, random accident) when investigating a death? Would you agree? A forensic investigator only considers observable and testable evidence. Does that sound about right?
You don't seem to grasp the connection. Did the man with the bullet wound through his head accidentally walk in front of a traveling bullet? Or did someone's intentional actions (a man with a gun willfully shot him) bring about his demise? Did the cell just build up from chemical reactions, or did an intelligence engineer it? Both are in the realm of science to detect, only one is true.
If we're going to be honest, what disturbs you about some bits of science is the possibility of an uncaring universe. This disturbance of yours is something we must all face since there is no evidence to the contrary. AND, because we cannot measure or observe a designers caring, guided intent and purpose (assuming there is one), we SHOULD become responsible adults and take charge of our own lives. Agree?
Ah, but here is the problem. When you realize that you have free will, and exactly what you are up against (which is death), you begin to retreat from the idea of meaning and purpose itself. There is nothing glorious about a comfortable fiction in which we imagine that our lives are but a flicker of luck on a whim. In fact, I once thought this very way, quite convincingly. However, I began to understand that this is all a dead end, a way of giving up where our control seems to end.
If we're going to be honest, what disturbs you about some bits of science is the possibility of an uncaring universe. This disturbance of yours is something we must all face since there is no evidence to the contrary. AND, because we cannot measure or observe a designers caring, guided intent and purpose (assuming there is one), we SHOULD become responsible adults and take charge of our own lives. Wouldn't you agree?
Instead of acceptance, you seem to want to invoke responsibility. This is just an observation, not an accusation, but this kind of psychological flip flop is eerily like that of brainwashing. But I will concede that yes, we should take responsibility. Part of that responsibility includes recognizing the truth of our reality. We can manipulate nature all we like, but we still die. We can't really do much. So I think you toil in desperation for the gain of someone else.
If we're going to be honest, what disturbs you about some bits of science is the possibility of an uncaring universe. This disturbance of yours is something we must all face since there is no evidence to the contrary. AND, because we cannot measure or observe a designers caring, guided intent and purpose (assuming there is one), we SHOULD become responsible adults and take charge of our own lives. Wouldn't you agree?
EVEN if there is a designer... one could easily argue that there are NO ACCIDENTS... that the designer intelligently guides a 'stray' bullet into the brain of an 'innocent' bystander. If the designer MUST design everything (cells, people, etc), then perhaps everything that transpires does so by intelligent design. ID is clearly nothing more than a philosophy... NOT USEFUL PROBLEM SOLVING SCIENCE.
Yes, in this way you can argue towards a purely humanistic ultimatum. And it may serve some kind of temporary purpose. But who really benefits? Perhaps a hand full of sociopaths at the top of the food chain. But do you? Not really. You may reap the benefits in terms of some creature comforts. But you still die, and with a lack of the truth I might add. I'm not trying to sound sinister. It's just that I am a realist and a pessimist.
As for the designer. Yes, it bothers me that I am a kind of prop in this "play" we call existence. But there is nothing I can do about it. However, if I am to deny this, for some kind of temporary comfort, than I am willfully limiting myself. It's like the Matrix, I can take the pill that makes me something in this life, or I can fight for the truth. Not to be dramatic, it's just that all roads lead to this ultimatum within our own conscience. Unless we are numb with apathy, we must accept.
Forensic investigators simply collect and analyze physical evidence ONLY. They DO NOT make judgement calls of intent or design (intelligent design). THEY DO NOT speculate that the evidence is the result from a 'primal intelligence from beyond nature' (ur words). When was the last time a crime was attributed to the actions of ghosts, aliens or gods? Will u be replying to any of my questions in part M?
That's why it is a metaphor or an analogy, not a one for one example. Of course in the world of human beings, we already assume the mind in question through social relations. But when it comes to the higher level of existence itself, of why and how all this comes into being, language fails to penetrate, so we rely upon examples within our own experience to allude to that which language itself also emerges from.
You seem to have ignored all of part N (which was a reply to you) in favor of responding to a message intended for someone else. That's fine, but I'd like to think you’ll eventually address my questions. But, thank you for answering villontre's question for him as he, like most ID/religious proponents, have a hard time answering questions that require any thought. I will address your question in part 2p
So, as long as I ask you questions you aren't comfortable with, you'll withdraw yourself from the conversation and ignore me. I'm not surprised. This is a very common of religious OR ID supporters...an inability to address and answer questions that require critical thinking skills. There is nothing wrong with ignoring questions and withdrawing one's self from a discussion, but it clearly illustrates how uncomfortable reality is for you.
Sorry to butt in, but Neo-Darwinism is a pseudoscience if there ever was one. It offers many imaginative whys, with very vague and useless hows. But science is about how. So how did a chimp become a human? No one knows, it's just assumed from the pseudo-scientific vantage point of evolution. If the goal is dogmatic, to get rid of design, than of course it makes sense. But don't kid yourself, science never gave such ideas the upper hand on their own merit. That's simply your belief.
Above is a list of 4 times you reference death from your last response. You seem to have a preoccupation with death (and 'truth') and a misunderstanding of science. Given you're preoccupation with 'truth' and death, is it safe to say that ur a religious fellow that has VERY little interest in science? Be honest.. the 'designer' is watching.
I'm not religious, I'm philosophical and deeply spiritual. I'm rationale and holistic. I see the same kind of arrogant, dogmatic stupidity that you claim lies with religion in the scientific world view, particularly when it is coupled with atheism. I'm talking about death for your sake, I am not preoccupied with it. I'm simply making the point that all of your toil is meaningless as described by your own world view. Science doesn't make you better as a person, it's not moral.
Do you have any problems that need to be solved or do u need to make any accurate predictions you care to mention? Above is a list of 5 separate accounts of you mentioning 'truth' from your last set of responses. Do you have problems to solve (mention them)? Or, are you just interested in 'truth'? Be honest here....
Again, for your sake, I am alluding to what is really important here. The truth. I'm doing this for your benefit. Science is not the truth. It is a method. Combined with logic and philosophy, we can describe patterns in our world, but to carry it to the extreme that you do...atheism, materialism. It simply is not warranted by the evidence, unless of course you dismiss certain modes of knowledge entirely and focus only on that which bolsters your preconceived world view.
How does the 'truth' of ID (u've mentioned 'truth' over and over again, but never define) useful in solving problems or making predictions? I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm just asking you to justify with an example. 'Optimal' living is subjective... a taste... a preference. What's 'optimal' to you can be the 'worst' living experience for someone else. Otherwise we'd all be the same. Agreed? Why or why not?
If I lived in the recent past, as say an American Indian, perhaps a warrior hunter, or a shaman, I tend to believe I would be far happier than I am today. I am a consumer, a corporate means to an end. And so are you. What you are taught through academia is a way of thinking, a world view. It itself is subjective, but you champion scientific naturalism like a prized belief system, an unfaltering way of perceiving reality. I despise everything about that deep in my conscience.
Why are you talking about death for my sake?? When did I mention death as part of my argument or conversation?
"Science doesn't make you better as a person, it's not moral."
When did I say that science makes one 'better'? I only recognize how applicable science has improved my life (yours as well). What does morality have to do with anything? Are you now suggesting that science is immoral?
The fact that you think morality doesn't have anything to do with anything says it ALL. Science is not always immoral. But there is no such thing as amoral when it comes to the endeavors of human beings. So more often than not, science is brutally immoral. And since morality doesn't seem to be much of a concern to you, it's no wonder you think the way you do.
The fact that you think your religious opinion is an explanation for emotional judgement calls doesn't really prove anything other than your obedience to your handlers....
You might as well be talking to some stick figure of a "fundamentalist" that you drew in your sketch book. Nothing you say is any more or less applicable to me than it is to you. Ever listen to yourself talk? You just might learn something by applying your own judgments to yourself.
I don't listen to pastors. But since you are a bigot, stereotyping moron who doesn't know how to think critically, you make these ridiculous statements. I have not been objecting science, but interpretation. The credibility I have lies in the truth of my objections. You make no scientific statements at all, so your hypocrisy is really quite stunning. Instead you make arguments from credulity, the genetic fallacy, and ad hominems.
You keep mentioning morality, but I'm beginning to doubt you understand what morality is. I'll offer you my definition: Morality: actions, ideas and words designed to alleviate and or prevent the suffering of conscious creatures. What exactly is yours anyway because morality does concern me. How is anything I've said immoral under your definition or mine?
How does the 'truth' of ID (u've mentioned 'truth' over and over again, but never define) useful in solving problems or making predictions? I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm just asking you to justify with an example. 'Optimal' living is subjective... a taste... a preference. What's 'optimal' to you can be the 'worst' living experience for someone else. Otherwise we'd all be the same. Agreed? Why or why not?
@circusOFprecision "What good is evolution's utility? Why is the usefulness.. important?
part 4Q
Again, I could list the ways evolution has benefitted ur life AND health... If ur looking to 'believe' in something, there are a host of religions to work with that offer 'truth'. Or, u can 'believe' in yourself. But science isn't for 'belief, and it's NOT 'TRUTH'. The consequence of scientists ‘believing’ in science would cause progress to come to a grinding halt.
Science also is not a world view, it's a method, and when successful, a methodology. The subtle difference is worth considering, because beyond that, the rest of your ideas stem from metaphysics and philosophy, even if you learn them from a "scientist". But the attitude that many people profess here on youtube and in popular culture about science is RELIGIOUS to the core. You revere science, you owe your life to it, you personify it through humanism, and you defend it like a faith.
Again, (I've mentioned this many, many times) I don't 'believe' in science (as 'truth'). Are you able to understand that and why? I know science is hard and it's not for everyone...but if I can get you to understand that scientists don't sit around all day believing in things; rather, they USE scientific theories to solve problems and make accurate predictions. Does this make sense? Why or why not?
You are the one telling me that I owe my life to evolutionary theory, and scientific progress in general. That is complete bullshit. Do I owe my life to quantum physics? How about laboratory experiments? No. I owe my life to a process beyond my control, and to be honest, beyond the ability of my human rational mind to fully grasp. I personally don't care what you think about ID, it's happening, it's moving forward with or without your attacks. I do think it will solve problems.
We could discuss how applied evolutionary theory has improved your life and health...but instead, let's stick to the basics. Science solves problems and makes predictions. It's NOT something for u to believe in, it's a tool (like ur car) used to solve problems. I know I don't believe in evolution, and I encourage u not to either. If I can help u understand that, I have done u a tremendous service. Make sense?
I could discuss how common sense and basic human instinct allowed human beings to do quite well for themselves for thousands of years, well before "modern technology". I could also discuss the countless harmful by products of our scientific meddling with nature. The cancers, the new disorders, the weapons, the destruction of our ecosystem. Do you purposefully ignore the other half of the equation?
Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with "chimps becoming human". As I've already surmised once before, u obviously have NO scientific education (maybe high school, but wasn't retained). We could discuss science (I've been avoiding scientific specifics on purpose), but it's fruitless if u don’t understand the basics... so I'll stick with logic/reason which requires no education or understanding.
You are quite wrong. There is no known chimp human common ancestor. When you have the DNA, you let me know. Without that piece of evidence, assuming that chimps and humans are different lineages branching off from a common ancestor, well...you already know. It's conjecture that supports a circular argument. And now it has become an assumption that few question, even though there is zero direct evidence...period. You accept it on principle, I get that. I don't.
@circusOFprecision "I am alluding to what is really important here. The truth."
Part 7R
Ah yes, the 'truth'. You seem to love the 'truth'. You don't define it... you don't describe it... you don't describe how or why it's important....you just say: 'truth'. Something of importance MUST have applicable value. Is your 'truth' anti 'materialism'? What is the 'truth' and why is it important?
ID may be scientific. I don't think so, but the first step would be to propose how the 'ID theory' would solve WHAT problem? You need to have a problem that needs solving. A car was developed to solve transportation problems. Evolutionary theory was developed to solve observed organismal problems and phenomena. Let's brainstorm together. I'll help. What problem could ID solve or predictions could it make?
Personally, I don't care if ID fits the popular definition of science or not. I am fundamentally opposed to the philosophy of scientific naturalism/materialism, which is the driving ideology behind science and academia at present. So, I guess you might possibly win over a definitional dispute. Biology solves problems, and if we use the right model, a design model, it will solve those problems better and shed more light on the deeper questions, particularly at the base of life. IMHO.
Tell you what. So that you can understand what is important to me, it follows that I should tell you that I don't give a damn about who gets to call what science. Science should be about the truth, if apparent design in nature is actual design in some, if not many cases, that truth is far more important than a commitment to a metaphysical underpinning of how we choose to define science. Nature doesn't account for itself, therefore naturalism cannot be a proper metaphysical position.
@circusOFprecision "f I lived in the recent past, as say an American Indian, perhaps a warrior hunter... I believe I would be far happier than I am today."
Part 4R
Oh REALLY?? U don't need a time machine...u can live much like an 'American Indian' NOW! U can have ur better life now! You can move to the Amazon basin and live with the Huaorani Indians, or northern Alaska with the inuits. What's keeping u in modernity? Why deny yourself the happy lifestyle you 'truly' long for?
Even if I tried to answer that question, on the most elementary level, you wouldn't understand. You like the system, you like your creature comforts, you have a steak in it. And you don't give a damn about what is good for humanity, or morality in general. You will disagree, and you will talk some shit about how religion is the bad guy and you are trying to get scientifically savvy so you can treat man's ills. Heard it before, it's bullshit. But go ahead, surprise me.
I acknowledge that neither modern life OR 'ancient' life are perfect. HOWEVER, I acknowledge that modern life in a modern country OFFERS FAR more than 'ancient' life, and I give hard working engineers and scientists my thanks. I would imagine u to be very dishonest if u disagreed as you obviously enjoy modernity. Are you suggesting that you would prefer the life of a bronze age tribesman?
It isn't about comfort, it isn't about knowledge. It's about knowing one's self, living morally because it is what we are designed to strive for. Fuck modernity. I happen to be raised in it. But I see all of the empty people walking around, working all day just to barely get by, escaping into their TV, fake religion on Sunday, unhappy, like something is missing. Or they are too dumbed down to even notice anymore. Stop nit picking like a sarcastic little ninny and be real for once.
It isn't about comfort, it isn't about knowledge. It's about knowing one's self, living morally because it is what we are designed to strive for. Fuck modernity. I happen to be raised in it. But I see all of the empty people walking around, working all day just to barely get by, escaping into their TV, fake religion on Sunday, unhappy, like something is missing. Or they are too dumbed down to even notice anymore. Stop nit picking like a sarcastic little ninny and be real for once.
The fact that organisms evolve, that the Earth is not 6000 years old, that woman wan't made from a rib--none of those facts are to blame for unhappiness.
If anything, Christianity is the enemy to human happiness.....
THANK YOU! We can definitely agree here! Science isn't truth at all. If you can take anything away from our conversation, please take this with you. Science is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions... it is NOT 'TRUTH'. Likewise, a car is a tool used to solve transportation problems. A car is also NOT 'TRUTH'. It's good to know that this is making sense to you.
We agree on that, but you miss the point I'm trying to make. You use science, and in particular scientific naturalism as a model for how you interpret reality. Think about that. That's the problem, and that is why what you consider to be true is limited from the start, even if you play the mind games with me and acknowledge that certain things "may be possible"..."yet we have good reason to reject them".
@circusOFprecision "I am opposed to the philosophy of scientific naturalism/materialism"
Part 7S
This couldn't possibly be honest. If you don't like science, then stop using your computer... stop taking medical care...stop driving your car (assuming you have one). All your problems can be solved with a good, old fashioned prayer. BUT, STOP PRETENDING... it's dishonest and definitely not moral. You're being hypocritical! How do you define morality anyway??
Wrong. I never said I didn't like science. You are equivocating, which is a really dishonest intellectual practice and you know it. I think reductionism, materialism, and science that is limited to only seeking explanations based upon preconceived notions about reality are all horse shit. Science, however, I thoroughly enjoy. Always have. Technology on the other hand. I did just fine for the longest time without a computer, a TV, or even a phone. I'm no hypocrite, your just shallow.
Right, you said you are: " opposed to...scientific naturalism". If you are in opposition against something, you must not like it much. Thank you for correcting me on 'like', but you oppose science. You said so yourself! If you're opposed to it, why do you use it? Are you going to address my question in part S, or are you opposed to those questions too? What notions should we "base reality"?
Scientific naturalism IS NOT science. Take a philosophy class and get off your high horse. You sound like a complete moron. Science is a methodical process of observing and testing things around us. Scientific naturalism is a metaphysical presupposition, or in nicer terms a philosophical framework, for interpreting scientific data. Do you get it yet? Did you lose the power of critical thinking at some point? Seems like it.
I have taken philosophy, but it was a long time ago. Admittedly, I'm extremely rusty. I looked it up and I think we're on the same page. BUT you seem to have completely avoided yet another section of mine. This time it's PART S. What's the problem? If you're not willing to address my questions, I'll take it as a cop out. Your question avoidance speaks volumes of ur ability to reason anyway... or avoid being reasonable. Are u in or out?
The answer is quite simple. We base our notions of reality on everything within reality that we consistently experience. Yes, that means that science is not enough in and of itself, which you already know. That's why you subscribe to metaphysics like scientific naturalism to help you explain scientific data. I think scientific naturalism is poor metaphysics. Nature cannot account for itself, like I said before. Critical thinking, try it.
@circusOFprecision "Even if I tried to answer that question... you wouldn't understand."
Part 6S
This is the biggest COP OUT answer and it's insulting. I wouldn't understand?? You're not even giving me a chance. Wouldn't a more honest answer be: I'm not comfortable answering your question?
"you don't give a damn... morality"
How UNFAIR of you to accuse me unjustly of not caring about morality. You don't even support this with evidence/reasoning.
You told me to go live in the Amazon, as if I'm not allowed to exist in the society I was raised and have the freedom to object to certain things about it. It seems to me that you define a good life as one that benefits from science and technology, and that everything else is inferior, or less important. You don't realize it, but you preach scientism like a Muslim preaches Islam. You say I owe it my life and that I must look at things through a certain filter or I'm not deserving.
What??? I'm talking about science ('scientism') because that's what my argument is about, remember? This debate/discussion started with your insistence that ID is a scientific theory. INTERESTINGLY, after I challenged such notions, you abandoned ID and retreated to 'truth', 'morality' and religion. By doing so, you've exposed ID as a dishonest front for your REAL interests. Right?
Listen to yourself. You want me to accept your view of science as the optimal world view, when as we both know, science in itself isn't even a philosophy. So really, what you want me to except is an atheistic, materialistic world view where everything is judged through the filter of scientific naturalism. And for extremely good reasons, which I've put forth several times now, I reject your offer completely. You should reject it as well, but you won't. You don't think critically.
In part S u ignored questions of morality, as one example.
"American Indians had.. developed medicinal practices. "
Again, u undermine modernity. U undermine modern medicine with insistences that archaic medical practices (no knowledge of germ theory) are sound in comparison to today. If they are 'well developed', then do you seek these archaic treatments, or do u seek modern medicine?
It has been proven time and time again that natural diet along with natural living practices have the best track record of health in human history. Sure, people didn't understand exactly how bacteria worked or what they were. But that never stopped someone from using common sense. Only when people began living in large cities, in "modernity" to you begin to have problems with disease, feces, rat infestations, ect. I'm sorry, but your view of history is absurdly biased and false.
@circusOFprecision " natural diet along with natural living practices.... best track record of health "
Part 6V
What was this reply in response to??? Is this your argument as to why native American Indians had well 'developed' medical practices?
"I'm not allowed to exist in the society"
My argument is simple... if u like the old Indian lifestyle, then it goes to reason that u would pursue that lifestyle. Nothing is keeping u from enjoying the modernity that prevents ur happiness.
No, but it's hypocritical to bash on science and claim to desire a 19th century native American Indian lifestyle while obviously enjoying and taking full advantage of the bounty of modernity. Don't you think? Complain all you want, but nobody is forcing you to use that computer of your for leisure... or accept a vaccine that was produced by applying evolutionary theory. There is a tribal lifestyle waiting for u.
As you know by now, and you've even admitted, I'm not bashing science. I'm rejecting scientific naturalism. So if I reject this world view, this paradigm, this set of metaphysical principles, this philosophy, I don't get to use computers? Haha! That's ridiculous. It's irrational. It makes me wonder what is really motivating you to have this conversation. It has nothing to do with science, that's for sure. You have barely even addressed science once in this entire discussion.
Unless u can show otherwise, I don't want you to misrepresent science in the form ID and spread falsehoods about science. U can believe in unicorns, fairies, sky-daddies, 'primal intelligence from beyond nature' etc all you want. Enjoy those ideas and stories! I do. BUT DON'T warp science because we haven't yet scientifically detected a god/intelligence that guides life. Do you think ur being fair?
I understand what you are trying to say, but it is flawed. I'm sorry, it just is. I'm not spreading falsehoods about science. You are. I am not claiming that science is a set of metaphysical presuppositions. You are. I am very much aware of the science. We differ in the interpretation and understanding of that body of evidence/data. And we are free to do so. Science, and our understanding of the world both can't progress if we put science in a box and avoid the greater reality.
If you think that is what I am doing, than I must tell you that you are wrong. It appears that cellular structures are engineered. All of the hallmarks of intelligence are there. I mean, we are talking super engineering. ID is a viable interpretation. You hurt science by trying to skew it in such a way as to keep certain conclusions from being drawn from the evidence. It is YOU who warps science. And you learned this from some very smart people.
No, you are the one shilling for your religion. Cellular structures operate on programming, are built by assembly instructions, and function exactly like sophisticated machines. Not you or any other scientist or philosopher have evidence that undirected natural processes can produce such things. You have no other examples to point to but life, therefore your entire argument is circular and must defy logic, reason, and common experience of the products of intelligent causation.
Look, we know you are not intelligent, you've proven it time and time again. And if you were my shill, I would get rid of you. You are an embarrassment.
From the very beginning, the basis of my argument is that science is a tool USED to solve problems and make predictions. I encourage u to USE your computer, your car, hammer, AND science to solve problems. DON'T 'believe' in evolution or your hammer, you USE them. BUT, it doesn't seem fair to 'bite the hand that feeds you'... LITERALLY! Applied evolutionary theory has increased food production and quality.
Actually, if anything, it is the natural order that science tries to unravel that "feeds me". I rather enjoy science. I showed you that many times. Your argument is flawed. But you keep trying to push it anyways, you just slightly change the wording each time. Evolution is a historical science. Knowledge, or lack of knowledge about that history has little bearing on what we do in the present regarding biology. You are mislead my friend.
Name one technological benefit that directly and completely owes it's existence to applied evolutionary theory. I don't have to believe in evolution to to embrace science and technology, to be modern, to be intelligent. That is absolutely ridiculous. It's like me trying to use the existence of biblical manuscripts to try and make you believe in the religion of Christianity. What is your goal? To guilt trip me into your metaphysics? Absurd.
Not true. I never rejected biology, not once. To you evolutionary theory IS science IS biology. Haha! Sorry. Evolutionary theory is a theory, an interpretation of evidence based upon metaphysical assumptions, and philosophical presuppositions. Stop equating things that are not the same. And stop invoking science like you own it. Leave science out of this.
NOT at all. I encourage you to believe in whatever you want. But when U get honest, you admit this is all about a concern that life is unguided. U recognize that u are apart of life and, apparently, it appeals to u if life is guided by a 'primal intelli from beyond nature'. U've admitted this is beyond science/nature...so cut the ID science crap. Science investigates the natural world. I know u understand this.
No, it's not about a concern that life is unguided. It's about a realization that living things are creations of a higher intelligence. There is nothing comforting about this conclusion, and I have no reason to want it to be true. I simply infer it from the scientific evidence. So cut the Darwinist crap. Science investigates reality, not your metaphysical presuppositions or your definition of what is natural or not. Sorry, you can't win because you are wrong. Figure it out.
My goal is for individuals, like urself to understand that science is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions based on evidence. NOT to be 'believed' in. This is a difficult task as u insist on 'believing' or not 'believing' in evolution:
"I don't have to believe in evolution"
GOOD! DON'T! I don't 'believe' in evolution too, but I have USED it before. I use other tools too like my car and hammer.
You have used evolution? Define evolution, then tell me how you have used it. Science is not a tool. Technology is a tool. Science is a method of observation and repeatable experimentation. You are getting almost as bad as odinata, and that is not a good thing. Science doesn't make predictions. People make predictions. If you want, I will sit here and correct you until perhaps you can finally understand the utter failure of your intellect on these matters.
I've already recently mentioned a COUPLE examples of how applied evolutionary theory benefits. Directly and completely? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll offer an example: evolutionary algorithms. Why are we talking about just evolution?? Are you curious at all about the technological benefits of plate tectonic theory? Are you concerned if plate tectonics is a guided process?
Evolutionary algorithms are do not model undirected natural processes. This has been PROVEN. I think you need to read outside of your circle. Why don't you start with Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome by Sanford. You are indeed using science, but then underneath it all you credit your Darwinian metaphysics. How dare you. And then lecture me about ID? I'm glad we can be civil here. So listen close, you are duped. Stop giving science a bad name and blaming me.
"Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer."
This statement sums you up ur argument perfectly at this point... the classic: 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument. This one is sure win any debate or argument! What happened? Early on, you were quick to define science for me an apply that definition thereby TRYING to apply logic and reasoning. Now, all I get is: "I'm right, you're wrong"? I'm better off arguing with my 7 year old niece.
@circusOFprecision "Science doesn't make predictions. Science is not a tool. "
Part 4V
I said science is a tool USED to solve problems. Seriously!? I have stated this argument since day 1. In fact, you were agreeing with me: "Right, scientific theories help us solve problems." Rather than a well thought out retort, you resort to just playing word games. Obviously, science is USED by people or whatever is capable of using it. How do you want me to reply to this?
The way I see it, our senses are tools. Our mind, used properly is a tool. Science is a method. So yes, scientific theories help us solve problems. And while it may seem to you that I am arguing pointless semantics, I feel there is a very subtle but important difference in what we are both saying here. You keep trying to glorify science and revere it, but there is nothing there to revere. It's simply a method. It doesn't even have the power to make claims, it can only sort out facts
At this point, I have answered all your questions while you pick and choose which of my questions to address (much like how you pick and choose when to apply logic). To be fair, you have asked very few questions, so u have made my argument very easy. How about we fairly address each other? Answer one of my many questions (morality, plate tectonics, etc) u've ignored, and I will answer answer the question above. Is that fair?
There is nothing to answer about plate tectonics, it is irrelevant to the conversation. As for morality, that is the pinnacle of humanity, not science, not technology. Dwelling in the atheistic, materialistic realm that you do, where science is the hero, you miss so much about reality, you miss the point. Not many people these days agree with me. In fact, the popular way of thinking is that which you express, or that of a religion to the tune of cultural bias.
@circusOFprecision "Evolutionary algorithms are do not model undirected natural processes. "
Part 2V
I don't like to offer scientific examples with individuals like urself because it's aways the same... refute, refute, refute without ever explaining why/offering evidence or reasoning behind your refutation. U just say 'no' or ignore the question and then go about ur merry way... the purest form of denial. Simple reasoning are all that are required to expose the illogical.
But it's true. Evolutionary algorithms really don't model undirected natural processes. Only that which is captured directly from nature reflects nature. These algorithms involve anticipating the variables and extrapolating the calculations through time, time we don't actually experience. That's all I'm saying. I'm not denying that they may be of some use, that they require our intelligent understanding to create, but they don't prove anything. I know you disagree, that's fine.
17:59 I won't get into scientific arguments making a case for intelligent design until Miller gets to the science he feels refutes it, later.. However, the science teachers, probably in all innocence, don't realize that by teaching evo they are doing the very thing they think they oppose, i.e. teaching something false. I worked in the school system as a speech pathologist & know they don't reallly understand how to critically analyze it, & are usually totally clueless on logical fallacies. Cont
LoricaLady 19 hours ago
16:47 "Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critcally considered." What they really mean is "Everything except science that disagrees with evolution!" When did we ever see, in a standard textbook,the truth that evolutionits really don't agree on much of anything, that the primal pond is b.s.,that there is 0 evidence mutations or natural selection lead to anything above the level of speciation? Never! They go to court to squash dissent. Cont
LoricaLady 23 hours ago
...and no one bothers to mention that it is just 1 of evolution's dataless theories that flies in the face of actual scientific evidence. If you find some "Cambrian" fossils on mountain tops - which is common - well they get into magical thinking again and tell you "the earth moved" and you are expected to believe, with no baseline & no data to back up what they say in the unobservable & untestable "billions & millions" of years, that this explains away the Column's absence.. To be cont.
LoricaLady 1 day ago
...and therefore for the health of life on the planet overall? They tell us diamonds took ages to produce yet there is carbon 14 in them and it doesn't last as long as the diamonds supposedly do. They told us there was a Geologic Column with dates of millions of years between each "age" but...uh oh...that was just a 19th century construct with 0 evidence & worldwide digs have since revealed...0 evidence for even 1 such thing. Yet textbooks commonly have pictures of The Geologic Column...
LoricaLady 1 day ago
...times have the evolutionists themselves changed the date on the so called age of the earth? Do all of them - in various fields, even in any single field - agree on how old the earth is? No. Gee, what if someone wanted to ask certain Qs., like, how could the sun maintain it's very delicate balance of heat output with the planet's life forms over 4 billion years? Oh, and the moon is not staying still and we need it, also, to stay in its delicate balance for the control of the tides...
LoricaLady 1 day ago
...the "elite", don't try to educate yourself on the issues, just believe what you are told by the "experts." Again, we are not seeing any actual scientific evidence for evolution (and we never will - only dataless speculation presented as evidence along with logical fallacies) but are getting only the appeal to authority logical fallacy here. 13:28 Here the audience is invited to ridicule the idea that anyone would disagree that the earth is 4 billion years old. Let's see, now, how many....
LoricaLady 1 day ago
Cont. We see the very name of Bush being laughed at in what is presumably a mostly liberal audience (not that I personally think there is any significant difference between Republicans & Democrats). His statement that students should be able to hear both sides is not supported. We are told that the hopes are that Bush will "listen to his science advisor" who is very pro abortion. This is typical of how they want things to go. Don't think for yourself even if you are the Prez. Listen to....
LoricaLady 1 day ago
Cont. Again, the 1st half hour of this presentation has virtually no science in it. We see the propaganda technique of poisoning the well continuing, along with the propaganda technique of ridicule as attempts are made to eliciit laughter from the audience. None of those things have anything to do with science and logic and in fact detract from them. The sticker shown at 10:27 is right on. There is nothing wrong with it. The truth is they don't want any students to hear any dissent...
LoricaLady 1 day ago
9:17 "How about if we showed them this fossil? How about if we showed them something in the lab, would that convince them?" No, and it's not because of religiion, it's because they never have anything to "show" that is science. After 150+ years, in spite of desperate attempts to prove it is true, in spite of numerous frauds, in spite of attempts to squash dissent in court, evoulution still has the status of a theory, not a law of science. Why? They have nothing to show that it exists. Cont
LoricaLady 1 day ago
...and logic it's usually a waste of time. They start doing the Bible Bash dance & can't seem to stop. Yes there is a bias in terms of religion. But it is a bias that swings both ways. That is why I personally try to debate these issues while avoiding religion altogether. If the theory of evolution can't stand up to scientific scrutiny, it should be kicked out of the schools regardless of what the Bible does or does not say because it is dumbing down the students. To be cont.
LoricaLady 2 days ago
...exclusive. The truth is that evolution stands or falls on science & logic alone regardless of anyone's religioius beliefs. The truth is that the evo side is just as biased against religion, when pushing evolution. For ex. Dawkins said that any creationist was "crazy, stupid or evil."
Does this sound like someone who is trying to be an objective scientist? I have found when debating evo that the evo-ites almost invariably start attacking the Bible. If I ask them to stick to science...
LoricaLady 2 days ago
Cont. There is 0 testable, observable or repeatable to show anything ever happened through evolution. Cell biology, organic chemistry, physiology ARE testable, repeatable & observable so deserve to be called science. 8:27 We are told that sites like AnswersinGenesis have "a very different set of reasons" for being opposed to evolution than science. The truth is they are opposed on scientific as well as moral grounds in that case. It is Miller's assumption that they two must be mutually...
LoricaLady 2 days ago
...musing about his "nature studies". Though his book is called Origin of Species, it never showed any origin of any species at all. His comments reflect the kinds of evo-speak we see today in evolultionary literature, namely, "I suppose...I can hardly doubt...I have no difficulty in imagining...may we not believe..." Creationists call what Mendell did "science." We don't call dataless theoreticals, presented as some kind of scientific evidence, any kind of science but pseudo science. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 days ago
7:47 "If you are going to take 1 thing out of the biology curriculum, why would you take out evolution." Here we see the use of the equivocation logical fallacy through the use of the word "science." There is the science that produces what is observable, testable, repeatable as for instance what Mendell gave us in genetics. We can actually use his information. He kept careful notes and used the scientific method to get the data. There was not data with Darwin. Just some armchair...
LoricaLady 2 days ago
7:20 Here we see the propaganda technique called "poisoning the well". That is, before the debate actually gets full blown there is an attempt to make the audience perceive the other party in a bad light. What does one extremist's remark have to do with the real scientific issues? If one wants to see extremism one can see it on the evo side at least as much. I have been called a 'fundie" a "creatard" & "a liar for Jesus" more times than I can remember, though I was saying 0 religioius. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 days ago
...but real observable data, real science, shows us that bacteria stay bacteria, algae stay algae, finches stay finches & people stay people. In order to support the...myth...that fish turn into reptiles then birds etc., one gets a plethora of peer reviewed (all bow at the very words) articles that are replete with faith-based words like "likely....similarities...it is believed...we infer...here's a simulation...millions of (untestable & unobservable) years ago.." To be cont if not Expelled.
LoricaLady 4 days ago
...actually antiscience since it flies in the face of the LAW of biogenesis which states that life always comes from life. But the statement just went right on past and the audience was reinforced in a big myth of evolution - one based on....faith...contradicting actual scientific facts....Then we are told things like that nylon eating bacteria are "evolving." Funny thing. They are still bacteria, even the same species. All life shows a LIMITED ability to adapt to new situations...
LoricaLady 4 days ago
...Is there a shred of evidence it's progeny produced animals leading to tetrapods. Not 1. Speculation presented as evidence is not science, it is pseudo science. Also on the Colbert show I heard Colbert speaking of the primal pond. Here was a great "teachable momement" for the science professor. He could have told the audience that actually there is 0 evidence whatsoever for any primal pond, that there is 0 evidence life can come from inorganic matter & that the primal pond theory is...
LoricaLady 4 days ago
,,,us to believe in its invisible descendants' invsible descendants and draw invisible lines from Fossil A to Fossil B. We see their....faith. We don't see any facts, any data, to back up that faith. So we don't call it science. Miller has said, for ex., that Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets for a transitional fossil." Supposedly it is turning into a tetrapod. The actual evidence is a fossil with a conveniently missing back end that shows something that is 100% lobe finned FISH. Cont.
LoricaLady 4 days ago
,,,point to archaeopteryx. However, as with every single "transitional" fossil in the world there is never 100% agreement amongst evoltuionsts that it is a transition. As with every single "transitional" fossil in the world we never have any evidence whatsoever that it isn't just a dead end, extinct, life form which never produced any progeny significantly different from itself. To creationists it is pure magical thinking when they tell us that they know what kind of progeny it had & ask...
LoricaLady 4 days ago
say that evolutionists claim to lead a purely scientific movement but that it is actually faith based, in fact so much so that some people call it a religion. Some examples: We are told that fins turned into feet then into wings, that fish turned into tetrapods & then into birds, feathers turned into scales, etc. There are uncounted BILLIONS of fossils around the world, yet nowhere do we see any such things, only 100% fins, feathers, birds, etc. & no inbetweeners. Now some invariably will...
LoricaLady 4 days ago
About the 1st half hour of this vid is mostly personal promo, politicing, & propaganda techniques. I will ignore the self promo. As far as the politicing is concerned, I believe it is near the near the end of this talk - perhaps another one I heard, but I think this one - where MIller says a scientist should remain above politics. As we shall see he does not really heed his own advice there. 6:39 Here we see a statement: Creationists claim to lead a purely scientific movement. We would...
LoricaLady 4 days ago
...the tooth of an extinct pig! Since that was just one of many frauds in evolution, you might think they would want to distance themselves from that fiasco, but I suppose most of the audience is not going to have seen anything but the Hollywood farce, so won't see the irony of what is going on here. Next we have a man of Gawd showing up, mho to reassure us presumed to be stooopid creationists that you can believe in a Creator - as long as He's not intelligent. To be cont if I'm not Expelled.
LoricaLady 5 days ago
...unseen." So, his Creator is...stooopid, as opposed to intelligent? I find it enlightening that this is subtitled "Will the next monkey trial be in Ohio." This is a reference to the Scopes Monkey Trial which is presented by Hollywood, in "Inherit The Wind" as a big win for science. As always with evo, the exact opposite is true when you really look at the data. The so called "scientific evidence" presented at the trial, showing ape to man, was built around what later turned out to be...
LoricaLady 5 days ago
Unless I get Expelled - which has certainly happened on YT evo supporting vids before, though I don't push religion & try to be very polite while others who were just the opposite were not Expelled - I am going to critique this whole vid using science and logic. 1st, the title, The Collapse of Intelligent Design. Now, I have seen Miller on the Colbert show - one can see a clip of it here on YT - saying that, as a Roman Catholic, he believes "Jesus Christ created all that is seen &....
LoricaLady 5 days ago
Did a criticism of Intelligent Design just begin with a prayer?
Makingnewnamesisdumb 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
There is actually a straightforward method of detecting design in nature. And that is, by observing and comparing human designs to living organisms in the natural world. The best examples of design is the symmetry that many types of species exhibit. Birds, butterflies, moths, etc. They all need to be symmetrical in shape in order to fly. The same holds true for airplanes and gliders.
villontre 3 months ago
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
Robust? Biology????
None of the facts in this field match up with the assertions you have made....
so far.............
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There exists no example that natural processes produce what we see in life"
What a worthless statement.
Unless Jeebus makes each snowflake by hand, or Zeus throws every lightning bolt, this Jehovah's Witnesses bullshit is just bad comedy....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Leave science out of this."
I can see why you need this to happen....
Science totally destroys your assertions of opinion....
odinata 4 months ago
"Why don't you start with Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome by Sanford"
Sanford is a debunked YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST.
Why don't YOU start with a Biology textbook?
You can't seem to get any of the facts straight.
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creatards like circusclown here never seem to realize that their religious opinions don't create facts....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With every post it becomes more evident that circusfreak doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Evolutionary theory is a theory"
A scientific theory--try looking up what that term means.
Atomic Theory is theory as well.
Try Chemistry without it.
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
I love it when Creatards bash science over the internet--on their computers.......
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata Computers were "created" by intelligent designers. Evolution doesn't create anything.
villontre 4 months ago
@odinata
Of course you do. You aren't a moral person who cares about the truth. You wouldn't understand the truth in a simple analogy if it crawled inside your brain and laid eggs. I love when evolutionists laugh at something that is obviously true leaving anyone with any common sense scratching their heads like WTF?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Believe what you want.
There is no evidence of the designer you claim, and irreducible complexity has been shown to be flawed reasoning.
odinata 4 months ago
What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.
odinata 4 months ago
Biology has advanced beyond Darwin and "Darwinian".
\Try to keep up.
odinata 4 months ago
And this is indeed why Behe and irreducible complexity have been FLATLY REJECTED by science.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata As of now there is too much hostility directed at Intelligent Design and irreducible complexity coming from some in the scientific community. It is as if Behe wanted to bring down Darwin's theory.
villontre 4 months ago
@villontre
Let me repeat:
Behe's irreducible complexity is shown to be false, and your own quotes tell us why.
The systems that have parts that serve other functions are NOT irreducibly complex.
It has nothing to with hostility and everything to do with what we have both just stated here.
odinata 4 months ago
@villontre " too much hostility directed at Intelligent Design"
I don't think ID is treated any less hostile than any other nonscientific theory that masquerades as scientific theory. Scientific theory are tools used to solve problems and make predictions (atomic theory, germ theory) that are testable/observable/falsifiable. If u feel that ID is a scientific theory, then what problems does it solve? What predictions does it make? Do you find atomic theory just as false as evolution? Why?
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm [If u feel that ID is a scientific theory, then what problems does it solve?] For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder). Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).
villontre 4 months ago
@villontre "caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., by accident)"
So, you're saying then that forensic investigators are looking for naturalistic causation when determining cause of death. Or, when investigating a crime scene, only naturalistic explanations are considered (animal, random accident) when investigating a death? Would you agree? A forensic investigator only considers observable and testable evidence. Does that sound about right?
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
You don't seem to grasp the connection. Did the man with the bullet wound through his head accidentally walk in front of a traveling bullet? Or did someone's intentional actions (a man with a gun willfully shot him) bring about his demise? Did the cell just build up from chemical reactions, or did an intelligence engineer it? Both are in the realm of science to detect, only one is true.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "undirected, indifferent, unguided"
Part 4p
If we're going to be honest, what disturbs you about some bits of science is the possibility of an uncaring universe. This disturbance of yours is something we must all face since there is no evidence to the contrary. AND, because we cannot measure or observe a designers caring, guided intent and purpose (assuming there is one), we SHOULD become responsible adults and take charge of our own lives. Agree?
Continue to part 5p
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Ah, but here is the problem. When you realize that you have free will, and exactly what you are up against (which is death), you begin to retreat from the idea of meaning and purpose itself. There is nothing glorious about a comfortable fiction in which we imagine that our lives are but a flicker of luck on a whim. In fact, I once thought this very way, quite convincingly. However, I began to understand that this is all a dead end, a way of giving up where our control seems to end.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "undirected, indifferent, unguided"
Part 4p
If we're going to be honest, what disturbs you about some bits of science is the possibility of an uncaring universe. This disturbance of yours is something we must all face since there is no evidence to the contrary. AND, because we cannot measure or observe a designers caring, guided intent and purpose (assuming there is one), we SHOULD become responsible adults and take charge of our own lives. Wouldn't you agree?
end p
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Instead of acceptance, you seem to want to invoke responsibility. This is just an observation, not an accusation, but this kind of psychological flip flop is eerily like that of brainwashing. But I will concede that yes, we should take responsibility. Part of that responsibility includes recognizing the truth of our reality. We can manipulate nature all we like, but we still die. We can't really do much. So I think you toil in desperation for the gain of someone else.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision "undirected, indifferent, unguided"
Part 4p
If we're going to be honest, what disturbs you about some bits of science is the possibility of an uncaring universe. This disturbance of yours is something we must all face since there is no evidence to the contrary. AND, because we cannot measure or observe a designers caring, guided intent and purpose (assuming there is one), we SHOULD become responsible adults and take charge of our own lives. Wouldn't you agree?
end p
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "accidentally walk ...intentional actions"
Part 3p
EVEN if there is a designer... one could easily argue that there are NO ACCIDENTS... that the designer intelligently guides a 'stray' bullet into the brain of an 'innocent' bystander. If the designer MUST design everything (cells, people, etc), then perhaps everything that transpires does so by intelligent design. ID is clearly nothing more than a philosophy... NOT USEFUL PROBLEM SOLVING SCIENCE.
Continue to part 4p
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Yes, in this way you can argue towards a purely humanistic ultimatum. And it may serve some kind of temporary purpose. But who really benefits? Perhaps a hand full of sociopaths at the top of the food chain. But do you? Not really. You may reap the benefits in terms of some creature comforts. But you still die, and with a lack of the truth I might add. I'm not trying to sound sinister. It's just that I am a realist and a pessimist.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
As for the designer. Yes, it bothers me that I am a kind of prop in this "play" we call existence. But there is nothing I can do about it. However, if I am to deny this, for some kind of temporary comfort, than I am willfully limiting myself. It's like the Matrix, I can take the pill that makes me something in this life, or I can fight for the truth. Not to be dramatic, it's just that all roads lead to this ultimatum within our own conscience. Unless we are numb with apathy, we must accept.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "accidentally walk ...intentional actions"
Part 2p
Forensic investigators simply collect and analyze physical evidence ONLY. They DO NOT make judgement calls of intent or design (intelligent design). THEY DO NOT speculate that the evidence is the result from a 'primal intelligence from beyond nature' (ur words). When was the last time a crime was attributed to the actions of ghosts, aliens or gods? Will u be replying to any of my questions in part M?
Cont to part 3p
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
That's why it is a metaphor or an analogy, not a one for one example. Of course in the world of human beings, we already assume the mind in question through social relations. But when it comes to the higher level of existence itself, of why and how all this comes into being, language fails to penetrate, so we rely upon examples within our own experience to allude to that which language itself also emerges from.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "You don't seem to grasp the connection."
Part 1p
You seem to have ignored all of part N (which was a reply to you) in favor of responding to a message intended for someone else. That's fine, but I'd like to think you’ll eventually address my questions. But, thank you for answering villontre's question for him as he, like most ID/religious proponents, have a hard time answering questions that require any thought. I will address your question in part 2p
Cont to part 2p
blaisingm 4 months ago
@villontre "caused by unintelligent causes "
So, as long as I ask you questions you aren't comfortable with, you'll withdraw yourself from the conversation and ignore me. I'm not surprised. This is a very common of religious OR ID supporters...an inability to address and answer questions that require critical thinking skills. There is nothing wrong with ignoring questions and withdrawing one's self from a discussion, but it clearly illustrates how uncomfortable reality is for you.
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Sorry to butt in, but Neo-Darwinism is a pseudoscience if there ever was one. It offers many imaginative whys, with very vague and useless hows. But science is about how. So how did a chimp become a human? No one knows, it's just assumed from the pseudo-scientific vantage point of evolution. If the goal is dogmatic, to get rid of design, than of course it makes sense. But don't kid yourself, science never gave such ideas the upper hand on their own merit. That's simply your belief.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Part 7Q
"up against (which is death)”
“but we still die.”
“But you still die,”
“forgotten shortly after his death”
Above is a list of 4 times you reference death from your last response. You seem to have a preoccupation with death (and 'truth') and a misunderstanding of science. Given you're preoccupation with 'truth' and death, is it safe to say that ur a religious fellow that has VERY little interest in science? Be honest.. the 'designer' is watching.
con part 8Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
I'm not religious, I'm philosophical and deeply spiritual. I'm rationale and holistic. I see the same kind of arrogant, dogmatic stupidity that you claim lies with religion in the scientific world view, particularly when it is coupled with atheism. I'm talking about death for your sake, I am not preoccupied with it. I'm simply making the point that all of your toil is meaningless as described by your own world view. Science doesn't make you better as a person, it's not moral.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Part 6Q
"I can fight for the truth."
"with a lack of the truth"
"It's about the truth."
"ID is in the truth"
“recognizing the truth”
Do you have any problems that need to be solved or do u need to make any accurate predictions you care to mention? Above is a list of 5 separate accounts of you mentioning 'truth' from your last set of responses. Do you have problems to solve (mention them)? Or, are you just interested in 'truth'? Be honest here....
Con to part 7Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Again, for your sake, I am alluding to what is really important here. The truth. I'm doing this for your benefit. Science is not the truth. It is a method. Combined with logic and philosophy, we can describe patterns in our world, but to carry it to the extreme that you do...atheism, materialism. It simply is not warranted by the evidence, unless of course you dismiss certain modes of knowledge entirely and focus only on that which bolsters your preconceived world view.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "The utility of ID is in the truth."
part 5Q
How does the 'truth' of ID (u've mentioned 'truth' over and over again, but never define) useful in solving problems or making predictions? I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm just asking you to justify with an example. 'Optimal' living is subjective... a taste... a preference. What's 'optimal' to you can be the 'worst' living experience for someone else. Otherwise we'd all be the same. Agreed? Why or why not?
cont part 6Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
If I lived in the recent past, as say an American Indian, perhaps a warrior hunter, or a shaman, I tend to believe I would be far happier than I am today. I am a consumer, a corporate means to an end. And so are you. What you are taught through academia is a way of thinking, a world view. It itself is subjective, but you champion scientific naturalism like a prized belief system, an unfaltering way of perceiving reality. I despise everything about that deep in my conscience.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I'm talking about death for your sake"
part 8R
Why are you talking about death for my sake?? When did I mention death as part of my argument or conversation?
"Science doesn't make you better as a person, it's not moral."
When did I say that science makes one 'better'? I only recognize how applicable science has improved my life (yours as well). What does morality have to do with anything? Are you now suggesting that science is immoral?
End R
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
The fact that you think morality doesn't have anything to do with anything says it ALL. Science is not always immoral. But there is no such thing as amoral when it comes to the endeavors of human beings. So more often than not, science is brutally immoral. And since morality doesn't seem to be much of a concern to you, it's no wonder you think the way you do.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
The fact that you think your religious opinion is an explanation for emotional judgement calls doesn't really prove anything other than your obedience to your handlers....
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
You might as well be talking to some stick figure of a "fundamentalist" that you drew in your sketch book. Nothing you say is any more or less applicable to me than it is to you. Ever listen to yourself talk? You just might learn something by applying your own judgments to yourself.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Not true.
Your statements are pure opinion.
None of your objections to any science have had any credibility.
You might just learn something if you stopped listening to your fundamentalist pastors....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata DARwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
@odinata
I don't listen to pastors. But since you are a bigot, stereotyping moron who doesn't know how to think critically, you make these ridiculous statements. I have not been objecting science, but interpretation. The credibility I have lies in the truth of my objections. You make no scientific statements at all, so your hypocrisy is really quite stunning. Instead you make arguments from credulity, the genetic fallacy, and ad hominems.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
We've got the record here.
We can examine your claims, and see who has ad hominem and fallacy in place of facts....
That would be you.
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Why?
Because you are built ass backwards, upside down.
You start with the conclusion, and filter your facts based on how much they ruffle your fundamentalist feathers.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "you think morality"
Part 8S
You keep mentioning morality, but I'm beginning to doubt you understand what morality is. I'll offer you my definition: Morality: actions, ideas and words designed to alleviate and or prevent the suffering of conscious creatures. What exactly is yours anyway because morality does concern me. How is anything I've said immoral under your definition or mine?
End S
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "The utility of ID is in the truth."
part 5Q
How does the 'truth' of ID (u've mentioned 'truth' over and over again, but never define) useful in solving problems or making predictions? I'm not suggesting your wrong, I'm just asking you to justify with an example. 'Optimal' living is subjective... a taste... a preference. What's 'optimal' to you can be the 'worst' living experience for someone else. Otherwise we'd all be the same. Agreed? Why or why not?
cont part 6Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "What good is evolution's utility? Why is the usefulness.. important?
part 4Q
Again, I could list the ways evolution has benefitted ur life AND health... If ur looking to 'believe' in something, there are a host of religions to work with that offer 'truth'. Or, u can 'believe' in yourself. But science isn't for 'belief, and it's NOT 'TRUTH'. The consequence of scientists ‘believing’ in science would cause progress to come to a grinding halt.
cont part 5Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Science also is not a world view, it's a method, and when successful, a methodology. The subtle difference is worth considering, because beyond that, the rest of your ideas stem from metaphysics and philosophy, even if you learn them from a "scientist". But the attitude that many people profess here on youtube and in popular culture about science is RELIGIOUS to the core. You revere science, you owe your life to it, you personify it through humanism, and you defend it like a faith.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "That's simply your belief."
Part 3Q
Again, (I've mentioned this many, many times) I don't 'believe' in science (as 'truth'). Are you able to understand that and why? I know science is hard and it's not for everyone...but if I can get you to understand that scientists don't sit around all day believing in things; rather, they USE scientific theories to solve problems and make accurate predictions. Does this make sense? Why or why not?
Cont part 4Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
You are the one telling me that I owe my life to evolutionary theory, and scientific progress in general. That is complete bullshit. Do I owe my life to quantum physics? How about laboratory experiments? No. I owe my life to a process beyond my control, and to be honest, beyond the ability of my human rational mind to fully grasp. I personally don't care what you think about ID, it's happening, it's moving forward with or without your attacks. I do think it will solve problems.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Darwinism is a pseudoscience"
Part 2Q
We could discuss how applied evolutionary theory has improved your life and health...but instead, let's stick to the basics. Science solves problems and makes predictions. It's NOT something for u to believe in, it's a tool (like ur car) used to solve problems. I know I don't believe in evolution, and I encourage u not to either. If I can help u understand that, I have done u a tremendous service. Make sense?
Cont part 3Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
I could discuss how common sense and basic human instinct allowed human beings to do quite well for themselves for thousands of years, well before "modern technology". I could also discuss the countless harmful by products of our scientific meddling with nature. The cancers, the new disorders, the weapons, the destruction of our ecosystem. Do you purposefully ignore the other half of the equation?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "So how did a chimp become a human? No one knows"
Part 1Q
Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with "chimps becoming human". As I've already surmised once before, u obviously have NO scientific education (maybe high school, but wasn't retained). We could discuss science (I've been avoiding scientific specifics on purpose), but it's fruitless if u don’t understand the basics... so I'll stick with logic/reason which requires no education or understanding.
Cont part 2Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
You are quite wrong. There is no known chimp human common ancestor. When you have the DNA, you let me know. Without that piece of evidence, assuming that chimps and humans are different lineages branching off from a common ancestor, well...you already know. It's conjecture that supports a circular argument. And now it has become an assumption that few question, even though there is zero direct evidence...period. You accept it on principle, I get that. I don't.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I am alluding to what is really important here. The truth."
Part 7R
Ah yes, the 'truth'. You seem to love the 'truth'. You don't define it... you don't describe it... you don't describe how or why it's important....you just say: 'truth'. Something of importance MUST have applicable value. Is your 'truth' anti 'materialism'? What is the 'truth' and why is it important?
continue to part 8R
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I do think it (ID) will solve problems.."
Part 6R
ID may be scientific. I don't think so, but the first step would be to propose how the 'ID theory' would solve WHAT problem? You need to have a problem that needs solving. A car was developed to solve transportation problems. Evolutionary theory was developed to solve observed organismal problems and phenomena. Let's brainstorm together. I'll help. What problem could ID solve or predictions could it make?
Cont pt 7R
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Personally, I don't care if ID fits the popular definition of science or not. I am fundamentally opposed to the philosophy of scientific naturalism/materialism, which is the driving ideology behind science and academia at present. So, I guess you might possibly win over a definitional dispute. Biology solves problems, and if we use the right model, a design model, it will solve those problems better and shed more light on the deeper questions, particularly at the base of life. IMHO.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Science could give a fuck what you are opposed to.
If you don't like it, turn off your computer.
Your belief in the supernatural has no predictive power, and no reeal utility...
odinata 4 months ago
Comment removed
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "it's moving forward with or without your attacks."
Part 5R
I DON'T attack ID... I only demand that if u want to classify ID as science, then it should be scientific. YOU SAID SO YOURSELF:
"Science is only science if it can be:
1. Directly observed
2. Repeated experimentation applied/empirical analysis
3. Supported by mathematical models
YET YOU FAIL to demonstrate how ID falls under YOUR OWN definition... retreating to: The designer is 'beyond nature'?!
Con pt 6R
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Tell you what. So that you can understand what is important to me, it follows that I should tell you that I don't give a damn about who gets to call what science. Science should be about the truth, if apparent design in nature is actual design in some, if not many cases, that truth is far more important than a commitment to a metaphysical underpinning of how we choose to define science. Nature doesn't account for itself, therefore naturalism cannot be a proper metaphysical position.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
What is important to you is that scientific fact be dropped in favor of your personal religious opinions....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Nature doesn't account for itself", but your religious opinions do.
This is why you can't manage to replace science with you opinions...............
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
Hey
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
Hey
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "f I lived in the recent past, as say an American Indian, perhaps a warrior hunter... I believe I would be far happier than I am today."
Part 4R
Oh REALLY?? U don't need a time machine...u can live much like an 'American Indian' NOW! U can have ur better life now! You can move to the Amazon basin and live with the Huaorani Indians, or northern Alaska with the inuits. What's keeping u in modernity? Why deny yourself the happy lifestyle you 'truly' long for?
Con pt 5R
blaisingm 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blaisingm
Hey.
odinata 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Even if I tried to answer that question, on the most elementary level, you wouldn't understand. You like the system, you like your creature comforts, you have a steak in it. And you don't give a damn about what is good for humanity, or morality in general. You will disagree, and you will talk some shit about how religion is the bad guy and you are trying to get scientifically savvy so you can treat man's ills. Heard it before, it's bullshit. But go ahead, surprise me.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You don't have any answers--you have an opinion that is based purely on your feelings.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Shill Troll
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Do you ignore the other half of the equation?"
Part 3R
I acknowledge that neither modern life OR 'ancient' life are perfect. HOWEVER, I acknowledge that modern life in a modern country OFFERS FAR more than 'ancient' life, and I give hard working engineers and scientists my thanks. I would imagine u to be very dishonest if u disagreed as you obviously enjoy modernity. Are you suggesting that you would prefer the life of a bronze age tribesman?
continue to part 4R
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
It isn't about comfort, it isn't about knowledge. It's about knowing one's self, living morally because it is what we are designed to strive for. Fuck modernity. I happen to be raised in it. But I see all of the empty people walking around, working all day just to barely get by, escaping into their TV, fake religion on Sunday, unhappy, like something is missing. Or they are too dumbed down to even notice anymore. Stop nit picking like a sarcastic little ninny and be real for once.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@blaisingm
It isn't about comfort, it isn't about knowledge. It's about knowing one's self, living morally because it is what we are designed to strive for. Fuck modernity. I happen to be raised in it. But I see all of the empty people walking around, working all day just to barely get by, escaping into their TV, fake religion on Sunday, unhappy, like something is missing. Or they are too dumbed down to even notice anymore. Stop nit picking like a sarcastic little ninny and be real for once.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Why are you such a whiner?
The fact that organisms evolve, that the Earth is not 6000 years old, that woman wan't made from a rib--none of those facts are to blame for unhappiness.
If anything, Christianity is the enemy to human happiness.....
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Science is not the truth"
Part 2R
THANK YOU! We can definitely agree here! Science isn't truth at all. If you can take anything away from our conversation, please take this with you. Science is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions... it is NOT 'TRUTH'. Likewise, a car is a tool used to solve transportation problems. A car is also NOT 'TRUTH'. It's good to know that this is making sense to you.
Continue to part 3R
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
We agree on that, but you miss the point I'm trying to make. You use science, and in particular scientific naturalism as a model for how you interpret reality. Think about that. That's the problem, and that is why what you consider to be true is limited from the start, even if you play the mind games with me and acknowledge that certain things "may be possible"..."yet we have good reason to reject them".
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Facts don't have room for your personal opinion.
That's where your philosophy falls apart.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I am opposed to the philosophy of scientific naturalism/materialism"
Part 7S
This couldn't possibly be honest. If you don't like science, then stop using your computer... stop taking medical care...stop driving your car (assuming you have one). All your problems can be solved with a good, old fashioned prayer. BUT, STOP PRETENDING... it's dishonest and definitely not moral. You're being hypocritical! How do you define morality anyway??
Continue to part 8S
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Wrong. I never said I didn't like science. You are equivocating, which is a really dishonest intellectual practice and you know it. I think reductionism, materialism, and science that is limited to only seeking explanations based upon preconceived notions about reality are all horse shit. Science, however, I thoroughly enjoy. Always have. Technology on the other hand. I did just fine for the longest time without a computer, a TV, or even a phone. I'm no hypocrite, your just shallow.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Is this what you do when your argument falls apart? Start the name calling?
Funny how you whine when you feel like others are doing it.
Hypocrite.
I guess we see the strength of your character--or rather the weakness.....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"I never said I didn't like science"
"I am fundamentally opposed to the philosophy of scientific naturalism/materialism, which is the driving ideology behind science..."
Talking out of both sides of your mouth again.....
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Wrong. I never said I didn't like science"
Right, you said you are: " opposed to...scientific naturalism". If you are in opposition against something, you must not like it much. Thank you for correcting me on 'like', but you oppose science. You said so yourself! If you're opposed to it, why do you use it? Are you going to address my question in part S, or are you opposed to those questions too? What notions should we "base reality"?
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Scientific naturalism IS NOT science. Take a philosophy class and get off your high horse. You sound like a complete moron. Science is a methodical process of observing and testing things around us. Scientific naturalism is a metaphysical presupposition, or in nicer terms a philosophical framework, for interpreting scientific data. Do you get it yet? Did you lose the power of critical thinking at some point? Seems like it.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Take a philosophy class"
I have taken philosophy, but it was a long time ago. Admittedly, I'm extremely rusty. I looked it up and I think we're on the same page. BUT you seem to have completely avoided yet another section of mine. This time it's PART S. What's the problem? If you're not willing to address my questions, I'll take it as a cop out. Your question avoidance speaks volumes of ur ability to reason anyway... or avoid being reasonable. Are u in or out?
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
"What notions should we "base reality"?"
The answer is quite simple. We base our notions of reality on everything within reality that we consistently experience. Yes, that means that science is not enough in and of itself, which you already know. That's why you subscribe to metaphysics like scientific naturalism to help you explain scientific data. I think scientific naturalism is poor metaphysics. Nature cannot account for itself, like I said before. Critical thinking, try it.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Even if I tried to answer that question... you wouldn't understand."
Part 6S
This is the biggest COP OUT answer and it's insulting. I wouldn't understand?? You're not even giving me a chance. Wouldn't a more honest answer be: I'm not comfortable answering your question?
"you don't give a damn... morality"
How UNFAIR of you to accuse me unjustly of not caring about morality. You don't even support this with evidence/reasoning.
Continue to part 7S
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
You told me to go live in the Amazon, as if I'm not allowed to exist in the society I was raised and have the freedom to object to certain things about it. It seems to me that you define a good life as one that benefits from science and technology, and that everything else is inferior, or less important. You don't realize it, but you preach scientism like a Muslim preaches Islam. You say I owe it my life and that I must look at things through a certain filter or I'm not deserving.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "you preach scientism"
Part 3Q
What??? I'm talking about science ('scientism') because that's what my argument is about, remember? This debate/discussion started with your insistence that ID is a scientific theory. INTERESTINGLY, after I challenged such notions, you abandoned ID and retreated to 'truth', 'morality' and religion. By doing so, you've exposed ID as a dishonest front for your REAL interests. Right?
End Q
Cont part 3Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Listen to yourself. You want me to accept your view of science as the optimal world view, when as we both know, science in itself isn't even a philosophy. So really, what you want me to except is an atheistic, materialistic world view where everything is judged through the filter of scientific naturalism. And for extremely good reasons, which I've put forth several times now, I reject your offer completely. You should reject it as well, but you won't. You don't think critically.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I've answered ALL...questions that you have posed"
part 4
In part S u ignored questions of morality, as one example.
"American Indians had.. developed medicinal practices. "
Again, u undermine modernity. U undermine modern medicine with insistences that archaic medical practices (no knowledge of germ theory) are sound in comparison to today. If they are 'well developed', then do you seek these archaic treatments, or do u seek modern medicine?
Continue to part 5T
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
It has been proven time and time again that natural diet along with natural living practices have the best track record of health in human history. Sure, people didn't understand exactly how bacteria worked or what they were. But that never stopped someone from using common sense. Only when people began living in large cities, in "modernity" to you begin to have problems with disease, feces, rat infestations, ect. I'm sorry, but your view of history is absurdly biased and false.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision " natural diet along with natural living practices.... best track record of health "
Part 6V
What was this reply in response to??? Is this your argument as to why native American Indians had well 'developed' medical practices?
"I'm not allowed to exist in the society"
My argument is simple... if u like the old Indian lifestyle, then it goes to reason that u would pursue that lifestyle. Nothing is keeping u from enjoying the modernity that prevents ur happiness.
end V
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "You say I owe it my life.
Part 2Q
No, but it's hypocritical to bash on science and claim to desire a 19th century native American Indian lifestyle while obviously enjoying and taking full advantage of the bounty of modernity. Don't you think? Complain all you want, but nobody is forcing you to use that computer of your for leisure... or accept a vaccine that was produced by applying evolutionary theory. There is a tribal lifestyle waiting for u.
Cont part 3Q
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
As you know by now, and you've even admitted, I'm not bashing science. I'm rejecting scientific naturalism. So if I reject this world view, this paradigm, this set of metaphysical principles, this philosophy, I don't get to use computers? Haha! That's ridiculous. It's irrational. It makes me wonder what is really motivating you to have this conversation. It has nothing to do with science, that's for sure. You have barely even addressed science once in this entire discussion.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You can reject whatever you like.
It doesn't make your Jeebus-centric view anywhere close to an accurate view...
odinata 4 months ago
circusOFprecision "me to except is an atheistic"
Part 3T
Unless u can show otherwise, I don't want you to misrepresent science in the form ID and spread falsehoods about science. U can believe in unicorns, fairies, sky-daddies, 'primal intelligence from beyond nature' etc all you want. Enjoy those ideas and stories! I do. BUT DON'T warp science because we haven't yet scientifically detected a god/intelligence that guides life. Do you think ur being fair?
Continue to part 4T
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
I understand what you are trying to say, but it is flawed. I'm sorry, it just is. I'm not spreading falsehoods about science. You are. I am not claiming that science is a set of metaphysical presuppositions. You are. I am very much aware of the science. We differ in the interpretation and understanding of that body of evidence/data. And we are free to do so. Science, and our understanding of the world both can't progress if we put science in a box and avoid the greater reality.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
If you think that is what I am doing, than I must tell you that you are wrong. It appears that cellular structures are engineered. All of the hallmarks of intelligence are there. I mean, we are talking super engineering. ID is a viable interpretation. You hurt science by trying to skew it in such a way as to keep certain conclusions from being drawn from the evidence. It is YOU who warps science. And you learned this from some very smart people.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"It appears that cellular structures are engineered"
None of the evidence points to this pre-drawn religious opinion.
None of the science agrees with this political assertion.
You are simply shilling for your Discovery Institute.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
No, you are the one shilling for your religion. Cellular structures operate on programming, are built by assembly instructions, and function exactly like sophisticated machines. Not you or any other scientist or philosopher have evidence that undirected natural processes can produce such things. You have no other examples to point to but life, therefore your entire argument is circular and must defy logic, reason, and common experience of the products of intelligent causation.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Sorry bud, but youre' the one shilling for the Wedge Strategy.
You're pretty transparent.
Cells aren't machines, and they don't behave as machines.
NONE of the evidence points to your religious opinions.
You just can't seem to get your facts straight.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"we are talking super engineering. ID is a viable interpretation. "
ID is a religious imagination.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Look, we know you are not intelligent, you've proven it time and time again. And if you were my shill, I would get rid of you. You are an embarrassment.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Look, we know that you've got nothing but a hatred of science and the intelligence of a Young Earth Creationist.
This is why your opinions haven't replaced Biology.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "I don't get to use computers? ."
Part 2T
From the very beginning, the basis of my argument is that science is a tool USED to solve problems and make predictions. I encourage u to USE your computer, your car, hammer, AND science to solve problems. DON'T 'believe' in evolution or your hammer, you USE them. BUT, it doesn't seem fair to 'bite the hand that feeds you'... LITERALLY! Applied evolutionary theory has increased food production and quality.
Continue to part 3T
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Actually, if anything, it is the natural order that science tries to unravel that "feeds me". I rather enjoy science. I showed you that many times. Your argument is flawed. But you keep trying to push it anyways, you just slightly change the wording each time. Evolution is a historical science. Knowledge, or lack of knowledge about that history has little bearing on what we do in the present regarding biology. You are mislead my friend.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Name one technological benefit that directly and completely owes it's existence to applied evolutionary theory. I don't have to believe in evolution to to embrace science and technology, to be modern, to be intelligent. That is absolutely ridiculous. It's like me trying to use the existence of biblical manuscripts to try and make you believe in the religion of Christianity. What is your goal? To guilt trip me into your metaphysics? Absurd.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You are missing the point.
The point is you are cherry-picking you science based on your political opinion.
You claim to reject science--but in reality the ONLY science you reject is Biology.
Not for any valid reason, but because it contradicts your religion.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Not true. I never rejected biology, not once. To you evolutionary theory IS science IS biology. Haha! Sorry. Evolutionary theory is a theory, an interpretation of evidence based upon metaphysical assumptions, and philosophical presuppositions. Stop equating things that are not the same. And stop invoking science like you own it. Leave science out of this.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
To science evolution and Biology are inextricable.
Evolution is one of the 5 Fundamental Axioms of Biology.
And arguably the most important one.
The science just doesn't back your story....
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "To guilt trip me into your metaphysics? "
part 5U
NOT at all. I encourage you to believe in whatever you want. But when U get honest, you admit this is all about a concern that life is unguided. U recognize that u are apart of life and, apparently, it appeals to u if life is guided by a 'primal intelli from beyond nature'. U've admitted this is beyond science/nature...so cut the ID science crap. Science investigates the natural world. I know u understand this.
end U
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
No, it's not about a concern that life is unguided. It's about a realization that living things are creations of a higher intelligence. There is nothing comforting about this conclusion, and I have no reason to want it to be true. I simply infer it from the scientific evidence. So cut the Darwinist crap. Science investigates reality, not your metaphysical presuppositions or your definition of what is natural or not. Sorry, you can't win because you are wrong. Figure it out.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"It's about a realization that living things are creations of a higher intelligence."
No matter how many times you assert your opinion, you just can't seem to name that intelligence....
..or provide any proof.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "What is your goal? "
part 5U
My goal is for individuals, like urself to understand that science is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions based on evidence. NOT to be 'believed' in. This is a difficult task as u insist on 'believing' or not 'believing' in evolution:
"I don't have to believe in evolution"
GOOD! DON'T! I don't 'believe' in evolution too, but I have USED it before. I use other tools too like my car and hammer.
Con to pt 6U
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
You have used evolution? Define evolution, then tell me how you have used it. Science is not a tool. Technology is a tool. Science is a method of observation and repeatable experimentation. You are getting almost as bad as odinata, and that is not a good thing. Science doesn't make predictions. People make predictions. If you want, I will sit here and correct you until perhaps you can finally understand the utter failure of your intellect on these matters.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Science is not a tool."
circusclown is a tool.
He doesn't understand the science, but he knows he's not gonna like it, because his pastor told him so.....
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Name one technological benefit "
part 4U
I've already recently mentioned a COUPLE examples of how applied evolutionary theory benefits. Directly and completely? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll offer an example: evolutionary algorithms. Why are we talking about just evolution?? Are you curious at all about the technological benefits of plate tectonic theory? Are you concerned if plate tectonics is a guided process?
Cont to part 5U
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
Evolutionary algorithms are do not model undirected natural processes. This has been PROVEN. I think you need to read outside of your circle. Why don't you start with Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome by Sanford. You are indeed using science, but then underneath it all you credit your Darwinian metaphysics. How dare you. And then lecture me about ID? I'm glad we can be civil here. So listen close, you are duped. Stop giving science a bad name and blaming me.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
You apparently don't know what "proven" means.
"Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer."
-cont
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "you can't win because you are wrong."
Part 5V
This statement sums you up ur argument perfectly at this point... the classic: 'I'm right, you're wrong' argument. This one is sure win any debate or argument! What happened? Early on, you were quick to define science for me an apply that definition thereby TRYING to apply logic and reasoning. Now, all I get is: "I'm right, you're wrong"? I'm better off arguing with my 7 year old niece.
Con to part 6V
blaisingm 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Science doesn't make predictions. Science is not a tool. "
Part 4V
I said science is a tool USED to solve problems. Seriously!? I have stated this argument since day 1. In fact, you were agreeing with me: "Right, scientific theories help us solve problems." Rather than a well thought out retort, you resort to just playing word games. Obviously, science is USED by people or whatever is capable of using it. How do you want me to reply to this?
con part 5V
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
The way I see it, our senses are tools. Our mind, used properly is a tool. Science is a method. So yes, scientific theories help us solve problems. And while it may seem to you that I am arguing pointless semantics, I feel there is a very subtle but important difference in what we are both saying here. You keep trying to glorify science and revere it, but there is nothing there to revere. It's simply a method. It doesn't even have the power to make claims, it can only sort out facts
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "You have used evolution?"
pt 3V
At this point, I have answered all your questions while you pick and choose which of my questions to address (much like how you pick and choose when to apply logic). To be fair, you have asked very few questions, so u have made my argument very easy. How about we fairly address each other? Answer one of my many questions (morality, plate tectonics, etc) u've ignored, and I will answer answer the question above. Is that fair?
con Pt 4V
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
There is nothing to answer about plate tectonics, it is irrelevant to the conversation. As for morality, that is the pinnacle of humanity, not science, not technology. Dwelling in the atheistic, materialistic realm that you do, where science is the hero, you miss so much about reality, you miss the point. Not many people these days agree with me. In fact, the popular way of thinking is that which you express, or that of a religion to the tune of cultural bias.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision "Evolutionary algorithms are do not model undirected natural processes. "
Part 2V
I don't like to offer scientific examples with individuals like urself because it's aways the same... refute, refute, refute without ever explaining why/offering evidence or reasoning behind your refutation. U just say 'no' or ignore the question and then go about ur merry way... the purest form of denial. Simple reasoning are all that are required to expose the illogical.
Con part 3V
blaisingm 4 months ago
@blaisingm
But it's true. Evolutionary algorithms really don't model undirected natural processes. Only that which is captured directly from nature reflects nature. These algorithms involve anticipating the variables and extrapolating the calculations through time, time we don't actually experience. That's all I'm saying. I'm not denying that they may be of some use, that they require our intelligent understanding to create, but they don't prove anything. I know you disagree, that's fine.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago