There has not been ONE peer review of the evidence, not EVEN ONE. the reason being is that there has not been ONE study, not ONE, not ONE... get it?
Not even one study, just a counter to some things in Evolution which BTW have been fully disproven and rejected but hey, good job, you managed to get some scientists to work on an answer for them.
Michael Behe and his likes are just sitting around and despite being disproven, they persist.
the judge was entitled to allocate a "weight" to the evidence presented to him. He may have desided that since a bunch of witnesses for the defense chose NOT to appear after giving depositions that perhaps their testimony was less weight than the plaintiffs.
Since the DI appears to have no standing in this case they have no grounds for appeal.
Oh get a ife and stop bieng so silly. Reminds me of Grey's Elegy concerning the village school master "for even though vanquished he could argue still"
Can they have a basic respect for science? Peer-reviewed doesn't mean that you review your own paper!
I respect anyone who does science out of intellectual curiosity and skeptical, honest questioning of the existing theory.
However...
Please, don't ever think of cheating your way through science. This disqualifies any of those who did that as scientists. Intellectual honesty is the minimal requirement for science.
Well of course you would say that wouldn't you. The whole point of intelligent design is to rebrand creationism so it can get past the first amendment. Judge Jones's ruling means that you have failed and intelligent design has no reason to exist. It's no wonder you've got your panties in a bunch as a result.
Intelligent design: the assertion that an intelligent agent created an unknown number of unspecified features of unspecified lifeforms. This was done an unspecified amount of time ago by unknown means for an unknown purpose, using a process that left no evidence whatsoever.
It's not unusual for a judge to 'copy' arguments for a plaintiff or defendant, when he agrees with them. If the judge had agreed with those arguing for intelligent design, he would have included their arguments in his judgement.
Whoa there. Careful now with your dishonesty. Don't confuse Creationist/ID proponents who have produced peer reviewed articles with them producing peer reviewed articles that actually pertain, let alone prove, Design. There is more than a subtle difference.
The bottom line is that you cannot conduct any experiment that adheres to the scientific method that proves design. If could, you would.
unfounded assertion ? say rather demonstrated fact based on the drafts of "Pandas" . DI submitted briefs from expert witnesses who then chose not to testify. You cant complain of an outcome if you dont participate in the trial.
Peer reviewed science papers are just the first step, fyi. These papers now have to survive within the scientific literature. Unfortunatley, these didn't, for obvious reasons.
Also, I am curious about myth #2, 3...? Or is that actually all you got? I guess it is, too bad. It doesn't make a lot of fun any longer, playing with these creationsist. They always start with "hey we got proof" and then they fall flat. Sad to watch and I start to feel sorry for them - it must suck being a creationist.
Do you know whats ironic? The discovery Institute uploads a video with Ben Stein perpetuating the idea of freedom of speech, yet the comments for said video are disabled.
@DragonlordXV I fail to understand what Darwin not having a degree in biology has to do with his theory of evolution. Pythagoras did not have a degree in math: should his equations therefore be discarded?
Darwin studied medicine, natural history, and geology, and other subjects at the University of Cambridge.
Compare this to the Discovery Institute, which has the advantage of a full litany of centuries of scientific research, yet teaches that Jesus Christ rode on dinosaurs like horses.
@PaulinaPaulino so according to your example , do accept to be treated in hospital by someone who haven't any medicine degree ? between Pythagoras and Darwin there is 2500 years, it's a false comparison with a lot of dishonesty
for your knowledge , the theory of evolution is the basis of evolutionist biology , darwin studied theology more than other thing he never finished his medicine studies .for me evolution ,is no more than belief like any other religion.worst it's a fairy tale not science
jarvik earned a master’s degree in medical engineering
steve jobs was an informatician
all this people was related with their work by their knowledges , darwin was offtopic and himself had serious doubt about his own theory , your guess is wrong about my claims . so we talk about fact , scientific evidences ,and logic, none of this is on the side of evolution , what ever you say .
@PaulinaPaulino the classic pathetic argument .you give me the ultimate proof that you know shit about what are talkin about and you know shit about evolution , in fact YOU ARE THE IGNORANT , if only you have read the book of darwin the origine of species THERE IS ALL A CHAPTER ABOUT THAT , CALLED THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY ,he talk about the many problems that his theory has encountered facing the scientific fact .
stop insulting intelligence of people just because your lack of knowledge
@DragonlordXV: Of course there were difficulties in Evolution and Darwin knew about them. All good scientists do that and they go further: What you're not telling people is how Darwin fortified the theory part of Evolution by making predictions on what will be seen if Evolution holds, and he did
On one in your list of authorities:
newton was a physicist scientist: Newton's work in math started Calculus which gave rise to physics, there was no such discipline before that. He also did alchemy!
@sol3a1 you don't have be a genius for making predictions or understanding the theory of evolution , even a 5 years old kid can make predictions simply by his imagination , the fact is , darwin was doubt after doubt, but it didn't stop him to bult a fary tale.
in fact NEWTON was a philosopher, mathematician, physicist, alchemist, astronomer and theologian, the history of physics didn't start with him , it started as modern science in the early seventeenth century with Galileo.
@DragonlordXV: Wow, you assume much and fail utterly. The Theory of Evolution, ToE, has made predictions and passed everyone of them. That is so unlike ID which males no predictions past "godidit"
ToE is a well supported and researched theory and by "theory" I use the scientific, not the colloquial meaning. Sorry but ID is just so much hot air
Newton was the first physicist, much as Darwin was the first evolutionist, still Newton had strange ideas, see alchemy
@DragonlordXV: I see where you deleted your other post here where you attempted to say the debate is "over" because I'm "ignorant". Glad to see that you can think as it will help
Now on to your assertion Darwin had issues with ToE or as you put it, "he talk about the many problems that his theory has encountered facing the scientific fact "
@DragonlordXV: As for testability of ToE, let's look at what Darwin proposed: Hereditary units that can change and give rise to new forms if conditions warrant
What do we have? DNA. Now DNA doesn't always copy correctly which gives rise to new features. If those features give the organism a "leg up" in survival by any means, it is more likely that creature will live and pass its "mutated genes" on, and so on
Would you like more?
Could you show us what science the Disco Tute has done on ID?
@sol3a1 .so The term "physical" comes from the Greek η φυσικη (ê physik) adopted in the Greco-Roman world, meaning "knowledge of nature",Loys Garbin quote in his vocabulary Latin-French published in Geneva in 1487, it means "that relates to nature" and the noun now asserts science of natural things. again thanks for confirming your ignorance . this debate is over .
Behe himself, ID's biggest witness in the Dover trial, admitted there are no peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals arguing in favor of ID or IC. Additionally, Behe as well as Scott Minnich, another witness for the defense, made it abundantly clear that ID has no basis in methodological naturalism. Also, the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" clearly demonstrate that ID is simply creationism relabeled. It frustrates me how ID expect to be taken seriously when they're clearly a joke.
Surprise surprise there's some controversy regarding these "peer-reviewed" articles "supporting ID".
In fact enough controversy for at least two Wikipedia articles: "Darwinism,_Design_and_Public_Education" and "Sternberg_peer_review_controversy".
Of course that alone does not invalidate them but once again it looks like there's always some dishonesty around Intelligent Design. They just can't play by the rules.
Hey! This is great! There actually ARE peer reviewed papers on ID.
At least IDiots can't then whine that they are "expelled" from the science world.
So bring it on. Show the world what you've got. If you've got some real science that actually makes sense and is supported by evidence and gets corroborated then great. Let's teach it in schools.
But if instead nothing comes out of it and you are proven wrong then accept it like a true scientist.
I love how the video attacks instead of providing evidence for their position.When one watches the PBS and trial videos, evidence and support is brought forth on why ID is not science. Plus, no one out right attacks ID for being ID but attacks ID for not being science and are backing the acquisition with facts. Still waiting for the facts HERE fellas.
@VaiRoth more to the point, you can't start a "science" journal for the purposes of reviewing you OWN materials and still call it peer review. That is impossible by definition. You lose discovery institute. I won't even dignify the name of your organization by capitalizing it.
@oaajbs Sure you can, it's been done before, but the evidence has to be open to the community and revealed with all it is so others can test it, and since there are no tests made.... it's not peer reviewed, not falsifiable and not science at all, it's an assertion being tried, not what the assertion proclaims.
@mjhallfs "ok, lets do that .. let;s put the peer-review system to the test.. but wait.. it is constantly on trial.. but not the way you think.."
On trial the same way evolutionism's been "on trial" - that's what you mean: in a complete kangaroo court, where everything's upside down. True = False, Good = Evil, Blasphemy = Science Your codes are easily broken.
Now then, peer review has been investigated and the results are available. Why should we take your word over the results of research?
Well-funded, the DI? How well-funded are they compared to even one of the several robber baron legacy organizations supporting evolutionism? Carnagie, Rockefeller, et al left vast fortunes, which have only grown over time.
The Judge at the Dover Trial was a conservative nominee who would like nothing more than to get right wing views into the education system. But as an honest man (Unlike the retards at the Discovery Institute.) he could not find in favour of the patent nonsense and lies told by the ID'ers. Epic fail of a video, and a monumental waste of money flogging this dead ID horse. Let the poor thing rest in peace for Gods sake.
Liar! Liar! bum's on fire!! :-p Why DID you guys run to the hills at the Dover Panda trial? What a remarkable transitional form is Cdesign Proponentsists....
@trextoter "things that exist are defined by accurately describing them. Atheists are what we observe them to be" .. Really? This is beyond idiotic ..I can accurately describe a unicorn, do they exist?
@trextoter so you admit you hate atheists, and the reason for this is? You hate people who do not believe what you believe? This is typical religeous reaction. With us or against us, why cast out people who don't have the same ideas and beliefs as you? questions without answers should not be answerd by myth and fairy tails, don't you care about truth? All I care about personaly is truth, what posible reason is there to believe there is a god?
I'll now repeat my original point, since it keeps getting buried.
Nobody can name the religion which would allegedly be established according to "Judge" Jones & his ACLU ghostwriters, if ID were presented as an alternative to the religion of evolutionism.
@trextoter no no no , everytime I've asked you to state your point or put what you believe you have said your not copying it, that's what uou put 100s of times, that doesn't count. Your only problem is athests are actually being heard now, just because they have a different view to you you dislike them, that's all it is. Not in your group so you hate them , atheists are friends with religious people, I am, but tell them you don't believe in god and they will disown you,its pathetic
@trextoter maybe because its exasurated or false, and when I said resdearch I ment with your comments such as hitler , I'm tired of you now this conversation has no point, apart from you don't like atheists, big deal . Anything else?
@trextoter your speaking none sense, if you don't put forward any evidence I'm going to have to stop replying, it has been proven by many studies atheists are. In the minority of all crimes, moral or otherwise
@trextoter hitler was catholic and quoted he did these terrible things in the name of god! Do your research , dawkins is a legend and is opening the eyes of the deluded such as you, the cause is a good cause, you make it sound bad, what is bad about truth, please elaberate on what your truth is, you say copy and paste is not an option , this is because you still haven't said what you believe is true, that god exists? That atheists are wrong?Right okay, so present any evidence towards this,
I have. Dawkins is suing Timonen over the take from their bogus "charity", which had to be licensed out of CA rather than the UK because so much was to be pocketed. The Atheism-Я-Us hate sites are buzzing with anger over the betrayal, but you don't hear a peep on YouTube.
@leekucia "you say copy and paste is not an option , this is because you still haven't said what you believe is true"
Anyone can see I have made probably a hundred posts here at least; Why should I repeat them all rather than you taking the time to read what I've said? Would you read it if I posted it all again? Why, if you refuse to read it the first time, should I think you'd read any of it merely because I waste my time repeating it?
this is stupid. truth about the trial. can you theists just get over it. creationism is religious NOT scientific. ther eis no science in religion. answers without questions. that is what religion is. and its wrong!
@theUKatheist We CAN speak truth, and we're NOT shutting up just because a tiny minority of hatemongers is averse to truth.
Really - the old "science = atheism" garbage? If EVERYBODY were unable to think, atheism WOULD be universally accepted. The evidence indicates that's not happening.
@trextoter what are you babbling on about moron. where did i say science = atheism ? point that out for me! I said creationism IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. which is fact! atheism simply means a denying the existence of a god. nothing more. the fact you think that ''majority = correct'' makes you even more of a moron! if this was the case then there was a time that slavery & burning woman as witches was right, because the ''majority'' thought it to be. are you saying it was right? .. f*cking idiot !
@theUKatheist "the fact you think that ''majority = correct'' makes you even more of a moron!"
The fact that you think you can put words in my mouth makes you what? Huh? WHAT? C'mon, little elitist, what's that make you? Is your vocabulary extensive enough to provide you with an accurate term? I think it is.
@trextoter why is it that theists never stick to the point? my vocabulary has nothing to do with the subject. please introduce a relevant point in your defence , you decided to comment to me in the first place, so make your point. my statement was that creationism is not scientific, are you arguing against this? you lost me when you went off subject as all arguments on religion or religious subjects end up doing.
@trextoter '' we're NOT shutting up just because a tiny minority of hatemongers is averse to truth'' this indicates that atheists are the minority and we speak falsely , therefore the majority is correct
@theUKatheist ''' we're NOT shutting up just because a tiny minority of hatemongers is averse to truth'' this indicates that atheists are the minority and we speak falsely , therefore the majority is correct'
Incorrect, and quite a poor attempt at twisting. It indicates that being an hateful little minority with an aversion to truth does not confer authority; since you have no authority, we don't have to shut up. Reading's not as difficult a task as you make it out to be.
@trextoter we are not a hateful little minority. theres more christians and more of other religions. we dont hate them,we hate what they do, we hate it getting pushed onto us, we hate how it divides people, we hate the suffering and deaths its caused, we hate the delusion it puts upon people, we dont hate no one, just its effects. it makes me laugh that you THINK you know our way of thinking, you simply cannot understand. we live by societies rules & our own,not from fear of hell ,its wonderful
@theUKatheist "we are not a hateful little minority."
The truth in this case is a matter of direct observation. I shall certainly believe my own eyes at least 2,503,116 times before I'll consider an assertion from a biased source with a bad track record. At LEAST!
'' I shall certainly believe my own eyes at least 2,503,116 times before I'll consider an assertion from a biased source with a bad track record. At LEAST! '' what is this bad track record? the fact is religion has caused more hard than anything/one else. if you're going to imply something atleast give some evidence instead of making claims without justification.
@trextoter ... right it seems we are going in circles due to the fact that you have not actually told us what you believe to be the truth. please state this and why you believe it so, then we can discuss it further, until then there is no argument as i do not know what you're point is on the matter. what is the truth? and why is it true? they are not difficult questions because you claim that you know, so lets hear it ? then i will be more than willing to discus it with you.
@theUKatheist "you have not actually told us what you believe to be the truth. please state this and why you believe it so, then we can discuss it further"
How many pages of posts would you have me C & P? 10? 20? How many? I have said a good number of things. All you've done is come in here and say theists should shut up & take your crap. Well no, it's not happening. The only people who should shut up and take your crap are your fellow scoffers, and even they really shouldn't.
IF that were really one of your concerns, you'd hate atheism. No group is more divisive and divided. They're always scheming to backstab each other. That's what one gets when one sees life exclusively as a giant game of "king of the mountain". That's what one gets when one considers trust a vulnerability to be exploited.
Anyone ever seen the movie "Mean Girls"? Nails the whole mindset. No joke - catch it sometime.
@trextoter ''They're always scheming to backstab each other''... erm evidence? ...do you know what atheism means? obviously not.. atheism is simply the denial of any god/s . everything else is personal belief based on evidence and understanding . the fact that you put all atheists as one category tells me you do not understand it fully. there is no other meaning to the word atheist other than believing there is no god
@theUKatheist '''They're always scheming to backstab each other''... erm evidence? '
Stalin vs Hitler - both planned to break the treaty; Hitler simply beat his partner to the punch.
Or do you prefer something current? Dawkins vs Timonen vs the sucker atheists who donated $ to "the cause".
Watch any atheist crew - any! It's a matter of universal observation, and it's the only behaviour consistent with what they teach. "Do what you can get away with", "Law of the Jungle", etc. No surprises.
@theUKatheist "...do you know what atheism means? obviously not.. atheism is simply the denial of any god/s ."
As I explained much earlier, things that exist (as opposed to make-believe things) are not defined by merely stating one's fancy; things that exist are defined by accurately describing them. Atheists are what we observe them to be. Nothing more or less. Thus everyone with exposure already knows: atheism is spiritual, moral, and intellectual vandalism.
@theUKatheist "my statement was that creationism is not scientific, are you arguing against this?"
Set / subset. You made other statements as well; you did not confine yourself to one silly remark. Really, can you not keep track of your own words? Can you not review?
@trextoter as i have said, please make apoint instead of trying to point out errors from me. okay so lets say your the intelligent one out of the two of us. this may be true. it does not make you right. please reflect on the first comment you made and re-write it so that my small brain can understand what your trying to say. was there a point to it? thanks
@theUKatheist "as i have said, please make apoint instead of trying to point out errors from me."
Why? I've made several points already, as has the video. All you've done is a most amateurish job of mischaracterizing. You've clearly indicated that you're not here to participate in any honest discourse, but rather to insult and deceive. Seeing you fail seems a worthy goal.
@trextoter '' Nobody, at the rate you're going. They say "it's the thought that counts." '' that did not answer my question, that was a feeble attempt at misdirection.
''Ha! Anyone can see for themselves!'' .. again misdirection , did not answer the question. you haven't made any valid points.
you haven't even stated what your point is exactly, well apart from when i asked earlier and you said you ''CAN say the truth'' .. which, by the way you haven't even told us what the truth is yet..
@theUKatheist "okay so lets say your the intelligent one out of the two of us. this may be true. it does not make you right. please reflect on the first comment you made and re-write it so that my small brain can understand what your trying to say."
WE DON'T HAVE TO SHUT UP. WE CAN TELL THE TRUTH ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT.
Oh, one of those... Not new, not clever. Same question Jesus was asked, and I doubt it was original then.
"and how do you know its the truth?"
Truth is discovered several ways. Observation & investigation cover a good deal. Often it's easier to discover untruth. Anything which contradicts itself cannot be true, and is eliminated. For example, the absurd assertion that truth cannot be known.
Oh, one of those... Not new, not clever. Same question Jesus was asked, and I doubt it was original then.'' hold on a moment, you claimed that you CAN speak truth, so that means you are implying you know the truth, i was simply asking what it was? not a difficult question really.
''Anything which contradicts itself cannot be true''
@trextoter "And now that it's well buried, I should probably repeat my original point:
Nobody can name the religion which would be established if ID were presented as an alternative to the intolerant religion of evolutionism."
Wow, really? You AGAIN claim it wasn't answered? This is pathetic, truly.
It respects the establishment of religion in schools by propping up beliefs that hold creationism true, which isn't all of them. Again, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Cherokee, etc.
"Fiona Godlee and colleagues at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the journal's regular reviewers, most of whom were aware that they were taking part in an experiment1. The reviewers, on average, reported fewer than two of the errors, which hardly inspires confidence."
nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990. html
Stop reading for a moment and survey the number of objects in your field of view. A rough estimate'll do. You automatically recognize them all. You know their range, and you monitor them. Should one of them move, or begin flashing red, you'd know.
Thanks to computers, we know how marvelous this is. It takes a lot of calculation to recognize any object. You can recognize things from all different angles, even when they're largely obstructed. Instantly!
Intuition may be FASTER than science, but claiming it's better at getting truth? Nope.
Oh, I'll use YOUR example! I could use intuition to get the approximate distance of something in my view. But science can tell me with much more accuracy how far it is.
@MagicActor1987 "Intuition may be FASTER than science, but claiming it's better at getting truth? Nope.
Oh, I'll use YOUR example! I could use intuition to get the approximate distance of something in my view. But science can tell me with much more accuracy how far it is."
I was discussing the error rate. You will employ some instrument to take measurements, and the error rate of your procedure will be far, far higher. Someone'll push a wrong button or misread a decimal or some such.
@trextoter "I was discussing the error rate. You will employ some instrument to take measurements, and the error rate of your procedure will be far, far higher. Someone'll push a wrong button or misread a decimal or some such."
How are you defining error rate with intuition? How far off does it need to be to be considered an error? Because, I tell ya. . .I know a LOT of people who have trouble with distances. I admit, I'm one of 'em.
@MagicActor1987 "How are you defining error rate with intuition?"
No, you first this time. First go hunt up some definitions which agree with me.
"Because, I tell ya. . .I know a LOT of people who have trouble with distances. I admit, I'm one of 'em."
Ah, so we're to use people known to be defective, are we? Well then we'll just have to use instruments known to be defective as well, won't we? Could get tangled & confusing. One blind man equals one radar device with a short circuit?
@trextoter "Ah, so we're to use people known to be defective, are we? Well then we'll just have to use instruments known to be defective as well, won't we? Could get tangled & confusing. One blind man equals one radar device with a short circuit?"
Not at all. The people, to make the best estimation of the average person, should be randomly selected and of a decent sample size to root out significant outliers.
@trextoter "No, you first this time. First go hunt up some definitions which agree with me."
How am I supposed to look for definitions that "agree with you" if you won't tell me your stance? Kinda. . .illogical. Not to mention the definition of "error rate" isn't going to say "and the error rate of intuition is. . ."
I'm asking to what percentage off should a person be marked as correct? 1%? 5%? 25%? I'd disagree with the latter.
@trextoter And again. . .how does intuition for day-to-day experience have ANYTHING to do with intuition regarding physics. . .or, hell, even the validity of claiming the existence of God?
@trextoter See, now this offers an interesting analysis, and I'm glad you came up with it, because it really made me think.
How much of a pool game can be attributed to intuition and how much can be attributed to experience? Surely shots are made thinking that the ball would bounce off at a different angle, thus making one miss the shot (assuming aim was true). How much can also be attributed to geometry? Hmm.
Either way, science can ALSO do this (and probably with less "error rate").
@MagicActor1987 "And again. . .how does intuition for day-to-day experience have ANYTHING to do with intuition regarding physics. . .or, hell, even the validity of claiming the existence of God?"
I didn't start this stuff. You're the one who came along and decided to take pot shots at intuition, so you explain your own silly motives for doing so. You don't want me elaborating on them.
@trextoter "You're the one who came along and decided to take pot shots at intuition"
Really? If I recall, you claimed intuition was better at getting the truth than science. . .which you have yet to demonstrate. You've shows that intuition CAN be right, which I didn't deny. . .but you claimed it was BETTER.
"Intuition has uncovered more secrets than denial of non-contradiction and circular reasoning and the whole catalog of fallacies put together!"
@MagicActor1987 '"You're the one who came along and decided to take pot shots at intuition"
Really? If I recall, you claimed intuition was better at getting the truth than science. . '
I said what I said AFTER you belittled intuition. People need to realize what a trustworthy tool it is.
And I your paraphrase is misleading, as one expects. I said intuition has an unmatched success rate. That doesn't mean we don't employ the right tool for the right job.
@trextoter "I said what I said AFTER you belittled intuition."
I don't recall belittling intuition. I merely claimed that science can uncover that which fools intuition.
"People need to realize what a trustworthy tool it is."
I agree it's fairly trustworthy, but in matters of truth-finding, I'd rather rely on evidence. Like a trial--the guy may look like a bad person and your intuition might want to convict him. . .but what does the EVIDENCE say?
@MagicActor1987 "Like a trial--the guy may look like a bad person and your intuition might want to convict him. . .but what does the EVIDENCE say?"
That is a popular misnomer. Not liking someone's looks is a matter of personal OPINION - not intuition. It is misleading and results in unwarranted hostility to consider it knowledge of any form. It is a path to evil and contrary to scripture.
@trextoter "Your straw version is. That's hardly remarkable, all things considered."
The logic follows. Intuition tells you someone's potentially dangerous (perhaps they're dressed up in traditionally and socially threatening garb). You say scripture calls it evil. Thus intuition = evil.
@trextoter "Intuition uncovered more secrets. . . ."
But if the secrets were secrets, how were they uncovered by intuition? If it's intuitive, it's not a secret. Oh, dear. You are a silly one, aren't you?
@trextoter "A total lie. Intuition has uncovered more secrets than denial of non-contradiction and circular reasoning and the whole catalog of fallacies put together!"
Which is literally true, but you were somehow trying to degrade science by claiming it wrong because you don't like what the conclusions are.
@trextoter Try to imagine how many objects you recognize in a day. How often do you get them wrong? Really now, if you got so much as 1 in 10,000 wrong, it'd drive you to distraction. And that's just the one of the many things you do intuitively without realizing, without effort.
@trextoter "Try to imagine how many objects you recognize in a day. How often do you get them wrong?"
I find that irrelevant to the point of the matter for two reasons.
1) Intuition is fine for day-to-day (though I hesitate to call the recognition of a pencil "intuition" and not recognition), as I've said, but for analyzing physics. . .not so much.
2) Science can just as accurately recognize all those objects, and probably without getting as many wrong. It just takes more time.
Observe a child. Whether he be just learning to walk, or playing with sticks and stones, you will see him conduct many experiments, all of which qualify as science. Same can be said even of a puppy. Both will succeed, even if they omit to deny God. We are forced to conclude that no denial of God is required.
The child experiments with the PHYSICAL world. He does not accept "God" as the answer. NO ONE but yourself made the claim that you have to deny God, and to keep repeating it is pure foolishness on your part. You simply cannot invoke him as an explanation and still call it science.
Not to mention that your line of reasoning would more accurately conclude with: "We are forced to conclude that no ACCEPTANCE of God is required." THAT'S science.
@MagicActor1987 "The child experiments with the PHYSICAL world. He does not accept "God" as the answer."
What child are you talking about?
"NO ONE but yourself made the claim that you have to deny God, and to keep repeating it is pure foolishness on your part. "
There is a record of what's been said. We all know you consider God "supernatural" and stark verboten. Don't start trying to sound reasonable - it's a tad late in the game.
"There is a record of what's been said. We all know you consider God "supernatural" and stark verboten. Don't start trying to sound reasonable - it's a tad late in the game."
Don't put words in my mouth--it's bad sportsmanship. I never said you had to deny God to do science, I said you couldn't invoke him as an explanation. How many times do I have to say this?
@MagicActor1987 "I never said you had to deny God to do science, I said you couldn't invoke him as an explanation."
Same thing, unless I'm mistaken about your meaning of the term 'invoke'. If you mean it as a straw man it is irrelevant. If you mean I cannot conclude God ever did anything, you assert atheism.
@trextoter "Same thing, unless I'm mistaken about your meaning of the term 'invoke'. If you mean it as a straw man it is irrelevant. If you mean I cannot conclude God ever did anything, you assert atheism."
The simple reason you can't invoke God in science is because it's untestable. Not because it can't be true, but because it can't be TESTED. If you come up with a way to objectively test a divine being with multiple trials, we'll be getting somewhere.
The child in the story I presented was any typical child - not YOUR goofy imaginary child. It's just like the puppy I mentioned would correspond to any typical puppy. Neither child nor puppy go about restricting the results of their experiments before they conduct them. They honestly and systematically seek truth - just as even you once did yourself.
@trextoter "The child in the story I presented was any typical child - not YOUR goofy imaginary child."
What goofy child? You claimed a child would play with sticks or sand and try to figure it out. Would any rational child (even for a child) say, "This stick falls because a divine presence makes it so"? No, they would note that the stick falls. That's science. YOUR kid, the one saying "God makes this stick fall" is the goofy one.
@MagicActor1987 '"We are forced to conclude that no ACCEPTANCE of God is required." THAT'S science.'
And earlier you claimed your definition is distinct from atheism. Why don't you choose a position you actually think you can defend?
It's really simple. Here's the relationship between science and atheism: they are antithetical. One systematically seeks truth and the other religiously avoids it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Anyone opposed to any foundational premise is not philosophically American, but rather anti-American.This is simple, straightforward, and obvious.
Now how many of the cowards are willing to openly argue directly against the principles upon which America was founded?
@trextoter "Anyone opposed to any foundational premise is not philosophically American, but rather anti-American.This is simple, straightforward, and obvious."
Because you say so?
There was no scientific evidence to the contrary, at the time. And one can believe that people are equal and have those rights without believing in a Sky Daddy. Hasn't it historically been the religious, anyway, who hold people back from equality (i.e. homosexuals)? They're not American.
@MagicActor1987 '"Anyone opposed to any foundational premise is not philosophically American, but rather anti-American.This is simple, straightforward, and obvious."
Because you say so?'
Because those ARE the foundational principles of the Untied States of America. To dispute them is to dispute them. They are what America is all about. They are the reason America has been a people magnet throughout its history.
@trextoter "Because those ARE the foundational principles of the Untied States of America. "
The tenets of equality, yes, but not the belief in the Creator.
"Huh? Do you think there is now scientific evidence contrary to any of those principles? Do you know what would qualify."
To the principle of a Creator, yes. There had not yet been proposed a mechanism to explain how life's diversity came about, so there was no science onto which they could fall back.
"There was no scientific evidence to the contrary, at the time."
Huh? Do you think there is now scientific evidence contrary to any of those principles? Do you know what would qualify.
Perhaps you mean "science had not yet been redefined"? If you're talking about ACTUAL scientific evidence, you won't find anything contradicting the document.
@trextoter Oh, and, of course, "self-evident" goes against the founding principle of science. Science doesn't rely on one person saying something, or claiming "it's obvious." It requires evidence.
So NOW you're claiming 95% of scientists are anti-America, huh? Then stop supporting them by indulging in the comforts science gave you--clothes, computer, shelter, medicines (most of which use principles of evolution). In fact, use only homeopathic medicine. That should be a riot.
@MagicActor1987 "Oh, and, of course, "self-evident" goes against the founding principle of science. Science doesn't rely on one person saying something, or claiming "it's obvious." It requires evidence."
Really? On what basis is evidence required? On what basis does one engage in any scientific undertaking, for that matter?
The basis of SCIENCE. Science takes no claim that cannot be backed by evidence.
"On the contrary, if as you maintain, one is required to deny God to perform science. . ."
I repeat: YOU are the only person claiming that science is atheism. I'M saying that science cannot INVOKE God as an explanation. Individuals believe whatever they want, but using the supernatural to explain the natural goes against science.
The basis of SCIENCE. Science takes no claim that cannot be backed by evidence.'
Ha! You assume everyone forgets the context? No, you cannot get away with it. You claimed science is at odds with things being self-evident - then I asked the question.
Now give a straight answer if you can. On what basis is evidence required?
@trextoter "Ha! You assume everyone forgets the context? No, you cannot get away with it. You claimed science is at odds with things being self-evident - then I asked the question."
I DID answer the question. Nothing in science is taken to be self-evident. If there's any claim AT ALL, even for something as "self-evident" as gravity, it's BACKED UP by evidence! Science is full of things which defy intuition, yet have been confirmed numerous times (bowling ball and feather fall at same rate).
@MagicActor1987 "Nothing in science is taken to be self-evident. "
The procedure itself is taken as self-evident, as is the need for evidence!
What? Has someone proven science must work? Have they proven we need evidence? No! These are presuppositions. Science presupposes it's procedures will lead to truth. You can't prove they must. Indeed, many times they fail (although it helps a lot to be honest in interpreting results.)
@trextoter "The procedure itself is taken as self-evident, as is the need for evidence!
What? Has someone proven science must work? Have they proven we need evidence? No! These are presuppositions. Science presupposes it's procedures will lead to truth. You can't prove they must. Indeed, many times they fail (although it helps a lot to be honest in interpreting results.)"
Whoa whoa whoa, stop with the false claims! THIS is an illogical response, and here's why. . .
@trextoter We've seen that science leads to real-world results. Also, how do you propose to do science WITHOUT evidence? Evidence is part of the definition of science, it's not a RESULT of science.
Oh, let me guess: "Let's never use evidence and just say God did everything." Then our expected life span would be back in the 30s.
Science is a methodology. It's a method to lead to objective and reliable conclusions. And SCIENCE is the one that says it's fallible. . .but it also corrects.
@MagicActor1987 "If there's any claim AT ALL, even for something as "self-evident" as gravity, it's BACKED UP by evidence!"
...which presupposes that evidence is required. The requirement is taken for granted - I still wonder if you can acknowledge it as the subject I've been talking about. The requirement for evidence is itself self-evident. Can you misunderstand that? Do try. Give it all you've got.
@trextoter "Intuition's correct-to-failure ratio beats anything mankind can offer."
That doesn't make all of its claims true, especially about things NOT related to YOUR OWN BODY, as in your example.
Intuition, like all thought-driven faculties, is open to error. And science has shown things to be true that defy intuitive reasoning. Intuition is good for day-to-day tasks; not for uncovering the secrets of the universe. Sorry.
@MagicActor1987 "Intuition, like all thought-driven faculties, is open to error. And science has shown things to be true that defy intuitive reasoning. "
We are fallible - not news. Intuition beats anything you can name, and if not for intuition itself you couldn't dispute what it says. When something is found to be "counter-intuitive", how do you know the later result is better than the earlier? Again, your intuition HELPS YOU CORRECT the mistake.
@trextoter "Again, your intuition HELPS YOU CORRECT the mistake."
No, you know the latter result is better because it FITS.
Intuition is fallible. Science doesn't work on intuition. Science works on repeated observations and experiment. There are plenty of things that are counter-intuitive, not because intuition says so (that's absurd), but because other evidence (math being the most useful) say so. Check out the Monty Hall paradox.
@MagicActor1987 "Intuition is fallible. Science doesn't work on intuition. Science works on repeated observations and experiment."
Science is an intuitive endeavour, just like anything else.
"Mainstream science" preaches many, many things which have never, ever been observed or subjected to experiment. They've sacrificed integrity and forfeited their credibility, as a group, and for what?
@trextoter ""Mainstream science" preaches many, many things which have never, ever been observed or subjected to experiment. "
The very, very FEW things that are claimed that haven't been observed or tested remain hypotheses, and are usually back up with, at the very least, mathematics.
But, pray, tell me. What things? Or will you ignore this, too, like you did with your claims regarding the chromosomes?
Claiming without evidence may work in church, but not with me nor science.
There has not been ONE peer review of the evidence, not EVEN ONE. the reason being is that there has not been ONE study, not ONE, not ONE... get it?
Not even one study, just a counter to some things in Evolution which BTW have been fully disproven and rejected but hey, good job, you managed to get some scientists to work on an answer for them.
Michael Behe and his likes are just sitting around and despite being disproven, they persist.
THAT is pathetic.
jinxxedlikeshit 1 month ago
I saw the trial myself, and you are wrong.
jinxxedlikeshit 1 month ago
the judge was entitled to allocate a "weight" to the evidence presented to him. He may have desided that since a bunch of witnesses for the defense chose NOT to appear after giving depositions that perhaps their testimony was less weight than the plaintiffs.
Since the DI appears to have no standing in this case they have no grounds for appeal.
SqueakerAlpha 1 month ago
Oh get a ife and stop bieng so silly. Reminds me of Grey's Elegy concerning the village school master "for even though vanquished he could argue still"
cyberpup1000 2 months ago
Can they have a basic respect for science? Peer-reviewed doesn't mean that you review your own paper!
I respect anyone who does science out of intellectual curiosity and skeptical, honest questioning of the existing theory.
However...
Please, don't ever think of cheating your way through science. This disqualifies any of those who did that as scientists. Intellectual honesty is the minimal requirement for science.
AkasakaS2000 2 months ago
Well of course you would say that wouldn't you. The whole point of intelligent design is to rebrand creationism so it can get past the first amendment. Judge Jones's ruling means that you have failed and intelligent design has no reason to exist. It's no wonder you've got your panties in a bunch as a result.
mrdarkevilme 2 months ago
Intelligent design: the assertion that an intelligent agent created an unknown number of unspecified features of unspecified lifeforms. This was done an unspecified amount of time ago by unknown means for an unknown purpose, using a process that left no evidence whatsoever.
puffin51 2 months ago
Typical creationist propaganda.
Fail.
dimefeet 3 months ago
Wow, the points this video makes are really interesting.
Of course, they are bull shit.
Because if a word of it was true then they would have appealed the judge's verdict instead of posting video's on youtube.
Waltham1892 3 months ago
It's not unusual for a judge to 'copy' arguments for a plaintiff or defendant, when he agrees with them. If the judge had agreed with those arguing for intelligent design, he would have included their arguments in his judgement.
psb1964 3 months ago
It has been 6 years since the Dover trial and where is the research from the DI on ID?
As for the "6 papers", anyone want to defend one of those papers here?
Let's go!
sol3a1 3 months ago
I also note this came out in 2007, almost 4 years ago
The deafening silence on any research done by the Disco Tute on ID speaks even louder
So where's the beef of ID?
We're waiting.
sol3a1 3 months ago
Whoa there. Careful now with your dishonesty. Don't confuse Creationist/ID proponents who have produced peer reviewed articles with them producing peer reviewed articles that actually pertain, let alone prove, Design. There is more than a subtle difference.
The bottom line is that you cannot conduct any experiment that adheres to the scientific method that proves design. If could, you would.
pilgrimpater 3 months ago
for a fair view of the Dover trial read the transcript , its fun !
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
unfounded assertion ? say rather demonstrated fact based on the drafts of "Pandas" . DI submitted briefs from expert witnesses who then chose not to testify. You cant complain of an outcome if you dont participate in the trial.
SqueakerAlpha 3 months ago
Peer reviewed science papers are just the first step, fyi. These papers now have to survive within the scientific literature. Unfortunatley, these didn't, for obvious reasons.
Also, I am curious about myth #2, 3...? Or is that actually all you got? I guess it is, too bad. It doesn't make a lot of fun any longer, playing with these creationsist. They always start with "hey we got proof" and then they fall flat. Sad to watch and I start to feel sorry for them - it must suck being a creationist.
usertripppleA 5 months ago
The "peer reviewed articles" that the Disco Tute supposedly says "supports ID" don't do anything of the sort
To start with, there are 5 "papers" in the past 20 years of "ID science". 5 papers that support evolution is known as a slow week
Perhaps the Disco Tute can show the world what those 5 papers are!
One must ask the Disco Tute why those papers were not introduced to Judge Jones by the defendants?
The answer: those 5 papers attack evolution but do not support ID
sol3a1 7 months ago
sounds like bs on your part it is a fairytale repackaged
pendleton42 7 months ago
Do you know whats ironic? The discovery Institute uploads a video with Ben Stein perpetuating the idea of freedom of speech, yet the comments for said video are disabled.
sk8inkill 7 months ago
FACT: The Discovery Institute is neither an Institute of Learning nor has any intention of Discovering anything.
PaulinaPaulino 8 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino FACT: Darwin had even not a biology degree.
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV I fail to understand what Darwin not having a degree in biology has to do with his theory of evolution. Pythagoras did not have a degree in math: should his equations therefore be discarded?
Darwin studied medicine, natural history, and geology, and other subjects at the University of Cambridge.
Compare this to the Discovery Institute, which has the advantage of a full litany of centuries of scientific research, yet teaches that Jesus Christ rode on dinosaurs like horses.
PaulinaPaulino 3 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino so according to your example , do accept to be treated in hospital by someone who haven't any medicine degree ? between Pythagoras and Darwin there is 2500 years, it's a false comparison with a lot of dishonesty
for your knowledge , the theory of evolution is the basis of evolutionist biology , darwin studied theology more than other thing he never finished his medicine studies .for me evolution ,is no more than belief like any other religion.worst it's a fairy tale not science
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV I would not be treated in a hospital by someone that is not a Dr. That is not a fair comparison.
Was Newton wrong because he did not study gravity in college?
Was Galileo wrong because he did not study planetary motion?
Was Jarvik wrong because he did not study artificial hearts?
Was Steve Jobs wrong because he did not study computers?
You would, I am sure, claim that all these people are wrong, and that all the things they discovered/invented do not exist, correct?
PaulinaPaulino 3 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino lolll it's no sens at all
newton was a physicist scientist
galileo was a physicist scientist
jarvik earned a master’s degree in medical engineering
steve jobs was an informatician
all this people was related with their work by their knowledges , darwin was offtopic and himself had serious doubt about his own theory , your guess is wrong about my claims . so we talk about fact , scientific evidences ,and logic, none of this is on the side of evolution , what ever you say .
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV Darwin was a trained Naturalist. You may not know what that is, because you are a theist, which means you are ignorant.
Darwin never said he had serious doubts about his own theory. The only reason you say that is because you are a theist, which means you are ignorant.
If you wish to have an intelligent discussion with me, please stop being ignorant.
The way one stops being ignorant is to go to school, do research, and learn the facts.
Then we can talk.
PaulinaPaulino 3 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino the classic pathetic argument .you give me the ultimate proof that you know shit about what are talkin about and you know shit about evolution , in fact YOU ARE THE IGNORANT , if only you have read the book of darwin the origine of species THERE IS ALL A CHAPTER ABOUT THAT , CALLED THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY ,he talk about the many problems that his theory has encountered facing the scientific fact .
stop insulting intelligence of people just because your lack of knowledge
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV: Of course there were difficulties in Evolution and Darwin knew about them. All good scientists do that and they go further: What you're not telling people is how Darwin fortified the theory part of Evolution by making predictions on what will be seen if Evolution holds, and he did
On one in your list of authorities:
newton was a physicist scientist: Newton's work in math started Calculus which gave rise to physics, there was no such discipline before that. He also did alchemy!
sol3a1 3 months ago
@sol3a1 you don't have be a genius for making predictions or understanding the theory of evolution , even a 5 years old kid can make predictions simply by his imagination , the fact is , darwin was doubt after doubt, but it didn't stop him to bult a fary tale.
in fact NEWTON was a philosopher, mathematician, physicist, alchemist, astronomer and theologian, the history of physics didn't start with him , it started as modern science in the early seventeenth century with Galileo.
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV: Wow, you assume much and fail utterly. The Theory of Evolution, ToE, has made predictions and passed everyone of them. That is so unlike ID which males no predictions past "godidit"
ToE is a well supported and researched theory and by "theory" I use the scientific, not the colloquial meaning. Sorry but ID is just so much hot air
Newton was the first physicist, much as Darwin was the first evolutionist, still Newton had strange ideas, see alchemy
So where shall we start?
sol3a1 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV: I see where you deleted your other post here where you attempted to say the debate is "over" because I'm "ignorant". Glad to see that you can think as it will help
Now on to your assertion Darwin had issues with ToE or as you put it, "he talk about the many problems that his theory has encountered facing the scientific fact "
Care to say exactly what those difficulties were?
sol3a1 3 months ago
@DragonlordXV: As for testability of ToE, let's look at what Darwin proposed: Hereditary units that can change and give rise to new forms if conditions warrant
What do we have? DNA. Now DNA doesn't always copy correctly which gives rise to new features. If those features give the organism a "leg up" in survival by any means, it is more likely that creature will live and pass its "mutated genes" on, and so on
Would you like more?
Could you show us what science the Disco Tute has done on ID?
sol3a1 3 months ago
Comment removed
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sol3a1 .so The term "physical" comes from the Greek η φυσικη (ê physik) adopted in the Greco-Roman world, meaning "knowledge of nature",Loys Garbin quote in his vocabulary Latin-French published in Geneva in 1487, it means "that relates to nature" and the noun now asserts science of natural things. again thanks for confirming your ignorance . this debate is over .
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino: Good job Paulina
sol3a1 3 months ago
Behe himself, ID's biggest witness in the Dover trial, admitted there are no peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals arguing in favor of ID or IC. Additionally, Behe as well as Scott Minnich, another witness for the defense, made it abundantly clear that ID has no basis in methodological naturalism. Also, the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" clearly demonstrate that ID is simply creationism relabeled. It frustrates me how ID expect to be taken seriously when they're clearly a joke.
nichtmuttersprachler 9 months ago
troll
zero13o 9 months ago
Surprise surprise there's some controversy regarding these "peer-reviewed" articles "supporting ID".
In fact enough controversy for at least two Wikipedia articles: "Darwinism,_Design_and_Public_Education" and "Sternberg_peer_review_controversy".
Of course that alone does not invalidate them but once again it looks like there's always some dishonesty around Intelligent Design. They just can't play by the rules.
That says a lot... :-/
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 11
Hey! This is great! There actually ARE peer reviewed papers on ID.
At least IDiots can't then whine that they are "expelled" from the science world.
So bring it on. Show the world what you've got. If you've got some real science that actually makes sense and is supported by evidence and gets corroborated then great. Let's teach it in schools.
But if instead nothing comes out of it and you are proven wrong then accept it like a true scientist.
And stop the silly disinformation.
;-)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago 4
I love how the video attacks instead of providing evidence for their position.When one watches the PBS and trial videos, evidence and support is brought forth on why ID is not science. Plus, no one out right attacks ID for being ID but attacks ID for not being science and are backing the acquisition with facts. Still waiting for the facts HERE fellas.
atmdusty 9 months ago
you cant have peer papers without testable -repeatable demonstartions/evidence so fuck off
VaiRoth 9 months ago
@VaiRoth more to the point, you can't start a "science" journal for the purposes of reviewing you OWN materials and still call it peer review. That is impossible by definition. You lose discovery institute. I won't even dignify the name of your organization by capitalizing it.
oaajbs 9 months ago 12
@oaajbs Well said,it still puzzles me as to why this obvious drivel is even debated or entertained
VaiRoth 9 months ago
@oaajbs Sure you can, it's been done before, but the evidence has to be open to the community and revealed with all it is so others can test it, and since there are no tests made.... it's not peer reviewed, not falsifiable and not science at all, it's an assertion being tried, not what the assertion proclaims.
jinxxedlikeshit 1 month ago
"The Truth" Sorry, you guys aren't allowed use those words anymore.
SteDeRaver 9 months ago
Keep wasting your time, Discovery Institute.
Evolution is here to stay. You guys got nothing.
HiveDes 9 months ago 4
@HiveDes Truth and facts aren't nothing - not outside of Evoland.
trextoter 9 months ago
@mjhallfs "s.. participate honestly or get a life.."
Scoffers and their false dichotomies. Look at that one, just look! THOSE are the two alternatives the scoffer sees. Now what's that tell you?
trextoter 9 months ago
@mjhallfs
Posted "one hour ago" and already the hit-and-run troll bot's channel is gone. Silly vandals
trextoter 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I recommend folks search up
"Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System"
by Michael J. Mahoney
also see
nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990. html
and best of all
cogprints. org/5197/
trextoter 9 months ago
@mjhallfs You have not answered my question. WHICH RELIGION WOULD BE ESTABLISHED if ID were presented as an alternative to evolutionism?
Double-talk does not count. Non-answers do not count. All you have that counts is cowardice, and it only counts with those who already agree with you.
trextoter 9 months ago
@mjhallfs "ok, lets do that .. let;s put the peer-review system to the test.. but wait.. it is constantly on trial.. but not the way you think.."
On trial the same way evolutionism's been "on trial" - that's what you mean: in a complete kangaroo court, where everything's upside down. True = False, Good = Evil, Blasphemy = Science Your codes are easily broken.
Now then, peer review has been investigated and the results are available. Why should we take your word over the results of research?
trextoter 9 months ago
@mjhallfs
Well-funded, the DI? How well-funded are they compared to even one of the several robber baron legacy organizations supporting evolutionism? Carnagie, Rockefeller, et al left vast fortunes, which have only grown over time.
trextoter 9 months ago
The Judge at the Dover Trial was a conservative nominee who would like nothing more than to get right wing views into the education system. But as an honest man (Unlike the retards at the Discovery Institute.) he could not find in favour of the patent nonsense and lies told by the ID'ers. Epic fail of a video, and a monumental waste of money flogging this dead ID horse. Let the poor thing rest in peace for Gods sake.
TheTomtompiper 9 months ago
lol @ "spelling mistakes".
cdesign proponentsists. You lose. I also think it's funny that the evidence against the ruling is "Here's a notebook full of such reports!"
Well, here's a notebook full of dogshit. We're even.
KenrodimusPrime 10 months ago
Very intriguing! You obviously know exactly what you're talking about. This little video is very persuasive! Good luck! [grab's crotch]
markvz 10 months ago
Liar! Liar! bum's on fire!! :-p Why DID you guys run to the hills at the Dover Panda trial? What a remarkable transitional form is Cdesign Proponentsists....
scarletharlot69 11 months ago
@trextoter "things that exist are defined by accurately describing them. Atheists are what we observe them to be" .. Really? This is beyond idiotic ..I can accurately describe a unicorn, do they exist?
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@trextoter so you admit you hate atheists, and the reason for this is? You hate people who do not believe what you believe? This is typical religeous reaction. With us or against us, why cast out people who don't have the same ideas and beliefs as you? questions without answers should not be answerd by myth and fairy tails, don't you care about truth? All I care about personaly is truth, what posible reason is there to believe there is a god?
leekucia 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My second most significant contribution here was probably my recommendation that folks search up
"Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System"
by Michael J. Mahoney
also see
nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990. html
and best of all
cogprints. org/5197/
to find out what science has discovered about the "peer-review system".
trextoter 11 months ago
I'll now repeat my original point, since it keeps getting buried.
Nobody can name the religion which would allegedly be established according to "Judge" Jones & his ACLU ghostwriters, if ID were presented as an alternative to the religion of evolutionism.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter no no no , everytime I've asked you to state your point or put what you believe you have said your not copying it, that's what uou put 100s of times, that doesn't count. Your only problem is athests are actually being heard now, just because they have a different view to you you dislike them, that's all it is. Not in your group so you hate them , atheists are friends with religious people, I am, but tell them you don't believe in god and they will disown you,its pathetic
leekucia 11 months ago
@trextoter maybe because its exasurated or false, and when I said resdearch I ment with your comments such as hitler , I'm tired of you now this conversation has no point, apart from you don't like atheists, big deal . Anything else?
leekucia 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leekucia "this conversation has no point, apart from you don't like atheists, big deal ."
An inaccurate summary, as anyone could predict.
But if you're done telling us we should shut up, fine.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter your speaking none sense, if you don't put forward any evidence I'm going to have to stop replying, it has been proven by many studies atheists are. In the minority of all crimes, moral or otherwise
leekucia 11 months ago
@trextoter hitler was catholic and quoted he did these terrible things in the name of god! Do your research , dawkins is a legend and is opening the eyes of the deluded such as you, the cause is a good cause, you make it sound bad, what is bad about truth, please elaberate on what your truth is, you say copy and paste is not an option , this is because you still haven't said what you believe is true, that god exists? That atheists are wrong?Right okay, so present any evidence towards this,
leekucia 11 months ago
@leekucia "Do your research"
I have. Dawkins is suing Timonen over the take from their bogus "charity", which had to be licensed out of CA rather than the UK because so much was to be pocketed. The Atheism-Я-Us hate sites are buzzing with anger over the betrayal, but you don't hear a peep on YouTube.
trextoter 11 months ago
@leekucia "you say copy and paste is not an option , this is because you still haven't said what you believe is true"
Anyone can see I have made probably a hundred posts here at least; Why should I repeat them all rather than you taking the time to read what I've said? Would you read it if I posted it all again? Why, if you refuse to read it the first time, should I think you'd read any of it merely because I waste my time repeating it?
No. Either read what I've already said, or don't.
trextoter 11 months ago
this is stupid. truth about the trial. can you theists just get over it. creationism is religious NOT scientific. ther eis no science in religion. answers without questions. that is what religion is. and its wrong!
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist We CAN speak truth, and we're NOT shutting up just because a tiny minority of hatemongers is averse to truth.
Really - the old "science = atheism" garbage? If EVERYBODY were unable to think, atheism WOULD be universally accepted. The evidence indicates that's not happening.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter what are you babbling on about moron. where did i say science = atheism ? point that out for me! I said creationism IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. which is fact! atheism simply means a denying the existence of a god. nothing more. the fact you think that ''majority = correct'' makes you even more of a moron! if this was the case then there was a time that slavery & burning woman as witches was right, because the ''majority'' thought it to be. are you saying it was right? .. f*cking idiot !
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "what are you babbling on about moron."
I didn't babble and neither am I a moron. If I were a moron, I might accept your silly assertions. I am a thinking being; thus I cannot.
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist "the fact you think that ''majority = correct'' makes you even more of a moron!"
The fact that you think you can put words in my mouth makes you what? Huh? WHAT? C'mon, little elitist, what's that make you? Is your vocabulary extensive enough to provide you with an accurate term? I think it is.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter why is it that theists never stick to the point? my vocabulary has nothing to do with the subject. please introduce a relevant point in your defence , you decided to comment to me in the first place, so make your point. my statement was that creationism is not scientific, are you arguing against this? you lost me when you went off subject as all arguments on religion or religious subjects end up doing.
theUKatheist 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist "why is it that theists never stick to the point?"
Why do you continually make false accusations?
"you decided to comment to me in the first place,"
You addressed your garbage to "theists" - it's right there. I'm a theist.
Then you put words in my mouth and I called you on the lame stunt. It's not ancient history, but recent.
trextoter 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "please introduce a relevant point in your defence"
Defence? I never said "majority = correct". I don't need to defend things I don't do or advocate.
trextoter 11 months ago
Comment removed
theUKatheist 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter '' we're NOT shutting up just because a tiny minority of hatemongers is averse to truth'' this indicates that atheists are the minority and we speak falsely , therefore the majority is correct
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist ''' we're NOT shutting up just because a tiny minority of hatemongers is averse to truth'' this indicates that atheists are the minority and we speak falsely , therefore the majority is correct'
Incorrect, and quite a poor attempt at twisting. It indicates that being an hateful little minority with an aversion to truth does not confer authority; since you have no authority, we don't have to shut up. Reading's not as difficult a task as you make it out to be.
trextoter 11 months ago
Comment removed
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@trextoter we are not a hateful little minority. theres more christians and more of other religions. we dont hate them,we hate what they do, we hate it getting pushed onto us, we hate how it divides people, we hate the suffering and deaths its caused, we hate the delusion it puts upon people, we dont hate no one, just its effects. it makes me laugh that you THINK you know our way of thinking, you simply cannot understand. we live by societies rules & our own,not from fear of hell ,its wonderful
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "we are not a hateful little minority."
The truth in this case is a matter of direct observation. I shall certainly believe my own eyes at least 2,503,116 times before I'll consider an assertion from a biased source with a bad track record. At LEAST!
trextoter 11 months ago
'' I shall certainly believe my own eyes at least 2,503,116 times before I'll consider an assertion from a biased source with a bad track record. At LEAST! '' what is this bad track record? the fact is religion has caused more hard than anything/one else. if you're going to imply something atleast give some evidence instead of making claims without justification.
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@trextoter ... right it seems we are going in circles due to the fact that you have not actually told us what you believe to be the truth. please state this and why you believe it so, then we can discuss it further, until then there is no argument as i do not know what you're point is on the matter. what is the truth? and why is it true? they are not difficult questions because you claim that you know, so lets hear it ? then i will be more than willing to discus it with you.
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "you have not actually told us what you believe to be the truth. please state this and why you believe it so, then we can discuss it further"
How many pages of posts would you have me C & P? 10? 20? How many? I have said a good number of things. All you've done is come in here and say theists should shut up & take your crap. Well no, it's not happening. The only people who should shut up and take your crap are your fellow scoffers, and even they really shouldn't.
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist "we hate how it divides people"
IF that were really one of your concerns, you'd hate atheism. No group is more divisive and divided. They're always scheming to backstab each other. That's what one gets when one sees life exclusively as a giant game of "king of the mountain". That's what one gets when one considers trust a vulnerability to be exploited.
Anyone ever seen the movie "Mean Girls"? Nails the whole mindset. No joke - catch it sometime.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter ''They're always scheming to backstab each other''... erm evidence? ...do you know what atheism means? obviously not.. atheism is simply the denial of any god/s . everything else is personal belief based on evidence and understanding . the fact that you put all atheists as one category tells me you do not understand it fully. there is no other meaning to the word atheist other than believing there is no god
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist '''They're always scheming to backstab each other''... erm evidence? '
Stalin vs Hitler - both planned to break the treaty; Hitler simply beat his partner to the punch.
Or do you prefer something current? Dawkins vs Timonen vs the sucker atheists who donated $ to "the cause".
Watch any atheist crew - any! It's a matter of universal observation, and it's the only behaviour consistent with what they teach. "Do what you can get away with", "Law of the Jungle", etc. No surprises.
trextoter 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "...do you know what atheism means? obviously not.. atheism is simply the denial of any god/s ."
As I explained much earlier, things that exist (as opposed to make-believe things) are not defined by merely stating one's fancy; things that exist are defined by accurately describing them. Atheists are what we observe them to be. Nothing more or less. Thus everyone with exposure already knows: atheism is spiritual, moral, and intellectual vandalism.
trextoter 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "my statement was that creationism is not scientific, are you arguing against this?"
Set / subset. You made other statements as well; you did not confine yourself to one silly remark. Really, can you not keep track of your own words? Can you not review?
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter as i have said, please make apoint instead of trying to point out errors from me. okay so lets say your the intelligent one out of the two of us. this may be true. it does not make you right. please reflect on the first comment you made and re-write it so that my small brain can understand what your trying to say. was there a point to it? thanks
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "as i have said, please make apoint instead of trying to point out errors from me."
Why? I've made several points already, as has the video. All you've done is a most amateurish job of mischaracterizing. You've clearly indicated that you're not here to participate in any honest discourse, but rather to insult and deceive. Seeing you fail seems a worthy goal.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter who am i deceiving exactly? and what points have you made?
theUKatheist 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist "who am i deceiving exactly?"
Nobody, at the rate you're going. They say "it's the thought that counts."
"and what points have you made?"
Ha! Anyone can see for themselves!
What? Am I to C & P everything I've said, just so you can ...what? Ask again?
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter '' Nobody, at the rate you're going. They say "it's the thought that counts." '' that did not answer my question, that was a feeble attempt at misdirection.
''Ha! Anyone can see for themselves!'' .. again misdirection , did not answer the question. you haven't made any valid points.
you haven't even stated what your point is exactly, well apart from when i asked earlier and you said you ''CAN say the truth'' .. which, by the way you haven't even told us what the truth is yet..
theUKatheist 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUKatheist "okay so lets say your the intelligent one out of the two of us. this may be true. it does not make you right. please reflect on the first comment you made and re-write it so that my small brain can understand what your trying to say."
WE DON'T HAVE TO SHUT UP. WE CAN TELL THE TRUTH ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter and the truth is what? and how do you know its the truth?
theUKatheist 11 months ago
@theUKatheist "and the truth is what?"
Oh, one of those... Not new, not clever. Same question Jesus was asked, and I doubt it was original then.
"and how do you know its the truth?"
Truth is discovered several ways. Observation & investigation cover a good deal. Often it's easier to discover untruth. Anything which contradicts itself cannot be true, and is eliminated. For example, the absurd assertion that truth cannot be known.
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter @trextoter ''"and the truth is what?"
Oh, one of those... Not new, not clever. Same question Jesus was asked, and I doubt it was original then.'' hold on a moment, you claimed that you CAN speak truth, so that means you are implying you know the truth, i was simply asking what it was? not a difficult question really.
''Anything which contradicts itself cannot be true''
you mean like religion?
theUKatheist 11 months ago
And now that it's well buried, I should probably repeat my original point:
Nobody can name the religion which would be established if ID were presented as an alternative to the intolerant religion of evolutionism.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "And now that it's well buried, I should probably repeat my original point:
Nobody can name the religion which would be established if ID were presented as an alternative to the intolerant religion of evolutionism."
Wow, really? You AGAIN claim it wasn't answered? This is pathetic, truly.
It respects the establishment of religion in schools by propping up beliefs that hold creationism true, which isn't all of them. Again, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Cherokee, etc.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well if that's over with, I recommend folks search up
"Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System"
by Michael J. Mahoney
also see
nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990. html
and best of all
cogprints. org/5197/
to find out what science has discovered about the "peer-review system".
trextoter 11 months ago
"Fiona Godlee and colleagues at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) sent an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design, analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the journal's regular reviewers, most of whom were aware that they were taking part in an experiment1. The reviewers, on average, reported fewer than two of the errors, which hardly inspires confidence."
nature. com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990. html
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter Dude, look below.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@trextoter Page Not Found, anyway.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagicActor1987 Take out the spaces after the dots
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter I did, but it didn't work. I found a roundabout way, though.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
Stop reading for a moment and survey the number of objects in your field of view. A rough estimate'll do. You automatically recognize them all. You know their range, and you monitor them. Should one of them move, or begin flashing red, you'd know.
Thanks to computers, we know how marvelous this is. It takes a lot of calculation to recognize any object. You can recognize things from all different angles, even when they're largely obstructed. Instantly!
Mistake rate? C'mon!
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Mistake rate? C'mon!"
I hardly find "c'mon" conclusive.
Intuition may be FASTER than science, but claiming it's better at getting truth? Nope.
Oh, I'll use YOUR example! I could use intuition to get the approximate distance of something in my view. But science can tell me with much more accuracy how far it is.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Intuition may be FASTER than science, but claiming it's better at getting truth? Nope.
Oh, I'll use YOUR example! I could use intuition to get the approximate distance of something in my view. But science can tell me with much more accuracy how far it is."
I was discussing the error rate. You will employ some instrument to take measurements, and the error rate of your procedure will be far, far higher. Someone'll push a wrong button or misread a decimal or some such.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "I was discussing the error rate. You will employ some instrument to take measurements, and the error rate of your procedure will be far, far higher. Someone'll push a wrong button or misread a decimal or some such."
How are you defining error rate with intuition? How far off does it need to be to be considered an error? Because, I tell ya. . .I know a LOT of people who have trouble with distances. I admit, I'm one of 'em.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "How are you defining error rate with intuition?"
No, you first this time. First go hunt up some definitions which agree with me.
"Because, I tell ya. . .I know a LOT of people who have trouble with distances. I admit, I'm one of 'em."
Ah, so we're to use people known to be defective, are we? Well then we'll just have to use instruments known to be defective as well, won't we? Could get tangled & confusing. One blind man equals one radar device with a short circuit?
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter "Ah, so we're to use people known to be defective, are we? Well then we'll just have to use instruments known to be defective as well, won't we? Could get tangled & confusing. One blind man equals one radar device with a short circuit?"
Not at all. The people, to make the best estimation of the average person, should be randomly selected and of a decent sample size to root out significant outliers.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter "No, you first this time. First go hunt up some definitions which agree with me."
How am I supposed to look for definitions that "agree with you" if you won't tell me your stance? Kinda. . .illogical. Not to mention the definition of "error rate" isn't going to say "and the error rate of intuition is. . ."
I'm asking to what percentage off should a person be marked as correct? 1%? 5%? 25%? I'd disagree with the latter.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@trextoter And again. . .how does intuition for day-to-day experience have ANYTHING to do with intuition regarding physics. . .or, hell, even the validity of claiming the existence of God?
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagicActor1987 "how does intuition for day-to-day experience have ANYTHING to do with intuition regarding physics."
Without putting spin on the cueball, make a counter-intuitive shot on a pool table.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter See, now this offers an interesting analysis, and I'm glad you came up with it, because it really made me think.
How much of a pool game can be attributed to intuition and how much can be attributed to experience? Surely shots are made thinking that the ball would bounce off at a different angle, thus making one miss the shot (assuming aim was true). How much can also be attributed to geometry? Hmm.
Either way, science can ALSO do this (and probably with less "error rate").
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "And again. . .how does intuition for day-to-day experience have ANYTHING to do with intuition regarding physics. . .or, hell, even the validity of claiming the existence of God?"
I didn't start this stuff. You're the one who came along and decided to take pot shots at intuition, so you explain your own silly motives for doing so. You don't want me elaborating on them.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "You're the one who came along and decided to take pot shots at intuition"
Really? If I recall, you claimed intuition was better at getting the truth than science. . .which you have yet to demonstrate. You've shows that intuition CAN be right, which I didn't deny. . .but you claimed it was BETTER.
"Intuition has uncovered more secrets than denial of non-contradiction and circular reasoning and the whole catalog of fallacies put together!"
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 '"You're the one who came along and decided to take pot shots at intuition"
Really? If I recall, you claimed intuition was better at getting the truth than science. . '
I said what I said AFTER you belittled intuition. People need to realize what a trustworthy tool it is.
And I your paraphrase is misleading, as one expects. I said intuition has an unmatched success rate. That doesn't mean we don't employ the right tool for the right job.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "I said what I said AFTER you belittled intuition."
I don't recall belittling intuition. I merely claimed that science can uncover that which fools intuition.
"People need to realize what a trustworthy tool it is."
I agree it's fairly trustworthy, but in matters of truth-finding, I'd rather rely on evidence. Like a trial--the guy may look like a bad person and your intuition might want to convict him. . .but what does the EVIDENCE say?
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Like a trial--the guy may look like a bad person and your intuition might want to convict him. . .but what does the EVIDENCE say?"
That is a popular misnomer. Not liking someone's looks is a matter of personal OPINION - not intuition. It is misleading and results in unwarranted hostility to consider it knowledge of any form. It is a path to evil and contrary to scripture.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Not liking someone's looks is a matter of personal OPINION - not intuition."
But being AFRAID of someone based on looks is intuition. It's the intuition that the person might hurt you.
"It is misleading and results in unwarranted hostility to consider it knowledge of any form."
But it IS intuition. . .it may be wrong, but it's intuition, nonetheless.
"It is a path to evil and contrary to scripture."
So now intuition is evil if it goes against scripture. . .how telling.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "But being AFRAID of someone based on looks is intuition. It's the intuition that the person might hurt you."
Nope. Likely it's a matter of stereotyping.
trextoter 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "So now intuition is evil if it goes against scripture. . .how telling."
Your straw version is. That's hardly remarkable, all things considered.
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter "Your straw version is. That's hardly remarkable, all things considered."
The logic follows. Intuition tells you someone's potentially dangerous (perhaps they're dressed up in traditionally and socially threatening garb). You say scripture calls it evil. Thus intuition = evil.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter "And I your paraphrase is misleading, as one expects. I said intuition has an unmatched success rate."
And the ACTUAL quote was right below it, so don't give me this "paraphrase" crap.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter "Intuition uncovered more secrets. . . ."
But if the secrets were secrets, how were they uncovered by intuition? If it's intuitive, it's not a secret. Oh, dear. You are a silly one, aren't you?
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@trextoter "A total lie. Intuition has uncovered more secrets than denial of non-contradiction and circular reasoning and the whole catalog of fallacies put together!"
Which is literally true, but you were somehow trying to degrade science by claiming it wrong because you don't like what the conclusions are.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@trextoter Try to imagine how many objects you recognize in a day. How often do you get them wrong? Really now, if you got so much as 1 in 10,000 wrong, it'd drive you to distraction. And that's just the one of the many things you do intuitively without realizing, without effort.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Try to imagine how many objects you recognize in a day. How often do you get them wrong?"
I find that irrelevant to the point of the matter for two reasons.
1) Intuition is fine for day-to-day (though I hesitate to call the recognition of a pencil "intuition" and not recognition), as I've said, but for analyzing physics. . .not so much.
2) Science can just as accurately recognize all those objects, and probably without getting as many wrong. It just takes more time.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
Observe a child. Whether he be just learning to walk, or playing with sticks and stones, you will see him conduct many experiments, all of which qualify as science. Same can be said even of a puppy. Both will succeed, even if they omit to deny God. We are forced to conclude that no denial of God is required.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter The child analogy is a false analogy.
The child experiments with the PHYSICAL world. He does not accept "God" as the answer. NO ONE but yourself made the claim that you have to deny God, and to keep repeating it is pure foolishness on your part. You simply cannot invoke him as an explanation and still call it science.
Not to mention that your line of reasoning would more accurately conclude with: "We are forced to conclude that no ACCEPTANCE of God is required." THAT'S science.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "The child experiments with the PHYSICAL world. He does not accept "God" as the answer."
What child are you talking about?
"NO ONE but yourself made the claim that you have to deny God, and to keep repeating it is pure foolishness on your part. "
There is a record of what's been said. We all know you consider God "supernatural" and stark verboten. Don't start trying to sound reasonable - it's a tad late in the game.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "What child are you talking about?"
The child in the analogy YOU gave!
"There is a record of what's been said. We all know you consider God "supernatural" and stark verboten. Don't start trying to sound reasonable - it's a tad late in the game."
Don't put words in my mouth--it's bad sportsmanship. I never said you had to deny God to do science, I said you couldn't invoke him as an explanation. How many times do I have to say this?
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "I never said you had to deny God to do science, I said you couldn't invoke him as an explanation."
Same thing, unless I'm mistaken about your meaning of the term 'invoke'. If you mean it as a straw man it is irrelevant. If you mean I cannot conclude God ever did anything, you assert atheism.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Same thing, unless I'm mistaken about your meaning of the term 'invoke'. If you mean it as a straw man it is irrelevant. If you mean I cannot conclude God ever did anything, you assert atheism."
The simple reason you can't invoke God in science is because it's untestable. Not because it can't be true, but because it can't be TESTED. If you come up with a way to objectively test a divine being with multiple trials, we'll be getting somewhere.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 '"What child are you talking about?"
The child in the analogy YOU gave!'
The child in the story I presented was any typical child - not YOUR goofy imaginary child. It's just like the puppy I mentioned would correspond to any typical puppy. Neither child nor puppy go about restricting the results of their experiments before they conduct them. They honestly and systematically seek truth - just as even you once did yourself.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "The child in the story I presented was any typical child - not YOUR goofy imaginary child."
What goofy child? You claimed a child would play with sticks or sand and try to figure it out. Would any rational child (even for a child) say, "This stick falls because a divine presence makes it so"? No, they would note that the stick falls. That's science. YOUR kid, the one saying "God makes this stick fall" is the goofy one.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 '"We are forced to conclude that no ACCEPTANCE of God is required." THAT'S science.'
And earlier you claimed your definition is distinct from atheism. Why don't you choose a position you actually think you can defend?
It's really simple. Here's the relationship between science and atheism: they are antithetical. One systematically seeks truth and the other religiously avoids it.
trextoter 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "The child analogy is a false analogy."
It cannot be a false analogy. It's not an analogy at all, but rather an example!
Everyone has practiced science, and observed others doing so. There is no secret initiation into any priesthood or coven required.
trextoter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trextoter "Everyone has practiced science, and observed others doing so. There is no secret initiation into any priesthood or coven required."
And everyone has practiced science WITHOUT THE NEED TO INVOKE GOD. You're proving MY point, here, you know.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
Ha - posted that one in the wrong discussion. Nice joke on myself - I was wondering what YouTube did with it.
The response is interesting, so perhaps it's a good thing, huh?
trextoter 11 months ago
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Anyone opposed to any foundational premise is not philosophically American, but rather anti-American.This is simple, straightforward, and obvious.
Now how many of the cowards are willing to openly argue directly against the principles upon which America was founded?
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Anyone opposed to any foundational premise is not philosophically American, but rather anti-American.This is simple, straightforward, and obvious."
Because you say so?
There was no scientific evidence to the contrary, at the time. And one can believe that people are equal and have those rights without believing in a Sky Daddy. Hasn't it historically been the religious, anyway, who hold people back from equality (i.e. homosexuals)? They're not American.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 '"Anyone opposed to any foundational premise is not philosophically American, but rather anti-American.This is simple, straightforward, and obvious."
Because you say so?'
Because those ARE the foundational principles of the Untied States of America. To dispute them is to dispute them. They are what America is all about. They are the reason America has been a people magnet throughout its history.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Because those ARE the foundational principles of the Untied States of America. "
The tenets of equality, yes, but not the belief in the Creator.
"Huh? Do you think there is now scientific evidence contrary to any of those principles? Do you know what would qualify."
To the principle of a Creator, yes. There had not yet been proposed a mechanism to explain how life's diversity came about, so there was no science onto which they could fall back.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
"There was no scientific evidence to the contrary, at the time."
Huh? Do you think there is now scientific evidence contrary to any of those principles? Do you know what would qualify.
Perhaps you mean "science had not yet been redefined"? If you're talking about ACTUAL scientific evidence, you won't find anything contradicting the document.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter Oh, and, of course, "self-evident" goes against the founding principle of science. Science doesn't rely on one person saying something, or claiming "it's obvious." It requires evidence.
So NOW you're claiming 95% of scientists are anti-America, huh? Then stop supporting them by indulging in the comforts science gave you--clothes, computer, shelter, medicines (most of which use principles of evolution). In fact, use only homeopathic medicine. That should be a riot.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Oh, and, of course, "self-evident" goes against the founding principle of science. Science doesn't rely on one person saying something, or claiming "it's obvious." It requires evidence."
Really? On what basis is evidence required? On what basis does one engage in any scientific undertaking, for that matter?
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "On what basis is evidence required?"
The basis of SCIENCE. Science takes no claim that cannot be backed by evidence.
"On the contrary, if as you maintain, one is required to deny God to perform science. . ."
I repeat: YOU are the only person claiming that science is atheism. I'M saying that science cannot INVOKE God as an explanation. Individuals believe whatever they want, but using the supernatural to explain the natural goes against science.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 '"On what basis is evidence required?"
The basis of SCIENCE. Science takes no claim that cannot be backed by evidence.'
Ha! You assume everyone forgets the context? No, you cannot get away with it. You claimed science is at odds with things being self-evident - then I asked the question.
Now give a straight answer if you can. On what basis is evidence required?
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Ha! You assume everyone forgets the context? No, you cannot get away with it. You claimed science is at odds with things being self-evident - then I asked the question."
I DID answer the question. Nothing in science is taken to be self-evident. If there's any claim AT ALL, even for something as "self-evident" as gravity, it's BACKED UP by evidence! Science is full of things which defy intuition, yet have been confirmed numerous times (bowling ball and feather fall at same rate).
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Nothing in science is taken to be self-evident. "
The procedure itself is taken as self-evident, as is the need for evidence!
What? Has someone proven science must work? Have they proven we need evidence? No! These are presuppositions. Science presupposes it's procedures will lead to truth. You can't prove they must. Indeed, many times they fail (although it helps a lot to be honest in interpreting results.)
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "The procedure itself is taken as self-evident, as is the need for evidence!
What? Has someone proven science must work? Have they proven we need evidence? No! These are presuppositions. Science presupposes it's procedures will lead to truth. You can't prove they must. Indeed, many times they fail (although it helps a lot to be honest in interpreting results.)"
Whoa whoa whoa, stop with the false claims! THIS is an illogical response, and here's why. . .
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@trextoter We've seen that science leads to real-world results. Also, how do you propose to do science WITHOUT evidence? Evidence is part of the definition of science, it's not a RESULT of science.
Oh, let me guess: "Let's never use evidence and just say God did everything." Then our expected life span would be back in the 30s.
Science is a methodology. It's a method to lead to objective and reliable conclusions. And SCIENCE is the one that says it's fallible. . .but it also corrects.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagicActor1987 "If there's any claim AT ALL, even for something as "self-evident" as gravity, it's BACKED UP by evidence!"
...which presupposes that evidence is required. The requirement is taken for granted - I still wonder if you can acknowledge it as the subject I've been talking about. The requirement for evidence is itself self-evident. Can you misunderstand that? Do try. Give it all you've got.
trextoter 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Science is full of things which defy intuition, yet have been confirmed numerous times..."
Just gotta get in a dig against intuition. Folks playing at home, try this:
See how many counter-intuitive things you can recall within 5 minutes.
Now count the muscles you INTUITIVELY employ and regulate & the distance calculations involved in every segment of bone whenever you scratch an itch.
Intuition's correct-to-failure ratio beats anything mankind can offer.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Intuition's correct-to-failure ratio beats anything mankind can offer."
That doesn't make all of its claims true, especially about things NOT related to YOUR OWN BODY, as in your example.
Intuition, like all thought-driven faculties, is open to error. And science has shown things to be true that defy intuitive reasoning. Intuition is good for day-to-day tasks; not for uncovering the secrets of the universe. Sorry.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Intuition, like all thought-driven faculties, is open to error. And science has shown things to be true that defy intuitive reasoning. "
We are fallible - not news. Intuition beats anything you can name, and if not for intuition itself you couldn't dispute what it says. When something is found to be "counter-intuitive", how do you know the later result is better than the earlier? Again, your intuition HELPS YOU CORRECT the mistake.
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter "Again, your intuition HELPS YOU CORRECT the mistake."
No, you know the latter result is better because it FITS.
Intuition is fallible. Science doesn't work on intuition. Science works on repeated observations and experiment. There are plenty of things that are counter-intuitive, not because intuition says so (that's absurd), but because other evidence (math being the most useful) say so. Check out the Monty Hall paradox.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor1987 "Intuition is fallible. Science doesn't work on intuition. Science works on repeated observations and experiment."
Science is an intuitive endeavour, just like anything else.
"Mainstream science" preaches many, many things which have never, ever been observed or subjected to experiment. They've sacrificed integrity and forfeited their credibility, as a group, and for what?
trextoter 11 months ago
@trextoter ""Mainstream science" preaches many, many things which have never, ever been observed or subjected to experiment. "
The very, very FEW things that are claimed that haven't been observed or tested remain hypotheses, and are usually back up with, at the very least, mathematics.
But, pray, tell me. What things? Or will you ignore this, too, like you did with your claims regarding the chromosomes?
Claiming without evidence may work in church, but not with me nor science.
MagicActor1987 11 months ago
@MagicActor