Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…101102104106107…232

Comments

  • #3092
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    You know JC, its beginning to look like you can't answer the questions posed by so many. What experiment would you like to see carried out? If some benevolent benefactor made as much money available as you required, to carry out any experiment you wanted, to prove your points about God, what would that experiment involve?
    That's already happend with Creation Science ... but I think that the experiments are top secret ... for now!!!:)


  • #3093
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    JC, I have a totally open mind on the topic of other dimensions. I can agree with you that there are probably many dimensions, which we on Earth will never be able to comprehend. I don't think scientists would disagree either. I am prepared to accept that "spirits" may exist on a different plane and that we may pass on in some way, when we die. No problem there.
    I am open minded enough to reject evolution if you can put forward a compelling, factual, scientifically sound argument for an alternative. But JC, it has to be better than "A man told me and I believe him". I'm sure it will be.

    So there it is my friend. I lie prostrate before you, waiting for your words of wisdom!
    For some reason a Monty Python scene comes to mind!!

    Please go back and read my postings ... I'm going to bed!!!:)


  • #3094
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    That's already happend with Creation Science ... but the experiments are top secret ... for now!!!:)

    Wow JC, Has the cat finally got your writing finger? You have no answer. You don't seem to want to go there. My question was honest, as I suspect, was everybody else's, asking the same question.

    You think of Monty Python, I think of JC frantically trying to find an answer on all his reference sites. But there is no answer, is there JC? There is no scientific experiment which will authenticate your creationist ideas. Its all based on faith. Science is based on fact. Very different, my friend.


  • #3095
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Not at all ... the ID pioneers and the Creation Scientists of the world frame experiments every day at the very cutting edge of 'origins' research.
    ... but conventional 'origins' science had never given them a red cent in funding.
    This is simply not true.

    I think you are so intent on rejecting anything we say, regardless of what we say (while ironically moaning about ad hominem attacks), that you aren't actually listening to what we say.

    I am genuinely trying to understand what you imagine ID/creation experiments to be, then we might actually be able to move forward and discuss why they should or should not be funded.

    So, I'll have a pop at what I think you're imagining, just to see if you can engage with us in any meaningful way. Let's go with the CSFI thing. Scientists think they can detect a set of genomic sequences that are so complex (as defined by a set of complexity criteria) that they couldn't possibly have arisen by random mutation + natural selection. OK? How's that for a starting point?

    So, those scientists hypothesise that there must be an intelligent creator behind such sequences (God, aliens, whatever). How do they frame their research proposal to generate evidence that there is an intelligent creator behind it? Well, assuming they can't identify a piece of DNA composed of novel and unique nucleotides, that spells out in English 'Made in Heaven', they can't. How could they even go about it?

    The only scientific method available to them to support their hypothesis is the systematic exclusion of known natural mechanisms that might cause such sequences to arise, yes? Do you get that? Sometimes that's the case for 'materialistic' science as well. But systematically excluding all known factors, to leave you with an unknown factor, is not scientific evidence for the existence of whatever you speculate the unknown factor is.

    Creationists don't get funding because they can't frame their questions to fall within the scientific method. This is either:
    1. a massive strategical mistake on their part. Unlike you, I could reasonably think of several 'creationist' experiments and frame them in a fashion that makes them, at least in principle, fundable. 'Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face' springs to mind.
    2. a reflection of their innate stupidity.


  • #3096
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Wow JC, Has the cat finally got your writing finger? You have no answer. You don't seem to want to go there. My question was honest, as I suspect, was everybody else's, asking the same question.

    You think of Monty Python, I think of JC frantically trying to find an answer on all his reference sites. But there is no answer, is there JC? There is no scientific experiment which will authenticate your creationist ideas. Its all based on faith. Science is based on fact. Very different, my friend.
    Love to you all.


  • Advertisement
  • #3097
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    This is simply not true.
    It is indeed true that ID pioneers and the Creation Scientists frame experiments every day at the very cutting edge of 'origins' research.
    ... but conventional 'origins' science had never given them a red cent in funding.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I think you are so intent on rejecting anything we say, regardless of what we say (while ironically moaning about ad hominem attacks), that you aren't actually listening to what we say.
    I point out the Ad hominems directed at me, not so much because they are unfounded and gratuitously insulting, even though they are, but primarily because they destroy meaningful debate and thus are banned by the rules of debating.
    In general, you don't engage in ad Hominems ... but then you go and throw one in yourself at the end of your posting.
    Quote:- " a reflection of their innate stupidity".

    I could call Evolutionists 'stupid' as well ... but where would that get us on the substantive issue of the scientific validity of either Evolution or Creation? ... precisely nowhere.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    I am genuinely trying to understand what you imagine ID/creation experiments to be, then we might actually be able to move forward and discuss why they should or should not be funded.

    So, I'll have a pop at what I think you're imagining, just to see if you can engage with us in any meaningful way. Let's go with the CSFI thing. Scientists think they can detect a set of genomic sequences that are so complex (as defined by a set of complexity criteria) that they couldn't possibly have arisen by random mutation + natural selection. OK? How's that for a starting point?
    It isn't a 'CFSI thing', as you dismissively call it, (whilst protesting that you want genuine dialogue and understanding between us) ... it is now a well founded Scientific Hypothesis that Complex Functional Specified Information is an infallible indicator of Intelligent Activity.
    ... and the hypopthesis isn't that complexity on its own couldn't possibly have arisen by random mutation + natural selection ... complexity per se can be easily generated by random/repetitive/deterministic/chaotic processes ... explosions, fractals, storms, etc. are examples of complex phenomena that aren't intelligently generated.
    The intelligence indicator with CFSI isn't its complexity ... its the functionality and specificity in combination with the complexity that are the indicators of intelligent action.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    So, those scientists hypothesise that there must be an intelligent creator behind such sequences (God, aliens, whatever). How do they frame their research proposal to generate evidence that there is an intelligent creator behind it? Well, assuming they can't identify a piece of DNA composed of novel and unique nucleotides, that spells out in English 'Made in Heaven', they can't. How could they even go about it?
    One way is to apply mathematics to determine the probabilities of various sequences of information found in living systems ... and where probablilities are in excess of 10^-100, the system can be determined to be statistically certain to have been intelligently produced.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    The only scientific method available to them to support their hypothesis is the systematic exclusion of known natural mechanisms that might cause such sequences to arise, yes? Do you get that? Sometimes that's the case for 'materialistic' science as well. But systematically excluding all known factors, to leave you with an unknown factor, is not scientific evidence for the existence of whatever you speculate the unknown factor is.
    This isn't the only scientific method available ... such a 'method' would be guaranteed to result in no conclusion being able to be drawn ... and would be a waste of time.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    Creationists don't get funding because they can't frame their questions to fall within the scientific method. This is either:
    1. a massive strategical mistake on their part. Unlike you, I could reasonably think of several 'creationist' experiments and frame them in a fashion that makes them, at least in principle, fundable. 'Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face' springs to mind.
    2. a reflection of their innate stupidity.
    Leaving your insulting and unfounded ad hominem aside, Creationists don't get conventional science funding because they don't apply for it, don't want it ... and they wouldn't get it even if they did.
    I'm not talking about funding being provided to Creation Scientists ... I'm asking for funding to be provided for general Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses as an indicator of respect and basic equality within conventional science ... for the Theists who help to fund it and work within it.


  • #3098
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    But if you're using probability, would creationism not be doing itself a disservice as they are asking for funding (without pilot data/proposed experiments) to search for something that is extremely improbable, i.e. God.

    and CFSI is not a well founded scientific concept. It's a term that was coined by creationists and one I've only seen used by creationists. Even though it's a scientific concept (allegedly) I've never seen an actual scientific definition provided. How is it defined, measured, analysed in the real world?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3099
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    But if you're using probability, would creationism not be doing itself a disservice as they are asking for funding (without pilot data/proposed experiments) to search for something that is extremely improbable, i.e. God.
    The maths is proving that an Intelligence approaching infinite capacity exists ... and Created life ... I call Him God ... you can call Him whatever you like.
    koth wrote: »
    and CFSI is not a well founded scientific concept. It's a term that was coined by creationists and one I've only seen used by creationists.
    If 'creationists' means 'not Atheists' ... you're correct.
    koth wrote: »
    Even though it's a scientific concept (allegedly) I've never seen an actual scientific definition provided. How is it defined, measured, analysed in the real world?
    You'll be in for a treat then, when you read all about it.
    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php


  • #3100
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The maths is proving that an Intelligence approaching infinite capacity exists ... and Created life ... I call Him God ... you can call Him whatever you like.
    Then why can't creationist get funding if they have the proof?
    If 'creationists' means 'not Atheists' ... you're correct.
    No, I mean creationists.
    You'll be in for a treat then, when you read all about it.
    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    So CSI (CFSI isn't mentioned in the document) is a result of determining irreducible complexity? What is so complex about humans that it proves CSI exists?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3101
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    J C wrote: »

    If 'creationists' means 'not Atheists' you're correct.
    The overwhelming majority of people who believe in god but not creationism.

    How old do you think the earth is?
    A. Over 1 million years
    B. Under 10000 years.
    C. Other _____


  • Advertisement
  • #3102
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    The overwhelming majority of people who believe in god but not creationism.

    How old do you think the earth is?
    A. Over 1 million years
    B. Under 10000 years.
    C. Other _____
    What's your point?


  • #3103
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    J C wrote: »
    What's your point?
    Answer the question!!!


  • #3104
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Then why can't creationist get funding if they have the proof?
    ID people aren't Young Earth Creationists ... they're old earthers and many are Theistic Evolutionists ... basically middle-of-the road Theists.
    koth wrote: »
    No, I mean creationists.
    ... see above.

    koth wrote: »
    So CSI (CFSI isn't mentioned in the document) is a result of determining irreducible complexity? What is so complex about humans that it proves CSI exists?
    Irreducible Complexity is just one aspect of ID ... it is concerned with the fact that because multiple specific conditions are required for each functional artefact, the probabilities are multiplicable and therefore exponential ... and they rapidly become statistical impossibilities for undirected processes.


  • #3105
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    Answer the question!!!
    What's your question?
    I'm a Young Earth Creationist ... but I was talking about ID proponents who are Old Earther's and many of whom are Theistic Evolutionists.

    That was why I said that ID proponents are 'non-Atheists' ... because they are middle-of-the-road Theists.


  • #3106
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ID people aren't Young Earth Creationists ... they're old earthers and many are Theistic Evolutionists ... basically middle-of-the road Theists.
    That's not an answer. Why if creationists/theistic evolutionists (or any other group) have proof of "God did it" can they not get funding? This would surely meet the requirements of pilot data and could allow them to suggest what experiments to carry out.
    Irreducible Complexity is just one aspect of ID ... it is concerned with the fact that because multiple specific conditions are required for each functional artefact, the probabilities are multiplicable and therefore exponential ... and they rapidly become statistical impossibilities for undirected processes.

    But just because the odds are high doesn't mean it can't happen. The existence of intelligent life on one planet would support that premise.

    Why must we revert to God as an answer? And what is so complex about humans that they are irreducibly complex?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3107
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    J C wrote: »
    What's your question?


    How old do you think the earth is?
    A. Over 1 million years
    B. Under 10000 years.
    C. Other _____


  • #3108
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    How old do you think the earth is?
    A. Over 1 million years
    B. Under 10000 years.
    C. Other _____
    I know it is less than 10,000 years old.

    ... but practically all ID proponents proponents believe it to be billions of years old.


  • #3109
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    That's not an answer. Why if creationists/theistic evolutionists (or any other group) have proof of "God did it" can they not get funding? This would surely meet the requirements of pilot data and could allow them to suggest what experiments to carry out.
    The Creationists are adequately funded outside conventional science, as I have said.
    The Theistic Evolutionists can't get conventional 'origins' science funding ... because all hypotheses based on a supernatural cause are banned in conventional science.

    koth wrote: »
    But just because the odds are high doesn't mean it can't happen. The existence of intelligent life on one planet would support that premise.
    This is the circular reasoning of the practical atheist, that is at the core of conventional science ... it assumes that there is no God ... and then deduces that because life exists on Earth, there must 'logically' be an (as yet undiscovered) mechanism by which it came into existence and developed by a material cause. This is only a 'logical' deduction if one assumes there is no God,, in the first place ... which is a purely Atheistic assumption ... and an assumption that isn't shared by any Theist.

    BTW the odds are so great against life happening by non-intelligently directed processes ... that it is a mathematical impossibility.

    koth wrote: »
    Why must we revert to God as an answer? And what is so complex about humans that they are irreducibly complex?
    I'm not asking Atheists to only test the 'the God Hypotheis' ... indeed, I'm not asking them to test 'the God Hypotheis' at all ...
    ... I'm merely asking them to recognise the right of Theists to test 'the God Hypothesis' on a parity of esteem with the Atheists 'no-God Hypothesis'.
    ... basic pluralist, equality, multicultural stuff ... doubly so in a predominantly mono-theist society ... that's paying for this research!!!


  • #3110
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The Creationists are adequately funded outside conventional science, as I have said.
    The Theistic Evolutionists can't get conventional 'origins' science funding ... because all hypotheses based on a supernatural cause are banned in conventional science.
    Not true. It's been explained countless times that experiments get funding. You've not yet stated what experiments could be carried out to justify the funding.
    This is the circular reasoning of the practical atheist that is at the core of conventional science ... it assumes there is no God ... and then deduces that because life exists there must be an (as yet undiscovered) mechanism by which it came into existence and developed by a material cause. This is only a logical deduction if one assumes there is no God,, in the first place ... which is a purely Atheistic assumption.
    Incorrect. It's not making any statement about God. It's just not adding God into the theory about life on this planet. It's not saying for example that God initiated the Big Bang but life itself wasn't designed rather it occurred over time as a result of the birth of the universe.

    The problem for you is that you have to show the necessity, and evidence, of God creating life.
    I'm not asking Atheists to only test the 'the God Hypotheis' ... I'm merely asking them to recognise the right of Theists to test 'the God Hypothesis' on a parity of esteem with the 'no-God Hypothesis'.
    ... basic pluralist equality multicultural stuff !!!
    No it's not as you don't want "God did it" folk being subject of reasonable scrutiny when applying for funding. All ideas are not equal in science. Need I remind you that you dismissed out of hand the idea that God is involved in the boiling of water in an electric kettle.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3111
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Not true. It's been explained countless times that experiments get funding. You've not yet stated what experiments could be carried out to justify the funding.
    ... my point is that only 'no-God' hypotheses have ever been funded by conventional 'origins' science.
    If 'God did it' hypotheses had been funded and found to be invalid for clear reasons ... you might have a point ... but the 'God Hypothesis' has been 'strangled at birth' ... by conventional science ... without ever getting a chance to prove itself within conventional science ... one way or the other.

    Of course, 'the God Hypothesis' has been satisfactorly proven by conventional scientists operating, of necessity, outside of conventionally funded 'origins' science.

    koth wrote: »
    Incorrect. It's not making any statement about God. It's just not adding God into the theory about life on this planet. It's not saying for example that God initiated the Big Bang but life itself wasn't designed rather it occurred over time as a result of the birth of the universe.
    Its quite clear that conventional 'origins' science is predicated on the Atheistic assumption that God doesn't exist ... and therefore only materialistic 'origins' mechanisms can be considered and researched. The fact that funding has never been provided for the 'God Hypothesis' proves that this bias exists.

    koth wrote: »
    The problem for you is that you have to show the necessity, and evidence, of God creating life.
    ID has shown both the absolute necessity and the evidence, for an Intelligence/Intelligences approaching infinite capacity, producing life. You may say that the Intelligence itself cannot be scientifically determined ... and you would be right ... but the fact that an intelligence of God-like proportions was required has been proven beyond all doubt.

    koth wrote: »
    No it's not as you don't want "God did it" folk being subject of reasonable scrutiny when applying for funding. All ideas are not equal in science. Need I remind you that you dismissed out of hand the idea that God is involved in the boiling of water in an electric kettle.
    Reasonable scrutiny is, of course, required ... but a scrutiny that rejects all hypotheses that challenge a particular (Atheistic) worldview is objectively unreasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • #3112
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    ID people aren't Young Earth Creationists ... they're old earthers and many are Theistic Evolutionists ... basically middle-of-the road Theists.

    If they aren't YECcers, then why are they following a "hypothesis" that is YEC in fancy language?

    The only difference between YEC and ID is that ID uses scientific sounding words. This was a deliberate strategy by the Discovery Institute to get Creationism taught in schools as science, called the Wedge Strategy.

    In all honesty, you'd have to be a pretty stupid old Earth creationist to accept YEC, in the form of ID, as a valid concept.


  • #3113
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    If they aren't YECcers, then why are they following a "hypothesis" that is YEC in fancy language?
    They're neither Young Earth Creationists nor are they following a Creationist (God Directly Created life) hypothesis ... they're following a Theistic hypothesis 'that God did it ... without any definite conclusion as to how ... but with punctuated Evolution over long ages being a mechanism'.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    The only difference between YEC and ID is that ID uses scientific sounding words. This was a deliberate strategy by the Discovery Institute to get Creationism taught in schools as science, called the Wedge Strategy.

    In all honesty, you'd have to be a pretty stupid old Earth creationist to accept YEC, in the form of ID, as a valid concept.
    ID proponents are not Young Earth Creationists ... indeed Young Earth Creationists have significant theological issues with the undefined nature of the 'Intelligence' of ID ... and the ID Evolutionist ideas about how the Intelligence produced and perfected life - and the long ages that they accept.
    ... but we have no issues with the validity of the basic science underpinning ID.


  • #3114
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... my point is that only 'no-God' hypotheses have ever been funded by conventional 'origins' science.
    If 'God did it' hypotheses had been funded and found to be invalid for clear reasons ... you might have a point ... but the 'God Hypothesis' has been 'strangled at birth' ... by conventional science ... without ever getting a chance to prove itself within conventional science ... one way or the other.
    And to repeat again, it's not "strangled at birth", the "God did it" crew haven't been able to provide pilot data/proposed experiments to justify funding. It's not enough to say "I have an idea", you have to be able to say how you intend to investigate/prove it.
    Of course, 'the God Hypothesis' has been satisfactorly proven by conventional scientists operating, of necessity, outside of conventionally funded 'origins' science.
    Can you provide a link to the work of the Nobel prize winning scientist(s) that proved "God did it"?
    Its quite clear that conventional 'origins' science is predicated on the Atheistic assumption that God doesn't exist ... and therefore only materialistic 'origins' mechanisms can be considered and researched. The fact that funding has never been provided for the 'God Hypothesis' proves that this bias exists.
    Wrong. You don't start at point A and jump to God, you investigate A and see where it leads.
    ID has shown both the absolute necessity and the evidence, for an Intelligence/Intelligences approaching infinite capacity, producing life. You may say that the Intelligence itself cannot be scientifically determined ... and you would be right ... but the fact that an intelligence of God-like proportions was required has been proven beyond all doubt.

    Can you provide a link to the work of the Nobel prize winning scientist(s) that proved "God did it"?
    Reasonable scrutiny is, of course, required ... but a scrutiny that rejects all hypotheses that challenge a particular (Atheistic) worldview is objectively unreasonable.
    That's not what is happening so please stop misrepresenting the facts.

    And you still have to provide examples of experiments that would warrant funding for the "God did it" investigators.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3115
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    They're neither Young Earth Creationists nor are they following a Creationist (God Directly Created life) hypothesis ... they're following a Theistic hypothesis 'that God did it ... without any definite conclusion as to how ... but with punctuated Evolution over long ages being a mechanism'.

    Well the whole point of ID is to "prove" (mainly by means of sticking their fingers in their ears when challenged and shouting "na, nah, nah, I am not listening", the same tactic you are using) that an unnamed creator, who is clearly the Abrahamic god, just not named, did the whole thing, which was faithfully recorded in the bible/
    ID proponents are not Young Earth Creationists ... indeed Young Earth Creationists have significant theological issues with the undefined nature of the 'Intelligence' of ID ... and the ID Evolutionist ideas about how the Intelligence produced and perfected life - and the long ages that they accept.
    ... but we have no issues with the validity of the basic science underpinning ID.

    Well if ID is not YEC, why did a famous YEC organisation create ID? You are ignoring the fact that ID is part of the DI's "wedge strategy" to get creationism taught in schools to the exclusion of evolution.


  • #3116
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    It is indeed true that ID pioneers and the Creation Scientists frame experiments every day at the very cutting edge of 'origins' research.... but conventional 'origins' science had never given them a red cent in funding.
    No it isn't. There are multiple published works of "science, with creationist implications" published in mainstream - indeed, very elite - journals, including Science and Nature. These articles cover various disciplines, examining previously-proposed models of "conventional origins" theory and finding them, in some way, wanting. This is more than acceptable as scientific research.

    What is NOT acceptable as scientific research are creationist conclusions in order to fill the new gap in the knowledge. Just because a scientist determines that "Actually, X doesn't cause Y", this doesn't allow the same scientist to conclude that "God causes Y". Just as it doesn't allow me, sticking to a "conventional origins" platform, to conclude that "ABC causes Y". Neither you nor I can plug a gap with whatever we fancy fills the role.

    Now, if my new hypothesis is that "Well, X doesn't cause Y, and I now suspect ABC causes Y", I design a new set of experiments to test whether ABC causes Y. You have no such outlet - your conclusion negates the ability to conduct further research. Furthermore, it negates the need to conduct further research.
    J C wrote: »
    I point out the Ad hominems directed at me, not so much because they are unfounded and gratuitously insulting...In general, you don't engage in ad Hominems ... but then you go and throw one in yourself at the end of your posting.
    Quote:- " a reflection of their innate stupidity".
    You don't point out ad hominems, you point out what you think are ad hominems. But they aren't. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the term.

    Calling a stupid belief "stupid" is not an ad hominem. Biblical creationism is a stupid, unscientific, unsupported belief. So is a belief that homeopathy works. So is a belief that astrology dictates your personality or mood of the day. They are all, currently (never say never), pseudoscientific. And to therefore believe that they represent some means of understanding how the world works is stupid.
    J C wrote: »
    It isn't a 'CFSI thing', as you dismissively call it...it is now a well founded Scientific Hypothesis
    You can't even get the name of your pet hypothesis correct, and wilfully introduce terms that don't form part of the actual hypothesis.

    I can dismiss it, JC, because it's scientific nonsense. Like homeopathy and astrology. If you want it to be taken seriously, you have to produce evidence that it even exists (I mean, scientific evidence, not the tautological nonsense that routinely accompanies it).
    J C wrote: »
    One way is to apply mathematics to determine the probabilities of various sequences of information found in living systems ... and where probablilities are in excess of 10^-100, the system can be determined to be statistically certain to have been intelligently produced.
    Thank you for starting to provide examples of the type of research you think might be fruitful. In this case however, your conclusion does not follow the "result". If mathematicians were able to prove that it is impossible that evolutionary theory in its current form could have produced the set of genetic sequences we see today, that does not mean that an intelligent agent produced it. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that our current theory, based on known phenomena, does not allow for such sequences to be produced.
    J C wrote: »
    Creationists don't get conventional science funding because they don't apply for it, don't want it ... and they wouldn't get it even if they did.
    That's nonsense. Any creationist - who you would claim to be a proper scientist - would jump at the chance to obtain a five- or ten-year programme grant from the reputable funding body, worth millions of pounds/euros/dollars, to set up a lab, to employ tens of people, to make science happen.

    If what you say it is true, then my assertion of them making a massive - ginormous - mistake in strategy is well-founded.
    J C wrote: »
    I'm asking for funding to be provided for general Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses as an indicator of respect and basic equality within conventional science ... for the Theists who help to fund it and work within it.
    You clearly know nothing about how science funding works. Money isn't given as a measure of "respect", money is given to fund decent experiments in an interesting field, in the pursuit of higher knowledge. Otherwise, you'd have every astrologer demanding equal rights to science funding. Which I hope we both agree is ludicrous.

    JC, I think you have a spectacularly overrated view of what "creation science" is. You appear to think that it's a well-formed set of hypotheses with reams of data to demonstrate that it's true (or at least, worth pursuing). The ICR is up to what? 50 or so papers supporting creationism? There's more "data" in support of homeopathy, for goodness sake. Last year, the people in my office alone published 5 papers studying mechanisms of protein evolution. And there's 8 offices on my floor. And four floors in my building. And three biology buildings in my university. And some 15-20,000 universities in the world. I don't think you see quite how marginal your thesis is. Perhaps a trip to the Total Perspective Vortex would be useful?

    And a note: "theistic evolutionists" believe that evolutionary theory is the best model to explain the world as we see it.


  • #3117
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    Emma, there really is very little anybody else can offer. Your arguments seem to be totally logical. Unfortunately, arguing with JC is like arguing with a 12 year old about the existence of Santa. His Mam and Dad told him that Santa is real and he believes them. The argument then degenerates into "He is the spirit of Christmas, that proves he is real, you prove he doesn't exist" Its nonsense, just like JC's ranting.


  • #3118
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    And to repeat again, it's not "strangled at birth", the "God did it" crew haven't been able to provide pilot data/proposed experiments to justify funding. It's not enough to say "I have an idea", you have to be able to say how you intend to investigate/prove it.

    Can you provide a link to the work of the Nobel prize winning scientist(s) that proved "God did it"?


    Wrong. You don't start at point A and jump to God, you investigate A and see where it leads.

    Can you provide a link to the work of the Nobel prize winning scientist(s) that proved "God did it"?


    That's not what is happening so please stop misrepresenting the facts.

    And you still have to provide examples of experiments that would warrant funding for the "God did it" investigators.
    Pluralism and respect for diversity cuts both ways ... up to now its been a 'one way street' as Atheists and their fellows have demanded equality with other faiths and the separation of Faith and State. They have taken every concession granted to them ... but they have granted no concessions themselves.
    They have called for the separation of church and state ... when there wasn't unity, in the first place ... and they have promptly turned around to ask the state to use law to ensure that their faith (and their faith alone) in Materialistic Evolution and Abiogensesis be taught as fact to children of all religions and none.
    Atheists need to show the same respect to Theists that they would like to receive from Theists.
    This respect need to be more than words ... it needs to be (and be seen to be) expressed in parity of esteem and allocation of public funding for both the 'God did it' as well as the 'God didn't do it' Hypotheses within the 'origins' research that is controlled by practical atheism.

    Respect also needs to be given within public schools to the 'origins' beliefs of Theists, instead of only the 'origins' beliefs of practical Atheism being allowed in public schools.


  • #3119
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Pluralism and respect for diversity cuts both ways ... up to now its been a 'one way street' as Atheists and their fellows have demanded equality with other faiths and the separation of Faith and State.
    Atheists need to show the same respect to Theists that they would like to receive from Theists.
    This respect need to be more than words ... it needs to be (and be seen to be) expressed in parity of esteem and allocation of public funding for both the 'God did it' as well as the 'God didn't do it' Hypotheses within the 'origins' research that is controlled by practical atheism.
    That's the craziest argument you've ever made.


  • #3120
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    Pluralism and respect for diversity cuts both ways ... up to now its been a 'one way street' as Atheists and their fellows have demanded equality with other faiths and the separation of Faith and State.
    Atheists need to show the same respect to Theists that they would like to receive from Theists.
    This respect need to be more than words ... it needs to be (and be seen to be) expressed in parity of esteem and allocation of public funding for both the 'God did it' as well as the 'God didn't do it' Hypotheses within the 'origins' research that is controlled by practical atheism.


    Respect is earned, not just given


  • Advertisement
  • #3121
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Well if ID is not YEC, why did a famous YEC organisation create ID? You are ignoring the fact that ID is part of the DI's "wedge strategy" to get creationism taught in schools to the exclusion of evolution.
    What are you talking about? What is this 'famous YEC organisation' that created ID?

    The 'wedge strategy' was to get Theistic 'origins' hypotheses parity of esteem in school ... not Young Earth Creationism.
    ... and nobody is talking about excluding evolution ... or Atheism ... the only excluding going on is the exclusion of Theism from public schools.


Advertisement