Boozehound Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legislators are mind-readers, apparently, and can tell when someone's "heartfelt." Legislators are Sith I tell you. An internet fud is still a fud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaunTon Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I won't pretend to be as well read as some on this issue but it seems reasonably clear that intelligent design 'theory' is more to do with religious conviction rather than science as its commonly understood. If folk want it to be recognised as valid the same way as other scientific theories then it has to meet basic scientific principles. If it does not then its proponents are at best are misguided, at worst they are manipulative and deceitful. To xj it's clear that you believe in creationism (whether you call it that or not). If that's the case that's fine by me as you're entitled to believe whatever you choose. However if you want to advance your beliefs as having some scientific validity then you need to be prepared to be questioned without playing the 'look at these nasty athiests insulting my beliefs' card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2006 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I won't pretend to be as well read as some on this issue but it seems reasonably clear that intelligent design 'theory' is more to do with religious conviction rather than science as its commonly understood. If folk want it to be recognised as valid the same way as other scientific theories then it has to meet basic scientific principles. If it does not then its proponents are at best are misguided, at worst they are manipulative and deceitful. To xj it's clear that you believe in creationism (whether you call it that or not). If that's the case that's fine by me as you're entitled to believe whatever you choose. However if you want to advance your beliefs as having some scientific validity then you need to be prepared to be questioned without playing the 'look at these nasty athiests insulting my beliefs' card. Taunton Totally agree with you mate. To be honest I don't have the time or energy to look into the whole thing in detail, so please don't view me as some spokesperson for ID. I will look into it more though, and I am not despondent. My "faith" has not been shaken, despite the overwhelming material world view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmc Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legislators are Sith I tell you. Sithism is the way forward!! Mon eh Palpatine!! RIP New Order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_McB Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Indeed, Science is completely and utterly impartial. If evidence that supported ID or creationism were ever to become available it would be peer reviewed and its validity would be confirmed or dismissed with the same rigour and fairness as any other evidence or theory. It has no agenda, other than discovering the truth. Drivel, indeed the sort of drivel I would expect from a chap who knows fuk all about science. I won't bother quoting detailed examples, time for you to learn wee man, go check how peer review did not work for Boltzmann, also see how PHil Jones and his chums use peer review to hide real debate. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."The goal of Socialism is Communism- Lenin Je ne suis pas Marxiste : K Marx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2006 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 this is a good debate, plenty of food for thought The rematch, a debate with Meyer and Ward addressing each other’s arguments for intelligent design and evolution (or not, respectively). Reporters and columnists especially should listen to this, as a real debate by scientists on the science of Darwinian evolution is almost as rare as life in the universe. debate Worth a watch if you want to see 2 professional sides to the argument (as opposed to the s***e posted on here over the past week or so) p.s: this link is not affiliated with any side of the argument. it is a link to a Seattle Times debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Drivel, indeed the sort of drivel I would expect from a chap who knows fuk all about science. I won't bother quoting detailed examples, time for you to learn wee man, go check how peer review did not work for Boltzmann, also see how PHil Jones and his chums use peer review to hide real debate. Speaking as someone who earlier on did acknowledge the limitations of science, as CHC didn't: 1) Do you think this means we should have less science in society? 2) Do you think this means that goddism is in any way better than science? I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on this, given that you have fingers in both pies, as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrX Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 In order: 1. No, not at all. The scientific method is the product of hundreds of years of scientific progress, and during that time just as most humans have been theists, so have most scientists. What successful theistic sciences do know is that the god hypothesis has no effect one way or the other on science, and thus it's kept entirely out of experiments and theories. 2. The rules of the scientific method are very clear, 100% non-sectarian, completely democratic and open to anyone. There is a reason why this doesn't sit well with goddists. 3. I think I do need to quote Behe at Dover, as well as his expert witness, because once again you're obfuscating the point. The scientific method was not a product of a bunch of atheists sitting down and expelling ( ) design ( ) theory ( ) but iteratively over hundreds of years. In this process scientists learned that, while they do need to draw on past experience to form conjectures and hypotheses, they must then build safeguards into their experiments to ensure that such biases are countered: double-blind trials and the like. IDiocy wants to expand the role of science so that it's no long scientific. We have terms for that already: pseudoscience and junk science. 4. Actually, not everyone who opposes IDiocy is a strict materialist. As I pointed out earlier, in yet another point you've clearly not bothered reading, Kenneth Miller is perhaps the most tireless opponent of IDiocy yet is a committed and devout theist. It simply isn't the case that you need to be an atheist to "make fun of" IDiocy (although it helps.) 5. If IDiots have any articles to submit for peer review, nobody is stopping them. Above all, anything that will cause a paradigm shift or a massive alteration of the status quo is always going to be met with some level of resistance. IDiocy doesn't fit this bracket, of course, since it's pseudoscience, untestable and complete and utter fiction, but if it makes the IDiot martyrs feel better to pretend that they're somehow being excluded for any reason but their own mendacity and incapability I don't suppose I'm in a position to stop them. As I said in a previous post (which, again, you clearly haven't read): (Abiogenesis is simply the name of the phenomenon of life's beginning, not of a particular theory describing how it happened. What you're saying is like asking, "Why should I believe in sight?", rather than "Why should I believe in the optic nerve and the retina etc.?") That nit-picking aside, the fact that something has yet to be proved does not mean that your argument du jour is automatically correct. Neither of us knows how life began and to put it mildly neither of us is an expert. One of us is prepared to wait until the evidence is in while the other has already picked a side and has covered his ears while accusing anyone unwilling to humour his delusions as being closed-minded. IDiots pretend to be these paragons of academic and mental freedom when really they are anything but. If you can't wait until the evidence is in then you're not practicing science or rigourous thinking, and if you're not a rigourous thinker you shouldn't be trying to set the agenda for others. What are the "huge" gaps, exactly? Evolution via natural selection is the most watertight scientific theory in existence - moreso than gravity. Wjo;e tjere are gaps in it, none are as great as you're making out. Even aside from that, it's worked in literally every case so far, while supernaturalism has worked in literally none. We of course cannot rule out the fact that IDiocy is correct, anymore than we can rule out Thor, Zeus, or magic pixies. But for the purpose of using our experience responsibly (the exact opposite of what you do in the following paragraph) we should proceed with caution rather than pretending that IDiocy is true. Of course we tend to see design in complexity. This is how we're wired. The reason that we have science, instead of IDiot echo chambers, is that we can then put our prejudices to the test to see whether or not we're right. So we do so with the human eye, with chimpanzees, with butterflies... and we find precisely zero evidence of a designer with no supernatural elements whatsoever, and development accounted for perfectly by evolution via natural selection. Or, to put it simply: how can you see evidence of design in the cell but not in the human eye? What the hell are you babbling about?! Some people never go crazy, what truly horrible lifes they must live - Charles Bukowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 Drivel, indeed the sort of drivel I would expect from a chap who knows fuk all about science. Interesting observation, thanks for that. As you claim to know a lot about science and scientific procedures, can I be a wee bit cheeky and ask you how many scientific papers you've actually written and had peer reviewed and published? I'd be genuinely interested to know. I've had 2 papers published as the main author (and many more as a co-author) and currently have a 3rd paper under peer review, all for internationally recognised and respected technical journals. I'll send you the two that have already been published if you're interested, though they're probably not in subjects you'd be particularly interested in (they're related to the use of SiGe in MEMS). And my first patent application has been filed for a novel selective deposition technique for trench narrowing and via filing in IC manufacture that's explained in the 3rd paper, which was also peer reviewed by scientific colleagues before being approved for submission. But I'm very new to scientific research (only 3.5 years) having previously worked in manufacturing and then pilot production since leaving school. My background is therefore in engineering and not in science, so I certainly don't claim to be a scientific expert, far from it indeed. But I'm learning all the time and I do have some very recent practical experience in scientific research and procedures, so I do hope I know a wee bit more than 'fuk all' about science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boozehound Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Ooft, CHC 1 - McB 0 Time to step up teach. FIGHT! An internet fud is still a fud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cet Homme Charmant Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 Ooft, CHC 1 - McB 0 Time to step up teach. FIGHT! I wasn't scoring points Raymondo, just replying to an (unfounded IMO) accusation against me. And I'm certainly not looking for a fight. I'm a lover, not a fighter. But you know that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamCam Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Ooft, CHC 1 - McB 0 Time to step up teach. FIGHT! I'm not so sure I think it more a score draw. In support of his viewpoint CHC offered up an opinion as fact. Anyone who believes science has only the one agenda being truth is only promoting their implicit agenda in making their point. Well done getting your papers published though CHC if I happen to pick up the Beano next time I am in the newsagent I will write a review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boozehound Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I'm not so sure I think it more a score draw. In support of his viewpoint CHC offered up an opinion as fact. Anyone who believes science has only the one agenda being truth is only promoting their implicit agenda in making their point. Well done getting your papers published though CHC if I happen to pick up the Beano Farm Animals Illustrated next time I am in the newsagent I will write a review An internet fud is still a fud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamCam Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You are going to get in so much trouble now. CHC will be stomping his feet time and time again at you being flippant on his very important thread. You have to understand the importance of this discussion and get with the programme. As a punishment before you go to bed tonight you will be made to read CHC's very important published papers. Not sure the official titles but try searching for 'Prejudicial Attitudes to Dwarf Scientists' and 'Disappearing Up Your Own Self-Important Scientific Ersehole - Facts Not Fiction'. Live long and prosper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaboy Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You are going to get in so much trouble now. CHC will be stomping his feet time and time again at you being flippant on his very important thread. You have to understand the importance of this discussion and get with the programme. As a punishment before you go to bed tonight you will be made to read CHC's very important published papers. Not sure the official titles but try searching for 'Prejudicial Attitudes to Dwarf Scientists' and 'Disappearing Up Your Own Self-Important Scientific Ersehole - Facts Not Fiction'. Live long and prosper.[/b] "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right......." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 What the hell are you babbling about?! Would you like me to type it again, only this time slowly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaboy Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Would you like me to type it again? please, MrX, please say "no". A man can only ignore so much verbosity on the one thread....... "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right......." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappiecat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 please, MrX, please say "no". A man can only ignore so much verbosity on the one thread....... Is it verbosity if its written? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrX Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Would you like me to type it again, only this time slowly? No thanks, once was more than enough. Some people never go crazy, what truly horrible lifes they must live - Charles Bukowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Edwards Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Is it verbosity if its written? Prolixity might be the term you're thinking of. If nacho's guilty of it, then he's not the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.