jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 We've told you and those who agree with you that your creeds about God are wrong, and we base that in what the Lord has told us beginning with Joseph Smith.I don't why you are acting as if we haven't told you before. Or maybe you're just not accustomed to thinking of your false doctrine as blather. In other words, it's OK to use mockery and offensive terms to describe religious beliefs that you disagree with. I'm really having my eyes opened here lately. I've repented of the offensive and mocking things I've said about the LDS church in the past, but if you're right, I am in the clear after all.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Were back to this eh? ID is not religion its a scientific theory just as Darwinian evolution is a theory.It is a theory in the general use of the word but it is not a scientific theory. The latter requires scientific objective data and the IDers do not have enough to justify it being a theory. To say they have any at all is pretty charitable.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 We've told you and those who agree with you that your creeds about God are wrong, and we base that in what the Lord has told us beginning with Joseph Smith.I don't why you are acting as if we haven't told you before. Or maybe you're just not accustomed to thinking of your false doctrine as blather.Considering the equivalent blather I have heard from LDS here I think this is a glass house situation.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 It is a theory in the general use of the word but it is not a scientific theory. The latter requires scientific objective data and the IDers do not have enough to justify it being a theory. To say they have any at all is pretty charitable. A theory must be testable, and for it to be valid, the tests must show repeated results that confirm the theory. As you rightly mention, there are no tests for ID, and no way to confirm it. So it is a religious way to explain the world around us, but it is not a scientific theory in any sense.
Spammer Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 A theory must be testable, and for it to be valid, the tests must show repeated results that confirm the theory. As you rightly mention, there are no tests for ID, and no way to confirm it. So it is a religious way to explain the world around us, but it is not a scientific theory in any sense.If, as the LDS posters here seem to be saying, God is an advanced homo sapien with a spatial location, in theory a spaceship can be built and a course plotted to God's location, like in Star Trek 5 . This seems to make the LDS theory testable. 1
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 A theory must be testable, and for it to be valid, the tests must show repeated results that confirm the theory. As you rightly mention, there are no tests for ID, and no way to confirm it. So it is a religious way to explain the world around us, but it is not a scientific theory in any sense.Is it possible to detect and test whether something is man made? Is man an intelligent designer? Here, this from Sir Isacc Newton-Sir Isaac Newton illustrated to a friend one day that design suggests a designer. Seeing a model of the solar system on Newton’s desk, he asked who the designer was. Newton told his friend that no one made it. Of course, it was obvious to Newton’s friend that the mobile had been made by someone, but Newton kept insisting that no one made it until his friend was ready to leave the room in disgust. At this point, Newton asked how his friend could be so insistent that someone had made the mobile yet at the same time deny that the solar system itself from which the mobile was patterned was not made by anyone.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Is it possible to detect and test whether something is man made? Is man an intelligent designer? Here, this from Sir Isacc Newton-Sir Isaac Newton illustrated to a friend one day that design suggests a designer. Seeing a model of the solar system on Newton’s desk, he asked who the designer was. Newton told his friend that no one made it. Of course, it was obvious to Newton’s friend that the mobile had been made by someone, but Newton kept insisting that no one made it until his friend was ready to leave the room in disgust. At this point, Newton asked how his friend could be so insistent that someone had made the mobile yet at the same time deny that the solar system itself from which the mobile was patterned was not made by anyone. How do you test ID? What results would confirm it? Until you have some way of testing ID and confirming it, you cannot rightly call it a scientific theory.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 It is a theory in the general use of the word but it is not a scientific theory. The latter requires scientific objective data and the IDers do not have enough to justify it being a theory. To say they have any at all is pretty charitable.I am familiarwith a very recognized scietist who has written books dealing with highly technical scientific data pertaining to ID. His name? Michael Behe. Go google it. This is a bad argument by evolutionists.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) I am familiarwith a very recognized scietist who has written books dealing with highly technical scientific data pertaining to ID. His name? Michael Behe. Go google it. This is a bad argument by evolutionists. You still haven't mentioned any way to test this theory. "Read a book" is a worse argument. Edited February 27, 2014 by jkwilliams 1
Spammer Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Is it correct to say that in the LDS view everything that exists, including God, can be reduced to matter? That there is no supernatural, transcendent, immaterial reality? If so, on what is the assertion that only matter exists grounded? How is the claim defended, can it be defended, without reference to Joseph Smith, testimony, or personal revelation?
Gray Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Is it possible to detect and test whether something is man made? Is man an intelligent designer? Here, this from Sir Isacc Newton-Sir Isaac Newton illustrated to a friend one day that design suggests a designer. Seeing a model of the solar system on Newton’s desk, he asked who the designer was. Newton told his friend that no one made it. Of course, it was obvious to Newton’s friend that the mobile had been made by someone, but Newton kept insisting that no one made it until his friend was ready to leave the room in disgust. At this point, Newton asked how his friend could be so insistent that someone had made the mobile yet at the same time deny that the solar system itself from which the mobile was patterned was not made by anyone. But we know how planets and stars form, and it requires no divine intervention. Gravity and physical law take care of that. Design in the sense you mean is quite often an illusion. God doesn't need to literally go around forming planets as if he were a model maker working with clay.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 How do you test ID? What results would confirm it? Until you have some way of testing ID and confirming it, you cannot rightly call it a scientific theory.Its tested and observed billions of times in a day. Open your eyes. Intelligent agents from all walks of life continue the ongoing process of intelligent design. Not only that but these design elements actually prove intelligence only arises from an intellugent source preceding it. Show any instance where something in nature that is intelligent has arisen from a nonintelligent process and you would prove ID theory wrong. Guess what? No such evidence exists!
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) I just googled Dr. Behe. I don't think I've ever heard of a recognized scientist whose own university department offers a disclaimer like the following from Lehigh University: While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. Ouch. So, his own university understands the problem with ID: it can't be tested experimentally. Evolution, on the other hand, has been tested repeatedly and consistently for many years. See, for example, the Lenski experiments, which have provided quite a lot of insight into evolutionary processes. Edited February 27, 2014 by jkwilliams 1
Gray Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Its tested and observed billions of times in a day. It's been inferred, but never tested or confirmed Edited February 27, 2014 by Gray
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Its tested and observed billions of times in a day. Open your eyes. Intelligent agents from all walks of life continue the ongoing process of intelligent design. Not only that but these design elements actually prove intelligence only arises from an intellugent source preceding it. Show any instance where something in nature that is intelligent has arisen from a nonintelligent process and you would prove ID theory wrong. Guess what? No such evidence exists! That is some terrible reasoning. Again, what kind of experiment can be used to test ID?
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 It's been inferred, but never tested or confirmed Yes, what he's talking about is applying logic to a situation, but that's not the same as an experiment.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 But we know how planets and stars form, and it requires no divine intervention. Gravity and physical law take care of that. Design in the sense you mean is quite often an illusion. God doesn't need to literally go around forming planets as if he were a model maker working with clay.And you know this because of what? This is as bad as Nye stating that because of gravity intellugence exists.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 That is some terrible reasoning. Again, what kind of experiment can be used to test ID?That life cant arise from nonintelligent processes. We have been testing that very thing for a very long time. Tests so far actually confirm the theoey correct so far that life only comes from an intelligent source preceding it.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 That life cant arise from nonintelligent processes. We have been testing that very thing for a very long time. Tests so far actually confirm the theoey correct so far that life only comes from an intelligent source preceding it. Evolution is not about how life arose. You're barking up the wrong tree.
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 A theory must be testable, and for it to be valid, the tests must show repeated results that confirm the theory. As you rightly mention, there are no tests for ID, and no way to confirm it. So it is a religious way to explain the world around us, but it is not a scientific theory in any sense.For what it's worth the same is true for the scientific method.ID guys find it faulty. All these dogmas are an abomination.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I am familiarwith a very recognized scietist who has written books dealing with highly technical scientific data pertaining to ID. His name? Michael Behe. Go google it. This is a bad argument by evolutionists.Behe is an odd person for you to bring up considering he believes almost nothing that you do. Behe accepts evolution as a given and believes humans share common ancestors with primates. He had a lot to do with the largely beaten hypothesis of irreducible complexity. His only real point of contention with evolutionary theory is that random mutation is instead guided. He basically refuses to identify the designer. He is really a decent scientist who thinks he sees a designer behind everything. He does get into trouble defending ID when it is pointed out his theory is not falsifiable.The idea that he has written books of highly technical data pertaining to ID is a bit misleading. To infer that he supports your kind of ID complete with global flood and 6000 year temporal existence is downright dishonest. His main points in his book are that some levels of change are unlikely to occur naturally due to the complexity of the change. An interesting point to be sure but they do not create a falsifiable theory. More then one evolutionist is baffled why he bothers to call himself a supporter of ID as they agree on almost everything. Not sure if he thinks he has something or says that only to successfully sell more books.He does not agree with your brand of ID in any sense. He would probably be embarrassed that you imagine he is "on your side". Nice try though.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Its tested and observed billions of times in a day. Open your eyes. Intelligent agents from all walks of life continue the ongoing process of intelligent design. Not only that but these design elements actually prove intelligence only arises from an intellugent source preceding it. Show any instance where something in nature that is intelligent has arisen from a nonintelligent process and you would prove ID theory wrong. Guess what? No such evidence exists!That is poetic and not scientific.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 For what it's worth the same is true for the scientific method.ID guys find it faulty. All these dogmas are an abomination. So, what do you suggest we use to replace the scientific method? Until we have a process that better explains phenomena than the process of experimentation and repeatability, we're kind of stuck with it. Science doesn't explain everything, obviously, but I don't understand the hostility to observation and experimentation I see around here.
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 That is some terrible reasoning. Again, what kind of experiment can be used to test ID?The same as can be designed to test science.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Behe is an odd person for you to bring up considering he believes almost nothing that you do. Behe accepts evolution as a given and believes humans share common ancestors with primates. He had a lot to do with the largely beaten hypothesis of irreducible complexity. His only real point of contention with evolutionary theory is that random mutation is instead guided. He basically refuses to identify the designer. He is really a decent scientist who thinks he sees a designer behind everything. He does get into trouble defending ID when it is pointed out his theory is not falsifiable.The idea that he has written books of highly technical data pertaining to ID is a bit misleading. To infer that he supports your kind of ID complete with global flood and 6000 year temporal existence is downright dishonest. His main points in his book are that some levels of change are unlikely to occur naturally due to the complexity of the change. An interesting point to be sure but they do not create a falsifiable theory. More then one evolutionist is baffled why he bothers to call himself a supporter of ID as they agree on almost everything. Not sure if he thinks he has something or says that only to successfully sell more books.He does not agree with your brand of ID in any sense. He would probably be embarrassed that you imagine he is "on your side". Nice try though.My brand of ID deals specificalky with refuting Darwinian evolution, which, btw, is exactly the same brand of ID as Behe.Nice try to discredit me though. You are gonna have to dig deeper.
Recommended Posts