Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I don't think that it is correct to say it is "undocumented"
    I believe it is correct to say undocumented. There are no known first hand documentation of the event of the claim of the Resurrection at the time it happened. It is the claim of a supernatural miraculous event from third hand records. Actually the documentation of the life of Jesus is very very limited. .

    This drifting off topic from a thread The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science that deals with Methodological Naturalism and the goal of the ID movement to change Methodological Naturalism to suit the ID movement. It would be further manipulation of MN to propose it can document the Resurrection.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-27-2021, 09:10 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Unless a supernatural explanation is in order! In the origin of life, for instance.
      But we have to do more than just claim something. We have to be able to support that conclusion in such a way that even a non-believer would accept the evidence. THAT is what science does. It can be practiced by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs and the results can be tested and verified by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

      Until we can come up with an actual, workable way of detecting and demonstrating miraculous events and phenomena we are unable to scientifically posit a miracle as the cause for something. It really is that simple.

      What I don't understand is why the boys at the Discovery Institute have shown not a scintilla of interest in finding a way to do so. It's not like they lack financing. But all they've done since making their initial proposals nearly 30 years ago is sit around writing books and articles repackaging the same assertions. They've shown no interest in doing the work necessary to advance their proposals from that stage. For the most part they've failed to move beyond the very first stage in the development of new scientific ideas[1] -- that of an interesting idea.

      In fact, it appears that those in the ID community have recognized this problem, as I noted back in post #151

      I.D.'s "Mahatma," Phillip E. Johnson, was remarkably open about how even years after their five year plan had failed. In 2006 Johnson wailed that I.D.'s "scientific people" hadn't produced a legitimate scientific "alternative" that could stand up to evolution, saying in an interview published in Berkeley Science Review that

      "I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove. ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."


      Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

      "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."


      Bruce Gordon, Research Director at Discover Institutes Center for Science and Culture, has also explained why I.D. has such a difficult time gaining a foothold in the scientific community:

      "One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."


      Gordon is complaining that they quit doing science and instead settled on doing an end around, focusing on "a larger cultural and political movement" -- a view that I strongly agree with, and one that the other "big gun" of the I.D. movement, William Dembski, seems to concur with:

      "Because of intelligent designs outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component."


      So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.


      And nothing has changed in the going on two decades since those observations were first made.

      So I.D. advocates (cdesign proponentsists ) are are no longer interested in looking for evidence to support their claims and don't ever appear to have been interested in finding a way to detect evidence for a miraculous or supernatural occurrence.

      So just what do they do with all the money they get aside use it to get even more money?

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      The Edge of Evolution produces one such calculation, but the emphasis is on "estimate", not "calculation". When the disciples saw their resurrected Lord, they did not need to do a calculation in order to believe.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      Behe throws out a half-baked incomplete idea without bothering to show how one goes about making such "estimates." As I said, about as helpful and empty as the slogan "just do it."





      1. The pathway from a scientific proposal becomes a valid scientific theory:

      New Proposal: Propose new model to resolve difficult or unanswered questions in a field Retrospective Research Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

      Retrospective Research: Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

      Prospective Research: Purpose new research that explores limits and tests hypotheses based on new model

      Scientific Exchange: Presentation of research results in scientific forums -- ultimately in the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.

      Revision and Recycling: Contribution of new models to scientific understanding confirmed and models incorporated into contemporary understanding in the relevant scientific field(s)
      --borrowed from Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey's essay Why Teach Evolution?

      And after all this time I.D. is still stuck at step one.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        No, but gene duplications might indicate the genome duplications are possible, too.
        So, you said genome, even though you knew it was false?
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          My claim is that the ancient city of Tyre is underwater.
          Your claim has been refuted over and over and over by your own sources which state that there are Phoenician and Roman ruins above ground and under the existing buildings, and by a map showing the walls of ancient Tyre superimposed on the current coastline:

          tyre_outline.png

          Your last attempt to 'defend' your claim ended with you saying that Tyre hadn't been rebuilt because there were remains of Roman buildings there, an idea so utterly ridiculous that even you abandoned it.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            85x120 is even too small for me to work with here.

            Was that a png file? They tend to crap out like that
            It was - I don't know why it came out that small.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              It was - I don't know why it came out that small.
              Png files constantly come out tiny since the update

              If you have a way to convert it to jpg, jpeg or even gif it should be okay.

              Otherwise...

              community_image_1428590255.gif

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                But we have to do more than just claim something. We have to be able to support that conclusion in such a way that even a non-believer would accept the evidence. THAT is what science does. It can be practiced by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs and the results can be tested and verified by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

                Until we can come up with an actual, workable way of detecting and demonstrating miraculous events and phenomena we are unable to scientifically posit a miracle as the cause for something. It really is that simple.

                What I don't understand is why the boys at the Discovery Institute have shown not a scintilla of interest in finding a way to do so. It's not like they lack financing. But all they've done since making their initial proposals nearly 30 years ago is sit around writing books and articles repackaging the same assertions. They've shown no interest in doing the work necessary to advance their proposals from that stage. For the most part they've failed to move beyond the very first stage in the development of new scientific ideas[1] -- that of an interesting idea.

                In fact, it appears that those in the ID community have recognized this problem, as I noted back in post #151

                I.D.'s "Mahatma," Phillip E. Johnson, was remarkably open about how even years after their five year plan had failed. In 2006 Johnson wailed that I.D.'s "scientific people" hadn't produced a legitimate scientific "alternative" that could stand up to evolution, saying in an interview published in Berkeley Science Review that

                "I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove. ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."


                Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

                "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."


                Bruce Gordon, Research Director at Discover Institutes Center for Science and Culture, has also explained why I.D. has such a difficult time gaining a foothold in the scientific community:

                "One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."


                Gordon is complaining that they quit doing science and instead settled on doing an end around, focusing on "a larger cultural and political movement" -- a view that I strongly agree with, and one that the other "big gun" of the I.D. movement, William Dembski, seems to concur with:

                "Because of intelligent designs outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component."


                So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.


                And nothing has changed in the going on two decades since those observations were first made.

                So I.D. advocates (cdesign proponentsists ) are are no longer interested in looking for evidence to support their claims and don't ever appear to have been interested in finding a way to detect evidence for a miraculous or supernatural occurrence.

                So just what do they do with all the money they get aside use it to get even more money?


                Behe throws out a half-baked incomplete idea without bothering to show how one goes about making such "estimates." As I said, about as helpful and empty as the slogan "just do it."





                1. The pathway from a scientific proposal becomes a valid scientific theory:

                New Proposal: Propose new model to resolve difficult or unanswered questions in a field Retrospective Research Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

                Retrospective Research: Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

                Prospective Research: Purpose new research that explores limits and tests hypotheses based on new model

                Scientific Exchange: Presentation of research results in scientific forums -- ultimately in the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.

                Revision and Recycling: Contribution of new models to scientific understanding confirmed and models incorporated into contemporary understanding in the relevant scientific field(s)
                --borrowed from Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey's essay Why Teach Evolution?

                And after all this time I.D. is still stuck at step one.
                The problem (one at least) with I.D. is that they don't want to bother doing the work needed to move an idea through the steps to make it a viable scientific theory.
                They want to jump right to the end. That's why all their effort is in pushing to get their "interesting idea" inserted into school's science curriculums without first bothering to establish it as legitimate science.

                Tbh, I suspect that most of them fully understand they can't successfully transitions through the steps and that I.D. will coming crashing down and undeniably exposed as a failure. And that is something they refuse to allow to happen even if it means their continued promotion of what they suspect is a fraud.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  What I don't understand is why the boys at the Discovery Institute have shown not a scintilla of interest in finding a way to do so.
                  I point out again Dembski's book "The Design Inference", and Behe's next book, as I have heard, will be along these lines.

                  Behe throws out a half-baked incomplete idea without bothering to show how one goes about making such "estimates."
                  But he does show his work, how he made his estimates.

                  1. The pathway from a scientific proposal becomes a valid scientific theory:

                  New Proposal: Propose new model to resolve difficult or unanswered questions in a field Retrospective Research Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

                  Retrospective Research: Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

                  Prospective Research: Purpose new research that explores limits and tests hypotheses based on new model

                  Scientific Exchange: Presentation of research results in scientific forums -- ultimately in the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.

                  Revision and Recycling: Contribution of new models to scientific understanding confirmed and models incorporated into contemporary understanding in the relevant scientific field(s)
                  --borrowed from Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey's essay Why Teach Evolution?

                  And after all this time I.D. is still stuck at step one.
                  But I think they are at the "Retrospective Research" step.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    So, you said genome, even though you knew it was false?
                    No, I was thinking they were possible.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Your claim has been refuted over and over and over by your own sources which state that there are Phoenician and Roman ruins above ground and under the existing buildings, and by a map showing the walls of ancient Tyre superimposed on the current coastline:

                      tyre_outline.png

                      Your last attempt to 'defend' your claim ended with you saying that Tyre hadn't been rebuilt because there were remains of Roman buildings there, an idea so utterly ridiculous that even you abandoned it.
                      "Thanks for the clarification of the date of the harbor sinking! And the acknowledgement that the harbor sank." Was my reply. But I don't want to reopen the Tyre discussion here.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        No, I was thinking they were possible.
                        Then you've wasted two pages on back and forth arguing over semantics when you knew you were in error from the start, refused to admit it, and tried to misdirect the whole conversation away from the fact that you were offering nothing more than an ill-informed guess.

                        How do you sleep at night knowing that your behavior is so contrary to the values you ostensibly espouse?
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, they had a wall around the city.
                          I let this one slide because Rogue had correctly pointed out that lots of cities had extensive buildings outside their walls. But then i got curious as to the extent of Babylon's walls. And, fortunately, there are lots of resources available online that describe them. This source is consistent with the others i've seen; i'll embed the diagram from it here.
                          babylon_map.gif
                          One, it's clear that there were a number of structures outside the walls of the city, and additional outer walls were built after the inner ones, just as Rogue had suggested. But the thing that's very striking about this is extensive area on the far side of the Euphrates that was enclosed by the wall. Why's that so striking? Well, let's go to the satellite imagery.

                          Screen Shot 2021-05-01 at 11.35.30 AM.jpgThe north to south width of the walls is nearly the full height of the screen capture. And the area enclosed on the far side of the river is about two-thirds of this width along its east-west axis. So, nearly everything on the left side of the river would have been inside the walls. That includes the pharmacy, shopping mall, and home improvement store.

                          Conclusion: the site of ancient Babylon has been resettled. Once again, Lee blunders in with confidence and gets things completely wrong when just a cursory check would have shown all the information i have here.

                          He should be embarrassed by this, but i've come to the conclusion that Lee is incapable of shame or guilt.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Conclusion: the site of ancient Babylon has been resettled.
                            Well, the river in the satellite image has a bend that the diagram does not have. I think maybe your satellite image is off. And again, if it's been designated a world heritage site, I doubt that they would be building a home improvement store there.

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Well, the river in the satellite image has a bend that the diagram does not have. I think maybe your satellite image is off. And again, if it's been designated a world heritage site, I doubt that they would be building a home improvement store there.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              Perhaps you should see if it was there before the site received that designation in 1983.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • rogue06
                                rogue06 commented
                                Editing a comment
                                and if that's even included in the protected area

                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Well, the river in the satellite image has a bend that the diagram does not have.
                              That's shocking that a river might move a few feet over the course of a few thousand years

                              Look up oxbow lakes and get back to me

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 04:09 PM
                              3 responses
                              13 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 06-17-2021, 06:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 06-17-2021, 08:37 AM
                              21 responses
                              89 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, 06-16-2021, 05:09 PM
                              29 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 06-16-2021, 07:53 AM
                              7 responses
                              38 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X