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

It's official: ID really is creationism

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Can you give a scientific hypothesis for ID that's forged in defined terms and that's falsifiable?

    Thanks!

    K54

    K54
    We have already been down that road and, of course, you failed miserably.
    Why, then, do you continue to insist? I mean, WHY ???

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Jorge- on the old TWEB I believe we went through a rather long series of posts on one of the Pillars of ID 'science', Dembski's attempt at formalizing the idea of Specified Complexity in the paper:

      Specification:
      The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence


      It didn't hold up then and it still doesn't. ([s]BTW - I would not swear it was you I debated, but I think it was, yet if it was you it was one of the few times you actually tried to engage[/s]*) Nevertheless, there is at the current time no robust formulation of the concepts 'ID' wants to call science. They just aren't 'there yet'. There is not harm in admitting that if one is interested in honestly formulating a new branch of research, if one sees potential in the concepts. Many new ideas take a good deal of time and work to grow to the point they become accepted and robust.

      In fact, your response above highlights how unscientific, how motiviated by issues over knowledge you are. A real endeavor in the field of knowledge wants to find its place legitimately by crossing it's t's and dotting it's 'i's. Ideologically driven concepts and ideas want acceptance outside those legitimate tests, they want their place because they are what the driver 'believes' is correct, not what they can 'show' is correct.

      I applaud Dembski for trying. But nobody gets a pass. If it has merit, someday it will also have substance. Until then, try a little 'honesty' and 'humility'. Meals you've spent most of your life fasting from it seems.


      Jim

      ETA: *I actually have an archive of this discussion. It was Jorge.

      ??? TWEB doesn't support strikethrough??? I thought I had seen that before. Tried BB code and html representations
      I (vaguely) recall some of the discussion that you refer to. What I clearly remember is that - in typical M.O. - you echoed the NCSE's (including Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller and others) dishonest formulations and definitions in this debate. For instance, if science is given a particular definition then ID falls.

      BTW, as much as I respect people like Behe, Dembski and other notable IDers , they have made some bad mistakes - I mean BAD - throughout the years. I have spoken with them about this but nothing has changed so far. IMHO their basic mistake is that they want to 'play' this game using the rules of the opposition. That makes for an unlevel playing field and they cannot/will not ever win that way. Again, I've communicated this to them but they're not budging. Sometimes I wonder ...

      You say that I've "fasted from honesty and humility" ...
      Tell the truth, did you feel an uncontrollable urge to stick a bar of soap in your mouth when you wrote those words?

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        We have already been down that road and, of course, you failed miserably.
        Why, then, do you continue to insist? I mean, WHY ???

        Jorge
        Jorge,

        As I recall it was the other way round. But, given your memory issues, it's understandable, even though it was only two weeks ago. I can look up and link to the posts if you so desire. Deal?

        Now what was that testable hypothesis of ID using scientifically-defined terms? Please repeat it for the readers of this thread.

        Are you going to weasel out of this one as well with the silly excuse "You're not worth the effort" or some such?

        I'm lobbing you another softball. Try not to whiff this time!

        K54

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          I (vaguely) recall some of the discussion that you refer to. What I clearly remember is that - in typical M.O. - you echoed the NCSE's (including Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller and others) dishonest formulations and definitions in this debate. For instance, if science is given a particular definition then ID falls.

          BTW, as much as I respect people like Behe, Dembski and other notable IDers , they have made some bad mistakes - I mean BAD - throughout the years. I have spoken with them about this but nothing has changed so far. IMHO their basic mistake is that they want to 'play' this game using the rules of the opposition. That makes for an unlevel playing field and they cannot/will not ever win that way. Again, I've communicated this to them but they're not budging. Sometimes I wonder ...

          You say that I've "fasted from honesty and humility" ...
          Tell the truth, did you feel an uncontrollable urge to stick a bar of soap in your mouth when you wrote those words?

          Jorge
          Jorge,

          I loathe to ask, but pray tell what is the "correct" definition of "science" that lets the multicolored beast of ID under the scientific tent?

          FYI, argument by definition is very weak and could be considered a logical fallacy if used to obfuscate.

          K54

          Edited to add P.S. Regarding the green highlighted text, what "rules" would those be, and what rules should be used???

          I'm getting more and more of gnostic vibe from you.
          Last edited by klaus54; 05-03-2014, 04:45 PM. Reason: highlighted another sentence

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            Jorge,

            I loathe to ask, but pray tell what is the "correct" definition of "science" that lets the multicolored beast of ID under the scientific tent?

            FYI, argument by definition is very weak and could be considered a logical fallacy if used to obfuscate.

            K54

            Edited to add P.S. Regarding the green highlighted text, what "rules" would those be, and what rules should be used???

            I'm getting more and more of gnostic vibe from you.
            Just to get you off my back, I'll toss you a bone ...

            Today (and for some while now), the Materialists (and allies) have restructured the age-long definition of science into something that suits their agenda splendidly, namely, a definition that excludes a priori anything that doesn't belong to the mass-energy domain. This is cheating - this is trying to win via semantic manipulation and, worse yet, manipulation that does not conform to reality. To wit ...

            ... Information has been known for decades (if not longer) to NOT be mass or energy. The Materialists (and allies) sweep this fact under the rug or ignore it altogether. What they do is to treat ONLY the material aspect of information while ignoring information's more important attributes (which aren't mass-energy).

            In short, by defining science in such a way that ONLY ALLOWS purely Naturalistic/Materialistic causes/explanations, then by definition they have transformed science into a servant of Materialism. Materialism, in case you didn't know, is a RELIGIOUS position. Science (TRUE science) has in this way been hijacked by a (Materialistic) ideology/worldview.

            Now, if you can grasp the above and nod your head in agreement (which is the only possible honest reaction) then there may be some hope for you yet.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Just to get you off my back, I'll toss you a bone ...

              Today (and for some while now), the Materialists (and allies) have restructured the age-long definition of science into something that suits their agenda splendidly, namely, a definition that excludes a priori anything that doesn't belong to the mass-energy domain. This is cheating - this is trying to win via semantic manipulation and, worse yet, manipulation that does not conform to reality. To wit ...

              ... Information has been known for decades (if not longer) to NOT be mass or energy. The Materialists (and allies) sweep this fact under the rug or ignore it altogether. What they do is to treat ONLY the material aspect of information while ignoring information's more important attributes (which aren't mass-energy).

              In short, by defining science in such a way that ONLY ALLOWS purely Naturalistic/Materialistic causes/explanations, then by definition they have transformed science into a servant of Materialism. Materialism, in case you didn't know, is a RELIGIOUS position. Science (TRUE science) has in this way been hijacked by a (Materialistic) ideology/worldview.

              Now, if you can grasp the above and nod your head in agreement (which is the only possible honest reaction) then there may be some hope for you yet.

              Jorge
              "information" implies a sender, a message, and a receiver. There are various definitions; Shannon, etc. In what sense is any definition of "information" NOT in the realm of mass-energy (by which I presume you mean the "material universe.")?

              I wasn't aware that the pioneers in science such as Newton used other than materialistic principles. Scientific Method (which is OF COURSE methodologically naturalistic) led to the wealth of knowledge we have today. What non-materialistic non-naturalistic entities were used to build the body of information we have today? Could you explain?

              So what kind of "information" are you referring to, and how would one form a falsifiable hypothesis to test its existence? Does this non-mass, non-energy imply an "Intelligent Designer"? How?

              And, no -- It's NOT true that the only honest option is that I shake my head in agreement. What hubris you display!

              But thanks for trying, "E" for "Effort" and all that jazz...

              K54
              Last edited by klaus54; 05-03-2014, 07:40 PM. Reason: typos

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Just to get you off my back, I'll toss you a bone ...

                Today (and for some while now), the Materialists (and allies) have restructured the age-long definition of science into something that suits their agenda splendidly, namely, a definition that excludes a priori anything that doesn't belong to the mass-energy domain. This is cheating - this is trying to win via semantic manipulation and, worse yet, manipulation that does not conform to reality. To wit ...

                ... Information has been known for decades (if not longer) to NOT be mass or energy. The Materialists (and allies) sweep this fact under the rug or ignore it altogether. What they do is to treat ONLY the material aspect of information while ignoring information's more important attributes (which aren't mass-energy).
                Sorry but you're a blithering idiot. Information is merely the name we give to our knowledge of particular arrangements of mass-energy. Nothing more, nothing less. The more knowledge we have about a particular configuration, the more information we have. Information isn't this magic "stuff" like pixie dust that floats around the cosmos waiting to assume physical form. Information doesn't exist without a physical substrate. Despite Dembski's blustering there is no "conservation of information" law. It's pure IDiot BS he made up to gull ignorant tools like you.

                Information is also not to be confused with meaning, which is the term used when we assign one arbitrary configuration of matter-energy to abstractly represent our knowledge of another particular configuration. Creationists love to equivocate between information and meaning when playing their childish rhetorical games.

                In short, by defining science in such a way that ONLY ALLOWS purely Naturalistic/Materialistic causes/explanations, then by definition they have transformed science into a servant of Materialism. Materialism, in case you didn't know, is a RELIGIOUS position. Science (TRUE science) has in this way been hijacked by a (Materialistic) ideology/worldview.

                Now, if you can grasp the above and nod your head in agreement (which is the only possible honest reaction) then there may be some hope for you yet.
                You've been asked a dozen times how to do science when you have to make allowances for a supernatural Loki God fiddling with your test results and have never mustered the courage to answer. I 100% guarantee you won't supply an answer this time either.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Jorge, I'm sorry I forgot, but what is the age-old definition of science?
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Seems that Jorge wants to return to a pre-Renaissance definition of what science is.

                    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)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If someone makes up a definition of something, it's polite to argue on the basis of, not against, that definition, unless it's unhelpful or unrealistic. Or offer a definition that you feel is better for reasons that you can give.

                      If someone defines "science" so that it excludes God--what's that phrase, "a supernatural being fiddling with your test results"--I would provisionally accept that with the understanding that I am not thereby rejecting the Lord of the Bible. Maybe God "fiddles" with the Universe so seldom that it is still quite practical to investigate the universe using science (the Bible does not mention miracles far from of what is now called the Levant plus Egypt, Iraq, Cyprus, Turkey, etc., and now for 2000 years there have been only a few events that might be amazing and seeming inexplicable by pure scientists).

                      I do want people to understand that I do accept God as real, though not investigable in science. Of course science explicitly or implicitly leaves God out of its hypotheses. But when I try to think as a scientist do about the universe, I do want people to understand that I have not thereby abandoned my faith in Jesus Christ.
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        True, signaling requires EM radiation or sound waves or chemical or nuclear reactions as carriers. The encoding of the message whether by human language, nucleotide sequences, or spectral properties are all manipulations of the carriers.

                        Now unless "intelligence" is anthropomorphic intelligence, I can see no way of detecting it. Ergo, any other type of intelligence detection is untestable.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I (vaguely) recall some of the discussion that you refer to. What I clearly remember is that - in typical M.O. - you echoed the NCSE's (including Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller and others) dishonest formulations and definitions in this debate. For instance, if science is given a particular definition then ID falls.

                          BTW, as much as I respect people like Behe, Dembski and other notable IDers , they have made some bad mistakes - I mean BAD - throughout the years. I have spoken with them about this but nothing has changed so far. IMHO their basic mistake is that they want to 'play' this game using the rules of the opposition. That makes for an unlevel playing field and they cannot/will not ever win that way. Again, I've communicated this to them but they're not budging. Sometimes I wonder ...

                          You say that I've "fasted from honesty and humility" ...
                          Tell the truth, did you feel an uncontrollable urge to stick a bar of soap in your mouth when you wrote those words?

                          Jorge
                          Your memory is yet again flawed. We directly addressed the mathematics and what it was about his formalism that was missing in terms of a capacity to produce a testable formulation. And if you want to challenge THAT, remember, I pulled all the relavent posts, and have them archived. I have reread the entire exchange. I'll be glad to refresh your fading cogitation if you so desire.

                          But beyond that. Your entire boo hoo sob story here is just so much drama without a basis in reality.

                          ID fails when THE definition of science is used. You just don't get that this thing called science is well defined do you? (not surprising, lots of basic common sense things are seeming to elude you lately). There is not a "Joe's Science" and a "Sue's Science" or a "Mike's Science". There is Science. And it follows certain rules and conforms to certain definitions that have been refined over time and they are what they are because they work and produce real, verifiable results. You or any other self-absorbed wanna-be don't get to just wander into the fray and decide the rules aren't fair and demand the rest of the world shift so your pet project gets a gold star.

                          Now quit trying to play sympathy and persecution cards when things don't go your way and man up and start producing arguments with teeth in them. You can start be going back over to Klaus' thread and producing some sort of real answer to the questions he's been asking, or finally purge the yellow from your backbone and admit in simple terms that you can't.


                          Jim
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-03-2014, 10:16 PM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            In short, by defining science in such a way that ONLY ALLOWS purely Naturalistic/Materialistic causes/explanations, then by definition they have transformed science into a servant of Materialism.



                            Jorge
                            What you think science should be, Jorge:-

                            http://www.google.com.au/search?q=pi...ml%3B300%3B231

                            ?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              "information" implies a sender, a message, and a receiver. There are various definitions; Shannon, etc. In what sense is any definition of "information" NOT in the realm of mass-energy (by which I presume you mean the "material universe.")?
                              As do most people, you are totally confused with the carrier of information versus the information itself. In a book that I co-authored (Without Excuse, 2011) we go into this in detail. At present I am working on a follow-up to that book.


                              I wasn't aware that the pioneers in science such as Newton used other than materialistic principles. Scientific Method (which is OF COURSE methodologically naturalistic) led to the wealth of knowledge we have today. What non-materialistic non-naturalistic entities were used to build the body of information we have today? Could you explain?
                              Methodological Naturalism is an unnecessary hypothesis. Sadly, essentially everyone (including veteran Christians) have been bluffed into believing the opposite. Ignorance reigns supreme! The questions you ask above reflect that ignorance. It goes back to understanding the difference between operational/observational science and historical science. If you gave this half-an-honest try you may actually 'get it'. But, no, this doesn't even get half-an-honest try from people in your camp. Ergo, we are where we are.


                              So what kind of "information" are you referring to, and how would one form a falsifiable hypothesis to test its existence? Does this non-mass, non-energy imply an "Intelligent Designer"? How?
                              In Without Excuse we answer those questions. The answer cannot be given in 200 words or less and I'm not able to now, anyway. It is 2:36 AM here in Flagstaff, AZ now and I'm getting ready for my activities today (just taking a short break now). Also, by this afternoon I'll be in Ontario, California. You'll have to wait. BTW, Without Excuse isn't the 'end' of the story. What I'm working on at present is the 'next step' in information theory. In a nutshell, I'm working on the first (and only) complete theory of information. All previous information theories (such as Shannon, Chaitin, Kolmogorov, etc.) fail at this. Progress is slow as I'm constantly being interrupted.


                              And, no -- It's NOT true that the only honest option is that I shake my head in agreement. What hubris you display!


                              "Hubris"? Nah ... There are a great many things that I do not know. But I speak confidently and boldly about the (few) things that I do know. That's not "hubris".


                              But thanks for trying, "E" for "Effort" and all that jazz...
                              Only doing my 'job' ...

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                                Sorry but you're a blithering idiot. Information is merely the name we give to our knowledge of particular arrangements of mass-energy. Nothing more, nothing less. The more knowledge we have about a particular configuration, the more information we have. Information isn't this magic "stuff" like pixie dust that floats around the cosmos waiting to assume physical form. Information doesn't exist without a physical substrate. Despite Dembski's blustering there is no "conservation of information" law. It's pure IDiot BS he made up to gull ignorant tools like you.

                                Information is also not to be confused with meaning, which is the term used when we assign one arbitrary configuration of matter-energy to abstractly represent our knowledge of another particular configuration. Creationists love to equivocate between information and meaning when playing their childish rhetorical games.



                                You've been asked a dozen times how to do science when you have to make allowances for a supernatural Loki God fiddling with your test results and have never mustered the courage to answer. I 100% guarantee you won't supply an answer this time either.
                                Not only have you scaled the highest peaks of ignorance, but you willingly and staunchly refuse to come down from those peaks.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X