The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

we're agreed on that.
a skeptic might read more into it...;)

... indeed, they might read the bit where Dr Deembski was blasé about submitting papers for peer-review ...
... when in the Dover court-case, expert testimony revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena - and ID was ruled to violate the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ...
... so this self-imposed ban by conventional science, also bans the study of the intelligent causation of life (which seems to be equated to supernatural causation, by conventional science.):);)

It sounds like Dr Dembski would be wasting his time and everybody else's, in submitting papers on ID for peer-review, when such research and review is banned by the rules of science.

... a much better strategy is to do what he is doing ... by publishing his findings outside of conventional science ... when he finds the doors of conventional science closed in his face ... with 'no intelligence allowed', when it comes to investigating the origins of life.:)

... and who could blame him?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Alternatively you could respect oldrnwisr and actually refute something in his posts, instead of posting the same stuff over and over and over as if shouting it enough makes it true.

I have read everything in oldrnwisr's post and I have made substantive responses to every point he made.

I now respectfully await his response to mine ... and I would suggest that you should do the same.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I have read everything in oldrnwisr's post and I have responded to every point he made.

I now respectfully await his response to mine ... and I would ask that you would do the same.

Yes, by repeating the same tired nonsense over and over again. And adding in links instead of refuting some of it yourself - something you don't accept in our arguments. Funny that.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, by repeating the same tired nonsense over and over again. And adding in links instead of refuting some of it yourself - something you don't accept in our arguments. Funny that.

I added one link of direct relevance to what I was saying in my two posted replies to oldrnwisr. The rest of the links were in oldrnwisr's original post ... and they too were of direct relevance to what he was saying and therefore totally acceptable in any debate.

Please give the man time to respond ... and stop the handwaving ... or people will think (unfairly) that oldrnwisr has no response to my points, based on your 'jumping the gun' with repeated attempts at 'muddying the waters' and adding only heat and no light to the debate, with one-liners and unfounded assertions ... instead of cold factual reasoning, like oldrnwisr usually provides.:)

I have made my points ... and if you have nothing of substance to say that helps oldrnwisr answer my points ... please don't hinder him ... and give him the time to respond.

I'm in no hurry and neither should you.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I added one link of direct relevance to what I was saying in my two posted replies to oldrnwisr. The rest of the links were in oldrnwisr's original post ... and they too were of direct relevance to what he was saying and therefore totally acceptable in any debate.

Please give the man time to respond ... and stop the handwaving ... or people will think (unfairly) that oldrnwisr has no response to my points, based on your 'jumping the gun' with repeated attempts at 'muddying the waters' and adding only heat and no light to the debate, with one-liners and unfounded assertions ... instead of cold factual reasoning, like oldrnwisr usually provides.:)

I have made my points ... and if you have nothing of substance to say that helps oldrnwisr answer my points ... please don't hinder him ... and give him the time to respond.

I'm in no hurry and neither should you.:)

If you'd actually apply any of that same logic to yourself this thread would have went a lot more smoothly.

I don't think anyone would think oldrnwisr isn't responding to your posts, given a look through the thread shows he responded to practically every bit of nonsense you came out with sooner or later. I've also tried responding to your posts in a reasonable manner, but you've shown time and time again you're unwilling or unable to have a reasonable debate on this issue.

Your response to his annihilation of the UPB or whatever the hell it's called is basically 'yeah but UPB' anyway. There isn't really anything further to discuss if you don't want to respond to evidence.

PopePalpatine

Oh look, J C has resorted to more "I know you are but what am I" bullshit.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

I added one link of direct relevance to what I was saying in my two posted replies to oldrnwisr. The rest of the links were in oldrnwisr's original post ... and they too were of direct relevance to what he was saying and therefore totally acceptable in any debate.

Please give the man time to respond ... and stop the handwaving ... or people will think (unfairly) that oldrnwisr has no response to my points, based on your 'jumping the gun' with repeated attempts at 'muddying the waters' and adding only heat and no light to the debate, with one-liners and unfounded assertions ... instead of cold factual reasoning, like oldrnwisr usually provides.:)

I have made my points ... and if you have nothing of substance to say that helps oldrnwisr answer my points ... please don't hinder him ... and give him the time to respond.

I'm in no hurry and neither should you.:)

Have you tried this thread ?
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056102387/565

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

I would ask everybody to show respect for oldrnwisr and give him the time to provide his considered response to my two postings.
I'll stay off this thread until he responds.

Thank you.

Post was reporting for the trolling nonsense that it is. Have a nice day JC.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you'd actually apply any of that same logic to yourself this thread would have went a lot more smoothly.

I don't think anyone would think oldrnwisr isn't responding to your posts, given a look through the thread shows he responded to practically every bit of nonsense you came out with sooner or later. I've also tried responding to your posts in a reasonable manner, but you've shown time and time again you're unwilling or unable to have a reasonable debate on this issue.

Your response to his annihilation of the UPB or whatever the hell it's called is basically 'yeah but UPB' anyway. There isn't really anything further to discuss if you don't want to respond to evidence.

Are we on the same thread?
I have comprehensively responded to every question put to me.

Myself and oldrnwisr actually agreed on the UPB as being a maximum of 10^150.
Quote oldrnwisr :- "Having said all that, the funny thing is that the figure (10^150) which Dembski ends up with is probably OK."

This side-discussion isn't fair on oldrnwisr ... please give him the time and space to respond, guys

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Post was reporting for the trolling nonsense that it is. Have a nice day JC.

.. so asking for consideration being given to other posters is now 'trolling' ... and what do you now call outrageous and sustained personal abuse or on-line bullying (which used be called 'trolling')?

There is a whole host of 'trainwreck' threads around on this topic ... due to derailment of items under discussion with all kinds of asides.

Here, after almost 10 years, we have got to a point where we have substantive points being made by oldrnwisr (and the thanks on his post indicates that all of you guys think this as well).
I have given substantive answers to his posting ... and I don't think it is too much to ask everybody to stand back and give oldrnwisr the floor ... to respond.

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

... indeed, they might read the bit where Dr Deembski was blasé about submitting papers for peer-review ...
... when in the Dover court-case, expert testimony revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena - and ID was ruled to violate the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ...
... so this self-imposed ban by conventional science, also bans the study of the intelligent causation of life (which seems to be equated to supernatural causation, by conventional science.):);)

It sounds like Dr Dembski would be wasting his time and everybody else's, in submitting papers on ID for peer-review, when such research and review is banned by the rules of science
.

ah here JC.
If ID has been found to have violated the "centuries old rules of science", it is because it nolens volens doesn't adhere to these same rules. They're very simple, the gist of them are:

• observation
• hypothesis-prediction
• prediction - experiment
• analyse objectively - conclusion
• peer review of findings

Anything failing these criteria is outside of "science". ID is not banned by science, its just bullshit, and not science. Fairyology, mermaidology, theology; subjects similarly not regarded as science.

Thor, Omecihuatl, Ginnungagap, Tagaloa, Enki and all other creation hypothesis dont stand up either. Is the biblical account any more valid than the others?
If you cant play the game, don't go home whinging with your 8' square ball under your arm, claiming the lads wont let you play football.


I note in you're referenced Dover case, the court found:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".

In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".

So there you go. ID isn't science. ID isn't "banned" by science, it just isn't science. Its something else. But clearly not science.

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Have you tried this thread ?
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056102387/565

When all else fails, I guess 'comedy central' and any other off-topic stuff ye can use ... is all that's left ... for evolution!!!

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

ah here JC.
If ID has been found to have violated the "centuries old rules of science", it is because it nolens volens doesn't adhere to these same rules. They're very simple, the gist of them are:

• observation
• hypothesis-prediction
• prediction - experiment
• analyse objectively - conclusion
• peer review of findings

... but ID does comply with all of these requirements.
... and the Dover finding didn't cite any of the above as an issue with ID (other than peer-review, which cannot be done under the rules of conventional science, in the first place) ... instead this is what the finding was :-

Quote:-
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;...
... Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena."

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Anything failing these criteria is outside of "science". ID is not banned by science, its just bullshit, and not science. Fairyology, mermaidology, theology; subjects similarly not regarded as science.

Thor, Omecihuatl, Ginnungagap, Tagaloa, Enki and all other creation hypothesis dont stand up either. Is the biblical account any more valid than the others?
If you cant play the game, don't go home whinging with your 8' square ball under your arm, claiming the lads wont let you play football.

Conventional Science has confined itself to natural causes for natural phenomena ... there is nothing wrong with this ... but Conventional science cannot then claim to have evaluated the evidence for ID, as a result.
... and they cannot start whinging and badmouthing conventional scientists who decide to investigate the God Hypothesis using scientific methods ... outside of Conventional science.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I note in you're referenced Dover case, the court found:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".

... so this means that the problems/gaps in Darwin's theory now cannot be taught in school nor will students be encouraged to keep an open mind on 'origins'.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".

... this is a Catch 22 ... because ID isn't allowed to be evaluated under the rules of science, in the first place ... it cannot be adjudged at all by science.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So there you go. ID isn't science. ID isn't "banned" by science, it just isn't science. Its something else. But clearly not science.

ID isn't 'science' under the self-imposed rules of conventional science ... which only allows materialistic explanations ... and materialistic explanations alone to be evaluated.
Next time somebody says that science says this or that about 'origins' ... people would do well to remember that the hypothesis that 'God did it' isn't allowed to be evaluated by conventional science ... so it isn't that the God Hypothesis has been evaluated and found to be invalid ... it has never been evaluated.

... and the deficiencies of evolution aren't even discussed.

Doctor Jimbob

It only allows natural explanations for natural phenomena because they're natural phenomena. Why on earth would you look for anything else?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It only allows natural explanations for natural phenomena because they're natural phenomena. Why on earth would you look for anything else?

Most of the time this is perfectly OK ... however, when it comes to the origins of life there is now a valid scientific hypothesis (based on the physical natural evidence) that an intelligence of inordinate power produced it ... and conventional science has excluded itself from evaluating it.

It would be unrealistic to think that such evidence wouldn't be evaluated by somebody ... if conventional science decides to not do it ... and Creation Science and ID researchers have done this.

I'll grant you this allright ... you would expect the Christian Churches to be the first to support this research ... but instead they have largely decided to back the atheist/materialist version of 'origins' science, thereby a priori cutting out God from any meaningful role in the 'origins' hypothesis.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... indeed, they might read the bit where Dr Deembski was blasé about submitting papers for peer-review ...
... when in the Dover court-case, expert testimony revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena - and ID was ruled to violate the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ...
... so this self-imposed ban by conventional science, also bans the study of the intelligent causation of life (which seems to be equated to supernatural causation, by conventional science.):);)

It sounds like Dr Dembski would be wasting his time and everybody else's, in submitting papers on ID for peer-review, when such research and review is banned by the rules of science.

... a much better strategy is to do what he is doing ... by publishing his findings outside of conventional science ... when he finds the doors of conventional science closed in his face ... with 'no intelligence allowed', when it comes to investigating the origins of life.:)

... and who could blame him?

If you're a scientist that tries to use supernatural explanations for science, you're a poor scientist.

Since you're not a scientist at all, being a poor one would actually be a step up

You're still banging on about the "atheist" aspect of science. It's either a fact or it's not, you try to fit bad science into a book of myth to make it work. That's not how things work in the scientific world. I know you think all the big bad atheist (and theist) science men are out to get your precious ID, or else you're just flat out wrong, which one is more likely?

Frank Bullitt

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

If you're a scientist that tries to use supernatural explanations for science, you're a poor scientist.

Since you're not a scientist at all, being a poor one would actually be a step up

You're still banging on about the "atheist" aspect of science. It's either a fact or it's not, you try to fit bad science into a book of myth to make it work. That's not how things work in the scientific world. I know you think all the big bad atheist (and theist) science men are out to get your precious ID, or else you're just flat out wrong, which one is more likely?

Pal, don't waste your time on that one. If he has a degree he found it in a packet of tayto salt and vinegar.

Fear123

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It only allows natural explanations for natural phenomena because they're natural phenomena. Why on earth would you look for anything else?

jimbo doctor, there are many things in the world that can't be explained by natural phenomena, for example my grand mother, she told me once that she had seen evil spirit or some kind supernatural entity. How can science explain that events like ghost spirits, haunted mentions... It means there is something supernatural that is controlling this evolution. JC as scientist is right in my views

Doctor Jimbob

Fear123 wrote: »

jimbo doctor, there are many things in the world that can't be explained by natural phenomena, for example my grand mother, she told me once that she had seen evil spirit or some kind supernatural entity. How can science explain that events like ghost spirits, haunted mentions... It means there is something supernatural that is controlling this evolution. JC as scientist is right in my views

My mate got really high once and had a full blown conversation with someone who wasn't there.

legspin

Fear123 wrote: »

jimbo doctor, there are many things in the world that can't be explained by natural phenomena, for example my grand mother, she told me once that she had seen evil spirit or some kind supernatural entity. How can science explain that events like ghost spirits, haunted mentions... It means there is something supernatural that is controlling this evolution. JC as scientist is right in my views

Just another re-hash of 'Science can't explain everything therefore God'. Petty, ignorant self-serving nonsense.

D-
must try harder

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

If you're a scientist that tries to use supernatural explanations for science, you're a poor scientist.

Where natural explanations have been discovered and scientifically validated, that would be true.
However, natural explanations for the abiogenesis and evolution of life have proven woefully inadequate ... and we now have a valid scientific hypothesis (based on physical repeatably observable, i.e. scientific) evidence that an intelligence of inordinate capacity created life.
... and conventional science is refusing to scientifically evaluate the evidence for ID and is citing a rule introduced 300 years ago limiting science to only evaluating natural causes for not doing so ... even though the inordinate 'intelligence' might be a natural cause, for all we know.

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Since you're not a scientist at all, being a poor one would actually be a step up

I am a scientist, but in a way it doesn't really matter. If I am not a scientist, is it not even more remarkable that I can present the scientific evidence for ID and defend it comprehensively against all comers, including hundreds of well-qualified scientists, on this and other threads on the Boards?

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

You're still banging on about the "atheist" aspect of science. It's either a fact or it's not, you try to fit bad science into a book of myth to make it work. That's not how things work in the scientific world. I know you think all the big bad atheist (and theist) science men are out to get your precious ID, or else you're just flat out wrong, which one is more likely?

I'm a Practical Atheist myself, when I do my own science work ... because natural causes have been established for the phenomena that I scientifically address ... so I have no problem with the general rule that science should seek natural (and not supernatural) causes for natural phenomena.

However, this rule becomes a problem for science when it extends the meaning of supernatural causation to include intelligent causation, which conventional science has done in relation to ID.
Indeed, this extension of meaning is also selective and special pleading as, in general, science does evaluate intelligent causation, in CSI evaluations, for example by forensic science ... and science therefore doesn't universally equate intelligent causation with supernatural causation ... they just do so with 'origins' investigations.
The fact that such causation points towards God is no reason not to investigate it ... unless you want to deny it in order to continue supporting the hypothesis that everything had a natural origin ... even if God actually did it.
Such an approach isn't going where the evidence leads ... but where people who don't believe in God or who want to deny the creation aspect of His existence, for whatever reason, would like it to lead.
... and as I have already said, it is also ignoring the possibility that the 'intelligence' may not have been God.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I am a scientist, but in a way it doesn't really matter. If I am not a scientist, is it not even more remarkable that I can present the scientific evidence for ID and defend it comprehensively against all comers, including hundreds of well-qualified scientists, on this and other threads on the Boards?

Must have missed that part.

J C

legspin wrote: »

Just another re-hash of 'Science can't explain everything therefore God'. Petty, ignorant self-serving nonsense.

D-
must try harder

The exact same can be said about those who claim that science can explain all physical phenomena (and especially life) via natural i.e non-intelligent processes, simply because they want to prevent any scientific investigation that might result in scientific proof that God exists and created us.

I wouldn't use the above personally offensive words to describe such people, however ... I'd use the word 'mistaken' instead.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Must have missed that part.

... I guess, we both await oldrnwisr's reply with bated breath, then.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... I guess, we both await oldrnwisr's reply with bated breath then.:)

I really doubt he will post evidence for creationism.

J C

SW wrote: »

I really doubt he will post evidence for creationism.

If he can't invalidate the evidence for ID ... it will be pretty much the same thing ... according to some Evolutionists (who equate ID with Creationism).:)

... although Prof Dawkins isn't one of those who equates ID with Creationism ... and he had these positive words for ID ... when he talked about it potentially having an 'Alien' origin (as distinct from a Divine origin) ... he even admitted to the possibility of a 'signature' of some sort of designer being found within the details of biochemistry or molecular biology
... so 'no pressure' oldrnwisr ... even Prof Dawkins thinks there might be something to what I posted about ID ... and evidence for ID isn't necessarily evidence for God :-

Delirium

J C wrote: »

If he can't invalidate the evidence for ID ... it will be pretty much the same thing ... according to Evolutionists (who equate ID with Creationism).:)

You've yet post evidence for the account in Genesis.

... although Prof Dawkins had these positive words for ID ... when he talked about it potentially having an 'Alien' origin (as distinct from a Divine origin):-

That's entirely different from the supernatural ID you support. Bit dishonest to suggest he has positive stuff to say about creationism-flavour ID.

J C

SW wrote: »

You've yet post evidence for the account in Genesis.


That's entirely different from the supernatural ID you support. Bit dishonest to suggest he has positive stuff to say about creationism-flavour ID.

Scientifically, all we can say is that life had an intelligent author.

The identity of the author or authors isn't known ... but an intelligent authorship for life requires a fundamental and radical departure from the 'blind natural forces did it' claims of the classical Darwinian Evolution hypothesis and its follow-on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
... and that is a really big deal scientifically ... such radical shifts in understanding are very rare events ... and their discoverers are usually recipients of Nobel Prizes.
Darwin made the last fundamental shift in our understanding of life (and I have no difficulty in giving himself and Wallace full credit for it and recognising that aspects such as NS will continue to be useful in many important practical ways of significant to science and Humanity) ... but ID is 'the next big thing' in Biology.

Its akin to the Newtonian / Relativity shift in Physics ... Newtonian physics continues to have very significant applications in our day to day existence ... but Relativity and particle physics do not behave in accordance with Newtonian laws.

SW wrote: »

Bit dishonest to suggest he (Prof Dawkins) has positive stuff to say about creationism-flavour ID.

I said the opposite, in fact.

Prof Dawkins isn't one of those who equates ID with Creationism - and I also made it clear that Prof Dawkins was talking about an Alien-type authorship for ID as distinct from a Divine authorship.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Scientifically, all we can say is that life had an intelligent author.

The identity of the author or authors isn't known ... but an intelligent authorship for life requires a fundamental and radical departure from the 'blind natural forces did it' claims of the classical Darwinian Evolution hypothesis and its follow-on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

No, we can't. Science hasn't proven that aliens created mankind. it's a wild claim to state otherwise.

J C

SW wrote: »

No, we can't. Science hasn't proven that aliens created mankind. it's a wild claim to state otherwise.

You are correct, all that science has proven is that life had an intelligent authorship ... and life proceeds today under the interaction of NS and pre-existing genetic diversity (something that Darwin and Wallace deservedly get credit for discovering).

All Prof Dawkins has done was to speculate on who/what the author might be ... and that is quite legitimate.

Some day I must have a pint with that man ... I have read all his books and I admire his questioning, incisive and intelligent mind.

Of course he may not drink ... and may be too busy / may not want to meet me ... and I'll understand if that is the case as well.