Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Here is the scientific basis for ID ... while it may point towards the existence of God (not very surprising when He exists and Created life) ... it is exclusively scientifically and evidentially based.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

As as been pointed out numerous times, that entire theory falls apart as soon as you move away from the flawed assumption that the current state of life is 'perfect' and the only way it could possibly have turned out.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Here is the scientific basis for ID ... while it may point towards the existence of God (not very surprising when He exists and Created life) ... it is exclusively scientifically and evidentially based.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

What is your opinion then of the outcome of the Dover trial ?

Here's a snippet of the courts decision:

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; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. 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. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

I can bold stuff too

J C

Chunners wrote: »

That little piece of math you keep posting doesn't prove intelligent design or anything of the sort, it just shows that there were a lot of possible ways (including the current one) that the universe could have went but didn't. No matter how high the odds the mere fact that the universes current configuration was possible proves that there is no need for a creator because it was already possible as is proven by the fact that we are here.

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

Nobody claims we created ourselves.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

ID proves. NOTHING.

Uncle Ruckus

Science may not have all the answers yet but it sure has a pretty damn good track record. Far better than a talking snake and a magic apple.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

No actually, Intelligent Design proves nothing of the sort, as a matter of fact it "proves" nothing at all, all it does is put forth a hypothesis that with all the possible combinations the universe could have went the odds of this one would be pretty high but that proves nothing, the odds of any combination would be equally high so this one had just as much chance as any other ergo was equally possible ergo there was no need for a creator. Your use of the word "Impossible" is a misdirection thats all, it wasn't impossible it was just highly improbable but non the less still possible.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

What is your opinion then of the outcome of the Dover trial ?

Here's a snippet of the courts decision:

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; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. 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. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

I can bold stuff too

Firstly, can I point out that the court stated that the ID arguments may be true ... and made no ruling in relation to the validity or otherwise of ID:-
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,

Secondly, lets examine the reasoning behind this decision (my comments in blue):-
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; Centuries old ground rules that prevent supernatural causation being examined, even where the cause was clearly supernatural (a construct of Practical Atheism and the desire to remove God from all spheres of thought).

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; All functional specified systems, whether artificial or living are observed to be irreducibly complex ... i.e. made up of steps and component parts whereby if only one step or one component is removed, the system ceases to be functional. This is a repeatably observable, i.e. scientific fact.

and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. Not true, as even a casual observation of this thread and many more like it proves. Evolutionists are unable to provide any plausible materialistic mechanism for the production of the CFSI found in living things and they conflate the Natural Selection of CFSI with its origins.

…It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. All of which is due to the first cited Catcch 22 that ID "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation" ... thereby making it impossible to generate peer-reviewed publications because ID is outlawed a priori by science (in its current exclusively materialistic incarnation). It's like saying "you can't do that" (peer-review something with a supernatural cause) ... and then blaming you for not doing it ... even thought you aren't allowed to do it, in the first place.

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. More of the 'only Atheistic beliefs can be tested by science' stuff that rules out supernatural causes ... even where the cause was clearly supernatural, as with life.
Great stuff if you are an Atheist and you can get away with privileging your worldview to the point where science only accepts explanations in line with your belief that God doesn't exist ... and a priori bans the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in their favour ... or the paucity of logic and evidence in favour of the Atheistic alternative.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

OK lets examine the reasoning behind this decision (my comments in blue):-
They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; Centuries old ground rules to prevent supernatural causation being examined, even where the cause was supernatural (a construct of Practical Atheism and the desire to remove God from all spheres of thought).

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; All functional specified systems, whether artificial or living are observed to be irreducibly complex ... i.e. made up of steps and component parts whereby if one step or one component is removed, the system ceases to be functional. This is a repeatably observable, i.e. scientific fact.

and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. Not true, as even a casual observation of this thread and many more like it proves. Evolutionists are unable to provide any plausible materialistic mechanism for the production of the CFSI founs in living things and the conflate the Natural Selection of this CFSI with its origins.

…It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. All of which is due to the first cited Catcch 22 that it "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation" ... thereby making it impossible to generate peer-reviewed publications because ID is outlawed a priori by science (in its current exclusively materialistic incarnation). It's like saying "you can't do that" (peer-review into supernatural causes) ... and then blaming you for not doing it ... even thought you wouldn't be allowed to do it, if you tried.

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. More of the 'only Atheistic beliefs can be tested by science' stuff that rules out supernatural causes ... even where the cause was supernatural. Great stuff if you are an Atheist and you can get away with privileging your worldview to the point where science only accepts explanations in line with your belief that God doesn't exist ... and a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour .

Best give the court a call and tell them they got it wrong then :rolleyes:

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

And yet not you nor anyone in this thread so far have proved to me how is logic and rational is against god you keep saying that their is no evidence but am not looking for evidence am looking for a logical argument as to why god does not exist and no one seems to find any your trying to hard to deny the truth my friend.

I think you should be asking if there is there any logical reason why there should or must be a god. There isn't.

There are detailed explanations as to the origins of the universe and the species. Even if we can't answer all the questions, that doesn't logically mean there must be.

Yiu should also ask if God is a logical explanation. He clearly is not. Certainly the biblic/abrahamic god is far from logical.

A god who creates man in his own image, who he grants free will, and then gets mad when man acts in accordance with his nature (which he got from god).

A god who claims to love all yet commits genocide, murder, slaughtered the innocent and condemns rape victims.

Yiu should also ask does God and the biblical narrative logically fit with what we know of the earth, it's origin and man's origins.

Clearly ir doesn't - it's totally at variance with what we know. So the creation narrative is a lie. Is God lying to us in his holy book logical?

So clearly the only person not using logical here is yourself. I realise that won't sink in for you - because you clearly don't want it to.

Brian Shanahan

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

<snipping of mealy mouthed insults, ill-formed arguments and illogical lies>

Seriously, after this last post I'm done with you. Unless and until you offer a full apology to every poster you've insulted and denigrated on this thread with your constant ignoring of their rebuttals to your claims, I see no point in even reading a single more word you post.

You are simply worthless to me, to yourself and to all other posters here, when you go on like you are currently.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nobody claims we created ourselves.

... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Best give the court a call and tell them they got it wrong then :rolleyes:

The Court got it 'right' on the basis that Practical Atheism dominates science to the point where it only accepts explanations in line with the belief that God doesn't exist ... and has an a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour.

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

Evolution claims absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe or life. Are you sure you're a qualified scientist?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The Court got it 'right' on the basis that Practical Atheism dominates science to the point where it only accepts explanations in line with the belief that God doesn't exist ... and has an a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour.

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.

Perhaps we should try leaving religion or lack of out of it and discuss the science?

Chunners

J C wrote: »

The Court got it 'right' on the basis that Practical Atheism dominates science to the point where it only accepts explanations in line with the belief that God doesn't exist ... and has an a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour.

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.

What "Overwhelming evidence" would this be?

PopePalpatine

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Its like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter what evidence you can get to agree with you, they'll just claim its a cover up and everyone is against them.

I think J C has made previous claims in A&A about "evidence" for creationism being "suppressed". :rolleyes:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Evolution claims absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe or life. Are you sure you're a qualified scientist?

Please read exactly what I said ... I've emboldened the crucial words below.

J C wrote:

... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think J C has made previous claims in A&A about "evidence" for creationism being "suppressed". :rolleyes:

Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Saganist quoted:-

Quote:-
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.

... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

... its not just 'suppression' ... its an outright ban ... confirmed by Evolutionist scientists themselves under oath to a court.

When it comes to 'origins', science has been made into a 'one trick pony' ... that only allows the evidence for Evolution ... to be considered by Evolutionists ...
... with No Intelligence Allowed.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Please read exactly what I said ... I've emboldened the crucial words below.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Dr Jimbob quoted:-

Quote:-
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.

... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

I didn't quote that :pac:

Chunners

J C wrote: »

Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Dr Jimbob quoted:-

Quote:-
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.

... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

... its not just 'suppression' ... its an outright ban ... confirmed by the scientists themselves under oath to a court.

Again I ask where is all this "logic and physical evidence" for your anthropomorphic personification?

housetypeb

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to ask Mr Science to reconsider his position when we meet later for some baby ribs.:pac:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Yet another unfounded assertion ... with nothing cited to back it up!!!

Is this the best you can do?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't quote that :pac:

You're correct Saganist did ... and the Judge was the author

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Yet another unfounded assertion ... with nothing cited to back it up!!!

Is this the best you can do?

It's a perfectly well founded assertion. You're implying a connection between evolution and the origin of life and the universe that simply doesn't exist. Therefore, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot, simply stating that you have no idea what you're talking about on this particular topic.

Funny that you always reply to these posts you can attempt to play the victim from, yet when people try to make points against your wild claims, you ignore them half the time.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.

housetypeb
I'm going to ask Mr Science to reconsider his position when we meet later for some baby ribs.:pac:

.
No need to ask him/her we have Expert Testimony under oath in a court which states 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.

Science therefore must be Atheistic under its own rules, to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... and there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

... and you guys have the audacity to claim that such a 'creature of Atheism' can be relied on to objectively report the evidence for Creation and the inadequacies of Evolution ... when its own rules outlaw such objectivity.:(

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

No need to ask him/her we have Expert Testimony under oath in a court which states 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.

Science therefore must be Atheistic under its own rules, to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... and there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

... and you guys have the audacity to claim that such a 'creature of Atheism' can be relied on to objectively report the evidence for Creation and the inadequacies of Evolution ... when its own rules outlaw such objectivity.:(

Plenty of scientists are religious FFS. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Saganist quoted:-

Quote:-


... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.
[/B].

There is no ban on any type of evidence being presented.

But, when a claim such as a God is argued, the court or the scientific method will demand that that claim meet it's burden of proof. It's had thousands of years to do so. Yet never has. And it never will.

I like you posted a clip of "expelled".. A Bein Stein creation I think. What a fool that fella is.

At the end of the day. Science is able to produce real life applications that improve human life on an on-going basis.

Please let me know what application ID has led to or is currently working on ?

I already know the answer, but please let me know what scientific applications ID is currently working on that will lead to a real life application that can benefit people in the future.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

Which is any different than God creating himself how? you can't use the nothing can come from nothing argument then have a god who appeared from nothing.

Without the bible ID falls apart, you know this, you just won't admit it.