Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

timber-

When they do the pratfall will that be 1-0 for your side. You do like to keep it simple don't you?

There won't be any pratfalls.

No, more like Six-Love, Six-Love, Six-Love, Game, Set, and Match.


Big difference between simple, as in unencumbered by extranious irrelevancies and simple, as in the clearly evidenced mindedness requisite to the posturing characteristic of your posting style and substance.


Nonsense - the ID-iot's track record consists of nothing but; its their stock-in-trade.

Fishing report.
Tuna 1
Farmerman-0

I always like when Timber bats cleanup. Spendi always looks like hes gotten depantsed.

SO-maybe Ill owe Thomas some virtual euros. No council to debate the "science" behind IDyacy

fm wrote-



This is quite interesting. It's given me an idea on the hoof. Have we to see which way it gallops off?

Not only does fm believe his own assertions to be the pure scientific truth but he believes timber's are too.

But the "I like" is a factor. If he likes something he's obviously going to be drawn towards it and the belief in both his own and timber's assertions facilitates this pleasure buzz which, for all I know may be powerful enough to shake his whole being or to just a waft of gentle wave of self-satisfaction,starting in his toes and slowly ululating upwards, swerving 90 degrees at the knees and at an angle to the vertical commensurate with his slumped position and finally titivatting the blood cells in his flappers into a pastel pink tone and causing his eyeballs to rotate whilst pursuing a circular path.

One would, I admit, believe anything to get at a feeling like that and with one's own and timber's assertions so readily at hand, what could be easier? Bangs for bucks is the game ain't it?

There's the added thrill of imagining spendi with his pants down. I bet you could near light your fag on the flappers but I shouldn't think you could hypnotise him.

Im not going to feed the troll. He still thinks this is all about him.

How 'bout we descend to argumentum ad populum, spendi, and conduct an impromptu little poll -

Who thinks fm et al are on the game set out as this thread's topic of discussion

vs

Who thinks spendi's playing some wierd, irrelevant "look at me" game of his own?

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: FICTION, OR FAIRY TALE ? ! ? ! ?

YOU DECIDE ! ! !

Oh! Fairy tale definitely.

Fiction can be made up by any Tom, Dick or Harry. See The D'Vinci Code.

timber-

How many are in this poll you propose conducting. Would the result be statistically significant given that anti-IDers are only interested in showing off their macho expertise and haven't one iota of interest in the kids or the adults they will become and are thus a self-selecting group.

Anyway, I've been outnumbered before.Four or five is nothing.

Same as any open internet poll, spendi - as many as come across it and care to respond. In that, its representative only of those who come across it and care to respond.

I had seen many photos of spendi before I realized he was only a claymation figure.

However he doesnt wear a proper waistcoat. He refers himslf as a rural type.

hi Thomas,

Speaking (only for myself) as a creationist, I have no quarrel with data. I differ with the evolutionists on the interpretation of the data.

Then that means you have a quarrel with the data, because other pieces of data back up the interpretation of the former and vice versa. That is the entire point of good scientific research.

You create a null hypothesis, which is what you expect to see if your beliefs or ideas about something is wrong. Then you start doing the experiment to prove your null hypothesis true. All good scientists set out to prove themselves wrong.

They then gather the data and then figure out what it means. After that, they then do another experiment to show the data they got wasn't spurious, and then another experiment to prove that their interpretation isn't wrong.

If the data of the other experiments don't back up the data of your original experiment, then your interpretation is wrong.

Added on to that, your research is peer reviewed by scientists that either hate your guts or couldn't care less whether you succeeded or not, and bias becomes nearly absent.

If you have a problem with the interpretation of data, then you have a problem with the data, because the data of other experiments should prop up the data of other experiments and the interpretation of such data. Only when new data comes about to disprove that your interpratation was incorrect or that the data was incorrect, do you then start thinking about whether it was wrong or not.

So far, no new data has disproved Evolution in general.

Thats the good foundation of our evolution theory
1 ALL the data supports it and

2NONE of the data refutes it


Excellent point Wolf. RL has said that "he has no argument with the data, merely its interpretations"
The support data for evolutionary theory is itself conclusive. Its quite widespread and interlocking. It includes several points that he would stipulate to (Was he aware of it)
.
1THE WORLD IS QUITE OLD.
MAgnetics data (specifically remnant magnetism) itself proves this conclusion

Magnnetic reversals provide a "bar code" of data on the ocean floors that correspond to proving that stratigraphic time clear back to the Jurassic is correct

Stratigraphy and ocean basin movement data supports the above interpretations clearly

Radionuclide decay in spcific minerals provide data that says the world is old and that continents drifted in a specific pattern

Biostratigraphic data supports the conclusion as well

Stable isotope ratios in sediments track the radionuclide decay constants

2. LIFE DEVELOPED IN A CLEAR PATTERN THAT PARALLELS THE EARTHS PALEOENVIRONMENT

The chemistry of sedi,ments through time presents data that carries with it snippets of the paleoclimate, the patterns of life parallel these snippets quite clearly

Life started in very hostile(extremophilic) conditions and gradually changeed the earths atmosphere. This can be seen that "Rust" and other oxidation products only occured after first appearance of cyanobacteria (cf stratigraphy data above)

Paleo data shows that life proceeded in increasing complexity until certain boundaries were exceeded within the environment and then life took on new and sometimes weird forms (hard shells, bakbones,scales,, appendages, occupaton of land, development of large forms due to increased oxygen, warm bloodedness, feathers, changing dentition, hair, live birthing etc etc) All the data supporting these transitions is clear and unambiguous

NEw forms of life supplanted older, less competitive ones for any given environment. The fossil data clearly shows this in almost all life forms.


3. THE EARTH IS DYNAMIC AND HAS RECORDED SEVERAL CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENT.

Data is unambiguous about ocean basin formation, continental drift, mt raising, local ocean incursions, continental scale glaciations, continental suturing and isolation and slamming together of continents.

Each environmental change has left records in accordance with the "time dependent" data in point 1.

This has not been an exhaustive list , but one where the main facts are presented and these facts(the "data" that rl stipulates to), are impossible to separate rom the conclusion that natural selection is a going engineSince all the data is closely interrelated and connected in its presentation on the planet, the resulting conclusion of evolution is quite robust. So,Im not aware of any challenges to these data that has stood up to close inspection. Perhaps rl knows something that science has overlooked.

At the very outset, you come across the quibble with the data which is at the heart of "real life's" world view. He states himself that he is a young earth creationist, and that he opines that the world is only thousands of years old, not millions or billions of years old. Therefore, he rejects the data.

Then he rejects the laws of physics, chemistry, geology,etc that govern these data. He rejects science period.

Interesting that I would be characterized as one who rejects the laws of science.

Especially since I have been told repeatedly by evolutionists that the Law of Entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics), for example, does not apply to any systems in the real universe, (nor possibly even to the universe itself if there be 'other universes'); instead, they say, the Law of Entropy is only theoretical.

The fact is that the data you cite is not raw data but the inferences you (and others) have drawn from the data.

You may think it 'impossible' to separate the data itself from your conclusions, but they are two distinct things.

Who here has stated that you reject the "laws of science?" FM has simply said that you reject science, he made no reference to the "laws of science," nor has he referred to the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics is:

Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

It can only referentially be applied to entropy, and when it is applied to entropy, in an isolated system, it simply holds that in any isolated system, the result of entropy will be thermodynamic equilibrium, and the state of entropy will have a derivation of free energy which is greater than or equal to zero. This does not apply to the earth, however, so long as the sun exists and gives off radiation which reaches the earth at a rate higher than that of heat lost to space.

If someone has told you that entropy does not apply in the "real universe," or that it is only theoretic, that someone was not saying as much in this thread, so your attempt to object here is based upon an irrelevant reference.

Your young earth creationist viewpoint rejects the data which shows the age of the earth to be well in excess of merely thousands of years.

Yes, RL has stated this before. He calls is a "naturalistic bias", which is of course the foundation of science.

RL is a poofist. He believes in magic, and he uses a "magical bias" to interpret the data. It's a self-enclosed world view, not driven by empirical reality.