Total Posts:532|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Challenge to Intelligent Design Advocates

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:14:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To the ID brigade:

Go onto Google Scholar, and find me THREE examples of peer reviewed articles in credible journals that SUPPORT Intelligent Design. Just THREE. If your claims have any validity, you should have no problem coming up with the goods.

In turn, any evolution supporters can come to this thread and do precisely the same. In theory, if Intelligent Design has the amount of evidence that its supporters claim, then we should see that translated into the actual science field.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 5:56:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 4:19:24 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://sententias.org...
http://www.discovery.org...
http://www.nwcreation.net...
http://www.ideacenter.org...
http://www.apologeticspress.org...

We're talking about the actual thing, not lists that purport to show the alleged peer-reviews studies.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 7:25:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 5:56:23 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/18/2013 4:19:24 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://sententias.org...
http://www.discovery.org...
http://www.nwcreation.net...
http://www.ideacenter.org...
http://www.apologeticspress.org...

We're talking about the actual thing, not lists that purport to show the alleged peer-reviews studies.

I looked up some of those articles (I'm not going to go through every single one), and none of them actually show any evidence for, or even attempt to support, intelligent design. They just seem to be articles that point out some problems in evolutionary theory as it stands. Some of them even seem valid, but nothing world shattering.

The person who put together that list must be under the impression that evidence against one theory must somehow be evidence for another. False Dichotomy. ID advocates are very good at using that :P
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Anti-atheist
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All papers on ID are peer reviewed. Other people read them so their peer reviweed.
Anti-atheist

Registered genius
Certified butt-f*cker

imabench for fuhrer '13
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:52:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 8:23:52 PM, Anti-atheist wrote:
All papers on ID are peer reviewed. Other people read them so their peer reviweed.

*they're

And that doesn't make them peer reviewed. Are the "other people" reading these papers the authors peers? No, they're just read by non-scientists who don't know anything about biology, geology, or chemistry.

Oh, wait.

Okay, I take that back....they ARE peer reviewed :P
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One could argue that cosmic evolution and biological evolution are one in the same and that evolution itself is a part of ID.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:07:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 8:52:27 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:23:52 PM, Anti-atheist wrote:
All papers on ID are peer reviewed. Other people read them so their peer reviweed.

*they're
And that doesn't make them peer reviewed. Are the "other people" reading these papers the authors peers? No, they're just read by non-scientists who don't know anything about biology, geology, or chemistry.
Oh, wait.
Okay, I take that back....they ARE peer reviewed :P

I think Anti-Atheist might be using "peer" in the sense of "to gaze intently", so that a paper is "peer reviewed" if someone stares at it long enough.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:12:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:07:55 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:52:27 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:23:52 PM, Anti-atheist wrote:
All papers on ID are peer reviewed. Other people read them so their peer reviweed.

*they're
And that doesn't make them peer reviewed. Are the "other people" reading these papers the authors peers? No, they're just read by non-scientists who don't know anything about biology, geology, or chemistry.
Oh, wait.
Okay, I take that back....they ARE peer reviewed :P

I think Anti-Atheist might be using "peer" in the sense of "to gaze intently", so that a paper is "peer reviewed" if someone stares at it long enough.

No, "peer" simply means "an equal", as in "jury of one's peers"

This is why I don't play such asinine games as "find me three papers reviewed by somebody like the person who wrote them"

Just more confirmation that your average evolution fan really has no clue, it's all peer pressure. And now we've got peer pressured kids being taught by clueless teachers who were themselves peer pressured into accepting what their peer pressured teachers taught them. The whole evolution community is hopeless inbred at this point.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 7:58:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:48:00 AM, JonMilne wrote:
In response: http://www.talkorigins.org...

What you and the talkorigins people don't understand is that any biological researched aimed at understanding the function of an organism is ID research. Treating organisms as though they had a purpose, as though the organism and it's components are supposed to do something - that is the ID model. The evolution model is mostly useless in understanding the purpose of various aspects of organisms because there is no purpose in evolution. Evolution, properly speaking, is a study something like that of black holes - there really isn't much practical use to it even if it is correct. Useful science proceeds when evolutionists say "ok, let's pretend there's a purpose to this arrangement of molecules - what might it be?"

So, when you say ID, you typically mean somebody trying to find evidence for the Bible, which is really quite a different thing. ID is not necessarily about finding the designer, it's simply recognizing the obvious fact that life is a deliberate bit of work and should be studied as such.
This space for rent.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:32:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 7:12:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
No, "peer" simply means "an equal", as in "jury of one's peers"

Correct. Which in the case of 'peer review' means 'people who have also studied the subject'.

This is why I don't play such asinine games as "find me three papers reviewed by somebody like the person who wrote them"

If anyone had ever suggested you play such a game, I would whole-heartedly agree. They didn't though, so this is just you making up hilariously transparent strawmen. As usual.

Just more confirmation that your average evolution fan really has no clue, it's all peer pressure. And now we've got peer pressured kids being taught by clueless teachers who were themselves peer pressured into accepting what their peer pressured teachers taught them. The whole evolution community is hopeless inbred at this point.

You think the requirement that something be critiqued and approved by experts in the relevant field is confirmation of peer pressure? Does this extend to other things? Pharmaceutical development, cars having functioning brakes, professional accreditation, the entire underlying principle of an education system, medical advice and treatment, financial advice, design engineering... you know, basically the entirety of society. I assume that, based on your above 'reasoning', you object equally strongly to these as well.

Are you suggesting that religious people don't pressure their kids into believing? Do you think atheist parents take their children to listen to Dawkins preach for a couple of hours every Sunday? What do you think the probability that those people themselves had a religious upbringing are? Do you think that a scientific community that is orders of magnitude larger than the ID community is more inbred than this far, far smaller group?

Or are you just blowing chunks of rotten brain out of your arse again?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:42:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 8:32:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
...

You think the requirement that something be critiqued and approved by experts in the relevant field is confirmation of peer pressure? Does this extend to other things? Pharmaceutical development, cars having functioning brakes,

Engineering is different: In pharmacy we do actual drug trials. With cars, we test the brakes. You don't have your buddy approve your paper and then ship a product.


Are you suggesting that religious people don't pressure their kids into believing?

Can you say 'non sequitur'? Always the moral equivalence games with guys like you.


Or are you just blowing chunks of rotten brain out of your arse again?

Heh, I hoped you wouldn't be able to resist, and the only reason I reply to you post (you're useful to me right now) - I knew I could count on you to illustrate the very peer pressure I was speaking of, that you would like to deny when it suits you.

And yes, you're welcome for the gratuitous granting of peerage. This post only.
This space for rent.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 7:58:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:48:00 AM, JonMilne wrote:
In response: http://www.talkorigins.org...

What you and the talkorigins people don't understand is that any biological researched aimed at understanding the function of an organism is ID research.

This is just a bare assertion. Where are the credible scientific articles to match?

Treating organisms as though they had a purpose, as though the organism and it's components are supposed to do something - that is the ID model.

Then why doesn't this translate into credible research the ID brigade can produce at a whim, and why does the vast, VAST majority of the scientific community reject ID.

The evolution model is mostly useless in understanding the purpose of various aspects of organisms because there is no purpose in evolution.

Wrong, on organisms, Lenski did a pretty good job: http://www.actionbioscience.org... and I also found http://www.cco.caltech.edu... , http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu... , http://www.sciencedaily.com... . As fpr purpose, I found http://www.metanexus.net... , http://www.psychologytoday.com... . Good lord man, this is just pathetic on your part.

Evolution, properly speaking, is a study something like that of black holes - there really isn't much practical use to it even if it is correct. Useful science proceeds when evolutionists say "ok, let's pretend there's a purpose to this arrangement of molecules - what might it be?"

Wrong, evolution impacts our lives loads: http://evolution.berkeley.edu... , and there's also this: http://www.talkorigins.org... . Stop being a retard already.

So, when you say ID, you typically mean somebody trying to find evidence for the Bible, which is really quite a different thing.

Not really, because that's what ID proponents resort to in the end.

ID is not necessarily about finding the designer, it's simply recognizing the obvious fact that life is a deliberate bit of work and should be studied as such.

Completely baseless assertions. Either produce the credible scientific articles that back up this absurd view or STFU.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:57:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 7:58:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
What you and the talkorigins people don't understand is that any biological researched aimed at understanding the function of an organism is ID research.

No it isn't, because there is no proposal that they were designed. It is perfectly possible to study how something does what it does without assuming that someone deliberately designed it that way. If I do research into how a particular gene works in an organism, I am simply trying to find out how it works; it's function with respect to the organism in question. There is no purposive assumption, no search for design and no relevance of a designer.

Trying to redefine the discussion so that 'all research implicitly admits ID' is thoroughly dishonest and easily shown to be so. So totally idiomatic of your MO, in other words. If you dispute this, you will only need to show how ID proposes a testable hypothesis and examples of peer-reviewed research that found evidence supporting ID. Since you claim this is all such research, it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide these things.

Treating organisms as though they had a purpose, as though the organism and it's components are supposed to do something - that is the ID model.

False. ID is the claim that, through whatever means, life was originally designed by an intelligent force of some kind. Treating the genes of organisms as if they have a purpose is only looking at what purpose those genes have when considering the organism in question as a system. It makes no assumptions and bears no relevance to anything beyond the position the genes play in the context of that organic system.

The evolution model is mostly useless in understanding the purpose of various aspects of organisms because there is no purpose in evolution.

Please give examples of how evolutionary theory is useless in this way.

Evolution, properly speaking, is a study something like that of black holes - there really isn't much practical use to it even if it is correct.

It is very much like that in that we've mountains of evidence for both, both have allowed us to make and test predictions based on the theories underlying them and both have observable effects which we can and have documented. Whether this is 'useful' or not is, I assume, a question of perspective; personally I like the general advance of science and the medical, technological and intellectual benefits it brings. I suppose if you're opposed to these things, it would be fair to describe the science leading to them 'useless'.

Useful science proceeds when evolutionists say "ok, let's pretend there's a purpose to this arrangement of molecules - what might it be?"

Give examples of research that has been 'useless' until only the underlying assumption of design was adopted and nothing else about the research changed, please. This way we can isolate and identify the importance and role of ID in allowing for these breakthroughs that traditional science was unable to make prior to simply introducing the idea that the systems in question were designed.

So, when you say ID, you typically mean somebody trying to find evidence for the Bible, which is really quite a different thing. ID is not necessarily about finding the designer, it's simply recognizing the obvious fact that life is a deliberate bit of work and should be studied as such.

No, we just mean 'intelligent design'. You know, as first popularised by the notoriously unbiased Discovery Institute. The ones who reworded their creationism literature by simply replacing 'creationism' with 'intelligent design', 'god' with 'designer' and so on and then released them as ID literature. You know the ones I mean, right?

What are we going to be able to find out about life by treating it as if it were designed than treating it as evolutionary theory suggests? Will we make more breakthroughs? Will gene therapy advance much faster? Will existing problems be resolved? If so, which problems are these and what sort of timeframe do you think we're looking at before they're resolved by taking this approach?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:07:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 8:42:32 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Engineering is different: In pharmacy we do actual drug trials. With cars, we test the brakes. You don't have your buddy approve your paper and then ship a product.

Really? Because I happen to know someone who has been working as a design engineer for about 50 years now and he has spent a considerable amount of time checking over the work of junior draftsmen, as well as having his own work checked over before being signed off. Are you saying where you work this is not the case?

Why is it important that there's a peer review process in pharmaceuticals but not in biochemistry, genetics and other evolution-related fields? Do you think we should approve gene therapies for medical use without first making sure that they're safe and the science underpinning them has been done properly? Why bother testing the brakes on cars, if there is no value in peer-review?

Can you say 'non sequitur'? Always the moral equivalence games with guys like you.

I can. I can even recognise one. The point was that your criticisms can very validly be aimed at your own position and therefore either your position or your criticisms are flawed. It's usually both, but it has to be at least one. Unless... but no. For a moment there I thought you might be displaying double-standards, but that would be unthinkable.

Heh, I hoped you wouldn't be able to resist, and the only reason I reply to you post (you're useful to me right now) - I knew I could count on you to illustrate the very peer pressure I was speaking of, that you would like to deny when it suits you.

And yes, you're welcome for the gratuitous granting of peerage. This post only.

You haven't answered and of my questions or addressed any of the points. I am glad to have been of help in meeting the quota for the number of times you have to be intellectually dishonest in a day.

By the way, you probably didn't mean 'gratuitous' (gracious, perhaps?) and, although it is actually the day of the Royal Honours (a friend's dad is getting an OBE), you aren't actually granting me a peerage.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:13:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And since I promised I'd provide a selection of evolution articles myself, here's one on UCD:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org...

Here, of course, is Lenski's brilliant experiment:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

And this too is pretty good:

http://www.nature.com...

See how easy that was? Bet v3nesl can't do the same.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:55:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 8:54:23 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 7/19/2013 7:58:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:48:00 AM, JonMilne wrote:
In response: http://www.talkorigins.org...

What you and the talkorigins people don't understand is that any biological researched aimed at understanding the function of an organism is ID research.

This is just a bare assertion. Where are the credible scientific articles to match?

I should find a peer reviewed article article showing that the peers don't understand something? lol, it just shows what a PURE argument from authority this is for you, a matter of pure faith. And I'd venture that you don't really even know what you have faith in, don't really know what this 'scientific community' is exactly. You've been dazzled, dude.


Treating organisms as though they had a purpose, as though the organism and it's components are supposed to do something - that is the ID model.

Then why doesn't this translate into credible research the ID brigade can produce at a whim, and why does the vast, VAST majority of the scientific community reject ID.


I just explained my claim. Please try to understand it, at least.

The evolution model is mostly useless in understanding the purpose of various aspects of organisms because there is no purpose in evolution.

Wrong, on organisms, Lenski did a pretty good job: http://www.actionbioscience.org... and I also found http://www.cco.caltech.edu... , http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu... , http://www.sciencedaily.com... . As fpr purpose, I found http://www.metanexus.net... , http://www.psychologytoday.com... . Good lord man, this is just pathetic on your part.


There is no purpose in evolution, that is the essence of the theory. Do you know what the theory is? I'm claiming that evolutionists use purpose anyway, are you trying to prove my point for me?

... Stop being a retard already.


You want me to start quoting web sources without any comprehension on my part, is that what you want from me? No thanks.


ID is not necessarily about finding the designer, it's simply recognizing the obvious fact that life is a deliberate bit of work and should be studied as such.

Completely baseless assertions. Either produce the credible scientific articles that back up this absurd view or STFU.

You provided the articles in your first post, so now go become familiar with some ID concepts like 'specified complexity'. This is a second reason for not finding papers for you - you're not going to look at them. Hey, I don't blame you - we could use this forum to discuss science instead of having this homecoming queen vote.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 10:02:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 9:07:08 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 7/19/2013 8:42:32 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Engineering is different: In pharmacy we do actual drug trials. With cars, we test the brakes. You don't have your buddy approve your paper and then ship a product.

Really? Because I happen to know someone who has been working as a design engineer for about 50 years now

Of course you do. Heh, no age discrimination from me of course, but 50 years reminds me of a lady in a nursing home I used to visit - every time, she'd ask me what I did then she'd tell me her son 'invented the audio and the visual'. I'd tell her that was a great service to humanity.
This space for rent.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:00:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 9:55:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 8:54:23 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 7/19/2013 7:58:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
The evolution model is mostly useless in understanding the purpose of various aspects of organisms because there is no purpose in evolution.

Wrong, on organisms, Lenski did a pretty good job: http://www.actionbioscience.org... and I also found http://www.cco.caltech.edu... , http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu... , http://www.sciencedaily.com... . As fpr purpose, I found http://www.metanexus.net... , http://www.psychologytoday.com... . Good lord man, this is just pathetic on your part.


There is no purpose in evolution, that is the essence of the theory. Do you know what the theory is? I'm claiming that evolutionists use purpose anyway, are you trying to prove my point for me?

There is no requirement for 'purpose' in what happens. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit your flowery, romanticized world view. What matters is that evolution makes useful predictions. It predicts that it is quite likely that there is life on other planets like ours. It predicts that bacteria will develop resistances to antibiotics over time, since bacteria which randomly develop resistance would survive to reproduce more often. What does ID predict? That God is real and that we must repent our sins or face eternal damnation?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:07:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 9:55:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 8:54:23 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 7/19/2013 7:58:24 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 6:48:00 AM, JonMilne wrote:
In response: http://www.talkorigins.org...

What you and the talkorigins people don't understand is that any biological researched aimed at understanding the function of an organism is ID research.

This is just a bare assertion. Where are the credible scientific articles to match?

I should find a peer reviewed article article showing that the peers don't understand something? lol, it just shows what a PURE argument from authority this is for you, a matter of pure faith. And I'd venture that you don't really even know what you have faith in, don't really know what this 'scientific community' is exactly. You've been dazzled, dude.

No it's not an argument from authority, because actual fallacious arguments from authority make appeals to the views of people from irrelevant fields of expertise who are providing arguments that turn out to be irrelevant to the field at hand (in this case, biology and geology). In contrast, what I'm pointing to are the actual biologists and geologists who are studying this stuff, but I do not merely point to them because of their credentials, I am pointing to them because their arguments actually stand up and have endured the scientific method constantly, to the point where scientists no longer contemplate WHETHER evolution happened and instead debate HOW it happened.

You're also conflating two different meanings of faith. I can have faith in evolution and the scientific process because I know that they can actually back up what they say. You have blind faith on the other hand because you have nothing to provide that actually supports your claim and all you have as "evidence" is the Bible.

The great thing about the scientific method is that it gets rid of bias, and when done right it proves the theory no matter how biased the testers were or are. Some great evidence for this comes in the fact that in the early days of science and the scientific method up to the 19th century, most scientists did believe in God/the soul/the metaphysical/basic creationist bullsh!t. Indeed, many early scientific experiments were attempts to prove that those things were existent and what their true natures were so that all the arguments about them could be settled once and for all. It was only after decades upon decades of these experiments failing to produce anything that the community of science began to gradually and very reluctantly move away from such ideas.

This is the thing: contrary to the "rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research that has obeyed the Gold Standard of scientific evidence wherein methods have been used to filter out biases and cognitive errors as much as humanly possible" evidence that is gathered for evolution, creationism/ID/God claims only stands after careless, casual examination based on wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Not to mention poor understandings/instincts of creationists/IDers/Goddists when it comes to probability, and the tendency of creationists/IDers/Goddists to see patterns and intentions where none exists, in addition to intrinsic cognitive biases and weird human brain wiring that creationists/IDers have. When their ideas are studied carefully, under conditions specifically designed to screen those biases out, the claims crumble into dust.

I just explained my claim. Please try to understand it, at least.

I do understand your claim. It makes you look like a spastic. Google for once your life. Provide links or admit you've lost this debate.

There is no purpose in evolution, that is the essence of the theory. Do you know what the theory is? I'm claiming that evolutionists use purpose anyway, are you trying to prove my point for me?

Sources, sources, sources. Unless you can provide actual academic sources like I have, you're a fvcking moron and your argument has no merit.

... Stop being a retard already.


You want me to start quoting web sources without any comprehension on my part, is that what you want from me? No thanks.

Well you at least admit you can't comprehend basic science and are unable to provide ANYTHING to support your claim. Thanks for the concession buddy!


ID is not necessarily about finding the designer, it's simply recognizing the obvious fact that life is a deliberate bit of work and should be studied as such.

Completely baseless assertions. Either produce the credible scientific articles that back up this absurd view or STFU.

You provided the articles in your first post, so now go become familiar with some ID concepts like 'specified complexity'. This is a second reason for not finding papers for you - you're not going to look at them. Hey, I don't blame you - we could use this forum to discuss science instead of having this homecoming queen vote.

And this is why you're a dishonest idiot. Because I WOULD look at them. Indeed, I went ahead and did the search on Google scholar. Guess what? 17,900 all time results, with the vast majority of articles in the first few pages all ripping it to fvcking shreds: http://books.google.co.uk... , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... , http://books.google.co.uk... , http://wwww.talkreason.org... . Do you see what a little research brings you? It's why I constantly kick your a$$ in these debates. Why haven't you accepted a challenge from me or Graincruncher on these forums to debate on the main page. It's because you've got NOTHING dude, NOTHING.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:19:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:07:55 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:52:27 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:23:52 PM, Anti-atheist wrote:
All papers on ID are peer reviewed. Other people read them so their peer reviweed.

*they're
And that doesn't make them peer reviewed. Are the "other people" reading these papers the authors peers? No, they're just read by non-scientists who don't know anything about biology, geology, or chemistry.
Oh, wait.
Okay, I take that back....they ARE peer reviewed :P

I think Anti-Atheist might be using "peer" in the sense of "to gaze intently", so that a paper is "peer reviewed" if someone stares at it long enough.

I read one on the Santa Cruz Wharf once, so that one was pier reviewed.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:47:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gentlemen, for whatever it's worth, my two cents':

I believe the problem with ID is that too many of its advocates purport that it is one among many scientific theories that should be held in as high esteem as evolutionary theory. I agree that evolutionary theory is (as they say) "just" a theory, and that some parts of it are more philosophical than scientific (the "evidence" for some evolutionary theory claims is actually quite scant...even though I believe it is a perfectly valid explanation for how things have come to be as they are, however partial an explanation that may be). But I believe (I hope most of us on this forum would agree?) ID has virtually NO scientific evidence to back its ultimate claim.

The cosmological and teleological "proofs" of God, are, perhaps a reasonable "support" of ID. I would say that ID is an attempt to elaborate (scientifically?) on these classic arguments (that everything is contingent upon something else...until you reach a FIRST CAUSE, and that everything has purpose proceeding from a MIND, etc.). The problem, however, as I see it, is that, as beautiful and strong as these "proofs" are, they are philosophical. They are NOT scientific, and cannot finally "prove" the existence of God any more than their opponents can finally "disprove" the existence of God. ID, it seems to me, while I may agree with some of its premises, is an attempt to make these "proofs" more palatable to scientific minds...but I believe it fails on that front...and it should take its place in the philosophy or religion class, not in the science lab.

I believe Graincruncher (above) agrees with me about the failure of the classic "proofs". He and I disagree about just which side has the BOP (he believes it's the theists, I believe the BOP card can't be persuasively dealt to either side). I agree with the instigator of this thread that all our knowledge--whether scientifically derived or not--requires some degree of faith and/or unsupportable suppositions, but I believe some knowledge is derived within closed systems of experience (such as car engineering) and is not concerned with ultimate metaphysical claims (such as where everything came from or whether EVERYTHING has a grand purpose, etc.). Yes, the car engineer needs some faith in the mix, but s/he is mainly concerned with fixing the car, not with where the atoms originated billions of years ago (at least I hope this is true when I take my car to the shop!).

I happen to believe that God exists and confers purpose upon all reality, but have no problem acknowledging that this is a belief. I also have no problem believing (yes, it is a belief) that evolution (at least some form of it) is included as part of God's purpose...so I'm not sure why so many of us tend to discuss these two themes as if they are at cross purposes. Evolution has little, if anything, to say about the existence of God...just as ID should have little, if anything, to say about evolution.

ID may be interesting, but it surely fits more into philosophical and religious concerns than scientific ones. Hence, this effort to "produce" papers on the subject that rival other scientific papers is doomed...and is barking up the wrong tree in the first place.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:07:17 AM, JonMilne wrote:
...

And this is why you're a dishonest idiot. Because I WOULD look at them. Indeed, I went ahead and did the search on Google scholar. Guess what? 17,900 all time results, with the vast majority of articles in the first few pages all ripping it to fvcking shreds: http://books.google.co.uk... , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... , http://books.google.co.uk... , http://wwww.talkreason.org... . Do you see what a little research brings you?

As I said, you didn't read a single one. You found articles claiming to debunk books that can't be read in a half hour, and that's all you need to know. Your faith is intact.

It's why I constantly kick your a$$ in these debates.

And I bet the ladies start to sweat when you tell them about it. Oh, Jon, you are such a debater! I love a man who knows how to google!
This space for rent.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:08:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:03:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 11:07:17 AM, JonMilne wrote:
...

And this is why you're a dishonest idiot. Because I WOULD look at them. Indeed, I went ahead and did the search on Google scholar. Guess what? 17,900 all time results, with the vast majority of articles in the first few pages all ripping it to fvcking shreds: http://books.google.co.uk... , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... , http://books.google.co.uk... , http://wwww.talkreason.org... . Do you see what a little research brings you?

As I said, you didn't read a single one. You found articles claiming to debunk books that can't be read in a half hour, and that's all you need to know. Your faith is intact.

No, I already own the books and have read them long before you and I even knew each other. It's why it's so breathtakingly easy to rip your BS apart

And I bet the ladies start to sweat when you tell them about it. Oh, Jon, you are such a debater! I love a man who knows how to google!

Well that's a nice concession of yours there.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:47:59 AM, thg wrote:
Gentlemen, for whatever it's worth, my two cents':

I believe the problem with ID is that too many of its advocates purport that it is one among many scientific theories that should be held in as high esteem as evolutionary theory.

Ah, no. Totally, absolutely not. Classic science is about cold hard facts, not holding theories in high esteem.

So, look, it will sound terribly arrogant and snotty, but for all you evo groupies, get back to me when you're interested in talking about what might or might not have actually happened.

I'm reading a book by George Gilder where he sort of in passing coins a phrase for what you guys worship - "scientism" - which is something different from science itself.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:08:47 PM, JonMilne wrote:
...

No, I already own the books and have read them long before you and I even knew each other.

Great, graincruncher's little brother. So is your IQ well into the genius range too?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:48:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:47:59 AM, thg wrote:
...

I happen to believe that God exists and confers purpose upon all reality, but have no problem acknowledging that this is a belief. I also have no problem believing (yes, it is a belief) that evolution (at least some form of it) is included as part of God's purpose...

And hey, I probably came across as jumping down your throat, and a bit unfairly.

I can respect what you're saying, and kind of wish I could agree, it would solve a lot of socio/political issues. But I just can't. I've looked into the evolution and there's just little to nothing valid there. Mendel yes, Darwin no, is how I sometimes put it to people who are surprised at my position. It's very similar to climate change in the sense that it's such a poorly defined business that it's hard to even say it's wrong. But the basic claim, that all extant species evolved from "one or several original forms" purely by environment noise - no way.
This space for rent.
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 12:58:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 12:10:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/19/2013 11:47:59 AM, thg wrote:
Gentlemen, for whatever it's worth, my two cents':

I believe the problem with ID is that too many of its advocates purport that it is one among many scientific theories that should be held in as high esteem as evolutionary theory.

Ah, no. Totally, absolutely not. Classic science is about cold hard facts, not holding theories in high esteem.

So, look, it will sound terribly arrogant and snotty, but for all you evo groupies, get back to me when you're interested in talking about what might or might not have actually happened.

I'm reading a book by George Gilder where he sort of in passing coins a phrase for what you guys worship - "scientism" - which is something different from science itself.

Hmm...sounds like a bit of sarcasm...or, at least, unnecessary jabbing (and, yes, you aren't the only guilty one...)...but I'm not sure you are addressing or responding to anything I said. I AGREE with you that scientism is employed far too much by most folks. The concept, by the way, pre-dates Gilder, and is a point that has been expressed by all manner of thinkers (Popper, Weber, and try Rust in RELIGION, REVELATION, and REASON...a book you might like). My point is that ID surely is less valid as a scientific theory than as part of a philosophical or religious construct. Are you insisting that it is, in fact, MORE scientific than the theory of evolution or other scientific assertions? And are you insisting that evolution CANNOT be included within the framework of ID or religious faith-assertions?