Creationists

[ima]

Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.

UR
this might have been a good time to to stfu.

Definition of ARBITER
1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>

Definition of ARBITRATOR
: one that arbitrates : arbiter
another failed attempt to get over on another poster.

Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.

Is that where you got the idea for ID, from a video game?

 

[newpolitics]

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.

Stop making assumptions about me. I'm getting really tired of it.

 

[newpolitics]

Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.

It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.

What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.

Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.[2]

wikipedia.org

Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth. Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with. Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.

You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.

Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.

It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.

Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.

Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.

I will take your lack of response to any of the points in this post or the others I posted, that you are unable to respond. You simply assert that the same goes for evolution. Wow. Can you do any better?

It is clear that you can not even comprehend what I wrote, because if you did, you would understand that ID is not a science, for the reasons I have demonstrated in my recent posts.

 

[newpolitics]

Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.

This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.



He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.



This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.

You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.



Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.



Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.



I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.



Fine.

Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?

Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!

The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.

Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.

Translation: you have no rebuttal.

 

[newpolitics]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com



UR, every time you try to talk shit, you end up eating it.

 

[UltimateReality]

This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.



He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.



This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.

You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.



Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.



Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.



I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.



Fine.



Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!

The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.

Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.

Translation: you have no rebuttal.

I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.

 

[newpolitics]

The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.

Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.

Translation: you have no rebuttal.

I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.

You're calling me stupid? I understand all of the vastly over simplistic concepts you IDers are putting forth, and just refuted all of them using simple logic and reasoning. You have no rebuttal, and you're excuse is that I'm too stupid? You have some serious growing up to do. You are not worth debating whatsoever, because you have no respect for debate itself. You only care about proving your side. Debate is not just about winning, it is a dialectic that allows learning. You should try it sometime rather than being a stubborn charlatan who thinks he is way smarter than he actually is, because he takes an illogical position that is easy to defend. Whenever you are attacked, you rely on attempts at discrediting science, yet hypocritically call your theory scientific and rely on it when it suits you. I was actually enjoying our little exchange, but you seem to be doing this soley for ego. How sad. No wonder Hollie and Daws are constantly calling you names. You're impossible to debate. You simply run away like a little bitch when you can't respond.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.

Stop making assumptions about me. I'm getting really tired of it.

Or what?

 

[UltimateReality]

Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.


wikipedia.org

Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth. Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with. Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.

You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.

Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.

It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.

Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.

Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.

I will take your lack of response to any of the points in this post or the others I posted, that you are unable to respond. You simply assert that the same goes for evolution. Wow. Can you do any better?

It is clear that you can not even comprehend what I wrote, because if you did, you would understand that ID is not a science, for the reasons I have demonstrated in my recent posts.

The lack of comprehensioin is yours. If ID isn't science, according to your flawed logic, then neither is evolution. End of story.

 

[newpolitics]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.

Stop making assumptions about me. I'm getting really tired of it.

Or what?

Or you might somehow show yourself to be even more immature and incapable at rational debate than you already are. Although, I'm not sure that's possible so I guess you have nothing to lose, so, go ahead. Assume away.

 

[newpolitics]

Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.

I will take your lack of response to any of the points in this post or the others I posted, that you are unable to respond. You simply assert that the same goes for evolution. Wow. Can you do any better?

It is clear that you can not even comprehend what I wrote, because if you did, you would understand that ID is not a science, for the reasons I have demonstrated in my recent posts.

The lack of comprehensioin is yours. If ID isn't science, according to your flawed logic, then neither is evolution. End of story.

Yes, I've heard Stephen Meyer say this before. I'm impressed that you can recite his lines.

However, this is untrue. Evolution is actual science, with actual evidence. ID has nothing but silly assumptions.

 

[UltimateReality]

Translation: you have no rebuttal.

I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.

You're calling me stupid? I understand all of the vastly over simplistic concepts you IDers are putting forth, and just refuted all of them using simple logic and reasoning. You have no rebuttal, and you're excuse is that I'm too stupid? You have some serious growing up to do. You are not worth debating whatsoever, because you have no respect for debate itself. You only care about proving your side. Debate is not just about winning, it is a dialectic that allows learning. You should try it sometime rather than being a stubborn charlatan who thinks he is way smarter than he actually is, because he takes an illogical position that is easy to defend. Whenever you are attacked, you rely on attempts at discrediting science, yet hypocritically call your theory scientific and rely on it when it suits you. I was actually enjoying our little exchange, but you seem to be doing this soley for ego. How sad. No wonder Hollie and Daws are constantly calling you names. You're impossible to debate. You simply run away like a little bitch when you can't respond.

No, I am not calling you stupid. That would be a personal attack. I am calling your baseless, "because I said so" rebuttal stupid. You have not disproven anything.

 

[newpolitics]

I learned along time ago in law enforcement you can't argue with stupid. Just sayin'.

You're calling me stupid? I understand all of the vastly over simplistic concepts you IDers are putting forth, and just refuted all of them using simple logic and reasoning. You have no rebuttal, and you're excuse is that I'm too stupid? You have some serious growing up to do. You are not worth debating whatsoever, because you have no respect for debate itself. You only care about proving your side. Debate is not just about winning, it is a dialectic that allows learning. You should try it sometime rather than being a stubborn charlatan who thinks he is way smarter than he actually is, because he takes an illogical position that is easy to defend. Whenever you are attacked, you rely on attempts at discrediting science, yet hypocritically call your theory scientific and rely on it when it suits you. I was actually enjoying our little exchange, but you seem to be doing this soley for ego. How sad. No wonder Hollie and Daws are constantly calling you names. You're impossible to debate. You simply run away like a little bitch when you can't respond.

No, I am not calling you stupid. That would be a personal attack. I am calling you baseless, "because I said so" rebuttal stupid. You have not disproven anything.

I have. I realize you'll never admit that though.

 

[UltimateReality]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com

Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.

 

[Hollie]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com

Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.

Hey creepy stalker. Get a life that doesn't involve your obsession with me.

You make my skin crawl with your creepy advances.

 

[newpolitics]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com

Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.

Wow. That was impressive UR. Thank you, and no worries.

I must confess. I did get this word from Halo, and had no idea what it actually meant until five minutes ago when I looked it up.

 

[daws101]

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.

Appeal to the masses.

that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect

 

[daws101]

I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.

Class dismissed.

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.

You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.

And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.

You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.

none of your retorts are in any way rational reasons why you fly the stars and bars..

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.

You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.

And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.

You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.

none of your retorts are in any way rational reasons why you fly the stars and bars..

That's good to know because I was never asked why I choose to fly the stars and bars and I wasn't attempting to offer a reason.

 

[daws101]

Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.

so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie
as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.

How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?

your words? nobody runs from your words!
besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
do you buy that hubris by the bottle?