Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[LuvRPgrl]

Translation: If you disagree with me, Powerman, you are not logical.

Citing the opinion of scientists proves NOTHING.

So, these scientists reject Behe's claim because he cant reproduce the event? Thats stupid. How can you produce a negative? How can you prove something CANT HAPPEN by making SOMETHING HAPPEN? Its not provable in their narrow concept of proof, but once again, not all proofs are made in the science lab under scrutiny of the human eye.

Arent there mathematical proofs? Yes, but NONE of them are proven in a lab by repeated tests. They are all theoretical, conceived in the miind.

You and the scientists have proven NOTHING, except your bias. Shame on those scientists.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I think she's full of hot air. I don't know of any non science that we teach in science class.

I'm totally perplexed. You should see me, my brows are knit, my eyes are turned upward, my nose is scrunched and my mouth is slightly hung open with my bottom lip protruding slightly further out than my upper lip, in perplexed contemplation of what Luvergirl could possibly be talking about.

 

[Powerman]

Citing the opinion of scientists proves NOTHING.

So, these scientists reject Behe's claim because he cant reproduce the event? Thats stupid. How can you produce a negative? How can you prove something CANT HAPPEN by making SOMETHING HAPPEN? Its not provable in their narrow concept of proof, but once again, not all proofs are made in the science lab under scrutiny of the human eye.

Arent there mathematical proofs? Yes, but NONE of them are proven in a lab by repeated tests. They are all theoretical, conceived in the miind.

You and the scientists have proven NOTHING, except your bias. Shame on those scientists.

That's math. Math is a tool that can be used by scientists and physicists. What has Behe done to prove that what he claims make any sense? Recent research says that he is wrong. So why would you think that he is right? An overwhelming majority of the scientific community thought he was wrong and then proved him to be wrong, yet you believe that he must be right. Unfuckingbelievable.

 

[Powerman]

Just for hilarity sake let's analyze the crippling idiocy of this logic:

Citing the opinion of scientists proves NOTHING.

So instead of listening to the opinions of a great number of scientists who have proven this one scientist wrong we should listen to the one scientist who has been proven wrong?

I love how these intelligent design/anti-evolution crowd will cling to anything that anyone says as long as it supports their claim no matter how much evidence by a multitude of sources completely crushes what this one scientist had to say. Behe even says that if this irreducible complexity nonsense is true it doesn't disprove evolution. Yet the alleged intellectuals on this board throw the term out without even knowing what it means and claim that it disproves evolution.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Wait, wait, wait, who's alleging that there are "intellectuals" on THIS board?

 

[Powerman]

Wait, wait, wait, who's alleging that there are "intellectuals" on THIS board?

I'm not saying that there are. But some people certaintly act as if they are somehow superior to me when they disagree with me. And it's usually people with literally no clue about science.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's math. Math is a tool that can be used by scientists and physicists. What has Behe done to prove that what he claims make any sense? Recent research says that he is wrong. So why would you think that he is right? An overwhelming majority of the scientific community thought he was wrong and then proved him to be wrong, yet you believe that he must be right. Unfuckingbelievable.

sorry. What recent research?

and you claim an "OVERWHELMING" majority. Thats a LIE. Even your source merely called it a "majority" with no other descripter attatched.

Oh, so math is an exception eh? But not logic or reason or philosophy? FUnny, I took those classes in college. They have their rightful place besides science for discovering truths.

Has science cured alcoholism? No, but a solution has been found, its non scientific, but it works. Because it is based on truth.

Sorry, but your scientific dogmism just doesnt wash as the sole source of truth and information in our world.

Math problems are often worked out using logical deduction. In fact, its the whole basis of math, and math is the purest science we actually have. In fact, I would submit, that logic is more powerful than science.

Logic and common sense dictate that I dont go near T Rex, did science prove that? Without logic and common sense, we would never have arrived at hardly any of our scientific discoveries.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Just for hilarity sake let's analyze the crippling idiocy of this logic:



So instead of listening to the opinions of a great number of scientists who have proven this one scientist wrong we should listen to the one scientist who has been proven wrong?

I love how these intelligent design/anti-evolution crowd will cling to anything that anyone says as long as it supports their claim no matter how much evidence by a multitude of sources completely crushes what this one scientist had to say. Behe even says that if this irreducible complexity nonsense is true it doesn't disprove evolution. Yet the alleged intellectuals on this board throw the term out without even knowing what it means and claim that it disproves evolution.

It said a MAJORITY, (not overwhelming) and that could mean 51/49%, or hell, it could even mean 26/25 %, whose to say many scientists didnt weigh in. Nor does wikpidea give a source for its claim to "majority" nor any chance to analyze their source of information.

Plus, majority of scientists have been wrong before, you guys love to go back to Galileo.

I love the way you turn majority into the entire community against ONE. HAHAHHAHAHAH, your bias is so obvious, stick to the facts pal. Try to remain accurate. You arent so good at sticking to the factual data for claiming to believe in science so much. Yea, I understand now how you and many like you cling to evolution so strongly and can believe in it so easilly. You jumping to false conclusions here is FACTUAL, and Im sure you "style" of deduction goes into every other subject you ponder.

Oh, and I didnt know that defending ones posistion automatically puts us in the category of "CLINGING" and then you go on to proclaim all the "evidence" is against us but you havent provided any yet, except a citation that a majority of scientists disagree with BEHE. AND funny enough

they dont even use the scientific method to disagree with him. They use a philosophical one, they are using philosophy to conclude he is wrong because HE is using philosophy to arrive at his conclusion. HAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

How can BEHE prove a negative through repeated observations? How can you prove I cant fly to the moon in one second? CMON< use the "scientific" method to prove I cant.

then you call some here "alleged" intellectuals. You sure are fast and loose with information, you sure you arent a secret reporter from the NY Times?

Besides, I came to the conclusion of irreducable conclusion on my own long before I ever read about anyone else proposing it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not saying that there are. But some people certaintly act as if they are somehow superior to me when they disagree with me. And it's usually people with literally no clue about science.

yea, just keep repeating it.

SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.

Cmon powerman, join in, ....Science is the ONLY way to legitimate knowledge. Science,,,,hey HAGGY, what are you doing, cmon man, join in!

Science is the only way to...........

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Here is about how the debate is going


Ron aka luvrpgrl says, "science isnt the only way to knowledge"

PM says "you dont understand science"

Ron says "I came to my understanding through other means"

PM says, "How can you claim it is science then?"

Ron says, "im not"

PM says, "I keep trying to bash it into your heads it ISNT SCIENCE"

Ron says, "I never claimed it was"

PM says "even the OVERWHELMING majority of scientistys say it isnt"

ahhhh never mind.(thats me talking)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not saying that there are. But some people certaintly act as if they are somehow superior to me when they disagree with me. And it's usually people with literally no clue about science.

and you know something, from the way I have read how you mis use information and facts, I would be willing to bet on 10-1 odds and go up against you in a scienctific test any day.

Here is a logically conclusion

Because one doesnt accept science as the beginning and ending of all knowledge and truth, doesnt mean they dont understand it. GOT IT????

 

[Hagbard Celine]

yea, just keep repeating it.

SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.
SCIENCE is the only legitimate way to knowledge.

Cmon powerman, join in, ....Science is the ONLY way to legitimate knowledge. Science,,,,hey HAGGY, what are you doing, cmon man, join in!

Science is the only way to...........

Do you know of a better way to gain conclusive knowledge than observing, hypothesizing and testing? If you do, let us all in on it because you may be onto the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Read this article: Greetings From Idiot America

 

[The ClayTaurus]

One is that there are lots of non science things taught in science class. For you to claim nothing but pure science is taught in science class is wrong and disengenuous

LuvRPgrl: What non-science things are taught in science class. I'm curious, and you never answered.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

who created the meatball?

Who created God?

I don't say that to sound snippy or condescending, I mean it honestly. Whenever we go back to the "beginning", we can always ask "well, what was before that?". I wrote this in another post but I'll restate it: I believe humans have a very limited understanding of what time "is" so when we ask "what happened before the beginning?", it is like asking a child who just learned 2+2 to figure out a quadratic equation.

 

[musicman]

Who created God?

Al Gore.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

R U saying there is a design without a designer?

I've actually never said there wasn't a designer, nor have I ever said there wasn't a God, nor have I ever said that the theory of evolution in any way disproves the existence of God. I can't remember what post it was but I specifically stated that the only thing that is mutually exclusive between evolution and the bible is a literal interpretation of days 3-6 in Genesis. I'm more than willing to accept that God created the universe and that evolution is the process that God used to create diversity on earth.

Let me ask a related question: who created the laws of physics? Did God do it? If so, why isn't the religious right pissed off that we don't teach that in physics class? IMO, science is all about figuring out the rules, not about who created the rules. It makes no difference to anyone why F=ma, only that the formula is F=ma (instead of F=2ma^2). It isn't like evolution is taught in the following way: Evolution is fact therefore God must not exist therefore Christians are stupid. If it is taught that way at your local school then you need to have a talking to with the principal.

 

[Annie]

I've actually never said there wasn't a designer, nor have I ever said there wasn't a God, nor have I ever said that the theory of evolution in any way disproves the existence of God. I can't remember what post it was but I specifically stated that the only thing that is mutually exclusive between evolution and the bible is a literal interpretation of days 3-6 in Genesis. I'm more than willing to accept that God created the universe and that evolution is the process that God used to create diversity on earth.

Then you missed or ignored my early postings, including that I don't believe that ID should be in science class, or you just ignored them to join with the 'logical members'.

Let me ask a related question: who created the laws of physics? Did God do it? If so, why isn't the religious right pissed off that we don't teach that in physics class? IMO, science is all about figuring out the rules, not about who created the rules. It makes no difference to anyone why F=ma, only that the formula is F=ma (instead of F=2ma^2). It isn't like evolution is taught in the following way: Evolution is fact therefore God must not exist therefore Christians are stupid. If it is taught that way at your local school then you need to have a talking to with the principal.

Ah, but what you are posting nearly demands that the possibility of God creating the universe belongs in science alongside the unproven evolution giving credit to Darwin. I disagree.

Darwinism should be taught in science, specifying that there are many unaswered questions without answers. Some might be answered with 'puncuated evolution', than again maybe not. Some might have another explanation, then again, evolution might be off, but 'at this time' it's the best we can do with scientific method. That might change.

ID should be addressed in ethics/religion/theology classes, so that those able to compare the differences between the 'unknown' in science and the 'possible' in other rhelms are dealt with. IN NO WAY SHOULD SCIENTISTS BE CONSTRAINED IN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS FROM ADDRESSING 'POSSIBLE THEORIES' FROM DISCUSSION. That was the point of my first post. I do think that from a 'discussion viewpoint' things can be 'thrown out for discussion' in professional journals or at the collegiate level. Those putting out 'weird' ideas should certainly know nowadays that they are going to be hammered, but that doesn't mean that they should be silenced.

There is a vast difference between publishing an idea in a textbook for 11th graders and writing in a professional journal. In the former one is dealing with an audience that is just learning the ideas underpinning the discipline. In the case I wrote about, the censoring was in a professional journal read by those able to answer back. Big difference.

 

[Powerman]

sorry. What recent research?

and you claim an "OVERWHELMING" majority. Thats a LIE. Even your source merely called it a "majority" with no other descripter attatched.

Oh, so math is an exception eh? But not logic or reason or philosophy? FUnny, I took those classes in college. They have their rightful place besides science for discovering truths.

Has science cured alcoholism? No, but a solution has been found, its non scientific, but it works. Because it is based on truth.

Sorry, but your scientific dogmism just doesnt wash as the sole source of truth and information in our world.

Math problems are often worked out using logical deduction. In fact, its the whole basis of math, and math is the purest science we actually have. In fact, I would submit, that logic is more powerful than science.

Logic and common sense dictate that I dont go near T Rex, did science prove that? Without logic and common sense, we would never have arrived at hardly any of our scientific discoveries.

What does alcoholism have to do with irreducible complexity? Science isn't the end all to everything but we shouldn't be teaching anything but science in science class. I hope you never sit on a schoolbaord.

 

[Powerman]

LuvRPgrl: What non-science things are taught in science class. I'm curious, and you never answered.

She is lying through her teeth of course.

 

[Powerman]

Plus, majority of scientists have been wrong before, you guys love to go back to Galileo.

Yeah the guy who was under fire from a bunch of idiot fucking religious whackos. I forgot about him. Your life would suck more than you can possibly imagine if it weren't for people such as him.