Why does every state have to try their own creationism law?

[Tero]

Seth, none of this shit belongs in a high school text book. You can teach evolution as a collection of related animals, this is a fact. They came or were designed or had "magic" done to them in a sequential way. Your shit is not measurable. Neither is abiogenesis. Sure, discuss it in college.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.

I gather that impression myself, from his disingenuous tactics. That doesn't remove the fact that to put up something like that imagination above is a cool thing.

To analogize: I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but much that is attributed to him seems pretty smart, to me.

And it's largely, if not wholly, stolen. So don't give the thief honors due to someone else.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, the scientists at Monsanto demonstrated that intelligent design has both predictive and explanatory power pretty conclusively, don't you think?

Questions remain, but intelligent design is a fact of science, not a theory or hypothesis, but a true scientific fact.

If you don't think so, please explain Roundup-ready corn and sugar beets, or glowing cats, or any of the other organisms created by human genetic manipulation and explain for us how intelligent design doesn't predict or explain anything.

Let me know when those scientists are, you know, alien.

Because that's a whole different kettle of fish, and requires, you know, evidence.

Until then, your hypothesis will be filed away under "interesting but unlikely."

[Thumpalumpacus]

And it's largely, if not wholly, stolen. So don't give the thief honors due to someone else.

Hmm, I hadn't read it put that way, and didn't realize it was lifted whole-cloth.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And it's largely, if not wholly, stolen. So don't give the thief honors due to someone else.

Hmm, I hadn't read it put that way, and didn't realize it was lifted whole-cloth.

There are many pre-Jesus characters and his life is a construct of those. Religion freely steals from other religion, they have no honor among thieves.

And, from Doonesbury:

[Clinton Huxley]

Given that Seth, plants, animals and people are all just made of chemicals, in theory ANY biological structure, property or pathway could be created artifically. That has been obvious since urea was first synthesised. However, if ANY biological structure, property or pathway COULD be created artifically, by an intelligence of sufficient competence, it follows that there is NOTHING that could falsify ID and thus, in the Popperian sense, ID is not a valid scientific theory.

Unless anyone can think of a biological structure, property or pathway that could ONLY have been produced by evolution...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.random-science-tools.com/che ... f_body.htm

Nothing there that is living until they get together.

[Seth]

Nonsense. It's not beyond falsification, it's just beyond our capacity to falsify at the moment. This sort of rationalization defies the actual scientific method. According to your metric, science should not speculate about anything it does not already have the ability to falsify because it's "moot." This places all current cosmological theories in the same category as panspermia.

If you think finding the comet you imagine life started on is a practical affair, you're fooling yourself.

I have no problem with speculation, but I don't lend credence to that which isn't evidenced. The highly impractical matter of you finding the cradle of life on a random comet elsewhere in the cosmos renders this practically useless, because you cannot know.

And there's another Atheist classic evasion fallacy. "Because science cannot observationally or experimentally prove the truth of a hypothesis it cannot therefore be true." This is not about whether you lend credence to a proposition based on its utility, it's about truth. This is a hypothetical debate, you do realize that? It's strictly intended to demonstrate that there may be answers to questions that Atheists assume have all been answered by evolution that do not necessarily include evolution as the ultimate answer, which answers remain firmly within the secular scientific realm and not the theistic supernatural realm, and that the hypotheses that posit such answers are not deserving of the derision with which they are almost always met.

Atheists use the Atheist's Fallacy to dismiss theistic god claims all the time, citing some error in the bible or theistic description of history that's provably wrong as a specious justification for claiming that God does not or cannot exist. I'm merely turning the tables on such arguments by demonstrating that in the case of most Atheists (as opposed to actual scientists), their belief/practice system regarding religion and theism is itself a religion and it's just as irrational and delusional as the people they rail against.

You want to pretend to some higher moral plane with your high-sounding dismissals of my theories, and your excuse is that it's so unlikely as to not be worth considering and anyway, you have a theory that seems elegant and which neatly fits your internal biases and beliefs, so why bother?

But the point of my theory is to demonstrate that it's entirely possible to support an intelligent design theory (I call it a theory of the origin of life on earth, or OLE to distinguish it from classic god-centric Intelligent Design) using only rational and logical extensions of known scientific facts and excluding theistic claims entirely. I'm demonstrating the observational bias that you have that irrationally favors evolution over all other explanations that's not supported by the evidence we have of evolution.

Is it likely going to remain impossible to determine if some intelligence meddled with primate genes millions of years ago in order to nudge evolution down a different pathway? Very much so. But it remains within the realm of scientific possibility, however remote or difficult to prove it might be. But rather than just admitting that such a theory, however unlikely to you (and I invoke Copernicus again) remains possible and within the realm of science, you find it necessary to evade the debate by being dismissive and using skepticism as an excuse to dismiss the claim.

This is absolutely no different from the "scientific" authorities of Copernicus' time dismissing his theory not because it was unscientific but merely because it challenged their preconceptions and internal biases about their own scientific knowledge and understanding.

And that's the point I'm really trying to make. my intelligent design theory, in the form of OLE, is not a religious belief or a theistic claim, it's based on the science we have before us combined with rational and logical speculation, in exactly the same way that bubble or brane universe theory is based in part on hard science (mathematics) and in part on speculation, and such theories are judged to be "science." So why, I ask, is there so much furious resistance and disparagement of another speculative scientific theory of the OLE merely because it goes against the current scientific orthodoxy and dogma?

This resistance, and disparagement, and outright attacks upon its author (me) are exactly the sort of behavior that Copernicus faced, and the reasons, in my estimation, are exactly the same: it's a manifestation of religious zealotry that attacks what is outside the orthodoxy and dogma of Atheist pseudo-science. And I call it pseudo-science because the actual scientific method does not include such religious zealotry as one of its methodologies.

Actual science would examine the hypothesis rationally and logically, using the tools and knowledge available, and it would rebut flaws in the hypothesis reasonably and rationally with facts and evidence showing why such a hypothesis is false.

But that's not what religious Atheist zealots do at all, which makes all their hoity-toity references to "science" just so much evasive bilge because they are not interested in truth, they are interested in using the evolutionary orthodoxy and dogma as a blunt-force instrument against religion.

And I find that both sad, lamentable, and laughable all at the same time. (insert rueful smile and head shaking here) I expect, and indeed demand better of people who are supposed to be "rational" beings.

This of course is ridiculous, and I suspect you're just using the "we can't falsify it so it's moot" argument to avoid the inevitable implications of admitting that I'm right and that there are intelligent design theories that are not theistic or religious in nature.

Not at all. Indeed, I acknowledged that your hypothesis, for such is what it is, is possible. Of course, it doesn't rise to the strength of being a theory, insofar as theories make predictions while hypotheses don't.

That's much further than most others have gone, and I appreciate it. However, speculation precedes hypothesis, which precedes theory, which precedes falsification or proof. If the speculation is dismissed as a result of ideological bias however, the rest of the scientific process doesn't occur, now does it? And that's my point. The orthodoxy of evolution precludes any other answers as a matter of pure unadulterated religious faith. Pose a hypothetical that attacks fundamentalist Darwinism and the cry "Heresy! Burn the heretic!" is heard from ever corner of the land. How is that any different from what Atheists rant and rave about in re religion? In my view it isn't, not by one single iota, which makes such zealotry just as irrational as that which the zealots attack. And such fundamentalist, religiously zealous Darwinism reflects poorly on science and on those who defend science.

This sort of deliberate blindness to the legitimate scientific question of whether there might be an advanced intelligence out there that's responsible for the existence and nature of life on earth is intellectually weak and ideologically driven.

... and this sort of overbaked rhetoric is why no one here takes you seriously. Firstly, I am not blind to the possibility; I simply don't agree with you about the probability, which is a different thing altogether. Secondly, my assessment of the odds of such a matter are beyond yourken to judge, given that you don't know, nor have you asked what are, the factors I have taken into account in my assessing the useful value of your hypothesis. Thirdly, your continued braying about every disagreement with you being "ideologically driven" says much more about you than it does any of your interlocutors.

No, it's not about a simple disagreement about the probabilities I'm afraid. I've seen exactly the rhetoric you present literally a thousand times from a thousand different sources and it's always the same. I posit a valid scientific hypothesis for the origin of life on earth and the Atheist at the other end dismisses it as improbable, usually including random insults in the process (which you have not, but others here have). But this isn't about probability, you see, it's about internal bias and the unwillingness or inability to even consider anything outside the evolutionary orthodoxy out of fear that admission of any theory that does not place naturalistic evolution sans intelligent involvement at the pinnacle of scientific orthodoxy will bring the entire edifice of evolution crashing to the ground, which will lead to theists claiming victory, or merely gaining points, which is of course intolerable to an Atheist religious zealot.

I've actually heard that exact argument made over at Rat Skep in the long-ago. To paraphrase: "We're never going to admit for consideration any hypothesis that might disprove evolution as the mechanism for the OLE because that would give theists an argument to use against evolution in court, even if it's plausible or true."

That sort of thinking has nothing whatever to do with science I'm afraid, and everything to do with Atheist politics and their religious beliefs.

I say such disagreements are ideologically driven because in my experience they are. If they weren't, if actual open-minded reason were present, the debate might be about HOW an intelligence might spontaneously come into existence or WHERE such an intelligence might exist. But that's never, ever how it goes. How it goes is exactly and precisely, and completely predictably down the path we're seeing here. And it's not just you I'm referring to when I talk about ideological bias, I'm talking about all my detractors here, and mostly about Gawdzilla, who get so afraid of the consequences of my theory that his poo-output jumps rather remarkably.

I appreciate your interest and I'm not intending to insult you, but rather to demonstrate the ideological bias that I observe in your posts, in hopes that you will realize that you have such biases and that you (and any lurkers) may examine those biases to see if they are reasonable and rational or if they are simply knee-jerk reactions to an attack on the sacred beliefs of religious Atheism's orthodoxy.

I'm rying to give you a chance to be real, as you can see with my exchange with Godzillah. But if you going to continue this shit, I'm simply going to write you off as useless, because communication is a two-way street.

A bit prickly there, aren't you? Don't take it so personally. It's not intended to be either personal or insulting, I'm merely revealing what I see as a classic and oft-repeated set of ideological blinders. I've heard the exact arguments that you put up as a supposed refutation to my claims so many times I can respond to them in my sleep. I'm merely pointing out that your line of thinking in rebutting my hypothesis is not in the least bit original (although your support for my imagination is pretty unique, which I appreciate) and I've heard it all before. I'd like to see more actual original thinking and reasoning here, I keep hoping and looking for it, but I just hear the same old lame evasions over and over again, so sometimes I get a bit provocative in hopes of penetrating through that commonplace facade to something deeper. My apologies if I offended you.

[Seth]

Given that Seth, plants, animals and people are all just made of chemicals, in theory ANY biological structure, property or pathway could be created artifically. That has been obvious since urea was first synthesised. However, if ANY biological structure, property or pathway COULD be created artifically, by an intelligence of sufficient competence, it follows that there is NOTHING that could falsify ID and thus, in the Popperian sense, ID is not a valid scientific theory.

And therein lies the fatal flaw with Popperian model of science. It would exclude the truth merely because it cannot "falsify" the happening of an event in the past.

Unless anyone can think of a biological structure, property or pathway that could ONLY have been produced by evolution...

Precisely.

So, we see that the error is not in a hypothesis about unknown and unknowable intelligent design in the deep past, but in the conceits of Atheist pseudo-science itself that claims that anything which cannot be replicated or falsified cannot be the truth. That, of course, is a logical fallacy because the simple fact that today's science cannot demonstrate that a unique event that was the product of intelligence occurred because no scientific observer was there to document it doesn't mean that the event did not actually occur. Moreover, relying upon a "naturalistic" theory of evolution to the exclusion of intelligent design in the past in a world where intelligent design in the present is a proven scientific fact is particularly illogical and irrational, and one would think that a rational mind would easily see why this is so.

[Seth]

Seth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.

I gather that impression myself, from his disingenuous tactics. That doesn't remove the fact that to put up something like that imagination above is a cool thing.

To analogize: I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but much that is attributed to him seems pretty smart, to me.

And it's largely, if not wholly, stolen. So don't give the thief honors due to someone else.

Stolen? You're accusing me of plagarism? That's a pretty serious charge. Care to back it up with evidence or are you going to maintain the libel? Meanwhile I'm going to report the personal attack.

[Seth]

Seth, none of this shit belongs in a high school text book. You can teach evolution as a collection of related animals, this is a fact. They came or were designed or had "magic" done to them in a sequential way. Your shit is not measurable. Neither is abiogenesis. Sure, discuss it in college.

Well, at least you admit that it's a valid controversy. Now we're down to when it's appropriate to present the controversy to students. That's a major step forward.

Me, I think high school students are smart enough and have enough information to make rational decisions about the controversy, so they should be taught the controversy. After all, they teach theories of abiogenesis in high school, so why not theories of intelligent design?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.

I gather that impression myself, from his disingenuous tactics. That doesn't remove the fact that to put up something like that imagination above is a cool thing.

To analogize: I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but much that is attributed to him seems pretty smart, to me.

And it's largely, if not wholly, stolen. So don't give the thief honors due to someone else.

Stolen? You're accusing me of plagarism? That's a pretty serious charge. Care to back it up with evidence or are you going to maintain the libel? Meanwhile I'm going to report the personal attack.

You wrote the fucking gospels, Seth?

[Seth]

Well, the scientists at Monsanto demonstrated that intelligent design has both predictive and explanatory power pretty conclusively, don't you think?

Questions remain, but intelligent design is a fact of science, not a theory or hypothesis, but a true scientific fact.

If you don't think so, please explain Roundup-ready corn and sugar beets, or glowing cats, or any of the other organisms created by human genetic manipulation and explain for us how intelligent design doesn't predict or explain anything.

Let me know when those scientists are, you know, alien.

Again, not my department.

Because that's a whole different kettle of fish, and requires, you know, evidence.

Until then, your hypothesis will be filed away under "interesting but unlikely."

No, it'll be dismissed and ridiculed because it challenges your Atheist religious Darwinian orthodoxy and dogma. Let's not pretend it won't.

[Animavore]

Seth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.

I gather that impression myself, from his disingenuous tactics. That doesn't remove the fact that to put up something like that imagination above is a cool thing.

To analogize: I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but much that is attributed to him seems pretty smart, to me.

And it's largely, if not wholly, stolen. So don't give the thief honors due to someone else.

Stolen? You're accusing me of plagarism [sic]? That's a pretty serious charge. Care to back it up with evidence or are you going to maintain the libel? Meanwhile I'm going to report the personal attack.

Actually he's accusing the people who made up Christianity of plagiarism. As expanded in this post.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1114286

Report closed.

[amused]