Expelled

[shagdrum]

you keep thinking i'm trying to disprove god. i'm trying to prove evolution.

Your argument is not centered around proving darwinian evolution; it is centered around discrediting (not disproving) ID.

To prove evoution (and thus disprove ID) is rather simple, as there are ultimately only two differences between the two from which all the other arguments come...

• 
  ID rejects methodological naturalism, which darwinism assumes without justification.

• 
  ID rejects darwinian evolution (as I have defined numerous times in this thread alone)

Since all the evidence for darwinian evolution is dependant on the assumed methodological naturalism, that is ultimately what you really need to prove. Interesting that you haven't even attempted to prove that...

You are making this argument about God. ID is not dependant on a God, yet you are attempting to attach God to ID as if that somehow disproves ID, which it wouldn't. You are assuming that if ID is dependant on God, it is disproven.

Basically, because God can't be proven and ID is dependant on God, ID is discredited as a scientific theory. That same angle of attack discredits darwinism, because it is dependant on the assumption of methodological naturalism, which can't be proven.

 

[fossten]

i don't say that evidence is coming up with no god. i'm talking of EVOLUTION. there never has been evidence of god. there is no evidence of a creator, god, isis, ishtar,thor, or anything you wish to call the myth. i'm not hoping there is no god, that's already a given. that is your problem. you keep thinking i'm trying to disprove god. i'm trying to prove evolution.

Good luck with that. Sorry, you can't. EVERY SINGLE evolutionary premise begins with, "Assume a [fill in the blank]..." Even your best guess still fails to explain where [fill in the blank] came from. I'll give you a hint: I already know the answer, and I don't have to prove it to you. Sure glad I'm not you - wondering what the truth is. One less thing in my life to worry about.

 

[shagdrum]

Hrmwrm...
Post number 88 (the Dembski one) is another exceedingly lazy post on your part.

You reposted this article in its entirety:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_pigliuccireview.htm

And then, You reposted a few excerpts from this article:
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/rev_nfl_wre_capsule.html

what you wrote in the post was...

and as for dembski...

...there are many other scientists who have plausible reputations. i wouldn't back an arguement from him. some more of his faults...

...i think the things clarified here are what is needed for science to take claims seriously. finsh your thesis, and stop using it to back up fallacious claims....

...then there's an experiment run that proves him wrong again...

...and finally...

...sounds pretty arbitrary on choices. this is where he becomes fallible and unconvincing in his arguement...

*Out of the 2040 words in your post (not including the link you pasted), you only wrote 81!

*Of that whole post, only 3.9% was written by you!

*Your whole argument is simply quotes you cut and paste!!

You are still having someone else make your argument for you, only now you are adding a few comments in the margins. The reverse should be the case: you make the argument and use the sources to support your argument. Instead, you are relying on a type of ad nauseaum argument, specifically proof by assertion mixed with appeal to authority.

You throw that wall of text up there (that you didn't write) that for all practical purposes can't be refuted due to it's length and highly technical nature. When it isn't refuted (as it can't be by anyone in a reasonable amount of time, especially without the technical background neccessary to easily understand those posts) you assume your point stands, because it is unchallenged.

It is exceedingly insulting when I take a large amount time to articulate a position and refute your claims, only to have you essentially ignore that argument with a post like the one you made, that doesn't really attack my specific argument, but touches on the main point, or one of the points through pasting in someone elses work. You don't even attempt to counter my post yourself, instead using someone else's work to counter what you think my main points are. Interestingly, in that proccess, you miss a lot of what I say...

Even when called on your underhanded tactics, you continue to use them, suggesting that, A: you are not just intellectually lazy, but also don't fully understand what you are posting, and B: you don't have any intellectual integrety (at least on this subject). Your own actions shoot your credibility in the foot.

With the technical detail some of the articles you posts go into, I have no doubt that you are posting well beyond your knowledge. I could also post really technically detailed articles that refute your points, but I wanna make sure that I understand the argument, you understand the argument, and anyone else who reads the post understands the argument. If your audience can't understand your argument, then your argument is worthless.

I go out of my way to spell out my argument and make it easy to understand; you find atricles to post that are above the knowledge of anyone here (including yourself), let alone refute. That dishonestly insulates you from having your point countered, but doesn't convince anyone of your point, either.

It is obvious that you are not interested in an honest debate here, your sole concern is being proven right and/or proving anyone opposed to your position wrong. Any means to accomplish that end seem to be justified, as you have show in this thread a huge lack of intellectual integrety on this subject. You have consistently used fallacious arguments, ignored points that you can't counter, and posted other peoples arguments (as proxi for your own) that are well beyond the technically knowledge of anyone on this board (including yourself) in an underhanded, and fallacious attempt to make a point, or disprove one.

You are not contributing anything to this debate/discussion, you only take away from it.

Unless you are going to make the argument (not post someone else's argument), I ask that you stop posting in this thread.

 

[Kbob]

this is sad

 

[TheDude]

You sure you want to play that "prove" game again? Evolution can't prove anything it says. All it can do is offer suggestions followed by evidence, and then let people make up their own minds.

By the way, did you ever see the movie? You said you wouldn't be back until you had.

And evidence can't lead to proof?

No, I'm still downloading it. I said I would leave the Ad Nazism at the door until I saw it, not that I'd leave. I did see Stein on Glenn Beck discussing "Expelled"... Stein should really stick to economics or speach writting. Underhanded tactics and all, dude has ZERO objectivity. They parsed one of the Evo scientist, where he was explaining his own personal belief of letting go of God and the "fear" of "what if there is no life after dearth", like it was some horrible atrocity to think that. Last time I checked, people don't need the fear of God to be decent. If the only reason someone isn't killing, raping, stealing etc. is because the have God-fear, then that is sad.

Shag, that was a complete cop-out, if you were truly objective, you'd measure and scrutinize ID with the same rules you levy at Evolution Theory. But alas, there's always a different set of rules; isn't that one of your "fallacies" you always point out.

 

[Kbob]

Last time I checked, people don't need the fear of God to be decent.

So are you suggesting that there is an absolute set of morals? Or is "decency" fluid over time?

 

[TheDude]

So are you suggesting that there is an absolute set of morals? Or is "decency" fluid over time?

Possible I guess, not sure though, as dealing in absolutes can be flawed. Not sure what you mean there.

Do you think someone can't be decent person unless they believe in God and have some fear of judgment after death?

 

[Kbob]

Possible I guess, not sure though, as dealing in absolutes can be flawed. Not sure what you mean there.

Do you think someone can't be decent person unless they believe in God and have some fear of judgment after death?

I'm just trying to get a baseline here. I think decency can be very subjective and varies from person to person, and that variance can be dangerous at times. You don't hear Darwinian evolutionists espousing "decency" very often. They tend to shy away from it due to moral implications. It's counter to the whole "natural selection/only the strong survive" thing.

 

[fossten]

and making suppositions about my intellectual level is nothing more than a personal attack once again.

You have GOT to be kidding. First of all, your victim mentality is pathetic and misguided. Second of all, Shag did not say anything remotely resembling a personal attack. His comment was intellectual integrity, which has nothing to do with measurement of intellectual level. I will say that you are lazy for just knee-jerking your "poor me" attitude without at least googling intellectual integrity, so if you want to accuse me of a personal attack, go ahead, but your laziness is manifest and obvious and I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Make an argument if you can, but don't play the victim, nobody cares about that and it will not win you the argument. It only makes you look bad.

I will say this again: Your argumentum ad martyrdom is pathetic and annoying.

 

[Marcus]

You are still having someone else make your argument for you, only now you are adding a few comments in the margins. The reverse should be the case: you make the argument and use the sources to support your argument. Instead, you are relying on a type of ad nauseaum argument, specifically proof by assertion mixed with appeal to authority.

This coming from a guy who posts passages from Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, yet worded just slightly differently. Or in the case of one passage, almost verbatim, three separate times!

From page 9 - 10:

The many meanings of "evolution" are frequently exploited by Darwinists to distract their critics. Eugenie Scott recommends: "Define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on... I have used this approach at the college level."

Of course, no college student---indeed no grade school dropout---doubts that "the present is different than the past." Once Scott gets them nodding in agreement, she gradually introduces them to "The Big Idea" that all species---including monkeys and humans---are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification,' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use."

This tactic is called "equivocation"---changing the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument.​

Hmm, sound familiar?

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3

 

[fossten]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3

Since when do you believe in Scripture?

 

[shagdrum]

This coming from a guy who posts passages from Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, yet worded just slightly differently. Or in the case of one passage, almost verbatim,three separate times

and your point is....what?

Using some articles to help make and/or clarify a point in your argument is the same as reposting someone elses argument to make your point? That is a huge leap.

My point against hrmwrm is that he wasn't making the argument, but just cutting and pasting another argument in its entirety to counter an argument I had made. There is very little time and effort (let alone thought) that goes into posts like that.

I am still making the argument in all those posts you cite, though you seem to wanna overlook that. All the other sources are simply to help explaining my point, and help strengthen it. There is no unneccessary info in those posts, it all helps to strengthen the rebuttal that I am making. Parts of other works are drawn from, and used by me to convey a point, or series of points, and to make those points easy to understand. That is a key fact that cannot be overlooked.

You implyed "hypocracy" in the point I was making in regards to hrmwrm is inaccurate and thus invalid, as well as irrelevant to the point. My point was that hrmwrm wasn't making the argument in those posts, someone else was. In the post I am specifically responding to, hrmwrm is cutting and pasting at least one whole article, and whole passages from another that are making his argument for him. Hrmwrm doesn't take the time to find the relevant parts of those articles, breakdown key terms or concepts to make it easily understandable, and ultimatley make his own argument, using parts of those articles to strengthen his own argument, he simply uses the articles to make his argument. That is a key difference. Again, in that last post of his I responded to, only 3.9% of the words in it were his own thoughts; the rest was direct quotation of another source with a lot of info that needed to be broken down (and wasn't) and a lot of info that really wasn't neccessary for this debate, and thus irrelevant to it. There also was no summary of the point the article being uses makes (which I typically do, on a point by point basis, usually).

Ask yourself this, do you have any doubt that I fully understand the argument being made in my post? Can you say the same for hrmwrm? Who takes the time and effort to make sure their points, and agruments are spelled out clearly and conveyed in a way that is easy to understand and makes sense? Who doesn't?

Your post, Tommy, is an ad homenim attack, because it attempts to change the focus of the debate from his actions to my actions. Even if my actions were as devious as you imply, it doesn't change the facts of his actions.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, that was a complete cop-out

Hows that? Your question was a loaded one, and unclear (confusing) in what it was asking for. "Positions"?! What do yo mean by that? Scientific theories don't have positions, they make claims.

if you were truly objective, you'd measure and scrutinize ID with the same rules you levy at Evolution Theory. But alas, there's always a different set of rules; isn't that one of your "fallacies" you always point out.

What my post was trying to do was make sure the rules were the same for each. I was correcting the different (one sided) set of rules that darwinism baselessly assumes for itself and make it an even playing field, logically.

How am I trying to view Evolution with a "different set of rules" then what I look at ID with?

 

[shagdrum]

why would i have to assume the car is random chance? these are the facts of retorts that make you look imbecilic. because of evolution of biological things, you're now going to carry that to all material things? that's some thought process you have. as for bile from me, i see you resort to personal insults when the arguement turns to disadvantage.

"Imbecilic"? Who is the one resorting to insults here?

The logic in determining weather or not something happened randomly or was designed isn't different for biological things then it is for mechanical ones. In fact, the logic doesn't change at all for anything. You are assuming it should be different for biological things then for anything else. Hardly rational.

disproves what? yet another of your weird compilations of words that explain nothing.

For someone who claims to understand all the technically dense articles you post, you really have a hard time understanding a joke; especially when used to illustrate the absurdity in a claim of yours.

you have yet to render an answer towards my question of phillip johnson and his intention.

You have yet to show how it is relevant; do that and I will respond. The fact is, someones bias doesn't kill their credibility or intellectual integrety. A persons bias alone doesn't make their point irrelevant. This has been covered in this thread already, (bottom of post #68, to be specific). You need to show how his "intentions" are relevant (hint; his actions will demonstrate that, if it is there). For the claim you made regarding him, "the man who wanted to put a creator back in creation", you need to show where you got that. It is most likely from a quote of his taken out of context, I would imagine.

you stated earlier that to find something ancient and mechanical, you would have to conclude that it was intelligently designed, and that's a given. but to coorelate that to biology is false. in all your arguements, you confuse the two. one does not make for the other.

You are claiming false analogy, I assume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

That is not the case here, because the area where they are being compared is similar; namely in not being able to tell how they were created (design or random chance) except through inference (assuming you didn't see the car being built).

For the analogy to be false you would have to prove that in the specific area in which I am comparing them, they are different.

and asking for an example and relevance mechanical creation? are you that incapable? your arguements would leave me stumped believing that.

??

and as far as behe, he may see it that way, but the fact that it can be shown that parts missing don't make the appendage useless, as was his claim, just shows that these complex systems do arise within evolution, and don't need special design behind them.

That is what is being show. Even the example you cite shows that. The complex system stops working if you take a part out. Just because that part can be used for something else doesn't mean that the system it is taken from doesn't stop working. You haven't shown otherwise, because you can't. You are ignoring the fact Miller, in his example is drawing an irrational conclusion that in no way follows the premise of his example.

Again, for someone who claims to understand all the technically dense article you post, you have a hard time recognizing an illogical conclusion even when it is pointed out to you. (biased?)