That's a fallacy. There are many proofs of negatives. The Halting Problem is one well known example.
Yes, that's what I've been saying: ID is just creationism 2.0. As long as an idea involves magical concepts, like omnipotent capricious designers, then it's not scientific in any way.
However, ID creationists also make false claims about scientific facts, and it is important to point out and counter such disinformation. That's where science has a role in this discussion, and that's where the ID creationists display a level of ignorance equal to that of the flat Earthers.
It seems that that's an accusation that's become a favorite of yours, but you've never supported it in any thread to date.
At worst, you sound like one of those scientically-ignorant types who thinks that science is the answer to everything and somehow disproves religion. If so, shall I compare you with a flat-earther?
Why do you say that? It seems that you're moving from unsupported accusations to ad hominem attacks.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I just enjoy mirroring you, cquark.
edit: No, actually, that's too smartass a remark.
Seriously, I don't have to prove what you are obviously doing, which is comparing apples and oranges. More to the point, I quoted the proof. That you simply deny it, or make far-fetched claims, analogies, and excuses to the contrary, doesn't make it go away. One simply does not equal the other.
More than that, you are engaged in the usual ATPN leftist bullsh!t, which is, humorously enough, the practice of generalization, prejudice, and discrimination. Creating categories of Us and Them so that battlelines (regardless of how fictitious) are clearly drawn. Par for the course here. That you engage in humankind's most primitive act with such a hyprocritical air of enlightenment and knowledge is not in the least bit surprising, but it does make it quite annoying, which is the only reason I speak up as devils advocate.
edit: No, actually, that's too smartass a remark.
Seriously, I don't have to prove what you are obviously doing, which is comparing apples and oranges. More to the point, I quoted the proof. That you simply deny it, or make far-fetched claims, analogies, and excuses to the contrary, doesn't make it go away. One simply does not equal the other.
More than that, you are engaged in the usual ATPN leftist bullsh!t, which is, humorously enough, the practice of generalization, prejudice, and discrimination. Creating categories of Us and Them so that battlelines (regardless of how fictitious) are clearly drawn. Par for the course here. That you engage in humankind's most primitive act with such a hyprocritical air of enlightenment and knowledge is not in the least bit surprising, but it does make it quite annoying, which is the only reason I speak up as devils advocate.
Oh please. If you want some who makes it a "Right Vs. Left" go get in a flame war with Conjur or TasteLikeChicken.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
That's not what I'm doing at all. Just pointing out his hypocracy.
You see... you'd think he'd be happy that the creationists are starting to see the light on evolution. Because science neither proves nor disproves God. And ID is just evolution with God as the guiding hand instead of random chance. But his politics blind him to his own science and objectivity.
Yes, you're pointing his hypocracy. He blantly avioded what you said as well.
You're getting pissy over some myth that every singe child in America is tought. Little things like "Columbus Discovered America" or "The religous folk thought the world was flat." Just because someone is confused over something that is commonly preached in every public school doesn't make them an instant insane liberal.
The only thing Intelligent Design does is attempt to discredit and shot holes at evolution using people's stupidity as ammuntion. Bush says there are two sides to the issuse, in essence he just handed the I.D crowd a M-60 and some explosives so they can blast their way into science classrooms. Then shoot all the students with stupidity.
Now, look what you've done. I sound like my mom. As a 19 year old who lives with his parents, I shouldn't have to do crap. Let alone lecture an adult, such as yourself. You're right my beilefs will more than likely change when I become older. Right now, I am definatly leaning to become more fically conservative. Hell, I might just end up an elitist asshole like yourself, but if that gets me laid its fine by me.
EDIT - Read the Global Warming Thread
If you could demonstrate that, you'd have a point, but once you again your argument consists of arguing against opinions you've attributed to me that I've never expressed and don't hold. Ironically, my opposition to ID creationism is rooted largely in the hypocrisy of the ID creationists, so I think you'd support my position.
Let's look at the facts. ID creationists aren't seeing the light with regards to evolution. ID creationism is Paley's watchmaker argument dressed up in the language of information theory. They haven't learned anything except how to present themselves in the public arena by practicing cargo cult science. Just as the "air strips" constructed by New Guinean cargo cults looked right to the technologically ignorant New Guineans, the publications of the ID creationists look scientific to scientifically ignorant Americans, but both forms of endeavor consist purely of style with no substance. No airplane was ever going to bring the New Guineans their cargo, and no scientific discoveries are going to emerge from the ID creationists current activities. The evidence is clear: they've published many books and press releases filled with scientific jargon, but they've not been able to their publish what they claim is their scientific theory and they've barely put any effort into it, only attempting to get a couple of papers through scientific peer review.
ID is not just evolution with God as the guiding hand. That belief would be theistic evolution, whose differences from intelligent design, biologist and devout Christian Kenneth R. Miller spells out in his book Finding Darwin's God. ID creationism asserts that evolution cannot produce certain complex features that we find in organisms, but has the problem that no one has ever been able to find such a feature. Common examples like the eye are easily refuted, as we can see in a sample of Ken Miller's writing at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html. ID creationism is flawed both in its scientific claims and in its "God of the gaps" approach to religion. Ken Miller provides a good summary of these problems in the last chapter of Finding Darwin's God:
If you're so hot about hypocrisy, why don't you pay attention to the hypocrisy of the intelligent design creations? When attempting to get into Ohio's schools, they said
and they've (Dembski in this case) also claimed
but when not pushing their position to a public body, they (Dembski again) say
making it clear that they're pushing Christianity in the guise of a non-religious scientific position.
While I appreciate your post pointing out that Vic was the one who was injecting politics into this debate, I should note that I haven't said and don't believe that religious folk through the world was flat. Vic used the term "they're flat earthers" to inaccurately summarize Gaard's argument in a previous post. No one has actually made such a claim and when I read Vic's post, I didn't think that Vic meant that anyone had. I thought that he was using an exaggerated comparison between flat Earthers and creationists to make a point that the creationists weren't as wrong in their understanding of science as the flat Earthers, though his more recent posts suggest that attributing strawmen to people he dislikes may be a favorite debate tactic of his. As for my post, I simply pointed out that if someone was comparing creationists to flat Earthers that they're the same in one essential aspect: their ignorance of and opposition to scientific facts.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
:roll:
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not in favor of ID. Nor am I afraid of it. As presented by those who support it, it is quite simply ludicrous. A passing fad. Unless it chooses to adopt real scientific principles, it's far too "New Age" of a concept to be able to last inside traditional mainstream religion. You want to get hot-and-bothered by it, go ahead. Doing such, you only lend it the credence of notoreity.
But Gaard's linked cartoon was an obvious strawman, and that's why I took the devils advocacy position against it. That is all.
There's a lot not to like here in ATPN, cquark, and a reason that only a very small number of posters still hang around here. You might want to open your eyes and look around.
Who cares about Intelligent design?
It is just a stupid theory, and it is a theory that is as provable as Evolution another stupid theory.
I dont believe some Ameba crawled out of some primevil goo and just evolved into a human being. What do you think Evolution is?
It is just a stupid theory, and it is a theory that is as provable as Evolution another stupid theory.
I dont believe some Ameba crawled out of some primevil goo and just evolved into a human being. What do you think Evolution is?
Evolution is the best way to describe the way things exsist, being scientific it should consistantly be critqued and tested.
If you got a better way to "prove" how we got here (Which I don't think even matters) please share with us.
I'm surprised I had to get almost to the bottom of the first page before somebody (Tommunist)
even attempted to address the flaws in the statement below. I can see why most people fall into this trap...
Wrong, it is not the job of science to undeniably prove something does not exist.
"Beyond the shadow of a doubt" is a legal term, and is only here as a diversion from the actual discussion.
False. You are confusing four different issues, only three of which apply to the scientific method.
Discovery is a seperate step, and is merely the identifying and recording of natural phenomena.
Hypothesis is the process of trying to explain how that observed phenomena works, according to
an already established understanding of how the parts that make up that item work.
i.e. based on prior understanding and proof of related phenomenon.
"Proof" is the practice of applying scientific understanding of how the parts fit together to recreate
the situation in which the original phenomena was observed. It is called a Theory when there is
enough evidence of the phenomena to say it is consistenly happening, but not enough
information from measurements and repeated experiement, to say that there is a clear scientific principle
under which the fundamental causes behind what is seen happening can be explained.
It is not necessary for science to disprove anything, all it needs to do is ask: "Is there enough
observation, measurement, and repeated examples of phenomena related to this idea to
claim there may be an explanation for it that can be derived using the scientific method?"
If the answer is yes, then all that is needed is to repeat it enough times to start to derive
a better understanding of it.
If the answer is no, then it is not science. And therefore should not be classified as such.
See above. Scientists don't have to prove or "disprove" intelligent design. ID has to "prove" that there
is (Repeatable, Observable, and Measurable) evidence of outside manipulation in nature that cannot be sufficiently
explained by other established fields of science to provide an opportunity for further study.
cquark, the Halting Problem (if I read Wikipedia right) is not considered proving a negative.
It is considered an undecidable proof. Although it is a very interesting concept.
even attempted to address the flaws in the statement below. I can see why most people fall into this trap...
Wrong, it is not the job of science to undeniably prove something does not exist.
"Beyond the shadow of a doubt" is a legal term, and is only here as a diversion from the actual discussion.
False. You are confusing four different issues, only three of which apply to the scientific method.
Discovery is a seperate step, and is merely the identifying and recording of natural phenomena.
Hypothesis is the process of trying to explain how that observed phenomena works, according to
an already established understanding of how the parts that make up that item work.
i.e. based on prior understanding and proof of related phenomenon.
"Proof" is the practice of applying scientific understanding of how the parts fit together to recreate
the situation in which the original phenomena was observed. It is called a Theory when there is
enough evidence of the phenomena to say it is consistenly happening, but not enough
information from measurements and repeated experiement, to say that there is a clear scientific principle
under which the fundamental causes behind what is seen happening can be explained.
It is not necessary for science to disprove anything, all it needs to do is ask: "Is there enough
observation, measurement, and repeated examples of phenomena related to this idea to
claim there may be an explanation for it that can be derived using the scientific method?"
If the answer is yes, then all that is needed is to repeat it enough times to start to derive
a better understanding of it.
If the answer is no, then it is not science. And therefore should not be classified as such.
See above. Scientists don't have to prove or "disprove" intelligent design. ID has to "prove" that there
is (Repeatable, Observable, and Measurable) evidence of outside manipulation in nature that cannot be sufficiently
explained by other established fields of science to provide an opportunity for further study.
cquark, the Halting Problem (if I read Wikipedia right) is not considered proving a negative.
It is considered an undecidable proof. Although it is a very interesting concept.
My prior post wasn't clear, which I think lead to your confusion of the Halting Theorem with the Halting Problem. The Halting Problem is undecidable. The Halting Theorem proves that fact by showing that no algorithm exists that could decide the Halting Problem, which is indeed proving a negative.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter