Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Right Wing Christian Fascist Nut job slams Left Wing Sociali

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
And what patterns/structures are those? I didn't mean to hypothetically set up what this might look like, I meant that you should fill it out and prove it.

at this point, I don't need to know what the patterns/structures are. I am simply trying to show that ID is thorough going science. I never invoked anything like religion here. The search for such patterns/structures is in itself a scientific process.

Quote:
Have those done this test repeatedly and found it to be true? How do you determine that something is "primordial soup", and that it's the right primordial soup?

I don't understand your first sentence. I think you got a typo in there.
But your second sentence is right on. That is why ID is pure science. The scientist would have to run test after test to see if a certain blend of chemicals combined with other factors (lightning, heat, etc.) could possibly bring proteins together to form the cell structures.

Quote:
We're not going anywhere with this...

pardon me for thinking that I may actually have the upper hand here. Smile
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
at this point, I don't need to know what the patterns/structures are.


Yes you do. Science isn't hypothetical; it's evidence-based.

Quote:
I am simply trying to show that ID is thorough going science.


IT'S NOT SCIENCE IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO GO OVER THIS? Simply filling out the chart with hypothetical situations of "well this is what they could do, and if they did all of this, it would mean the end result is a scientific theory" doesn't constitute anything. What you have to do to prove that ID is a scientific theory is to actually fill out the chart with the things that ID has hypothesized, tested, found as evidence, and proven, not hypothetical rhetoric.

Quote:
The search for such patterns/structures is in itself a scientific process.


Not if there's absolutely no evidence that such patterns exist. Simply having an idea that you could test doesn't constitute science. Testing that idea and finding it to be true using evidence is science.

Quote:
I don't understand your first sentence. I think you got a typo in there.


Even with the typo, it was pretty clear what I was asking. Have they done the tests you're speaking of repeatedly, and have they found it to be true?

Quote:
But your second sentence is right on. That is why ID is pure science.


...

My second sentence was:

Quote:
How do you determine that something is "primordial soup", and that it's the right primordial soup?


Care to answer the questions?

Quote:
The scientist would have to run test after test to see if a certain blend of chemicals combined with other factors (lightning, heat, etc.) could possibly bring proteins together to form the cell structures.


Which many people have done. This is not a theory. Cell formulation is scientific fact. How is this an argument for ID?

Quote:
pardon me for thinking that I may actually have the upper hand here. Smile


ROFL. Have you read the past two pages of this thread? You haven't provided a single shred of evidence.


Last edited by Toxic on Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:27 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
when most thinking people read your response, they are going to declare me the winner in this debate. You'd better come up with something better than this. Smile


No, they wouldn't, because thinking people would realize that for all of the text you have spewed onto this topic, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up any of your assertions.
Back to top
Timetheos
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 432
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Science according to YEC:

Step #1 - Ask question.
Was the World created in 7 days?

Step #2 - Background research
Read the Bible?

Step #3 - Construct hypothesis
God came done and waved his magic wand

Step #4 - testing/experimentation
Look at all the things science can't explain.

Step #5 - conclusions
God must have came done and waved his magic wand.

Step #6a - hypothesis is true/false
based on the results of step #4, God must have came done and waved his magic wand.

Step #6b - think try again
Come up with more things science can't explain.

Step #7 - report results
write a book/journal article.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
Quote:
when most thinking people read your response, they are going to declare me the winner in this debate. You'd better come up with something better than this. Smile


No, they wouldn't, because thinking people would realize that for all of the text you have spewed onto this topic, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

well you can go read the stuff as well as I. I am simply trying to show that ID is science worthy of the name. I don't have to actually provide the actual evidence to show that the process is genuine science.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Timetheos wrote:
Science according to YEC:

Step #1 - Ask question.
Was the World created in 7 days?

Step #2 - Background research
Read the Bible?

Step #3 - Construct hypothesis
God came done and waved his magic wand

Step #4 - testing/experimentation
Look at all the things science can't explain.

Step #5 - conclusions
God must have came done and waved his magic wand.

Step #6a - hypothesis is true/false
based on the results of step #4, God must have came done and waved his magic wand.

Step #6b - think try again
Come up with more things science can't explain.

Step #7 - report results
write a book/journal article.

Is this a white flag?
buried.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
well you can go read the stuff as well as I. I am simply trying to show that ID is science worthy of the name. I don't have to actually provide the actual evidence to show that the process is genuine science.


Holy shit, do you have fucking down syndrome? Science is ENTIRELY based on evidence. ENTIRELY. If you can't provide evidence, it's not science. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.


If you can't provide any evidence, your theory is by definition not scientific.


Last edited by Toxic on Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Is this a white flag?


No, it actually matches exactly the kind of argument Creationists, and thus IDiots, are trying to make.

Quote:
buried.


Cute. Too bad your argument is based on nothing.
Back to top
Timetheos
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 432
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Is this a white flag?


God you are thick Corno.

I took your logic to it's logical conclusion, and it flies right over your head.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
Quote:
when most thinking people read your response, they are going to declare me the winner in this debate. You'd better come up with something better than this. Smile


No, they wouldn't, because thinking people would realize that for all of the text you have spewed onto this topic, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

that is b/c at this point I am not trying to prove the truth of ID. I am attempting to show that it is real science. Now I went through each of the steps of the scientific method. None of you have addressed that with the exception of Time's goofy caricature.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Timetheos wrote:
Quote:
Is this a white flag?


God you are thick Corno.

I took your logic to it's logical conclusion, and it flies right over your head.

why don't you trying making an argument instead of silly straw men. I said nothing about the Bible, 6 day creation, or God. You can't rebut the scientific method I provided so you make up your own. the fallacy of this should be readily apparent.

You have not dealt with my post on the scientific steps of ID.
Back to top
Timetheos
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 432
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cornopean wrote:
Timetheos wrote:
Quote:
Is this a white flag?


God you are thick Corno.

I took your logic to it's logical conclusion, and it flies right over your head.

why don't you trying making an argument instead of silly straw men. I said nothing about the Bible, 6 day creation, or God. You can't rebut the scientific method I provided so you make up your own. the fallacy of this should be readily apparent.

You have not dealt with my post on the scientific steps of ID.


Toxic already did it quite eloquently, and your attempts at rebuttal were nothing.

ID has a fundamental logic flaw that you do not understand. One of these articles might help you in your understanding.

http://www.csicop.org/intellig.....ience.html

http://www.teachingaboutreligi.....mp;_id.htm
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
that is b/c at this point I am not trying to prove the truth of ID. I am attempting to show that it is real science. Now I went through each of the steps of the scientific method. None of you have addressed that with the exception of Time's goofy caricature.


I have addressed it. I've said over and over again that filling it out with hypothetical information doesn't do anything. And do you know why? BECAUSE SCIENCE REQUIRES EVIDENCE.

How many times do I have to repeat this very fundamental concept to you before you even acknowledge that I'm saying it? I have said it at least 15 times in this thread and at this point you haven't even acknowledged it. Perhaps you've just missed it. I'll make this really simple for you so you can't miss it anymore.

Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.

I don't know how you misconstrued my suggestion for you to fill out the chart to prove that ID is scientific that if you filled it out with hypothetical situations it'll have the same connotation as if you filled it out with evidence.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:

I have addressed it. I've said over and over again that filling it out with hypothetical information doesn't do anything. And do you know why? BECAUSE SCIENCE REQUIRES EVIDENCE.

agreed.


Quote:
Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.

I agree. and I went through each of the steps of the scientific method showing how ID is science. You have yet to show me which of those steps was unscientific or invoked religion or God or the Bible. Timetheos wasn't able to find anything unscientific either. that is why he had to make up his own caricature so he could more easily rebut it.
Why don't you just tell me? Which step of what I offered was unscientific? anyone following this discussion can see that you just keep beating your drum asking for evidence. but I am not now trying to prove the truth or falsity of ID. I am trying to show you that it is science. The people who do argue for the truth of ID have loads of evidence. You can go read it if you want. I am trying to show you that ID is science. I offered a possible scientific method. You haven't shown me where ID fails as a science.

but you will probably respond by telling me to produce the evidence which would be appropriate if I were trying to defend ID. I am defending the proposition that ID is science.




Quote:
I don't know how you misconstrued my suggestion for you to fill out the chart to prove that ID is scientific that if you filled it out with hypothetical situations it'll have the same connotation as if you filled it out with evidence.

well if I was going to go the next step and argue that ID is true, then your demand for evidence is perfectly appropriate. but you are barking up the wrong tree at this point. I am defending ID as science not as true or false.

Imagine that someone tells you that water freezes at 45 degrees Fahrenheit. You respond by telling him that trying to determine the freezing point of water is not true science. The other person responds by insisting that it is perfectly scientific. You then ask him, "what evidence do you have that water freezes at 45 degrees F."?

Do you see how the two questions are different?

we can argue about when water freezes. Asking for evidence in this discussion is quite appropriate.

We can also argue whether trying to determine when water freezes is really science. Asking for evidence that water freezes at 45F is quite irrelevant in this discussion.

Same goes for ID. we can argue whether ID is true or false. We can also argue whether ID is really science or not. but if we are arguing the latter, then stop asking me for evidence to prove the truth of ID. that is irrelevant information for this discussion.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Why don't you just tell me? Which step of what I offered was unscientific? anyone following this discussion can see that you just keep beating your drum asking for evidence.


All of them. You filled out the chart using hypothetical situations, not based on what ID has hypothesized, tested for, and found as a result. For example, you began step two with:

"this might involve studying what characteristics"

Explaining what they might do doesn't do anything to show that their theories are scientific. What do they do, what have they tested for, how have they tested for it, and what did they find at a result? That information, placed in the chart, will determine whether their theory is scientific or not.

Quote:
but I am not now trying to prove the truth or falsity of ID. I am trying to show you that it is science.


I understand this. It makes no difference.

Quote:
The people who do argue for the truth of ID have loads of evidence.


No, they don't.

Quote:
I offered a possible scientific method.


In order for something to be part of the scientific method, it has to PASS each step of the method. Filling out the chart with a hypothetical/possible situation does nothing to show that ID itself is science.

You are intentionally distorting this entire topic. Cut it out and fill out the damn chart with actual information.

Quote:
but you will probably respond by telling me to produce the evidence which would be appropriate if I were trying to defend ID. I am defending the proposition that ID is science.


If science requires evidence, how can you define something without evidence as scientific?

Quote:
We can also argue whether ID is really science or not. but if we are arguing the latter, then stop asking me for evidence to prove the truth of ID. that is irrelevant information for this discussion.


No, it isn't. To repeat myself in VERY BIG AND BOLD LETTERS TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T MISS THIS VERY IMPORTANT POINT:

If science requires evidence, how can you define something without evidence as scientific?

And not just that, but it has to also make sense and pass each step of the chart! But that's very minor in comparison to the bullshit you're trying to pass off right night.


Last edited by Toxic on Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites