Topic: Agenda? What agenda? (Read 7361 times)

8d82thebone · « **on:** March 15, 2007, 08:38:53 AM »

As I mentioned in the " Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiablilty" thread, physicist Robert Gentry was fired by Oak Ridge National Laboratory after publishing a paper on the Atmospheric Helium Deficit, the findings of which simply suggested the possibility of a young Earth.

Now it's the Smithsonian's turn to get in on the act...
www.cwfa.org/articles/12548/CWA/freedom/index.htm

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:40:34 AM »

I have a thread started on this that has some of the primary sources:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,2310.0.html

I think this whole global warming business is also a telling indicator about agenda driven science. All of the scorn and contempt that scientists had when people questioned their judgement about the evidence for evolution is now being directed on other scientists. It's a taste of their own medicine. I for one am enjoying it immensley.

Broken · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2007, 12:25:59 AM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone on March 15, 2007, 08:38:53 AM

As I mentioned in the " Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiablilty" thread, physicist Robert Gentry was fired by Oak Ridge National Laboratory after publishing a paper on the Atmospheric Helium Deficit, the findings of which simply suggested the possibility of a young Earth.

Now it's the Smithsonian's turn to get in on the act...
www.cwfa.org/articles/12548/CWA/freedom/index.htm

I understand that "Intelligent Design" appeals to you as a concept, but there is no Intelligent Design theory existing which explains the data. No one has presented a theory describing an intelligent designer consistent with the data.

So, yes, I understand removing someone from a scientific position who is espousing a non-scientific model. An ideology does not qualify as science. To be a useful scientific theory, a model must present verifiable conclusions. It must be falsifiable, it must exclude some possible outcomes. No falsifiable Intelligent Design has ever been presented which does not contradict existing data. If you disagree, I will be happy to subject your pet ID theory to the test.

Personally, I hesitate to be overly critical of ID. IDers kind of get it, compared to Creationists who don't get it at all. IDers just need to move to the next step, where the Creator designed the laws of nature, but did not micromanage how these laws were implemented.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2007, 08:16:21 PM »

Quote

IDers just need to move to the next step, where the Creator designed the laws of nature, but did not micromanage how these laws were implemented.

The reason why this is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life is because it is actually the Creationist position that the Creator designed the laws of nature, but does not micromanage how these laws are implemented.

Honestly. I'm going to add this to the long list of just silly absurdities believed about Creationism. This may just be me, but its my firm belief that before you can feign to reject a position one must understand it to some degree, first. Otherwise, its rejecting a strawman. But that's just me!

This is right up there with Copernicus mocking some Young Earth Creationist position (I forget which) by attacking it as though it were a theistic evolution position (I believe he pointed to the fossil record, as I recall).

Lord, save me.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2007, 10:00:27 PM »

I disagreed with your other comments, too, but hope 82 will tend to them.

I posted this longer response to your comments here:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,2330.0.html

8d82thebone · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2007, 08:30:01 AM »

Quote from: Broken on March 17, 2007, 12:25:59 AM

An ideology does not qualify as science.

This is the one I get the biggest kick out of...

I think what Broken was trying to say was this: If we can construct an ideology with a theory as it's core,and call it "science", we can then later subject other data to it, and when it doesn't happen to conform to our own data, we can then call the other data "unscientific", with a straight face.

A truly scientific approach to the whole Helium question, would have been to look at Gentry's data, (which I agree, didnt "conform", hence the "firing") and to study it further. Instead,(and especially since it can't explain the reason for the deficit ...) the establishment is so insecure and corrupt, that the data which appears to question it is immediately discounted, and the one who produced it is immediately silenced. ( Kind of like the whole Galileo vs. Church Establishment scenario, only reversed.)

Broken, it stands to reason that any Intelligent Design model would be opposed to any of the evolutionist "data". This does not automatically reject ID as being scientific. One of the thngs which ID observes is complexity. The scientifc esablishment has failed to adequately explain it. I have read some of the data which attempts to explain the blood clotting process, as well as the bacterial flagellum, and it is based largely upon speculation, not observation. I call that an "ideology".
I would be happy to hear what the "data" has to say lately with regard to the helium deficit, if anythng.

Broken · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:15:58 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on March 17, 2007, 08:16:21 PM

Quote
IDers just need to move to the next step, where the Creator designed the laws of nature, but did not micromanage how these laws were implemented.

The reason why this is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life is because it is actually the Creationist position that the Creator designed the laws of nature, but does not micromanage how these laws are implemented.

Interesting. Maybe you have changed your POV, but last time we discussed Creationism you were an inerrant-Bible Young Earth Creationist.

Taking Genesis as literally true, God created the Earth, the heavens, the sun and moon, plants, animals, and man as deliberate conscious acts. Even Eve, a single individual, is intentionally created by God.

It's difficult to imagine more of a micro-managing Creator than the literal Genesis version of God.

On the other hand, most IDers assume a God tasked with "macro-evolution", and allow for "micro-evolution" to be delegated to God's laws of nature.

As I suggested in my last post, IDers could just make the next step and allow for a God-as-architect: a Grand Designer, not a tinkerer. Then evolution fits right in.

Broken · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:13:02 AM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone on March 20, 2007, 08:30:01 AM

I think what Broken was trying to say was this: If we can construct an ideology with a theory as it's core,and call it "science", we can then later subject other data to it, and when it doesn't happen to conform to our own data, we can then call the other data "unscientific", with a straight face.

If science were an ideology, taking belief over empirical observation and reason, why has it been so successful in descibing nature? Science has spectacularly outperformed all other modes of thought in describing how the world works. Compare the growth in human knowledge since the scientific revolution to all that went before.

Again, if science is merely unfounded belief, an ideology, why does it work so well? Did science just get lucky?

Quote

A truly scientific approach to the whole Helium question, would have been to look at Gentry's data, (which I agree, didnt "conform", hence the "firing") and to study it further. Instead,(and especially since it can't explain the reason for the deficit ...) the establishment is so insecure and corrupt, that the data which appears to question it is immediately discounted, and the one who produced it is immediately silenced. ( Kind of like the whole Galileo vs. Church Establishment scenario, only reversed.)

All these "Helium deficit" guys end up with the same conclusion: the rate of radio-isotope decay was much faster in the past... almost a million times faster! This is how they explain away 4 billion-year old zircon crystals as only 6 thousand years old.

By this "theory", all nuclear processes involved in radio-isotope dating were a million times faster in the past, but NOT the nuclear processes in the Sun (or we would be very dead)! Furthermore, if uranium decayed a million times faster in the past, every uranium deposit on Earth would have gone off in a massive nuclear explosion. Armagedon would have struck the instant Earth was created.

We have very strong evidence the laws of nature billions of years ago were the same as they are today. Type IA supernovas billions of light-years away have the same light spectrum as supernovas nearby. The atomic fine-structure constant of very distant stars is the same as it is on Earth, to within one part in 10,000.

Quote

Broken, it stands to reason that any Intelligent Design model would be opposed to any of the evolutionist "data". This does not automatically reject ID as being scientific. One of the thngs which ID observes is complexity. The scientifc esablishment has failed to adequately explain it. I have read some of the data which attempts to explain the blood clotting process, as well as the bacterial flagellum, and it is based largely upon speculation, not observation. I call that an "ideology".

I've patiently debunked Behe's bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, biochemistry of vision and other supposed examples of "irreducible complexity" on this very forum. You were on this forum when I posted them. If you didn't bother reading them then, I won't waste my time repeating them now. There are plenty of sites you can Google for if you are really interested.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:41:07 AM »

"Interesting. Maybe you have changed your POV, but last time we discussed Creationism you were an inerrant-Bible Young Earth Creationist."

More or less, I am (a posteriori). My point is that your understanding of the position is skewed.

"Taking Genesis as literally true, God created the Earth, the heavens, the sun and moon, plants, animals, and man as deliberate conscious acts. Even Eve, a single individual, is intentionally created by God."

Yes, but that is not the same as 'micro-managing' at all. That is closer to your grand architect image.

"It's difficult to imagine more of a micro-managing Creator than the literal Genesis version of God."

It's not micro-managing at all.

"On the other hand, most IDers assume a God tasked with "macro-evolution", and allow for "micro-evolution" to be delegated to God's laws of nature."

Right, but this is actually more akin to micro-managing than the YECcer POV, as it requires God to step in on occasion and tweak the system to get the outcome he wants.

"As I suggested in my last post, IDers could just make the next step and allow for a God-as-architect: a Grand Designer, not a tinkerer. Then evolution fits right in."

And so would Young Earth Creationism.

I started a whole thread to detail what this all involves, but I would say to you here that your primary misunderstanding isn't even so much YEC but what a Christian means when he says 'God.' God is the sum of all that is real, and his derivative creations do not exhaust what he is. Nothing can exist apart from his willing it, and nothing can exist apart from his essence. Given this definition, your underlying assumption on this matter that somehow the matter of the universe exists eternally alongside of God and God can come in and 'tinker' with it is 100% flawed. Given this definition, there has to be a point in which God initiates the origin of a thing.

Your apparent conception is not new. It is quite old. It is more akin to Greek mythology and the Demiurge and chaotic matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

Please see the thread I began if you really want to work this out.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #9 on:** March 27, 2007, 09:15:57 AM »

Quote from: Broken

If science were an ideology, taking belief over empirical observation and reason, why has it been so successful in descibing nature? Science has spectacularly outperformed all other modes of thought in describing how the world works. Compare the growth in human knowledge since the scientific revolution to all that went before.

Again, if science is merely unfounded belief, an ideology, why does it work so well? Did science just get lucky?

I'm not saying 'science' in the larger sense of the word, is an ideology; I'm saying 'evolution isn't science, it's an ideology'. What was a whale, is still a whale. Whether or not they have changed over time is beside the point. How the very first whale came to be in the first place, on the other hand, is the point. The fact that some of the very first organisms seen in the Fossil Record are complex ones is the point. No common ancestors as Evolutionary Theory needs in order to be plausible. At some point, working backwards, reason, and science, need to be suspended in order for evolutionary theory to continue to stand. The reason for the whole doctrine of Panspermia existing is proof of that.

Quote

I've patiently debunked Behe's bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, biochemistry of vision and other supposed examples of "irreducible complexity" on this very forum. You were on this forum when I posted them. If you didn't bother reading them then, I won't waste my time repeating them now. There are plenty of sites you can Google for if you are really interested.

You like to think you've debunked it, my friend. You seem to ignore the fact that you're a little short on empirical evidence to back up your arguments...

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 27, 2007, 09:30:20 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on March 22, 2007, 07:41:07 AM

Right, but this is actually more akin to micro-managing than the YECcer POV, as it requires God to step in on occasion and tweak the system to get the outcome he wants.

Are you saying that God can't needs to fine-tune things fro time to time? I would think that he would be capable of arranging it so that he didn't need to keep coming back and making corrections. A micro-manager is constantly tweaking things to suit his needs.

Broken · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2007, 04:33:48 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone on March 27, 2007, 09:15:57 AM

Quote from: Broken
Again, if science is merely unfounded belief, an ideology, why does it work so well? Did science just get lucky?

I'm not saying 'science' in the larger sense of the word, is an ideology; I'm saying 'evolution isn't science, it's an ideology'.

So, science is an ideology only when it intrudes on Genesis? Geology is correct except when it concludes the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Astrophysics is correct except when it concludes the universe is more than 10 billion years old? Biology only fails when it concludes that one type of organism can evolve into another?

It would appear that your definition of scientific ideology is:

Any scientific conclusion which is at odds with 8d82thebone's religious beliefs, particularly the chapter of Genesis.

Quote

The fact that some of the very first organisms seen in the Fossil Record are complex ones is the point. No common ancestors as Evolutionary Theory needs in order to be plausible.

The oldest fossils found are 3 billion year old bacteria. Not even single-celled Eukaryotes are found until at least a billion years later. Do you have a problem with bacteria as a common ancestor to all life today?

Quote

Quote
I've patiently debunked Behe's bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, biochemistry of vision and other supposed examples of "irreducible complexity" on this very forum. You were on this forum when I posted them. If you didn't bother reading them then, I won't waste my time repeating them now. There are plenty of sites you can Google for if you are really interested.

You like to think you've debunked it, my friend. You seem to ignore the fact that you're a little short on empirical evidence to back up your arguments...

Then be specific.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:19:06 AM »

Quote from: Broken on April 05, 2007, 04:33:48 PM

Biology only fails when it concludes that one type of organism can evolve into another?

No, Evolutionary Biology fails because it can't prove one type of organism can evolve into another, or age aside, how they managed to appear fully-formed in the fossil record. Astrophysics can't explain why the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing when it would seem totally implausible. Nor can it explain how the Big Bang, the largest singularity ever,occurred without a Supernatural cause."Science" (read the evolutionary establishment) has a way bigger house of cards on its hands than Creationists do, they just dont want to face it.

Quote

It would appear that your definition of scientific ideology is:

Any scientific conclusion which is at odds with 8d82thebone's religious beliefs, particularly the chapter of Genesis.

If you read Genesis, you'll find that there is a whole lot there which is supported by science, including the possibility of the Big Bang in Gensis 1 ("Let there be light!") and the appearance of the stars, planets, atmosphere, vegetation, birds, reptiles, fish, etc, before mammals, and lastly the appearance of humans. But let's totally poo-poo it all, because the Deiphobes can't get past the whole Creator thing.

Quote from: 8d8

The fact that some of the very first organisms seen in the Fossil Record are complex ones is the point. No common ancestors as Evolutionary Theory needs in order to be plausible.

Quote from: Broken

The oldest fossils found are 3 billion year old bacteria. Not even single-celled Eukaryotes are found until at least a billion years later. Do you have a problem with bacteria as a common ancestor to all life today?

Are you saying that bacteria are not "complex"? Try explaining how the DNA code wrote itself if bacteria were the "common ancestor" to everrything. Apparently you dont have a problem with believing it, so you must have some kind of proof; remember, you said it yourself, "science has done such a good job of explaining everything." How about it? Let's start with the flagellum. It's operated by such a highly-developed motor that we cant even duplicate it today, yet it not only created itself, but now you're saying it didnt even have an evolutionary predecessor...
I can't wait.

stathei · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2007, 08:03:39 PM »

Broken, you are wasting your time - as far as these wilfully ignorant intellectual yokels are concerned, "Because the Bible Tells Me So" is good enough. I gave up "debating" them long ago.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2007, 09:21:13 PM »

I'm not convinced you ever did 'debate' them, Stath. I note that you continue to stand by your caricature: "Because the Bible Tells me So." This is not an argument that I've ever made and is not the argument that 8d82 just employed. What he did say is that Genesis is not as incompatible with some aspects of modern science as usually assumed.

I mean, it does matter what he actually says, right? It does matter what these 'ignorant intellectual yokels' say, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you attack what you think they mean in contrast to what they actually say, isn't that attacking a strawman... and a logical fallacy?

stathei · « **Reply #15 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:02:33 AM »

Quote

I'm not convinced you ever did 'debate' them, Stath.

That is why I was honest enough to place the word "debate" in quotes - perhaps "engage" would have been a better choice. However, since your definition of "debate" is simply to use the terms "strawman", "logical fallacy" and "ad hominem" in every paragraph (or sometimes twice in one sentence as in your last post), I am glad you were honest enough to use quotes as well...

Quote

I mean, it does matter what he actually says, right?

Not really. At least, not any more than the Scientologist who believes that Xenu bombed volcanoes, or the Mormon who believes Joseph Smith received the word of God using a magic stone in his hat, or the doomed cancer sufferer who forgoes chemotherapy for a herbal "remedy". You all have one thing in common - FAITH. Yes, the F-word.

Whereas it was ok for the illiterate desert-dwellers of ages past to believe ridiculous twaddle on the basis of faith, even you recognize that faith just doesn't get it done these days. You therefore invent a new way of looking at the world which is identical in every way to the poor cancer patient of my analogy - wilful ignorance, fuelled by hope. Ignoring meticulous research and clinical trial results in favor of an alternative with no evidence in support of it whatsoever.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** May 18, 2007, 11:15:33 AM »

The reason why responses to your posts are filled with terms like 'strawman' and 'logical fallacy' etc is because in fact your posts are filled with those things. :)

You are the only man I've ever met that was proud of his irrationality:

Quote

Quote
I mean, it does matter what he actually says, right?

Not really.

Exactly.

You have no business even dismissing things because you think they are based on 'FAITH' because you are fundamentally clueless even about what is meant by informed Christians when they use that word.

"even you recognize that faith just doesn't get it done these days."

I hate to break it to you, but the truth is actually that your understanding of 'faith' is fundamentally different then what you think my understanding is. You might know that if you ever bothered to move from 'debate' to debate. I know, not likely from a man proud of wallowing in his logical fallacies and abuses against strawmen.

stathei · « **Reply #17 on:** May 18, 2007, 12:41:00 PM »

Quote

You are the only man I've ever met that was proud of his irrationality

It is irrational to rationalize with the irrational

- that is exactly why I no longer "engage" you.

Quote

I hate to break it to you, but the truth is actually that your understanding of 'faith' is fundamentally different then what you think my understanding is.

Ummm, ok - is that the same as my understanding of "reality" is different than your understanding of "reality"? I think your understanding of "reality" is filled with cured lepers, corpses coming back to life, dinosaurs walking with humans, a guy called Satan who really is a guy, ladies giving birth without the benefit of a little lovin', visions, curses, floods and all sorts of other fairytales. This you believe in because of cold, rational, logical, unbiased inquiry - not because you read it in the Bible?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** May 18, 2007, 02:37:00 PM »

Quote

It is irrational to rationalize with the irrational Confused - that is exactly why I no longer "engage" you.

There you go again, pretending like you ever did. :) That exposes another of your favorite fallacies- that is the one where you beg the question. Since you never have bothered to listen to what people have said, it cannot possibly have been discovered that we are irrational or our positions are irrational. That would require actual dialogue where you actually listen and allow yourself to be educated about the position that you are mocking. Don't get me wrong, I get a sick enjoyment out of watching people come in and make fools of themselves, but as my purpose really is to defend those positions and ultimately persuade you to them, I really have to continue to point out that you are basically just ignorant. That would be excusable if no one was available to inform you, so that at least you were rejecting actual positions and not your caricatured versions, but here we are, available. Here I am, available.

You notice how every time you come back our conversations are about the same? You talking nonsense and me merely pointing out what you freely admit- that you have already made up your mind and have no interest in debating, dialogue, etc. One wonders why you do it. :)

The last time you came you tried to mock the historicity of Jesus because he 'left no writings like at least Socrates did.' Perhaps I'd find even your mocking a little more credible if you'd fess up to the times when you've been completely debunked.

Or have you decided that Socrates probably didn't exist?

"Ummm, ok - is that the same as my understanding of "reality" is different than your understanding of "reality"?"

Nice attempt to change the subject.

Yes, it is true that our understandings of reality differ. Isn't that the point? Isn't that why you're here? But why should anyone talk about that when what we say doesn't matter? The All-Knowing Stathei knows what we really mean, doesn't he? We may have perfectly good reasons for believing the things in the Bible that may have something to do with faith but certainly not any of your bastardized conceptions of faith. You would never know because you can't see past your own ego and self-inflicted ignorance to find out otherwise.

I thought Copernicus did better in his 'faith in science' thread. There at least in the initial posts was a concept of 'faith' that I could get behind, and you know he didn't think his 'faith' was irrational.

You're lucky I'm too busy to really dig in on you. :)

stathei · « **Reply #19 on:** May 18, 2007, 05:16:01 PM »

Quote

One wonders why you do it.

So do I. I think it's the wilful ignorance part - that you put your faith before scientific endeavor, whether you are honest enough to admit it or not. At least you do have the courage to accept that if science is right, you are dead wrong - this is why you have to attack science and reality itself and look at the world from your own invented, fantastical viewpoint.

Let's not forget that one of your most insane beliefs, Young Earth Crackpotism, is a geographic phenomenon (like religion itself) almost entirely confined to American Christian bible thumpers like yourself. If you were, say, Irish, you'd be railing about how you have "proven" that the communion wafer really is the actual body of Christ or some other preposterous nonsense instead.

Author Topic: Agenda? What agenda? (Read 7361 times)

stathei

stathei

stathei

stathei