[_ Old Earth _] On Intelligent Design and Atheism

[BobRyan]

Those signals coming over satellite use electromagnetic wave form to get here.

see -- it "just works".

I don't understand what you think this has to do with an Intelligent Design.

Just the obvious fact that for that commercial application to work you have to be able to LOOK at a fundamental force in nature and DETECT the difference between patterns showing intelligent design -- and the more mundane "background noice" that "rocks can do".

Watch Expelled the Movie.

This is a discussion forum. There is no point in pointing me to videos or advising me to read things - make your case here, on this forum.[/quote]

Then you are not opposed to watching the movie and allowing your mind to be exposed to arguments critical to atheist darwinism?

That is news.

Let me know how that goes for you.

What exactly do you think is so impressive about Expelled that it exposes some 'Atheistic Darwinism'?

1. The interview with Dawkins and Provine where they explain how atheist darwinist dogma lead them away from acceptance of God.

2. The arguments they make against intelligent design -- since in their own religionist mind "there is no God"

3. The statements they make about Darwin and Huxley on their rejection of God.

Just the obvious for anyone who had allowed his/her self to see the movie.

Dawkins professes to be an atheist darwinist, Provine, S. J Gould, Colin Patterson etc all claimed be be atheist darwinists and Darwin himself admits that the doctrines of darwinism lead him to comletely reject the Bible.

The atheist darwinist "center" of darwinism is based on the concept "There is not god" in that world the idea of "design" is very threatening and all academic freedom that might ALLOW the scientist to "Follow the data where it leads" must be stopped IF that data leads to a conclusoin that admits to "design" in the same way that discriminators of electromagnetic wave forms are enabled to differentiate between good signals and background noise.

Bob

 

[jsasaki06]

Atheists by definition believe there is no God, so they can't believe in ID. Maybe those who do are actually agnostics.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed the ID argument does not pander to the religious dogma of atheists like Dawkins -- so they attack it with political and legal pograms by persecuting any scientist that dares to follow the data where it leads in that respect.

This is clearly seen today as the movie Expelled points out.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the "subtle argument" of atheist vs agnostic -- notice the agnostic platform that atheists like Dawkins insist upon --

Dawkins:

I have several times said that a universe with a God would be a very different kind of universe from one without. You have translated this into operational terms, and consequently arrived at the legitimate question of whether the two kinds of universe would look different. Not be different (my question) but look different (your question, where 'look different' can presumably mean any difference, detectable in any way by any of our sense organs or scientific instruments). I agree that yours is an important question, and I agree with you that it might be surprisingly hard to detect, by observation or experiment, whether we live in a god-free universe or a god-endowed one. Nevertheless, I still maintain that there is a cogent sense in which a scientist can discuss the question. There still is a sense in which we can have an interesting and illuminating scientific discussion about whether X is the case, even if we can't demonstrate it one way or the other by observation or experiment. How can I argue this and still claim to be doing science?

In The God Delusion, I made the distinction between two kinds of agnosticism. Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP) is exemplified by that philosophical chestnut, "Do you see red the way I see red, or might your red be my green or some completely different hue (‘sky-blue-pink’) that I cannot imagine?"

Temporary agnosticism in practice (TAP) refers to things that we cannot (or cannot yet) know in practice but nevertheless have a true scientific reality in a way that the 'sky-blue-pink' conundrum does not. Bertrand Russell's hypothetical orbiting teapot might be an example. Some people think the question of God’s existence is equivalent to ‘sky-blue-pink’ (PAP), and they wrongly deduce that his existence and non-existence are equiprobable alternatives. I think we should be TAP agnostic about God, and I certainly don’t think the odds are 50/50.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sho ... print=true

This is why the atheist darwinists are so happy with Dawkins retreating into Huxley's idea of "Agnostic".

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

5 pages of nothing.

All you need to say is what are the predictive powers, testable hypothesis, and application of ID or YEC?

What? You say there are none? Well then. Maybe thats why neither are treated as science.

Good day, but no score for you. Nothing else is needed.

 

[BobRyan]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Ouch burned

I must have missed it. What page is it on and I will re-read it?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I see where you claim that elec. mag waves prove ID, but no sustance to back up the claim.

Elaborate please.

 

[Skavau]

Just the obvious fact that for that commercial application to work you have to be able to LOOK at a fundamental force in nature and DETECT the difference between patterns showing intelligent design -- and the more mundane "background noice" that "rocks can do".

What patterns 'show' Intelligent Design? You have asserted that they do but failed to show it.

Then you are not opposed to watching the movie and allowing your mind to be exposed to arguments critical to atheist darwinism?

As corrected ad infinitude, 'atheist darwinism' does not exist.

And no, I can watch the movie if I like. I just don't think throwing links around about movies on an internet discussion forum is pro-discussion.

1. The interview with Dawkins and Provine where they explain how atheist darwinist dogma lead them away from acceptance of God.

Regretfully, I cannot find an extract of the interview on the internet.

2. The arguments they make against intelligent design -- since in their own religionist mind "there is no God"

This is vague. What arguments specifically are made and how does specific scientists opinions on the existence of God or 'intelligent design' indicate that it is the fault of evolution?

3. The statements they make about Darwin and Huxley on their rejection of God.

See above, I cannot find any of this.

Just the obvious for anyone who had allowed his/her self to see the movie.

I'll tell you what I did see. I saw the lumbering Ben Stein fail to get his definition of evolution correct, complaining that it does not discuss gravity, physics, the origin of life or the creation of the universe. I saw Ben Stein talking absolute rubbish about how scientists think lightning struck a mud puddle to begin life. I saw Ben Stein assert the completely disgusting assertion that "science leads you to killing things." If you want to see Ben Stein's understanding of evolution ripped to pieces, I suggest you follow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678 link.

The atheist darwinist "center" of darwinism is based on the concept "There is not god" in that world the idea of "design" is very threatening and all academic freedom that might ALLOW the scientist to "Follow the data where it leads" must be stopped IF that data leads to a conclusoin that admits to "design" in the same way that discriminators of electromagnetic wave forms are enabled to differentiate between good signals and background noise.

[citation needed]

 

[Barbarian]

Does this look a little like those guys who claim that cars can get 10,000 miles per gallon, but the evil gasoline companies are hiding all the patents?

 

[Patashu]

5 pages and you completely missed the demonstrated commercial success of the science of ID in one of the four basic forces in nature -- Electromagnetic wave forms?

You must be skim-reading. Looks like it is vault-Zero for you.

next.

Bob

Could we differentiate electromagnetic wave transmissions from background noise before the intelligent design movement was realized?

What do we have to thank ID proponents for? What science or methodology did they do that no one before them had done that allowed us to differentiate electromagnetic wave transmissions from background noise? If we could do it before and without ID, why is it a success of ID?

 

[BobRyan]

When science is "allowed to follow the data where it LEADS" then you can easily discriminate between evidence of design and evidence of "rocks alone doing it". So in the fields were atheist dogma does not try to politicize that work -- science is "free" and so the science inventions and science descovery regarding one of the four basic forces in nature (magnetic wave forms) is allowed to advance to the point of discriminating between electromagnetic wave forms -- dectecting those that show DESIGN from those that do not. No challenges in court to stop it in it's infancy AS LONG as it does not challenge atheist dogma.

You know -- just the "obvious". But when the same basic principle of discriminating between design and "rocks can be seen to do that" is tried in other areas of science -- areas that might threaten atheist dogma -- then storm troopers are called out for "holy pogrom" against scientists that dare to follow that data where it leads and judges are recruited to "stop that science" even if it means that simple statements like "There exists a book in the library" must be legally stricken - censored verboten!

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

When science is "allowed to follow the data where it LEADS" then you can easily discriminate between evidence of design and evidence of "rocks alone doing it". So in the fields were atheist dogma does not try to politicize that work -- science is "free" and so the science inventions and science descovery regarding one of the four basic forces in nature (magnetic wave forms) is allowed to advance to the point of discriminating between electromagnetic wave forms -- dectecting those that show DESIGN from those that do not. No challenges in court to stop it in it's infancy AS LONG as it does not challenge atheist dogma.

You know -- just the "obvious". But when the same basic principle of discriminating between design and "rocks can be seen to do that" is tried in other areas of science -- areas that might threaten atheist dogma -- then storm troopers are called out for "holy pogrom" against scientists that dare to follow that data where it leads and judges are recruited to "stop that science" even if it means that simple statements like "There exists a book in the library" must be legally stricken - censored verboten!

Bob

Bob is a broken record. It's the same phrases over and over again in every post no matter how many times people point them out as wrong or as loaded language, etc. Not to mention oddly placed quotes throughout every post.

Is it a "holy pogrom" when people do not want astrology taught in a science classroom also? For some reason you actually believe that the data leads to design. What fields of science actually support ID?, what scientific journals support ID?, what major scientific organizations support ID?... oh that's right, zero. Where is this great evidence for design that apparently everybody is missing? ID is just creationism repackaged, replacing the word creation with design and the word God with intelligent agent. The very book you are referring to, Of Pandas and People, as shown in the Dover Trial, had previous drafts discovered after being subpoenaed proving it to be a creation textbook. They just changed a few words around and called it an ID textbook in order to bypass the Supreme Court ruling against creationism in the 80s.

 

[Barbarian]

Is it a "holy pogrom" when people do not want astrology taught in a science classroom also?

Could be. IDer Michael Behe testified in the Dover trial that ID is a science in the same sense that astrology is a science.

Look for that, next. And maybe witchcraft.

 

[BobRyan]

Could be 1. "science by litigation" with non-scienc judges presiding (AND "deciding" the verdict )--

and 2. "science by cultic pogrom"

i exactly the kind of junk science "proof" that we would expect from religionist adherents to atheist darwinism.

But as the Discovery Institute made very clear in Expelled the issue is in fact over the censorship of science by devout atheist religionists and their followers opposed to "allowing science to follow the data where it leads" EVEN in cases where it leads to a conclusion in favor of "design" - a conclusion that atheist religionists are very dogmatic about opposing.

Obviously

 

[BobRyan]

When science is "allowed to follow the data where it LEADS" then you can easily discriminate between evidence of design and evidence of "rocks alone doing it". So in the fields were atheist dogma does not try to politicize that work -- science is "free" and so the science inventions and science descovery regarding one of the four basic forces in nature (magnetic wave forms) is allowed to advance to the point of discriminating between electromagnetic wave forms -- dectecting those that show DESIGN from those that do not. No challenges in court to stop it in it's infancy AS LONG as it does not challenge atheist dogma.

You know -- just the "obvious". But when the same basic principle of discriminating between design and "rocks can be seen to do that" is tried in other areas of science -- areas that might threaten atheist dogma -- then storm troopers are called out for "holy pogrom" against scientists that dare to follow that data where it leads and judges are recruited to "stop that science" even if it means that simple statements like "There exists a book in the library" must be legally stricken - censored verboten!

Bob

Bob is a broken record. It's the same phrases over and over again in every post no matter how many times people point them out as wrong or as loaded language, etc.
Not to mention oddly placed quotes throughout every post.

Is it a "holy pogrom" when people do not want astrology

1. You keep holding back as if you are about to "make a point" but then something seems to stop you in each of your posts. Please actually "make a point".

2. In the mean time -- it is "instructive" that you consider the "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" to be "astrology". Nice non-Point.

but seriously -- wouldn't you like to contribute to the discussion in some way?

It appears that your last post almost going to make a point about why it is a good idea to legally censor statements like "There exists a book in the Library" in a thought-police-say-verboten dark-ages style mind-lock ... but there again you seemed to have lost your train of thought.

If you have a good case for the dark ages coming back -- please feel free to make it.

Bob

 

[freeway]

If you have a good case for the dark ages coming back -- please feel free to make it.

Bob

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D you slay me....

ID is looking at the evidence form science and applying that to a creator. Just like taking science+atheistic input and applying that to some comic soup millions of years ago.

 

[jmm9683]

1. You keep holding back as if you are about to "make a point" but then something seems to stop you in each of your posts. Please actually "make a point".

2. In the mean time -- it is "instructive" that you consider the "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" to be "astrology". Nice non-Point.

but seriously -- wouldn't you like to contribute to the discussion in some way?

It appears that your last post almost going to make a point about why it is a good idea to legally censor statements like "There exists a book in the Library" in a thought-police-say-verboten dark-ages style mind-lock ... but there again you seemed to have lost your train of thought.

If you have a good case for the dark ages coming back -- please feel free to make it.

Bob

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby, there is no reason to have a statement saying "there exists a book in the library" referring to an ID book that was initially a creationist book. Creationism is inherently religious as defined by the Supreme Court. I'm going to say that most people would agree with that, whether or not you want to or not. Saying there is a religious book in the library that presents an alternate "theory" to evolution is unconstitutional. You fail.

 

[Patashu]

When science is "allowed to follow the data where it LEADS" then you can easily discriminate between evidence of design and evidence of "rocks alone doing it". So in the fields were atheist dogma does not try to politicize that work -- science is "free" and so the science inventions and science descovery regarding one of the four basic forces in nature (magnetic wave forms) is allowed to advance to the point of discriminating between electromagnetic wave forms -- dectecting those that show DESIGN from those that do not. No challenges in court to stop it in it's infancy AS LONG as it does not challenge atheist dogma.

No atheist says that no intelligent designers exist, just that none were responsible for the formation of Earth/the universe. This is some incredible conflation you're doing, jumping to atheists rejecting ALL design because they reject the supposed design in life.

You know -- just the "obvious". But when the same basic principle of discriminating between design and "rocks can be seen to do that" is tried in other areas of science -- areas that might threaten atheist dogma -- then storm troopers are called out for "holy pogrom" against scientists that dare to follow that data where it leads and judges are recruited to "stop that science" even if it means that simple statements like "There exists a book in the library" must be legally stricken - censored verboten!

ID proponents are not discriminated against except when they claim they have proof and a theory when they have neither; they are free to do the research and write the theory, no atheists will break into their homes and stop them, they themselves are not being productive. No one is stopping ID proponents from doing research and writing scientific papers, they simply refuse to do this. (writing pop science books doesn't count as science)

One last time:

Those who claim that there is evidence for the theory of intelligent design are disagreed with because they do NOT have any new undebunked evidence nor do they have a falsifiable, scientific theory that has been tested, evaluated and shown to be plausible. There is no conspiracy to hide the evidence because none exists.
For example: When was the last time an 'ID breakthrough' was presented to the public? Compare to the new fossils and transitionals that are found to support evolution perfectly every month plus the scientific papers on evolution and evolutionary biology that are constantly advancing the field from scientists in every country (not just the USA). What evidence and scientific papers does ID put out every, say, month? When was the last time a new concept strengthened or revolutionized the supposed ID field?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

We are all still waiting on you to talk about Electromagnetic waves and how they give evidence for intel design