48 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Looking at it from the
perspective you seem to be espousing, only those things that can be directly observed exist. Is that what you're saying? If that's not it, what are you trying to say?
Try reading Dan as...
what I said was in pretty plain English.
These Scientists are accepting a "reason" for "Scientific observations" ON BLIND FAITH just as Intelligent Design accepts an Intelligent Designer based on scientific observations of irreducible complexity for one and TOTAL LACK of transitional evidence for another (among many diverse observations).
That is the ONLY perspective it can be looked at from because that is what is happening. (Of course perspective may be different there in the imaginary world you appear to live in. Go ask Alice.)
There has been evidence of dark matter since 1933
This evidence has been more indirect in nature, whereas the new evidence you found and posted is more direct.
There is a difference between blind faith in ID and knowledge that something must exist because of observed phenomena. ID is fanciful idea which has been shown to be nothing but fanciful.
ID may or may not eventually offer more complete explanations of life's origins, but it is not 'fanciful' and it has not in any way been 'shown to be nothing but fanciful'.
I'm surprised that you would even consider citing a source so obviously partisan as the Wikipedia article.
You put so many words
in quotations marks that it is difficult to determine your meaning, Ed. There have been theories for years that have postulated dark matter. They also postulate that it would be difficult to observe because of its properties. Now there are observations (I'm not sure how they are differentiated from the "Scientific observations" of your post) that seem to match some of the theoretical models. They are saying that there is stuff out there that has a set of properties that will cause observable effects, and they lay out extensive mathematical models to support their theory. Now they have the observation that matches the model and are saying "See, the stuff is out there. It matches the model and there is no other model that fits the observations as well."
What is your problem with that? Do you believe that the observations are not accurate? Why? Do you believe that the observations do not coincide with the theoretical expectations of some dark matter models? Why?
It is clear that this situation upsets you very much. What is not so clear is the reason for your upset.
And why the insults, Ed? I just asked a simple question.
(NT) theories+models=fact or truth?
Here's a pretty good FAQ
re Fact, theory and so forth as it relates to evolution.
Also, see the "Response" to peer review articles of ID
That's pretty much what Behe did in Darwin's Black Box where
he developed the concept of Intelligent Design. Why is it science in one case and not in another? The parallels, for those whose minds are open to consider them, are striking.
But that was a critique of Evolution.
The title's a givaway on that point. Darwin didn't call his work "Problems With Creationism". Behe did not propose a model that could be tested by observation. What is Behe's ID cretionist model? Can it be fully articulated without mention or reference to other models?
It probably could ...
The problem is that the priests in the church of darwin will not entertain any model that includes a designer. It is an a priori part of their 'science'. They made a decision, as an article of blind faith, that 'real' science cannot consider hypotheses of that sort.
We're left with a whole class of potential explanations of life's origins that cannot be 'legitimately' researched. A pity.
Anyone who wants to can research anything, Bill. It is a free market of ideas. What were the reletive positions of acceptance and propriety of creationism and evolution when Darwin's ideas were proposed? Evolution faced a far greater imbalance than ID creationism faces now.
Propose a theory and model and make the evidentiary observations. If it fits together well enough it will become the dominant school of thought. That's what happened with Evolution. So far the only thing that's come of ID creationism is a bunch of potshots at Evolution.
"Priests of the church of darwin"? Oh, Bill.
The biggest pot shot of all ...
... is the Darwin sycophants who don't even bother to know enough about Creationism and ID to know the difference.
Hmmmmm. I think that bit about free inquiry is threatening
to break the laugh scale. Sure! All your bosses will crush anyone who gets out of line, but you are free to inquire. Same with the professional publications who won't publish anything against the church doctrine.
Sure! A scientist is free to inquire into anything he likes. ROTFLMAO.
It should be easy, why, KP?
There is vastly more support for ID creationism now than there was for Evolution when Darwin proposed it. Why did Evolution develop into the position it now holds and why cannot ID creationism do the same?
There you go again ...
... ID and Creationism are separate theories and no less founded in science than Darwin's THEORY.
No sense of history? In Darwin's day, the priest's were in
the church. There was far more freedom in the scientific community than there is today. That was because the scientific community was conservative in its values and standards. It believed in free inquiry and in the ability of individuals to accomplish great things.
Today, the priests have moved into the scientific community and embraced a new faith. Freedom has been greatly diminished if not completely dismantled. Liberal ethics rule, and liberals do not like those who disagree with them. Dr. Bill has already told you all about that.
'Cannot' is perhaps too strong ...
The primary challenge facing ID or creationism researchers is that they do not have much money to support research. The priest's in the church of darwin are not likely to offer support even when ideas have merit.
The surprising thing is not that the ID research is incomplete. The surprising thing is that it happens at all.
The fact that you believe there is a free market of ideas in scientific research just establishes how little you know about the process. Essentially everybody I know in the medical research field is convinced that the process is highly political.
Darwin's results came in another time in which shoddy research was tolerated and (in his case) sometimes even rewarded.
Instead of the 'priests in the church of darwin' would you prefer my other proposed nomenclature: GHSP? I'm just emphasizing the rather obvious fact that darwinism is a religion based on blind faith.
If the idea has
sufficient merit, as you know so well, Bill, it will become accepted. Evolution is one such example. The Big Bang theory was so named for its ridicule value by its detractors; it is now the generally accepted model for the history of the universe. I'm sure you can come up with some theories from your own field that have survived similar long odds.
The only thing stopping the collapse of support for Evolution is the lack of a better model.
You refer to Behe's title (Darwin's Black Box) as if you
understand what it means. Please tell us what Behe meant by that title, and, scientifically, explain why he is wrong. In other words, why is his intended meaning within the title wrong?
If you don't know what he meant, just say so. Hint: he explained the title in the book. The question doesn't require you to read his mind.
Chuck Colson's take
Health & ScienceOf Rats and Men
By Chuck Colson
A recent New York Times story described an experiment involving two colonies of rats: The first were bred for tameness. The second colony, ?bred from exactly the same stock,? was wired to be aggressive. The results were described as the ?sweetest cartoon animal? and ?the most evil super-villain.? Whereas the tame rats poked their noses through the cage to be petted, the others ?hurl themselves screaming toward their bars.?
The researchers? goal in breeding lovable and villainous rats was to understand how human beings domesticated previously wild animals like horses and cattle. They hypothesize that the characteristic that made domestication possible, tameness, is genetic in origin. Breeding tame and aggressive rat colonies is a step toward identifying what they call a ?tameness gene,? which they presume is ?the same in all species of domesticated mammals.?
If the article had stopped there, it would have been interesting in a National Geographic sort of way. But they then went on to speculate that humans might possess such a ?tameness gene,? and that this gene contributed to our ?domestication.? The theory goes that those with the ?tameness gene? ?penalized or ostracized individuals who were too aggressive.?
Let?s set aside the obvious objection that there?s no proof that such a gene exists in rats, much less humans. The bigger problem, as one science writer put it, is the idea that human civilization is the product of a hypothetical ?nice rat, nasty rat,? or in this case, ?nice human, nasty human,? gene.
This experiment would have come as no surprise to the late philosopher Michael Stove. He would have regarded the idea that we are nothing but the sum of our genes and the dangerous belief that we can fix our race by genetic engineering as yet another one of Darwinism?s ?unbelievable claims.?
Stove?s critique of these claims was recently published in a book titled Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution. Stove, who called himself a man of ?no religion,? acknowledged Darwin?s ?great genius? and admitted that natural selection had great explanatory power when it came to ?sponges, snakes and flies.?
However, Stove regarded Darwinism as a ?ridiculous slander to human beings.? Flesh-and-blood people do not act in any ways resembling what the Darwinian dogma says they should. For instance, natural selection dictates that ?every organism has as many descendants as it can.? Stove asks, ?Do you know anyone of whom that?s true??
Likewise, Darwin insisted that natural selection would ?rigidly destroy? any variation that would hurt its possessor ?in the struggle for life.? Stove replied, ?start with the letter ?A?: Abortion, Alcoholism, or even Altruism.? Are any of these ?variations? being ?rigidly destroyed??
These are two of the many ways Darwinism gets humans wrong. Yet, as the Times story illustrates, this dismal track record has not stopped Darwinists from slandering humans (whether by reducing our vices and virtues to genetic determinism or by comparing us to laboratory rats).
(NT) Nope! That's not what Behe meant.
Hey Dan! It shouldn't take this long if you already know
(NT) Nicely nonresponsive, KP.
Why don't you just admit you don't know?
As always, you try to deceptively avoid the point. If you don't know the substance of Behe's work, as you have now admitted, your observations on it are baseless and ignorant speculations.
Perhaps someday you will learn the value of honesty in discussions, but I'm not holding my breath.
You haven't addressed
anything I've said, KP. How is that honesty in discussion? Answer that.
Is buying government securities lending to the government? Answer that.
You've now lost the ability to read? My outstanding question
is addressed squarely at what you said. Why don't you answer it? What was Behe referring to when he called his book ''Darwin's Black Box''? Why, scientifically speaking, is he wrong? You don't even have to supply a link. You only have to provide a correct or accurate answer.
The answer is that you don't know. Until you admit your ignorance, I cannot proceed with any subsequent points.
It was the same in the Treasury discussion Dan. I proved your assertions were wrong with a link to the US Treasury's web site. You seem to think that repeating an obscure question proves something. It only proves dishonesty in the way you respond to others. The same dishonesty that is now being seen in the Behe question. You made an assertion. You can't back it up. You try to change the subject.
Been there. Done that. Nothing new here.
You're projecting, KP.
You avoid addressing my points by your childish answering a question with a question. You ignore the questions that you've been shown wrong on. You contend you've proved points that you have not.
But I can see that you're agitated. Go rest a while until you feel more relaxed, KP.
Still can't answer the question eh?
I'ld say read the book, but it would be a waste of time for you. You have to be willing to admit your problem before anyone can help.
KP, you just
sound so silly. You refuse to address questions and then tell others that they're the ones not giving answers!
Still haven't found the answer eh Dan?
If you want to use a different mantra, try mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. The old one is getting a bit boring.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)