"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“It was PedXing who asked you, not me! Keep up, you're a little punch-drunk, Sarge.”

“�It was PedXing who asked you, not me! Keep up, you're a little punch-drunk, Sarge.�

I replied to him and haven't got a response yet. All my other posts were to you, unrelated to his question. All in response to this statement by you Mutt:IDiocy is NOT science, has NO predictive power, and is NOT testable. ”

“So, Mutt, are you going to answer my simple questions?”

“All anyone has to do is read this thread to realize that intelligent design, most definitely, does not exist.”

“Is your interior diameter getting pink , YET?”

“either you dont get my point or you refuse to consider it

and just what is your point? i thought we were discussing the origin of man and the universe. i wasnt interested in talking about the politics of it. maybe you were”

““How about an example of a testable proposition offered by ID?

If that is directed at my dialog, "why?"”
Sarge
12:35:36 PM
12/10/07

For a claim to have scientific utility, it needs to generate testable, i.e. falsifiable, propositions. I haven't seen any. Forms of creationism basically bit the dust when they offered falisifiable propositions.

For example arguing that the fossil record that was revealed in layers of sedimentation that appeared to support evolution was actually due to the flood - generated the proposition that fossilized species would be found in layers consistent with a flood. This was a testable proposition that proved to be false (for example, flightless birds were found in layers well above many species of flying birds).”

“For a claim to have scientific utility, it needs to generate testable, i.e. falsifiable, propositions. I haven't seen any. Forms of creationism basically bit the dust when they offered falisifiable propositions.

How do you know there isn't a testable, (falsifiable) proposition? Just because you haven't seen any? For that matter, if I haven't seen any, does that prove there aren't any, even though I'm an IDer?”

“well, are there?”

“�well, are there?�

I'll answer that when somebody answers my previous questions. They are directly related.”

“in other words, no.

just like in the courtroom, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the burden of proof is on the ID'ers, because they are the ones who are trying to bring in something new. but they havent even SUBMITTED one article to peer review, let alone been rejected”

“What a sec ... don't stick your foot in your mouth any more.

I am directly challenging your premise that I would need to offer the type of proof you are requesting. You should be able to back your claim that I would need to provide that kind of evidence. Nobody has been willing to go there. I am challenging the assumpting that I would need to provide the kind of evidence you are considering "proof" that a particular subject is science.

So, as in a courtroom, where the burden of proof is on the person making a claim - back up your claim before I am required to fulfill your request.

I'll ask again -

(1)
IDiocy is NOT science, has NO predictive power, and is NOT testable.
How do you know this? How do you KNOW it is not testable?

(2)
On what date did Einstein's gravity speed theory become science?”

“the problem with ID is, youre now throwing an unknown sentient creator into the mix. if god is all-powerful, all-knowing, endless, boundless, his ways and motives are unknowable and un-testable to us mere mortals, and by its very definition, not science. if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in philosophy

to address lumberj's concern again, i agree a little bit. instead of presenting evolution as fact, there should be some sort of disclaimer. like "we are 99.999% certain this is what happened and this is how we have deduced it has happened"”

“his ways and motives are unknowable and un-testable to us mere mortals

Again, how do you know this?

and by its very definition, not science.

By what definition?”

“stick your foot in your mouth any more

sorry. you dont get points for bluster

I am directly challenging your premise that I would need to offer the type of proof you are requesting. You should be able to back your claim that I would need to provide that kind of evidence

well, i am directly challenging your challenge of my premise that you need to offer proof. you should be able to back your claim that i should be able to back my claim that you would need evidence. see? 2 can play that stupid game”

“Crash, stop feeding the troll.”

“i thought i was trolling the feed”

“crash - Sorry, I thought you were seriously debating this. Now I see you're clowning around.

You can't "make the rules" unless you're willing to play by them. Scientists have 2 standards, one for things they believe to be true, and one for things they do not. I am insisting that, as a science-apologist, you play by your own rules.

If you want me to "prove" my case, you should be able to prove any case of yours using the same standards. So far, I haven't seen any "scientist" on here willing to do that.

I am saying that ID is science. You are saying that it is not.

Then YOU (the scientists) asked for proof that ID is science. I am simply saying that if you want to ask for a specific kind of proof from me, you should be willing to do the same for "your" science.

I do not think because I personally, or you personally, don't know how to test something, it is not science. (hence my 2 questions from above)

If you want to prove me wrong, that I am unreasonable in saying this, then answer my 2 questions; otherwise, I am left to conclude that you are unwilling to give ID the same kind of chance that other "scientific theories" have been given.
last edited: 12/11/07 5:37:11 AM”

“you cant make an exact science out of something that is greater than you. it would be like the rat in the maze performing quantum physics on the scientists”

“The personal insults always come out by you guys when you're cornered and asked to offer actual support for your beliefs - right on cue.”

“I do not think because I personally, or you personally, don't know how to test something, it is not science

when you get your own dictionary, you can write that into your entry[i]”

“crash - Sorry, I thought you were seriously debating this. Now I see you're clowning around.
Sarge

There can be no serious "debate" about IDiocy.

It is Creationism, which is a fairy tale.

"cornered"???
Ha ha ha ha !!!”

“You are still unwilling to answer my questions.

You see people - the "scientists" have 2 definitions for science, depending on who is offering the theory.

I love this thread. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the so-called-self-described scientists perfectly.

Still waiting on somebody (somebody more serious about this) to answer the 2 simple questions.”

“MarkO - if is it so funny, why don't you answer the questions? I've never heard you seriously debate something like this - all insults - if you really think you're so smart and what I am saying is laughable, why don't you back yourself up for once instead of hiding behind your jokes and letting everybody else fight the fight for you?
last edited: 12/11/07 5:45:52 AM”

“now, if somebody Designed the designer, the designer designer could make a science out of intelligent design, like we have computer science. now THAT would be one heckuva lab”

“The jokes and the personal insults are coming out in full force now.

typical”

“Sarge, you are chasing your tail and worthy only of derision.

You are not a kind or charitable person here on Trail Talk nor do you actually participate in OUR community.........you reap what you sow.”

“How do you know this? How do you KNOW it is not testable?

i dont KNOW it, but until someone comes up with a test, theres not much you can do with it, and it will not be regarded as science by mainstream scientists. now, id'ers can either get to work finding a way to test their ideas, or they can continue pouting and shouting about the godless liberal atheists that are holding them down

On what date did Einstein's gravity speed theory become science

dont know. dont care. by gravity speed theory, do you mean general theory of relativity?”

“MarkO - Like I said, personal insults, no substance. You are the one throwing insults here, not me, but you claim I am the one who reaps what they sow. typical”

“i dont KNOW it, but until someone comes up with a test, theres not much you can do with it, and it will not be regarded as science by mainstream scientists. now, id'ers can either get to work finding a way to test their ideas, or they can continue pouting and shouting about the godless liberal atheists that are holding them down

So is something only testable if you know it is testable? I say "no". Just like *normally*, scientists say "no". Gravity speed theory (considered a scientific theory for decades) was NOT testable until recently. So, what day did it become science? According to most scientists, the day it was conceived by Einstein, it was "science". But, according to your requirement you have of IDers, it wasn't science until 5 years ago.

Which is it?”

“ahh. i see what you did there. the thing with the speed of gravity wasnt proved or tested until recently.

the difference is, i believe einsteins speed of gravity theory was predictive (although not testable til recently)

ID is not even predictive, because a designer is not predictable”

“So is something only testable if you know it is testable?

thats not what i meant or said. UNTIL something is testable, it is worthless”

“maybe it is testable. maybe it isnt. therefore, i invite all you id'ers to get to work coming up with something predictive and testable, and quit b!tching about how the popular kids are picking on you”

“the difference is, i believe einsteins speed of gravity theory was predictive (although not testable til recently)

ID is not even predictive, because a designer is not predictable

Well, I disagree. In my opinion (not saying this is science), the Creator not only is predictive, but He wrote a book about His nature and our future relationship with Him.

Even if that were not true, we don't know how predictable he/she/it is.

How "predictive" is Einstein himself?

He's dead. There isn't a whole lot you can predict using his self. You can see some of the results of his life, but did he not exist? Would science deny his existence? It's possible a "designer" is dead. Would science deny the existence of an IDer, but not Einstein?”

“(offtopic) crash - even if we disagree on this, you can see (as you always seem to discover by the end of our conversations), I am not yanking your chain or wasting time with useless arguments or skirting around the issues. You always seem to accuse me of those things in the middle of an argument, but you later realize that I do in fact have a point. Maybe you could reduce the amount you waste time in these debates by making personal insults and accusations towards me and just engage in some good ole fashioned discussion? Sound like a plan? Good. Great. Glad to hear it. I look forward to it.”

“You can see from Sarge's use of capitalization of "Creator" and "He" and "His" that IDiocy is nothing more than thinly disguised creationism.

Sarge's arguments could be used to defend any stupid argument: "but how do you know God's Gravitic Hand is not testable?"

The reason you're not getting debate Sarge is that you've brought nothing to the table. That's the problem IDiots have - there's nothing substantive to their theory. Add to that that you're a one trick pony with your "but is science really science" fallacy and there's absolutely nothing here but you making a fool of yourself over and over.

It's quite funny that an otherwise intelligent person would be suckered into believing something so IDiotic, but then you think 9/11 was directly our fault like Tilt and other anti-American liberals, so you're basically f*cked in the head anyway...LOL
last edited: 12/11/07 6:30:25 AM”

“You can see from Sarge's use of capitalization of "Creator" and "He" and "His" that IDiocy is nothing more than thinly disguised creationism.

My belief in the nature of a creator is not only known (I am Christian), but irrelevant. When I address my God, I try to capitalize pronouns describing Him. That is irrelevant to this discussion, which isn't meant to "name" the designer.

I also used lower-case when discussing this from an IDer perspective - "Even if that were not true, we don't know how predictable he/she/it is." - but obviously you missed that.

My religious beliefs are not relevant to if this theory is science.

Sarge's arguments could be used to defend any stupid argument: "but how do you know God's Gravitic Hand is not testable?"

That isn't my argument on this matter. That is my argument on Mutt's/pedxing's/crash's claim that I need a specific kind of evidence to prove my theory as science. Your claim that I need that evidence is not my claim that there is an IDer. Somehow you have confused the two.

The reason you're not getting debate Sarge is that you've brought nothing to the table. That's the problem IDiots have - there's nothing substantive to their theory. Add to that that you're a one trick pony with your "but is science really science" fallacy and there's absolutely nothing here but you making a fool of yourself over and over.

My argument is clearly is that there is as much substance to my theory than other "scientific theories", and the fact that YOU are unwilling to answer my previous 2 questions helps support that. YOU are the one who is unwilling to offer substanative debate. Instead, you turn to personal insults, as demonstrated in this quote of yours, and many others.

It's quite funny that an otherwise intelligent person would be suckered into believing something so IDiotic, but then you think 9/11 was directly our fault like Tilt and other anti-American liberals, so you're basically f*cked in the head anyway...LOL

More strawmans, more lies, more unprovoked personal insults, more hypocrisy. All in one sentence.

typical”

“Ah there's that persecution complex again.”

“Ah there's that persecution complex again.

More strawmans, more lies, more unprovoked personal insults, more hypocrisy. All in one sentence.”

“but He wrote a book about His nature and our future relationship with Him.

wow. WOW. because a collection of 10,000 year old shepherds stories is so scientific

How "predictive" is Einstein himself?

when did i say einstein is predictive? his THEORY was. wow.

He's dead. There isn't a whole lot you can predict using his self. You can see some of the results of his life, but did he not exist? Would science deny his existence? It's possible a "designer" is dead. Would science deny the existence of an IDer, but not Einstein?��

thats such a bizarre tangent im not even touching it”

“One trick pony indeed.”

“wow. WOW. because a collection of 10,000 year old shepherds stories is so scientific

Wow. Soundbite. Like I said, not that it is science.

when did i say einstein is predictive? his THEORY was. wow.

Wow. I didn't say you did. My point being that he may not be. Just like a creator might not be. Yet, scientists don't deny Einstein existed.

thats such a bizarre tangent im not even touching it

Except that it is not a tangent. It is directly related to your request to show that a creator is predictive. So, if this is a tangent, so is your request.”

“One trick pony indeed.

More strawmans, more lies, more unprovoked personal insults, more hypocrisy. All in one sentence.”

“Sarge , drag a cross and you'll be noticed.”

“Okay, okay, Sarge. I apologize. Really.

How about this: instead of playing games, how about just spilling out your perspective. After all, if you're confident about it, it should cause you no cause for concern.

What would be predictive power to you?
What standard of evidence would be sufficient for you?
From these two questions, what examples - if any - have come from the study of ID?

You know our perspective on science. Share yours.”

“What would be predictive power to you?
What standard of evidence would be sufficient for you?

The same definition and standard as was used for Einstein's gravity speed theory for 87 years.”

“


Creationism Museum exhibits rarely take requests


P.S. � �

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

”

“all of a sudden, Tilt is a constitutionalist. LOL!”

“not that it is science

if its not science, its useless to further science.

scientists don't deny Einstein existed

so what? people have seen einstein (maybe it is a mass conspiracy, and einstein didnt exist). no one on this side of the Curtain has seen god.

the reason im not touching your bizarre tangent is because it is such a complete and utter twisting of what i said into what i didnt say. if youre going to so profoundly misunderstand, i dont even know where to begin setting you straight.
last edited: 12/11/07 8:24:31 AM”