Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 106 of 396 (439471)
12-08-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 9:03 PM


Buzsaw writes:
My message 91 offers one example of science supportive to the supernatural which secular science has ignored.
But there's nothing there that's "supportive of the supernatural". Even if the chariot wheels (or whatever) were real, there's no need for a supernatural explanation. Moller could just as well be claiming a supernatural element in gravity or scotch tape.
If you're going to explain how supernatural-based science can work, the God-did-it part can't be something that has a simple natural answer.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 9:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 10:12 PM ringo has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 396 (439472)
12-08-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 8:51 PM


Re: How do you present the evidence
What is your response to the specifics of my Message 91 relative to your comments?
The fact that you buy (literally) a hoax doesn't mean science needs to investigate it.
But my response in Message 98 was directed at jarMessage 97:
Please provide the model that explains how archeology can support the existence of the supernatural?
But now that I have your divided attention, you seem to be under the impression that there is a lot of evidence that is actively being suppressed by a conspiracy involving almost all science.
To my knowledge no secularist scientists have even shown any interest in this phenominal discovery. Why? Likely because it has supernatural implications which secular science purposfully avoids.
So again, perhaps mainline secularist science's aversion to asking questions is indeed missing out on valuable and new discoveries as per your statement.
And again, as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well (applying some of your own phraseology).
That's a lot to base on a hoax - a creationist hoax - that hides it's own evidence from real research and only sells to gullible believers, Buz. I've seen your evidence Buz, remember? But that isn't the issue of this thread, the issue of this thread is:
So Just How is ID's
Supernatural-based Science
Supposed to Work?

If it is science there must be a prediction based on a theory based on evidence.
How come none of it is ever presented if it exists?
How does that work?
It seems that all you have is a premise:
(It is maybe just possible that perhaps a designer exists)
and a political program built around a sound-bite that is a falsehood designed to fool gullible people.
(Teach the controversy)
How is that science?
So buz,
What is your response to the specifics of the topic relative to your comments?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 8:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 10:24 PM RAZD has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 396 (439481)
12-08-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ringo
12-08-2007 9:42 PM


Ringo writes:
But there's nothing there that's "supportive of the supernatural". Even if the chariot wheels (or whatever) were real, there's no need for a supernatural explanation. Moller could just as well be claiming a supernatural element in gravity or scotch tape.
Oh, but there is supportive evidence, especially when you factor in the Biblical record relative to all the corroborative Exodus related evidence in the region on both sides of the crossing discovery. These have all been discussed and debated in the archives of EvC. This is not the place to go into all that but it exists physically for anyone who is interested and has the expertise, finances, time and equipment to research as has been expended by the Biblicalists involved in all of this effort over the years. My point is that here is falsifyable evidence which can be studied, researched and explored by secularists as Dr. Moller has done but secular science has no interest in researching anything which would be supportive to a higher realm intelligence existing in the universe. Furthermore, anything supportive to the Biblical record implicates accountability to a higher power which secularism is reluctant to acknowledge.
Ringo writes:
If you're going to explain how supernatural-based science can work, the God-did-it part can't be something that has a simple natural answer.
Come, let us reason together. Neither the God-did-it or the it-did-itself has a simple natural answer. How about exposing it all to the school kiddies as well as the universities who train the teachers etc and let the chips fall where they may?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 12-08-2007 9:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 12-08-2007 11:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 396 (439488)
12-08-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
12-08-2007 9:43 PM


Re: How do you present the evidence
Razd, shouting off topic and crying "hoax" serves no useful purpose. That word "supernatural" relative to intelligent design in the topic title implies a supernatural being, does it not? How are we going to get anywhere in this discussion aside from first establishing that evidence is out there which is supportive to a higher realm of intelligence as in intelligent design. That's where we must begin, is it not?
ABE: My question to you is if it's all a hoax, what secularists have even made an effort to go out there and prove it to be such?
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2007 9:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 10:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2007 8:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 396 (439500)
12-08-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 10:24 PM


Re: How do you present the evidence
Why did Dr. Lennart Mller who is a scientist and knows how science is done not follow ANY scientific method and instead simply make an infomercial to sell to ignorant gullible Christians?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 10:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 396 (439517)
12-08-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 10:12 PM


Buzsaw writes:
Oh, but there is supportive evidence....
I didn't say there's no supportive evidence. I said the evidence isn't supportive of anything supernatural. A chariot fell in the water.
Furthermore, anything supportive to the Biblical record implicates accountability to a higher power....
No it doesn't. Anything supportive to the Biblical record of natural events only supports natural causes. The question remains: how do you and ID relate natural events to supernatural causes?
How about exposing it all to the school kiddies as well as the universities who train the teachers etc and let the chips fall where they may?
That's kinda what we're getting at here. What are you going to show the kiddies? "Here are some chariot wheels. God must have thrown them in the water?"
Where's the science that connects the natural to the supernatural?

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 10:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 11:34 PM ringo has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 396 (439531)
12-08-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ringo
12-08-2007 11:15 PM


Ringo, obviously you haven't viewed the Dr. Moller video "Exodus Revealed" or read the Dr. Moller Book, "The Exodus Case," which are available all over the web. There's a whole lot more scientific research here than a picture of a chariot wheel. Dr Moller presents the evidence and leaves the conclusions up to the reader or viewer. My point is that evidence like this supportive of higher intelligence/ID should be exposed to the universities and public schools for the folks to be aware of relative to this topic to be fair and balanced.
As per the thread title, supernatural-based science hasn't a prayer so long as this kind of evidence is prohibited in educational institutions and so long as secular science has no interest in looking at it.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 12-08-2007 11:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 12-08-2007 11:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 12-09-2007 8:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 113 of 396 (439532)
12-08-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 11:34 PM


Buzsaw writes:
My point is that evidence like this supportive of higher intelligence/ID....
My point is: How is any of that natural evidence supportive of a higher intelligence? If every footprint of the Exodus was found, if every castoff pot and pan was traced back to its original owner, if every moment of every day of the journey was documented in voluminous detiail, what does any of that have to do with anything supernatural?

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 11:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 114 of 396 (439546)
12-09-2007 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 9:03 PM


To get into the specifics of ID relative to science, would be leading off topic.
Uh, no, that would be right on topic. Remember, I am the one who posed the OP.
Just exactly how is a science that it based on ID's requirement for supernaturalistic explanations supposed to work? How are we supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses?
Relative to topic, dwise1 asks how ID's supernatural based science can work.
Yes, so why are you declaring our attempts to get that question answer to be "off topic"?
How are we supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses?
My message 91 offers one example of science supportive to the supernatural which secular science has ignored.
Uh, no it doesn't. It does nothing whatsoever to answer the question of how we are supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses.
If Dwise and you folks want an answer, we have to begin some place. That's what I'm attempting to do.
No, you are obviously trying to avoid the question. Yet again, in case you haven't seen it before (by your conduct, you can't have):
How are we supposed to test supernaturalistic hypotheses?

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 9:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 115 of 396 (439548)
12-09-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
12-08-2007 10:36 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
All species are fully formed all the time. All species are also transitional, with the exception of those that go extinct.
That doesn't make the slightest sense to me which is why I require more of an explanation than you obviously do.How does one progress from a reptile to a bird without developing wings and feathers and new bones and new circulation and an altered neurological system to support that and so many many other changes without developing these along the way.How would these things have developed fully formed by random mutations without a comprehensive plan?
This sounds like the frog and the prince story - both fully formed in an instant.
there is a scientific controversy over creationism when there isn't
Yes there is and it is not going to go away because it is scientific.If there were religious objections, that might stay in church but the objections are fully scientific and I just wonder where you get your information that you cannot recognize that.You imagine that I am deceived and I know that you are. Evolutionists repeat the same mantras over and over so they all have the same sources that are completely in the dark or else keeping their followers there.
So tell me how did a wing develop while at the same time being fully formed with feathers and where is the proof that this can happen?
Evolutionists don't march into Christian churches claiming there's a religious controversy over Genesis that should be taught in Sunday school, and they certainly don't lobby religious publishers to de-emphasize treatments of Genesis while presenting the religious evidence for evolution.
They don't need to,they have those kids all week and can indoctrinate them into a mindless soulless random mutation type world at school and college.
more and more scientists are becoming convinced of the bankruptcy of evolution and the truth of creationism
You may not believe it but it is true and I personally understand why.
you have to convince the scientific community that the designer even exists before you can begin convincing them of his involvement in the changes in life over time
Or conversely why don't you try to explain to me how a leg with scales became a wing with feathers but both were fully formed at all stages.This must be the evidence that the IDcamp has been hiding from me and I need to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 12-08-2007 10:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 12-09-2007 8:55 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2007 10:23 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 125 by nator, posted 12-09-2007 3:20 PM Beretta has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 116 of 396 (439551)
12-09-2007 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 6:27 PM


quote:
A good starter would be for National Geographic's marine scientist/archeologist/explorer, Dr. Robert Ballard to at least go to the Gulf of Aqaba and explore the site marine biologist,
So a good start would be for someone to provide convincing evidence that there is something worth investigating there.
quote:
Dr. Lennart Moller has researched, witten about and produced videos of the underwater photographed corral encased debris which resembles chariot parts, in a region described in the Biblical record including corroborating evidence relative to the Exodus account and Red Sea crossing.
You mean coral formations - because it hasn't been established that there was significant debris within them i the first place. And in the wrong place because the "Sea of Reeds" in Exodus is almost certainly not the Red Sea.
Moeller's association with the fraud Ron Wyatt (who provided a good deal of the "evidence") and his crazy rewrite of Egyptian history are also negative factors.
quote:
To my knowledge no secularist scientists have even shown any interest in this phenominal discovery. Why? Likely because it has supernatural implications which secular science purposfully avoids.
Or more likely because it is NOT a "phenomenal discovery", the "evidence" is extremely dubious and weak and it's tainted by fraud and incompetence.
quote:
And again, as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well (applying some of your own phraseology).
Science is not about teaching manufactured controversies to preserve fallacious views - and it never has been. What you call a "perversion" of science is the heart of science itself. You want science to be a slave to your theological views - to distort and misrepresent the evidence to "prove" you right. And that truly would be a perversion of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 6:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 117 of 396 (439558)
12-09-2007 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
12-08-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
The Ediacaran faunaa few things I dug up)
"Narbonne and Gehling of Queen’s University, Ontario, were surprised by the “unexpectedly large size and complexity“ of the fossils (some up to nearly 2 meters long.)"
"Deep within the earliest Cambrian layers are complex animals up to two meters long, even lower in the strata than the Ediacara fossils similar to those in the Burgess Shale that dazzled Gould."
This actually sheds the light of truth that there was no early animal evolution; animals were already there, fully formed and up to two meters long.
These fossils appear suddenly fully formed, then disappear, with no clear relationship to the Cambrian fossils that followed. As such, they are no help to explaining the Cambrian explosion.
And how could you have missed the discovery that feathers evolved on dinosaurs ?
Unless they didn't...
From an article on ABC France:
“Dinosaur ”feathers’ are no such thing.” Instead, it’s just decayed dermal collagen, like that found on sharks and reptiles. A South African team came to this conclusion after analyzing the alleged feathers on Sinosauropteryx.
This casts doubt on the birds-from-dinosaurs theory. The team leader called the idea a “reckless leap” from the evidence, and said, “There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a proto-feather.” He called for more scientific rigor in the analysis of these fossils."
Or perhaps you're talking about 'archeoraptor' the made-in-China fraud retracted by National Geographic but first accepted by same due to wishful thinking and prior commitment to the theory of evolution.
The rest of your points are equally badly-informed - or worse.
Or...I don't have your blind faith.
Heard about this new film coming up, "Expelled" ?
Yes actually -this weekend I heard about it and I must say I am very pleased.
It's not only part of the big ID conspiracy to depict themselves as a persecuted minority
Unless they are actually the persecuted minority -watch the movie, it may have some educational value unless your evolutionary training has been to intense for your blinkers to be lifted.
(although they can't even come up with ONE good case !)
Actually they've come up with many.Again, watch the movie.
they also got interviews by pretending to produce a quite different film.
No, they had a different name for the film -'Crossroads' -Richard Dawkins was also in a movie in the past that changed its name at the last moment -it's apparently quite commonplace to do that -the content did not change however.Whatever Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott said must surely still apply? Did they say something they didn't mean? Did they lie? Well if not, they should not be concerned in the least -their anti-ID feelings will just gain a wider audience of 'delusional' people (as Dawkins likes to call them that believe not.)
If it's so obvious, then why are creationists hiding all the evidence of transitional fossils from you
I'm still waiting for you to show me some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2007 10:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2007 4:32 AM Beretta has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 396 (439559)
12-09-2007 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Beretta
12-09-2007 4:05 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
quote:
This actually sheds the light of truth that there was no early animal evolution; animals were already there, fully formed and up to two meters long.
Except that these fossils are from BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. And - if you're referring to the fossils that I think you are - they probably aren't animals.
quote:
These fossils appear suddenly fully formed, then disappear, with no clear relationship to the Cambrian fossils that followed. As such, they are no help to explaining the Cambrian explosion.
That's not true. Some are unrelated - others have been identified as early members of groups found in the Cambrian Explosion. If you'd actually checked out the link I provided you'd have seen that.
quote:
“Dinosaur ”feathers’ are no such thing.” Instead, it’s just decayed dermal collagen, like that found on sharks and reptiles. A South African team came to this conclusion after analyzing the alleged feathers on Sinosauropteryx.
That's just one example - and there are others.
quote:
Or perhaps you're talking about 'archeoraptor' the made-in-China fraud retracted by National Geographic but first accepted by same due to wishful thinking and prior commitment to the theory of evolution.
It was identified as a fraud by people committed to the theory of evolution. Before formal publication in the scientific journals.
quote:
Or...I don't have your blind faith.
SInce you were wrong in every case, it's pretty clear which of us is relying on blind faith.
quote:
Yes actually -this weekend I heard about it and I must say I am very pleased.
So in fact you approve of dishonesty.
quote:
Unless they are actually the persecuted minority -watch the movie, it may have some educational value unless your evolutionary training has been to intense for your blinkers to be lifted.
They aren't. The DI has been going on about being "persecuted" for some time now. They just haven't come up with any cases. If the had a case as clear as the sacking of Chris Comer (forced to resign for informing people of a lecture critical of ID) they'd have produced it by now.
quote:
No, they had a different name for the film -'Crossroads' -Richard Dawkins was also in a movie in the past that changed its name at the last moment -it's apparently quite commonplace to do that -the content did not change however
A different movie with a different description - not just a change of name. And who knows what tricks they plan to do in the editing ?
quote:
I'm still waiting for you to show me some.
Talk about blind ! Did you not even notice the examples ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 4:05 AM Beretta has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 119 of 396 (439571)
12-09-2007 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Beretta
12-09-2007 1:17 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
Hi Beretta,
The reason I gave you such brief answers about evolution is because most of your post was off-topic in this thread. If you'd like to have a discussion about the basic principles of evolution you'll have to find an appropriate thread where that would be on-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 1:17 AM Beretta has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 120 of 396 (439572)
12-09-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 11:34 PM


Topic Drift Alert!
Buz, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you would take the off-topic issues, such as archaeological evidence for the Bible, to another thread. Thanks!
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 11:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024