ackack

Joined

• started 40 topics
• posted 438 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by ackack

• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul, I think you have a pretty poor understanding of science and what evolution is. You use vague scientific claims to challenge evolution while at the same time deriding science for being a poor way to gain knowledge. You claim science is stogy and rigid, and nature is too weird to be contained by scientific thinking. As well, you make a few arguments from final consequences, and those arguments are fallacious.

  Science seeks to make sense of what is empiracally learned from the natural world. Science has produced some weird theories to explain bizarre counter-intuitive natural phenomenon. The test of science, where rubber meets the road, is when a theory is tested against new data. If the theory predicts wrong results, ideally it is reformulated, or thrown out. Sometimes people hang on to pet theories longer than they should, but eventually, if a theory continues to produce wrong results, it is tossed out. People who hang onto theories past their prime become relegated to quack status, and are typically ignored by the scientific community. (Behe is an example of this)

  Darwinian evolution has had plenty of time to be disproved. The discovery of genetics has not only confirmed the viability of the theory, it has bolstered it to an unimpeachable degree. The microbiological evidence for evolution is pretty staggering.

  What is this evidence against evolution you speak of? What is this wonderful evidence for God you believe in?

  You wrote earlier

   Defense Attorney: "Did you see the defendant holding this knife and plunging it repeatedly into the body of your poor, sainted mother?" Bereaved Daughter [ pointing at defendant ]: "Yes! Yes! Yes! He did it! He's the one, I saw it!" Defense Attorney [ rocking back with arms crossed smugly ]: "Can you prove that you saw it?" Prosecutor: "Objection, your honor!" Defendant: "I want a different lawyer, your honor!" 

  
  What was the point of this? You said an "accusation against someone requires proof" and then use this example of an accusation to deride asking for proof. Are you aware of the self-contradictory nature of this post? Do accusations, or even statements that are extraordinary (or paranormal) require proof or not? Is there a difference in the quality of evidence between testimony and physical evidence?

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  I'm not really sure what to say here, but I sense a bit of confusion around some of my basic ideas. You said proof does not need to testable, but then give an example of assertion. Assertions do not need to be testable in of themselves, but belong in a greater framework of a proof. People can assert all sorts of things that happened to them personally, and there is no way to either prove or disprove them.

  You are confusion science with my general attitude of skepticism. Is there any belief you have that is entirely based upon anecdotal evidence? Do you think its a good idea to have beliefs based entirely upon anecdotal evidence?

  I've already made mention about the folly of trusting in personal experience as a means to gauge if something is true or not. Memory and perception are very fuzzy things, and can easily be altered. I guess what it comes down to is that I don't feel anecdotal evidence is very compelling. Selection bias plays to much of a part in what anecdotes are recounted and which are forgotten.

  I never said that because something was unprovable it is false. This is a claim some might make, specifically some illogical atheists (and on the flip side deists make, via the argument from ignorance).

  You say that not every assertion in a court of law requires proof, but of course unchallenged assertions don't need proof offered. I was implying only challenged assertions.

  You call it clunky and methodical, but that is your own experience coloring that. I've lived large portions of my life giving away my beliefs to people who simply told me it was so. Don't confuse living life and forming beliefs around the nature of life. I still live my life in a pretty reckless way even if I am cautious about forming new beliefs.

  History shows us that the act of forming beliefs around anecdotes is a pretty messy way to build a belief system.

  You wrote, "Ultimately, each individual arrives at proof for everything he or she examines. It happens thousands of times a day, probably billions of times or more. What two individuals consider compelling will always differ, to a degree. But at whatever point belief is compelled, the thing considered is proven to the person." Whether it is proven to your or not (any specific) belief, it doesn't make it true or false. Searching for truth is more challenging than searching for beliefs.

  Your personal beliefs don't matter to me, that is, until they impinge upon others in some way. Then it does matter what you believe.

  So tell me, what beliefs do you have that are based entirely on anecdotes? Do you place a lot of emphasis on these beliefs in your personal life?

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  I should also mention that you are equivocating "proof". Proof should be testable on some level. Just because something might lead you to a conclusion, it is not also unnecessarily proper to call that "proof". The statement, "a belief in God is unprovable" is certainly true, as there can be no test devised to test for the existence of God. I'm happy though to hear how you think we could test for the existence of God or not.

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  "The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim" is only true in Science. It is not natural to impose this rule outside a laboratory. Making a claim, any claim, does not require proof (as long as it is not defamatory, libelous, or slanderous). Certainly not claims deriving from subjective, personal experiences. To insist otherwise an unnatural set of laws and rules and maxims outside their environment of usefulness where they can actually cause harm if enforced. Asserting that a claim is wrong requires proof out here in the real world. That is the natural order.

  It's also true in a court of law. Why shouldn't it generally be true in life? Asking for proof for a claim in unnatural? This statement in nonsensical. Asking for proof arose naturally. Subjective experiences never require proof. To claim that I find ice cream repugnant would require what sort of proof? This is not a statement that is provable in any meaningful sense.

  (1) Testimony is evidence which lends to a proposition. Anyone got a problem with that statement?

  Testimony has been shown to be highly unreliable, and as far as I know, courts don't convict people on only testimony evidence.

  (2) For some people, testimony alone may be sufficient evidence to prove a thing true. Anyone dispute this claim?

  Some people find tarot cards and tea leaves sufficient to prove a claim. Does that make tea leaves and testimony on par with each other?

  (3) Testimony which forms a body of evidence that proves a thing true to a specific person can properly be termed "proof" in any context outside of science. Anybody objecting so far?

  Testimony only beliefs are on very shaky grounds. Some people have very shaky beliefs.

  If not, why did anyone have a problem with me objecting to the demonstrably erroneous statement "There is no evidence for a Creator." The body of evidence may not compel Abaddon to believe, it may not be proof for him, but it is unquestionably evidence and it certainly exists.

  So is this the bar upon which we judge if evidence is good or not, its mere existence? I grant you this "evidence" exists, but I should hope there is something a little better than people "testifying" to a belief, especially such an extraordinary belief as the existence of God.

  However much disdain he may feel toward those who use this body of evidence for themselves as personal proof, such people do exist. Even among ones who review science journals and among jurists.

  So is credulity a virtue? I find it very scary that anyone would offer only testimony as proof. This manner of reasoning has led people astray so many times now. My litany of examples (homeopathy, astrology etc) above is evidence of that.

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul, you wrote, I would say, the natural course of things is that if I pick up horse dung and sniff it and declare "This stinks!" I could not care less who agrees or disagrees with my statement of fact. That's what I would call the natural course of things. Of course the scientific method is unnatural. I never expected anyone to suggest the possibility it was otherwise. Do you believe it is a natural method? If so, why does it have to have rules to make sure it works? And people who enforce the rules prior to publication?

  Though you certainly could get people to rate the smell of horse dung in a blind study, and conclude, horse dung stinks for the majority of people. :) A more natural method for arriving at "truth" is personal anecdotes, confusing separate events for causation. This is certainly the method that truth has been arrived at by most people for a very long time. It's interesting how many people in America believe in astrology, esp, homeopathy, naturopathy, ufo visitations etc, despite the negative proof against them. Science is more rigorous. We can apply that sort of rigor to other beliefs as well, even if what we're doing is not strictly science.

  Testimony is inherently flawed because of how flawed our own perceptions are. Memory, experience is personal, but as you correctly point out, not objective. Personal experience might be very moving, but I think generally we need to be cautious about accepting our own personal experiences as "true".

  True science limits itself, but shouldn't we have some constraint about accepting new information as true? As to personal experience, how can anyone agree or disagree with you that horse dung stinks? How could you validly ask anyone else if horse dung stinks for you or not? This is a straw man to advance your argument that whatever you personally hold to be true is true regardless of outside information from others I guess. Science can inform our beliefs, but there is no scientific theory that something will stink or not stink for us personally.

  I guess I just don't quite understand what you're getting at. Are you saying the process of science is flawed because it limits what information can be used as proof? Are you saying that science misleads us from getting to all sorts of truth? Do you believe there is "proof" for God's existence that is testable, or is it simply a matter of faith? Is the same true for ID?

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul: are you saying that your arguments for ID rely on testimony evidence?

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul: I can see now you do fundamentally misunderstand science. You wrote: "The scientific method intentionally introduces unnatural constraints on that which can be considered compelling, becoming self-limiting in that which it allows to inform its resulting opinions. The individual is under no such constraints. Nor is any body of individuals, outside the arena of science."

  Unnatural constraints? Do you know why science limits what evidence can be introduced? Science works on making a hypothesis, and proving or disproving that hypothesis. The hypothesis needs to be provable or disprovable. If you call that "unnatural" so be it. There is no place for a creator in evolution, and as it stands, there is certainly nothing about evolution that requires a god so far. Observed evidence fits evolutionary theory very well.

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul: Are you expecting science to deal with the exists/non-existence for a creator/designer? If you are, you are fundamentally misunderstanding science.

  ackack
• 
  159

  Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

  "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

  " the biotic message page.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  Nice Ken Miller lecture about ID http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8937189243168103522&q=intelligent+design
• 
  67

  Born Gay?

  by Sam87 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

  ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ackack

  Abaddon, love? You have a strangely idealized view of sex. :)

  ackack