Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

[atrib]

It addresses your the point because I.D. is NOT soley a religious idea , which you seem to be trying to make out , giving the impression (deliberately if not mistakenly perhaps @ myself in regards to Hovind) that anyone coming to the idea , would be, by mere faith , without any reasoning at all (I agree some do). Now I don't pretend to have more than the "average" I.Q. but rationality is not beyond theists living in the modern world, who DO acknowledge and accept science, (who would be levels above me of course).

ID is creationism. The term Intelligent Design was invented by evangelical Christians who wanted the Biblical creation story to be provided as an alternative to evolution in public school biology classes while trying to avoid the Constitutional church-state separation issues that prohibits such activity. There is no science in ID, it is just Biblical creationism dressed up to look scientific. It has not worked in the past, but I am sure the Christians will keep trying.

You can read the transcripts for Kitzmiller v. Dover here:
https://www.aclupa.org/our-work/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts
If you don't have the patience to wade through the entire thing, at least read Michael Behe's cross examination. Behe is a biologist and a Christian, one of the few scientists who believe in ID. As the cross makes clear, ID is NOT science, it is just creationism in a bad wig.

You can read Judge Jones's opinion here for the same case:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/kitzmiller-v-dover-memorandum-opinion

Read the transcripts and the opinion from the Christian Judge and tell me if you still think ID is not creationism.

You could also provide links to articles in mainstream science journals where the concept of ID is treated like real science, and we can debate the scientific merits of ID.

All of this will take work and actual research, and something tells me you are not going to put in the effort, but will simply keep making random, unsupported claims with no basis of fact, as you always do.

Yes of course, and in regards to myself, I have understood "the obvious" for quite some time. You highlight Hovind as if, he was the one-and-only main source for theists to learn and argue from.

I'm talking about Hovind because he is the subject of this thread. And also because he is a good example of the dishonest, batshit-crazy fundie crowd that promotes creationism and hates evolution, even though they don't usually know nothing about the science.

Was he not making the point that the "science method" i.e. real-time observation etc. is not for example in the underlined of your above quote, not documented evidence ( but its accepted and taught as if it was .. is Hovind's point).

And once again your ignorance comes shining through.
The theory of evolution (TOE) is based on the observation and study of various aspects on nature:

1. the study of fossil remains
2. the study of limbs and other organs and comparisons between various animal groups, both extinct and alive today
3. the study of the genomes of various organisms and comparisons between the same
4. the study of biological development in various types of animals, by studying how the genes and switches create the animal bodies, and the similarities between these genes and switches in various animals

These are some of the ways that "real time observations" are used to infer how evolution works. As I said before, you can read books and watch online university lectures on the internet about the subjects (many for free). If you don't know what you are talking about and are not interested in making the effort to learn, feel free to keep posting the sort of nonsense you have been posting, and be prepared for snarky responses.

 

[atrib]

Was he not making the point that the "science method" i.e. real-time observation etc. is not for example in the underlined of your above quote, not documented evidence ( but its accepted and taught as if it was .. is Hovind's point).

Um, where do you find this definition of the scientific method?

He made it up. Actually learning stuff is hard, even for people calling themselves "Learner".

 

[Learner]

but every single time ID goes to court, accused of being religion rather than science, the ID proponents have failed to provide a non-religious basis for ID.

This is kinda significant.
It's not just that a science teacher was caught on the spot. Various experts show up each time, with every chance to show at least enough science to convince a conservative, Christain judge on the merits.

Fail.

A go-no go: how would you falsify ID theory?

If it can't be falsified, it isn't science.

Are you telling me that the notion of ID is not pondered on by non-theists and scientists e.g. having valid questions in mind? You know ... like that hologram universe theory or computer universe theory thingys? (not to change direction of thread)

But isn't the underlined above, more about the current science needing the devisive methods , I say this simply in parrallel to the example of projects such as trying to build another but bigger CERN, the reason when someone asked: "what-where-and-when" the universe or existence came about, in a manner of speaking (also Hovinds thoughts I would gather) because we are just about , only touching the surface in the whole scheme of things. Atheists know Christians can't answer by (current) methods so far (in the delight of debates that theists are "not doing so well in court) as well I suppose as Christians know atheists are better off or are correct in saying they "don't know" ( without getting into the, "prove there isn't") and making the claim.

 

[Learner]

Was he not making the point that the "science method" i.e. real-time observation etc. is not for example in the underlined of your above quote, not documented evidence ( but its accepted and taught as if it was .. is Hovind's point).

Um, where do you find this definition of the scientific method?

He made it up. Actually learning stuff is hard, even for people calling themselves "Learner".

You could be right, I hope to learn in the end (he says)

I'll respond a bit later if you don't mind ,for now I've got people to see and help out and work to sort out (that time of year)

 

[Worldtraveller]

Sure it is. It's useless to the curious, because it cannot satisfy his curiosity - unless he's a blithering idiot.

Referring to the beginning of the universe as an 'explanation' for any observed phenomenon in the present is useless, because it could equally explain absolutely anything. It does three eighths of bugger all to satisfy the curiosity of anyone with half a brain.

It is useless on every single possible level. It contains exactly the same information content as saying 'Because it is.' - viz none at all.

Intelligent design is a valid theory and is debated for by those curious investigators who also know science and have a different interpretation of the same data ( No theology).

It's not even a valid hypotheses.

The best actual explanation if one wants to use ID, is the Multiple Designer Hypothesis. You probably don't want to go down that rabbit hole, though, since it would be bad for your imaginary friend.

 

[Worldtraveller]

"We" is plural, but it is not third person. Where the fuck did Lion learn English?

Add it to the list of things he's wrong about.

One of the many examples of why I don't think it's here to actually engage in any kind of actual discussion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you telling me that the notion of ID is not pondered on by non-theists and scientists e.g. having valid questions in mind? You know ... like that hologram universe theory or computer universe theory thingys? (not to change direction of thread)

Learner, i have pondered the question of how Star Trek's Transporters might be used for elective surgery. That is NOT the same as stating that i have a scientific theory for phased array liposuction.
So, ni t saying no one discusses it, but still saying it's religion, not scientific.

But isn't the underlined above, more about the current science needing the devisive methods ,

...you want creationism to be considered a current science, so i do not see any point in the objection.

You claim ID is not religious, but resist and/or fail to deliver any basic science support for it. You don't get to offer an IOU for future research tlhat you cannot describe SOMEDAY providing that evidence.

Describe the most basic "theory" of ID, and how it could be falsified.

 

[Learner]

It's not even a valid hypotheses imo.

FIFY

The best actual explanation if one wants to use ID, is the Multiple Designer Hypothesis. You probably don't want to go down that rabbit hole, though, since it would be bad for your imaginary friend.

So multi-designer still means ID? I don't mind going down that "rabbit hole" because I'm intriqued. (perhaps on appropiate topical thread)

 

[atrib]

but every single time ID goes to court, accused of being religion rather than science, the ID proponents have failed to provide a non-religious basis for ID.

This is kinda significant.
It's not just that a science teacher was caught on the spot. Various experts show up each time, with every chance to show at least enough science to convince a conservative, Christain judge on the merits.

Fail.

A go-no go: how would you falsify ID theory?

If it can't be falsified, it isn't science.

Are you telling me that the notion of ID is not pondered on by non-theists and scientists e.g. having valid questions in mind? You know ... like that hologram universe theory or computer universe theory thingys? (not to change direction of thread)

Have you actually studied the string theory and black hole radiation models that serve as the basis for the holographic principle hypothesis, or can you at least explain why you believe why such hypotheses might lead us to the conclusion that we inhabit a simulation? Of course not. You are simply throwing shit out there, like your "God may be hiding in dark matter" claim. You likely don't even have a clue as to what is being discussed.

But isn't the underlined above, more about the current science needing the devisive methods , I say this simply in parrallel to the example of projects such as trying to build another but bigger CERN, the reason when someone asked: "what-where-and-when" the universe or existence came about, in a manner of speaking (also Hovinds thoughts I would gather) because we are just about , only touching the surface in the whole scheme of things. Atheists know Christians can't answer by (current) methods so far (in the delight of debates that theists are "not doing so well in court) as well I suppose as Christians know atheists are better off or are correct in saying they "don't know" ( without getting into the, "prove there isn't") and making the claim.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying we should accept a God hypothesis because our knowledge of the universe is currently incomplete? Do you not understand that even if our scientific understanding was wrong at the fundamental level it still wouldn't mean that your god hypothesis is correct? Please tell me you understand this.

You keep going on about ID. Can you provide a scientific framework within which the concept of ID is feasible? How can we test and falsify this ID hypothesis? Not asking for details, just a big picture snapshot of what you believe to be a scientific basis for the ID claim. Or at least provide a criticism of modern evolutionary theory, telling us what specific concepts and data you disagree with? Of course not. You don't know shit about biological evolution either.

 

[Learner]

I'm not a believer of the hologram (creation) theory lol , I've yet to get back to your previous post.

(Apologies just bear with me).

 

[Keith&Co.]

(Apologies just bear with me).

Why?
I mean, for what?

You have had ample opportunity to show you understand enough science to think you have a point to make, or evidence to offer, but it doesn't look like patience will be rewarded.

Hovind us a conman, ID is creationism, evolution is science, and your objections are wishful thinking.

 

[Learner]

Why?
I mean, for what?

So I can try to be as "coherent" as I can for Atrib (besides being busy, not running away).

 

[Learner]

ID is creationism. The term Intelligent Design was invented by evangelical Christians who wanted the Biblical creation story to be provided as an alternative to evolution in public school biology classes while trying to avoid the Constitutional church-state separation issues that prohibits such activity. There is no science in ID, it is just Biblical creationism dressed up to look scientific. It has not worked in the past, but I am sure the Christians will keep trying.

What else can it be? Who would actually deny the obvious in this particular discussion? Creator + Creation = Creationism = ID, which is not what I'm disputing here. The previous posts was regarding religion in which case, there's "no science in religion" is what I think you should have been saying. Science CAN ask as valid questions to whether or not "we were created" etc., without the non-scientific things , such as um.., saying prayers and going to church for scientific knowledge (to state the obvious). I dare say,there are people out there that try to make the alternatives to evolution to suit their personal agenda perhaps, but I don't doubt that non-theists, also have their own versions of evolution in mind, after reviewing over new studies, I would assume.

You can read the transcripts for Kitzmiller v. Dover here:
https://www.aclupa.org/our-work/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts
If you don't have the patience to wade through the entire thing, at least read Michael Behe's cross examination. Behe is a biologist and a Christian, one of the few scientists who believe in ID. As the cross makes clear, ID is NOT science, it is just creationism in a bad wig.

You can read Judge Jones's opinion here for the same case:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/kitzmiller-v-dover-memorandum-opinion

In the first quote above, you make the statement that Christians (in general) want to make the creation story, the alternative to evolution. Hmm, its a useful thing to point out and so... you must then, have the "belief"(if not being naive), to maybe also claim , that secularists just "don't" do such things, similarly wanting to have alternatives to creation, even though humans universally are naturally capable of being dishonestly biased . (you "may" say theists do so, more than atheists )

As I said, I don't dispute that "creation is NOT science", in the sense that "biblical theism" is NOT scientific,. However , "creator and creation" (depending on the context) can also be thought of, as one would think of a highly advanced entity , producing little lesser life forms etc., thats without the prayers or worship in the equation (for lack of a better discription) i.e. NO religion,. Sort of a mirroring of ourselves, although on a much lesser scale and level, trying to create in the lab.. Anyway, the context of creation here would be more a philosophy than it would be biblical religion.

cont...

 

[Learner]

Have you actually studied the string theory and black hole radiation models that serve as the basis for the holographic principle hypothesis, or can you at least explain why you believe why such hypotheses might lead us to the conclusion that we inhabit a simulation? Of course not. You are simply throwing shit out there, like your "God may be hiding in dark matter" claim. You likely don't even have a clue as to what is being discussed.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying we should accept a God hypothesis because our knowledge of the universe is currently incomplete? Do you not understand that even if our scientific understanding was wrong at the fundamental level it still wouldn't mean that your god hypothesis is correct? Please tell me you understand this.

You keep going on about ID. Can you provide a scientific framework within which the concept of ID is feasible? How can we test and falsify this ID hypothesis? Not asking for details, just a big picture snapshot of what you believe to be a scientific basis for the ID claim. Or at least provide a criticism of modern evolutionary theory, telling us what specific concepts and data you disagree with? Of course not. You don't know shit about biological evolution either.

I won't go on much further on the hologram "hypothesis" (to get back to Hovind topic) but as you posted yourself (and worldtraveller should take note of ) this is not based on biblical theism or a similar religion. This would also come under the catergory of "creation", although this would be made debatable, should someone want to dispute creation, by arguing that a "simulation" could have come in to existence without ID of course.

The claim of God hiding in dark matter.

Its not that I was claiming God was hiding in "dark matter" (I wasn't clear here). I think I was responding to posts such as, "There can be no place where God can hide without being seen or detected", in which my response to it was more of an analogy than a claim. Meaning, one can't even detect dark-matter and so therefore, God "could" hide out there undetected (simplistically saying).

 

[hyzer]

Astrophysicists CAN detect dark matter....

 

[Learner]

(slightly off topic) I think its probably still a debatable Idea. Has something new been dicovered? ( genuine curiosity)

 

[Keith&Co.]

(slightly off topic) I think its probably still a debatable Idea. Has something new been dicovered? ( genuine curiosity)

Huh. Can you name anything in science that is not a dabatable idea?

 

[Learner]

Indeed, but I would still be right then.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Indeed, but I would still be right then.

Not really, you only suggested 'probably.'

 

[Learner]

Good point.