The universe is proof of god!

[Keith&Co.]

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

called it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

called it.

But you've gotta admit that it was like calling a sunrise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pretty much...

 

[Random Person]

Great answer

 

[Underseer]

It actually is a problem. You can't cycle through an infinite number of minutes. The answer to the question, "Has an infinite amount of time elapsed?", is always, "Not yet."

Did you take a calculus class? Because it sounds like the basis for your argument is that you don't need supporting evidence to support your conclusion because of some kind of argument from ignorance fallacy.

All finite time is made up of an infinite number of infinitesimal segments. According to the logic of your argument, finite time doesn't exist either because if we tried to count up all of the infinitesimal segments, we would never reach infinity, therefore finite time doesn't exist either.

That's absurd. Maybe you're stuck in one of Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno didn't know nuthin' about Calculus or even Algebra. We don't divide time into infinitesimal segments in order to measure it. The measurement of a finite number of minutes yields a finite total.

It's impossible to count to infinity, therefore finite numbers are impossible.

Your special pleading fallacy fails to note what is wrong with the logic of this argument. Once you see what is wrong with this argument, you will see what is wrong with the argument I'm making fun of.

 

[Random Person]

That's absurd. Maybe you're stuck in one of Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno didn't know nuthin' about Calculus or even Algebra. We don't divide time into infinitesimal segments in order to measure it. The measurement of a finite number of minutes yields a finite total.

It's impossible to count to infinity, therefore finite numbers are impossible.

Your special pleading fallacy fails to note what is wrong with the logic of this argument. Once you see what is wrong with this argument, you will see what is wrong with the argument I'm making fun of.

If there was something wrong with the argument you could articulate it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

It has come to my attention that the AIDS crisis came about some time after the last recorded sighting of Mokele-Mbembe in the Congo. I believe the very existence of Mokele-Mbembe creatures in the African ecology served to suppress the life form that eventually developed into HIV.
When these creatures were allowed to die out, the consequences were not only a huge loss to academic circles such as paleontology and cryptozoology, but millions upon millions of human lives.
We need some heroic efforts to start NOW to isolate and preserve other cryptids. There's no telling what the possible biological threats could be. What if Unicorn extinction was linked to the Black Plague?
We could be five or fewer skunkapes away from an outbreak of Superpolio, or the Florida Flu, or something.


----------

So, if this is a claim I make and want official funding for, Random, do you think the proper 'scientific' response would be to create a study to look into the claims?

 

[Random Person]

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

It has come to my attention that the AIDS crisis came about some time after the last recorded sighting of Mokele-Mbembe in the Congo. I believe the very existence of Mokele-Mbembe creatures in the African ecology served to suppress the life form that eventually developed into HIV.
When these creatures were allowed to die out, the consequences were not only a huge loss to academic circles such as paleontology and cryptozoology, but millions upon millions of human lives.
We need some heroic efforts to start NOW to isolate and preserve other cryptids. There's no telling what the possible biological threats could be. What if Unicorn extinction was linked to the Black Plague?
We could be five or fewer skunkapes away from an outbreak of Superpolio, or the Florida Flu, or something.


----------

So, if this is a claim I make and want official funding for, Random, do you think the proper 'scientific' response would be to create a study to look into the claims?

Are you having a stroke?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you having a stroke?

Not at all.

You asked for 'the study.'
But, really, is the 'scientific' approach to what appear to be made-up-bullshit claims to form a study?
For actual scientists to stop researching their own projects, get funding for the purpose of evaluating every single off-the-wall claim made by anyone off the street, with a proportionate loss of resources for their own work?
Or would 'science' wait until the claimant produces actual evidence, peer-reviewed papers, repeatable observations and otherwise prove that the claim is science, not made-up-bullshit?

 

[Random Person]

I asked you:
Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

You Said:
Every time
That's why it's rejected..

I asked:
How was it tested?

Skepticalbip responded:
Scientifically.

I said:
Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

You got dismalized.

I asked for a study because I was told there was one. Now you are telling me there isn’t one.

It still sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I asked for a study because I was told there was one.

No, I never said there was a study. I said it was tested.
People asked, "Where's your evidence?" (Just like they do with any claim asking to be taken seriously as science.)


ID failed that test.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you having a stroke?

Not at all.

You asked for 'the study.'
But, really, is the 'scientific' approach to what appear to be made-up-bullshit claims to form a study?
For actual scientists to stop researching their own projects, get funding for the purpose of evaluating every single off-the-wall claim made by anyone off the street, with a proportionate loss of resources for their own work?
Or would 'science' wait until the claimant produces actual evidence, peer-reviewed papers, repeatable observations and otherwise prove that the claim is science, not made-up-bullshit?

Exactly.

But there is also scientific disproof of the "pull-it-out-of-ass" claims by the ID crowd. Unfortunately, RP has no idea what science is. ID claims that features have "Irreducible complexity". Unfortunately for their claim, what they claim is "irreducible" has been shown to have evolved to its present state gradually. For one instance, the structure of mammalian inner ear evolved from bones in the jaws of early reptiles (which were the early ancestors of mammals). So the bone structure of our inner ear is not "irreducibly complex" as claimed. This wasn't done to "test" ID but to understand how critters come to be what they are but RP doesn't understand that science seeks understanding and is not dedicated to "testing" every nutball's ideas in a formal study.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But there is also scientific disproof of the "pull-it-out-of-ass" claims by the ID crowd.

Yeah. Specific claims are made, evidence is offered, evidence is reviewed and found wanting, player gets to respawn with new evidence.
Repeat as necessary until claim is supported.


Similarly, someone claimed that the continents moved. He offered no real evidence.
People rejected the claim, some quoting bible verses that said the earth doesn't move. The claimant was held to eb a crackpot.
Some time later, someone else took the idea, researched, found objective evidence, published, and the evidence withstood scrutiny. Now only crackpots DON'T accept Continental Drift.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I asked you:
Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

When a proposition is unfalsifiable, it fails because it can't be tested. The sun exists. How can scientists prove it wasn't intelligently designed? Even after being able to show all of the natural processes involved in its life cycle, can't disprove it wasn't intelligently designed.

 

[skepticalbip]

I asked you:
Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

When a proposition is unfalsifiable, it fails because it can't be tested. The sun exists. How can scientists prove it wasn't intelligently designed? Even after being able to show all of the natural processes involved in its life cycle, can't disprove it wasn't intelligently designed.

You are right that science can't disprove a "goddidit" claim (not being able to be disproved does, however, not prove the assertion true). The problem with the ID crowd is that they tried to make that claim sound scientific so it could be taught in schools as science rather than religion. That claim can and has been shown to be not science.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I asked you:
Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

When a proposition is unfalsifiable, it fails because it can't be tested. The sun exists. How can scientists prove it wasn't intelligently designed? Even after being able to show all of the natural processes involved in its life cycle, can't disprove it wasn't intelligently designed.

You are right that science can't disprove a "goddidit" claim (not being able to be disproved does, however, not prove the assertion true).

But because it can't be disproved means it isn't testable. If it isn't testable, it isn't a valid hypothesis.

The problem with the ID crowd is that they tried to make that claim sound scientific so it could be taught in schools as science rather than religion. That claim can and has been shown to be not science.

Is there still an ID crowd? I remember ID being all the rage 10+ years ago when they started their rebranding of creationism.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there still an ID crowd? I remember ID being all the rage 10+ years ago when they started their rebranding of creationism.

Unfortunately, yes. I don't have any idea how large a group or how "effective" they are but there apparently still some "putting up the good fight". You can even send a donation to keep the group alive.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

Donate to support Intelligent Design and the scientists and scholars who are courageously challenging the Darwinian establishment by making an online donation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is there still an ID crowd?

Sadly, there are places where someone can still run on a "I will throw godless evolution out of schools" ticket. Or a 'teach the controversy' ticket, or a 'I will waste lots of city/state money in court refighting this silly fight over and over and over' but they'll win THIS time because 'god's on our side.'

 

[Elixir]

You are right that science can't disprove a "goddidit" claim (not being able to be disproved does, however, not prove the assertion true).

But because it can't be disproved means it isn't testable. If it isn't testable, it isn't a valid hypothesis.

The problem with the ID crowd is that they tried to make that claim sound scientific so it could be taught in schools as science rather than religion. That claim can and has been shown to be not science.

Is there still an ID crowd? I remember ID being all the rage 10+ years ago when they started their rebranding of creationism.

I thought that after Behe admitted being wrong about his examples of "irreducible complexity" the IDiots would have to re-tool. But NOooo, Behe's/Dembski's admitted nonsense is the only horse they have, and they keep flogging it despite the maggots.

 

[Random Person]

But there is also scientific disproof of the "pull-it-out-of-ass" claims by the ID crowd.

Yeah. Specific claims are made, evidence is offered, evidence is reviewed and found wanting, player gets to respawn with new evidence.
Repeat as necessary until claim is supported.


Similarly, someone claimed that the continents moved. He offered no real evidence.
People rejected the claim, some quoting bible verses that said the earth doesn't move. The claimant was held to eb a crackpot.
Some time later, someone else took the idea, researched, found objective evidence, published, and the evidence withstood scrutiny. Now only crackpots DON'T accept Continental Drift.

That's the point I am making. If you reject something out of hand, you can't also say it's been scientifically invalidated.