L2 Posted:

It’s not science’s place to say “We can’t study this, so we’ll ignore it.” Good science constantly searches for a way to study or measure something, then proves or disproves it from the results.

Yes it is. If you can’t study something, it is not science, and it has nothing to do with science. You can’t relate science to ID. you just can’t. hasn’t this already been said like 5 times in this thread?

Thingysomeone Posted:

I don’t understand how ID is Creationism (At least new-earth creationism) hidden. Basically, how I see it, ID says “Evolution happened, but God made it happen, and he decided how it happened.” This doesn’t say that evolutionary proof is false, it just says it isn’t a valid argument against God’s existence. A good way to think of it is with the old quote, “When technology becomes high enough, it is indistinguishable from magic.” God is probably a scientist of some sort, and figured out how to make and control little universes, one of which we live in.

ID is creationism in a trojan horse because it is a deliberate attempt by christian fundamentalists to place religion back in schools.

In this case, it’s more about the intentions than what is actually said.

L2 Posted:

However, it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID. At the moment, it certainly is, but in the same scope, we haven’t DISPROVED ID either.

It’s not science’s place to say “We can’t study this, so we’ll ignore it.” Good science constantly searches for a way to study or measure something, then proves or disproves it from the results.

l2 there is no way you are this very special.

I made numerous posts on these previous pages explaining in explicit detail why what you’re saying is horribly, horribly, god awfully wrong.

SO LET ME DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE I AM BORED

Now, throughout this posts there may be reiterations of the same point which some of our readers who are not l2 may consider redundant. Let me bumure you however that it is completely necessary as previous efforts on my part to explain these exact things have failed and I feel it is because L2 may need a guiding hand in his thinking process.

However, it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID. At the moment, it certainly is, but in the same scope, we haven’t DISPROVED ID either.

This is really, really twisted reasoning.

Do you know why we haven’t ‘disproved ID’?

Because it’s impossible to study.

Here, lets try this again.

it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID

At the moment, it certainly is

(That’s awful narrow minded of you, l2.)

we haven’t DISPROVED ID either

(the “either” there makes it appear as if there is an option between the two things you just said. That it is “Impossible to study ID at the moment”, and that “we haven’t disproved ID”. These are actually two separate statements that are not directly related to each other and the latter could actually be considered a departure, or “non sequitur”, from the previous statements. It almost appears as if you added this last part and phrased it so that it is deliberately misleading.)

Lets break it down again, but without those pesky words of mine getting in the way.

it’s narrow-sighted to say that it’s impossible to study ID

At the moment, it certainly is

we haven’t DISPROVED ID either

And again:

1. “It’s narrow minded to say it’s impossible to study ID.”

2. “We can’t study ID.”

3. “ID has not been disproved.”

I have simplified your statements and broken them into three separate pieces so that this next section of my post will be neatly organized and understandable for those on l2’s reading level. In the next paragraph I will deal with the first two parts.

When someone says that it is impossible to study ID, for example, someone in the scientific community, they say it because at this point in time it is impossible to study ID. Your position is that while it is now currently impossible to study ID it may be possible in the future, and that those who disregard ID because of it’s currently unstudiable are narrow minded.

My question is: What the **** do you want us to do?

Wait until a moment where it can be studied?

Technically, that’s what we’re doing. But at the same time we’re saying the truth; That it is (currently) impossible to study Intelligent Design.

What’s so narrow minded about saying something true?

PART ONE OF MY SERIES ON “WHY L2 IS A BAD PERSON” IS NOW OVER. IN PART TWO OF MY SERIES I WILL ADDRESS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF HIS POST AND POINT OUT WHY IT IS ALSO WRONG.

BUT ANYWAYS, YOUR MOST RECENT HORRIBLY WRONG POST DISTRACTED ME FROM POINTING OUT THE OTHER HORRIBLY WRONG THINGS IN THIS POST

L2 Posted:

It’s not science’s place to say “We can’t study this, so we’ll ignore it.” Good science constantly searches for a way to study or measure something, then proves or disproves it from the results.

It’s the scientific method’s job to do exactly that.

I mean, honestly, you could not have gotten science more wrong.

You said the exact opposite of what is actually true. I’m not exaggerating here either, that is *literally* the exact opposite of what’s true.

Give me an example of some of this “Good science.”

Good science studies ideas which it is able to study, and does not waste resources trying to figure out ways to study things without any supporting evidence.

nanalatinojesus gets you JUSTICE IN YOUR FORUMS edited this message on 05/18/2008 9:25PM

nanafabulous personjesus Posted:

I’m not sure where you got the idea that time travel is a valid scientific theory.

Actually, I shouldn’t have included time travel in that example, because one-way time travel into the future has been argued possible, using special relativity and time dilation. The effects are impractical, but measurable.

And I may have used some poor choice of words, but my point is – because something is not scientifically measurable doesn’t mean it gets thrown out. Left alone until evidence emerges? Sure. You said as much. But not thrown out.

I made another poor choice of words while bringing up theoretical science, in saying that it can only be addressed via mathematical possibility and logical reasoning, both of which I will agree that ID cannot be measured by. But the bare bones is, much of theoretical science, such as wormholes, exotic matter, etc., can’t be directly observed. Until a wormhole is observable in some way, it remains as objectionable as ID.

Philosophically, the case for ID can be argued. And while philosophy is far, FAR removed from science, and should never be approached as such, it argues a case in which ID can exist where science cannot. I never said ID has a place in science textbooks, or that it CAN be studied.

I will also agree that ID was created BY CREATIONISTS, specifically to WORK AROUND laws that PROHIBIT CREATIONISM, removing the blanket label of God from CREATIONISM so that it can be taught in clbumrooms and bring CREATIONISM back into scientific dialogue, it’s main proponent’s ARE CREATIONISTS, and it is HEAVILY used as a disguise FOR CREATIONISM. But a white horse is not a horse – creationism specifically states the creator as God, a god, etc., while ID is much trickier and depends on how one defines the term ID. There’s a complex, convoluted difference between the two, but a difference none-the-less.

Bill_Murray_Fan_7383 edited this message on 05/19/2008 1:27AM

BTW… nobody said that ID has to be thrown out. Maybe you can point out where you got that idea from. We simply said it’s not science. So you agree to that now?

nanafabulous personjesus Posted:

Theoretical physics is a completely valid and falsifiable section of science, and to put ID in the same level as it is an insult to everyone not as very special as you.

To be fair, string theory (among other things in high-energy physics) has been argued to be unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

nanafabulous personjesus Posted:

Which is why I dislike string theory.

Edit: My biggest problem with his post was that it was elevating Intelligent Design to the level of theoretical physics and saying ID and Quantum mechanics are equally viable because of his lack of knowledge about Quantum Mechanics.

And while String Theory is unfalsifiable and ****, it at least has some mathematical backing. Something ID lacks.

Once again, I admit it was a bad comparison, since mathematics and theory at least provide a venue for it’s study. But with a famous mathematical anomaly, I can argue that 1=2 – my point was the lack of observable evidence for subjects such as wormholes or exotic matter.

In the same sense, I can argue the case of ID PHILOSOPHICALLY, but that means **** without observable, scientific evidence.

nanafabulous personjesus Posted:

Edit: My biggest problem with his post was that it was elevating Intelligent Design to the level of theoretical physics and saying ID and Quantum mechanics are equally viable because of his lack of knowledge about Quantum Mechanics.

And while String Theory is unfalsifiable and ****, it at least has some mathematical backing. Something ID lacks.

Agreed.

On a related note, I do find it disheartening to see creationism and intelligent design compared, much less equated. They plainly are not the same. Creationism makes testable, specific, observable predictions about the world, such as:

-There are limits on “how far” a species can evolve (things reproduce after their kind).

-Dinosaurs and man coexisted.

-Geological layers, if they exist, should be sorted mostly according to mbum (i.e. hydrologically).

-Fossils are sorted hydrologically, with no obvious relationship between their morphology and where they’re found.

-The mutation rate in all organisms is very high (to account for all the neutral polymorphisms within species), or there is some evidence that it was very high in the past and suddenly dropped.

-No correlation exists between the depth of layers and the radioactivity of the rocks contained therein, or if such a correlation is found, then radioactivity is explainable in terms of flood geology in a way that makes dating measurements all consistently give false dates.

-Species have a distribution which generally reflects radiation out from Mt. Ararat 4,000 years ago.

-The speed of light is changing, or there is evidence that it has changed in the past, or no star is more than 6,000 light years away.

-People wearing radiation suits can live for 900 years.

Of course, these predictions all happen to be completely wrong, but at least creationists are willing to take a stand and submit their theory to the evidence nature provides. Of course, when their explanation for why their theory’s predictions are wrong begins with “Well, you see, God…” then it’s basically the same as ID. But otherwise, it’s actually a much better theory.