Science Doesn't Say Anything - Scientists Do

Being involved in numerous ‘one-ended conversations’ with an increasing number of Atheistic Evolutionists, there is one conclusion I have come to - There is no such word as dialogue. I abandoned all forums of hopeful dialogue since I could not find one on the Internet with ‘wannabe scientists.’ After hearing over and over that Atheisms is a Religion, why does the Educational System allow Humanists’ dogma to be taught in public schools? Why are classes on ‘Religions of the World’ taught to open the minds of the students when the iron doors are welded shut to alternative theories for the Origins of Life? I believe I found the answer. It is our own Government. The Government controls the Educational System. Here is the URL for the National...

Thank you for posting this:http://rjmoeller.com/2009/11/a-public-service-announcement-for-harry-reid-and-nancy-pelosi/
In a just reality the addressees would read it and have a revelation. But when your agenda is to destroy capitalism and the American Middle Class so you can do the bidding of your preachers..er, I mean your marxist professors. Not one word of it will ever reach what few brain cells they have left.

To all the America haters in this thread. Captain Planet was a lie. Darwin's Theory is just that..A Theory. You've grown up believing lies, and if Global Warming and the harmful effects of CO2 is the hill you want to die on. Than, STOP BREATHING. Problem Solved

What this country needs right now is a...

If accountants – who deal with something as objective as numbers – can cook the books, why can’t climate scientists? Obviously, they can and they do.

.

ME: "Science rejects miracles."

YOU: "Prove that. On what grounds?"

You say you studied engineering? Evidently not much sunk in. Maybe you do perform exorcisms on binaries!

"You are lying. Here is where I "jumped" in..."

Obviously you can't comprehend metaphor. To you metaphor is 'lying.'

"Why would I go further when you admit you haven't studied it?"

Translation: Rich D is afraid.

"This is where you displayed your ignorance about 'information' (not 'intelligence' and used baby words like "odds" and went off into never land about random numbers.

Since when was 'odds' struck from the dictionary? What do you have against a perfectly clear word?

If you want to get nit-picky, how about we talk about the difference between 'information' and 'data'?

"Then you lied again bragging about your programming prowess and degrees:"

You show your ignorance. And you're the one bragging. You're the one who asked what I do. It's disingenuous of you to imply it was my idea to talk about degrees or work experience. I was merely responding to your request.

"The trouble with lying is that the posts remain here for all to review."

-- except I haven't "lied." You just won't accept the truth. A simple search of the web on me and the product I mentioned will answer questions for all who are interested.

But this stuff is beside the point. I suppose it's your attempt to switch topics. You can't destroy my arguments so you go after me. So, again, I challenge you to a debate...

ME: "Wow, is this how you debug code? Do you perform exorcisms on the machine?"

YOU: "Wow! Is this the limit of his thought processes?"

Do you think lame evasion will solve your problem? How do you debug code? Do you enlist the supernatural? Would a programmer who tries exorcisms on his binaries be expected to make it very far? Why not? Am I being "biased" to scoff at the idea?

"You've made vague references to it. So go ahead. I dare you. Start your discussion of information theory and how it relates to the origins of life."

Sorry, dude, you'd be at a loss - besides, you are the materialist that claims something from nothing and that only science can demonstrate anything. Here is your first claim in post #31"

"Science rejects miracles."

Prove that. On what grounds? Evidence? See, you are making an absolute claim, so the ball is in your court.

Heck, your own gurus who confessed to the illogic of the claim were over your head!

"I'll keep this simple [anything more than that seems beyond you ken!] since you have such a hard time following. Someone asks me the probability of my son having a blue-eyed son. Then you jump in and say the question cannot be answered until I know the intelligence of my son. All I can do is laugh at your silliness."

You are lying. Here is where I "jumped" in:

Donjindra
Location: CA
Reply # 57
Date: Nov 25, 2009 - 3:20 PM EST
Rich D.
"That is a low energy, low entropy state with little information content."

It doesn't matter. For anything that happens there are odds of it happening. Only when we completely understand the processes involved can we begin to talk about odds. Until then "calculating"...

ME: "To claim [scientific materialism] is somehow biased [to materialism] is like claiming algebra is biased towards using equations."

You assert this is a non-sequitur. But I used it as metaphor. Obviously the metaphor troubles you because it makes it clear what Johnson is really doing. He's merely complaining about the definition of what science is. He can spin it as "bias" but it's just spin. Spin does not affect results. Algebra is a method; science is a method. Both are designed to achieve certain results. Their "bias" is no more than that. If Johnson thinks he can achieve similar results by a supernatural method he's free to do that. But he knows he cannot do that so he whines that scientific "bias" is the cause of his own...

"I tell you what - when the materialists discussing RNA and DNA stop using the term genetic CODE, I'll stop talking about information theory."

In your exchanges with me you have not discussed information theory a bit. You've made vague references to it. So go ahead. I dare you. Start your discussion of information theory and how it relates to the origins of life.

I'll keep this simple since you have such a hard time following. Someone asks me the probability of my son having a blue-eyed son. Then you jump in and say the question cannot be answered until I know the intelligence of my son. All I can do is laugh at your silliness.

you say that Creationism "can't be demonstrated or proven", true. But actually neither can evolution, in the terms that it is used today. It maybe true that organisms adapt to environments; or more truthfully, they adapt or die (cf. extinction). However, in real scientific terms it is merely a postulate, not correctly a theory. In common language terms it is called a theory, because Darwin called it such, but scientifically, it doesn't reach that level.

The problem with the evolutionists isn't that the don't accept creationism, the real problem is that they don't even admit that evolutionary "theory" is flawed, and this in the face of overwhelming evidence. To them it is a religion, their "Holy Grail."

incoherence when confronted with the truth. He really is just a pretender!

I haven't read such stupid babble in a long time, especially from one who claims that he is an accomplished scientist! He can't respond to anything without resorting to non sequiturs like this:

DJ responding to Johnson: "Of course it is an a priori commitment to materialism. This means it is philosophically committed to accepting only material evidence. To claim this is somehow biased is like claiming algebra is biased towards using equations."

A two-fer when it comes to non-sequiturs! Maybe there were too many big words in the quote.

And this really stupid response to Lewontin:

Lewontin: "Moreover that materialism is absolute...

You folks are setting up an artificial divide between science and religion. My husband (an ancient scientist) always liked to tell the story of the medical student who thought he was hot stuff so his professor decided to teach him a lesson about scientific humility. He asked the boy to assist him in the lab and assigned him various tasks: dispatch (kill) a chick, dissect out various specified tissues, liquify the tissues in the Waring blender, assay the resulting puree in various tests. Eagerly the apple-polishing student carried out all these tasks then went back to the professor to ask what he should do next. "Now," said his teacher, "put the chick back together."

(For the literal-minded among us, the point is, only God can...

When a post is directly addressed to me I think it's discourteous to ignore it, but a couple with my name in the heading don't make any sense to me so I don't know how to answer; maybe they were meant for somebody else? One states that Noah's flood was a miracle (fine, I don't care, go for it) and the other is about the census worker in KY who was found dead (tragic however it happened). I don't recall posting on either and I don't see the connection with anything I've said. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Been nice talking to you.

Pay attention when those who know what they are talking about speak with you; you might learn something.

When we speak of "testable" or "measurable" in regards to the question we are addressing, we are not speaking about belief in God since that is the CONCLUSION we are attempting to either affirm or, in your case, deny.

It is the evidence that supports that conclusion that we present for testing or measuring; not the conclusion itself. Understand?

If you can demonstrate any proposition put forth by an ID proponent,as being true, that cannot be tested or measured, I'd love to hear it.

There is nothing testable or measurable about belief in God or that he is the "intelligence" behind the universe. Chuck, nothing you say has anything to do with science. You are simply, as my father would have put it, "talking to hear your head rattle."

"Intelligent Design is simply a term that was made up to make creationism sound like science and attempt to get it into textbooks. Whatever you call it, it's bogus. It isn't science, it can't be demonstrated or proven, and the only way its promoters can make their case is by trying to discredit evolution science."

No, actually Intelligent Design, while having philosophical implications (what doesn't?) uses testable and measurable scientific arguments to discredit the bad science that has grown up around the misnamed "evolution science".

That is its point. That is its ONLY point.

What the critics of ID consistently fail to acknowledge are the philosophical implications of their "science" while disallowing ID on the...

Intelligent Design is simply a term that was made up to make creationism sound like science and attempt to get it into textbooks. Whatever you call it, it's bogus. It isn't science, it can't be demonstrated or proven, and the only way its promoters can make their case is by trying to discredit evolution science.

They insist evolution is "only a theory" -- well, so is gravity, but nobody argues that gravity doesn't exist. It shows an ignorance of the scientific process and what it means when someone advances a theory.

Contrary to what you may think, scientists test their theories by trying to DISPROVE them. Eistein could not test his theories with the technology of his day, but more recent experiments have failed to...

"Start with the untestable Intelligent Designer and go on from there."

That's the point of the inquiry.

And the point of my criticism of Scientism. If you are looking for a testable hypothesis for Someone whom it is acknowledged is untestable through scientific inquiry alone are you really looking or trying to avoid having to see?

"What part of Intelligent Design is untestable? The scientific or the philosophical?"

Start with the untestable Intelligent Designer and go on from there.