Judiciarchy

[Busta]

If you are not aware of all the evidence and facts surrounding I.D. (of which there is actually none), do not make the claim that you know that it is a scientific theory. I am well-informed on the issue and I can tell you definitively that there is no scientific basis to I.D., drop it.

Such atitude.....
I can know that you have, say, a suitcase full of clothes, without knowing your suitcase's contents.
I can know that there is a moon without being aware of "all the evidences and facts surrounding [the moon]".

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact, and if you will recall, I said....

As for evolution, I believe that it belongs in both the science classroom and the philosophy classroom. Where I run into static from people is when I say that, in addition to evolution, (secular) I.D. should also be in the science classroom, because (secular) I.D. is a scientific topic.

If nothing ells, the science teacher should impartially present any such quasi-scientific theorys of I.D. to his/her class, and then use science and logic to dismantle such theorys.

I concede, again, the fact that until such a time as I.D. can be presented as pure, religiously sterile science, I.D. has absolutely NO place in the science classroom.

Today, I can not make a scientific argument for I.D., so, as I have said, I do not argue I.D.

Though, last night I saw a movie called What the Bleep Do We Know, in which 4 or 5 scholar's from various disciplines, while discussing how thought influences the body, scientifically and logically opened the door to God's existence using Quantum Mechanics.

 

[steen]

Such atitude.....
I can know that you have, say, a suitcase full of clothes, without knowing your suitcase's contents.

Really? First, can you prove there is a suitcase, and secobndly that it contains clothes rather than f.ex. Christmas gifts?

Again, "just because I say so" postulations based solely on wishful thinking and "I can't believe it wasn't created" stuff is NOT science.

I can know that there is a moon without being aware of "all the evidences and facts surrounding [the moon]".

Ah, but you would need evidence that there actually IS a moon to begin with.

I concede, again, the fact that until such a time as I.D. can be presented as pure, religiously sterile science, I.D. has absolutely NO place in the science classroom.

Today, I can not make a scientific argument for I.D., so, as I have said, I do not argue I.D.

Ah, but you did go beyond that. You claimed that there was scientific evidence for ID. No such evidence has ever been forthcoming, so unless you have science to back up your claim, you simply are not justified in claiming scientific evidence.

Though, last night I saw a movie called What the Bleep Do We Know, in which 4 or 5 scholar's from various disciplines, while discussing how thought influences the body, scientifically and logically opened the door to God's existence using Quantum Mechanics.

Well, that was nice. Where are their peer-reviewed references? Just because scientists are talking about stuff doesn't mean that they have evidence. EVIDENCE is the material gathered through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which meens peer-review and independent verification etc.

And I took a look at your site, which seems to be run by these people:
http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm

Now, I have never heard of "Noetic Science," but here is what they say about themselves:
We are a nonprofit membership organization located in Northern California that conducts and sponsors leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of consciousness—including perceptions, beliefs, attention, intention, and intuition. The institute explores phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models, while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor.

It seems like they are into spiritual healing and "distant healing." Now, I didn't see any scientific, peer-reviewed documents or references even though I looked throughout their site. They seem like para-psychology folks.

 

[tryreading]

As for evolution, I believe that it belongs in both the science classroom and the philosophy classroom. Where I run into static from people is when I say that, in addition to evolution, (secular) I.D. should also be in the science classroom, because (secular) I.D. is a scientific topic.
I would love to discuss the scientific evidence supporting I.D., but I am not yet ready to argue I.D.; so I will have to let it drop for now.

I.D. is a scientific topic? A belief based on ignorance is not science. For instance "DNA is too complicated to have developed itself through evolution." Not understanding how DNA originated (yet) does not prove there is a supernatural power that created everything. You believe there is a new science because 'I don't believe it happened this way, so it must have happened that way.' Prove it.

Showing a possability is not hysteria.
I am not the 9th. circit, so I invented nothing.

Neither did they.

"Liberty".
Everything ells is president.

Not even a nice try.

 

[tryreading]

Yea but that is often taken out of context, think about how the Birtish (the people they just got independence from) had an established relgion (church) the Anglican church, and the baptists were afraid of the rumors that congrationalists were gonna become the state relgion and Jefferson said it taht there is freedon OF religion not freedom FROM religion AND that the govermnt cant screw around w/ religion. Those wrongs have been around sinec the begining of America. and quite frankly non of the founding fathers were opt to change it cuase they didnt and let it go, for hunderds of years.

Hard to take out of context what Thomas Jefferson said about what Thomas Jefferson, et al, wrote.

Where did Jefferson say there is freedom of religion not freedom from religion? As you said above, the Baptists wanted freedom from the congregationalists.

 

[Busta]

This is for the healthy agnostics out there, since septics are people who have already made up there mind.

There are 3 basic theories of I.D.:
1. God made everything;
2. Extra Tarestrial Manipulation;
3. Time-Traveling Human Manipulation.

Below is a token sample of some of the works which I have been looking into.

*********************************************************
Lloyd Pye
Bio.
Lloyd Pye graduated with a B.S. in psychology. He joined the U.S. Army and became an agent for military intelligence. During this time, Mr. Pye began an independent study of human evolution. At age 30, his studies led him to conclude humans could not possibly have evolved on Earth according to the Darwinian paradigm. By age 40, he could illustrate his belief by comparing skeletons in the so-called "pre-human" fossil record with those reported to belong to the world's four basic types of hominoids.

Lloyd is probably best known in alternative circles as the caretaker of the famous Starchild skull, the complete bone cranium that looks like a hybrid between a human and some kind of alien being.
*********************************************************

Authors Christopher Knight and Alan Butler of civilizationone.com have a theory that the moon is artificial and that it was deliberately engineered to sustain life on Earth. The moon is precisely designed "like a Swiss Clock," and built to a "mathematical blueprint".

The material the moon is made out of came from the surface layers of the Earth, likely drawn from there using a series of small black holes that were placed in orbit around the planet, they explain. Butler and Knight presented three possibilities as to who was behind this operation.
*God could have created the moon. But knowing that the Sun and Earth already existed first, why wouldn't this superior being have created the moon at the same time?
*Alien beings, highly advanced in technology, could have spotted our planet as a likely place for seeding life, and left their calling card (an obviously artificial moon).
*Human time travelers created the moon at some stage in the future, realizing that this needed to be done to incubate humanity in the past.

They believe that the time traveler explanation is the most valid. Humans would have the highest degree of interest in carrying out such a monumental task, said Butler, and time travel appears to be increasingly a real possibility, added Knight.
**********************************************************

Richard C. Hoagland
Bio.
Richard C. Hoagland is a former space science museum curator; a former NASA consultant, and during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News. For the last 19 years, Hoagland has been leading an outside scientific Team in a critically acclaimed independent analysis of possible intelligently-designed artifacts on Mars. In the last 4 years, he and his Team's investigations have been quietly extended to include over 30 years of previously hidden data from NASA, Soviet, and Pentagon missions to the Moon.

[I recomend the Mars Tidal Modle ]
**********************************************************

Stanton Friedman
Bio.
Stanton T. Friedman received BS and MS degrees in Physics from University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He worked for fourteen years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Doulglas on such advanced, highly classified, eventually canceled projects as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and nuclear power plants for space.

Since 1967, Friedman has lectured on the topic of UFOs at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in 50 states, 9 Provinces, England, Italy, Germany, Holland, France, Finland, Brazil, Australia, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, Argentina, and Israel. Often referred to as the "Father of Roswell", Stan was the first to investigate the incident beginning in 1978. He has been investigating UFO incidents since the mid 1950's.

 

[Busta]

Hard to take out of context what Thomas Jefferson said about what Thomas Jefferson, et al, wrote.

Where did Jefferson say there is freedom of religion not freedom from religion? As you said above, the Baptists wanted freedom from the congregationalists.

You may be interested to read When the "State Became the Church"
The Library of Congress is home to an exhibition unlikely to be found in the library of any modern American public school. One of the most striking features of the “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic” exhibit is the story behind Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state.”
Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring these Connecticut faithful that the government would not interfere with their churches and the free exercise of their devotion to God. Only two days later President Jefferson began to attend the services of a church that was meeting in the chambers of the House of Representatives!
Thomas Jefferson went to church in the U.S. Capitol building with the words “wall of separation between church and state” still fresh on his mind.
The Library of Congress exhibit asserts, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washing-ton, during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and James Madison (1809-1817), the state became the church.”
Have we believed a lie, propagated by the modern U.S. Supreme Court? How ironic, especially since the Library of Congress specifically notes that during the Jefferson presidency, “The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.” n

—Adapted from the Introduction by Dr. D. James Kennedy to Reclaiming The Lost Legacy: The Founders and the First Amendment.

 

[Busta]

I.D. is a scientific topic?

Yup.

A belief based on ignorance is not science. For instance "DNA is too complicated to have developed itself through evolution." Not understanding how DNA originated (yet) does not prove there is a supernatural power that created everything.

Fortunately, that is not what I.D. theory is, nor is that anything I have ever said.

You believe there is a new science because 'I don't believe it happened this way, so it must have happened that way.'

Oh, so now you have telepathic powers and can justify your total and compleat disregard for every single thing that I have said here......I see.

Prove it.

Science can not ever "prove" anything because science can not account for the unknown. All one can do is present evidence to support a theory, and then submit it for social-political approval. Haven't you ever read, for example, The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper?

Neither did they.

"Neither"? So now you admit that I did not invent anything?

Not even a nice try.

I'm sorry, did you say something here?

 

[steen]

There are 3 basic theories of I.D....

Perhaps you should read up on the stuff from those who actually published on this?

Such as William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Duane Gish.

And, BTW, for your descriptions, #1 is creationism, not ID. And #2 and #3 specifies a creator, which the actual ID is wehemently against. So whatever YOU are writing about is not what is known as "intelligent design."

Perhaps THAT is where your confusion stems from?

 

[steen]

Yup.

Nope. ID does not follow the Scientific Method, and hence is not Science. Your repeated claim to the contrary, regardless of the evidence presented, that raises doubt of your credibility here.

Fortunately, that is not what I.D. theory is, nor is that anything I have ever said.

Not about DNA, perhaps, but certainly about other structures (The eye, the flagella, the bombardier beetle etc). The essential idea behind ID is that some structures simply could not have evolved but rather MUSt have been "designed."

Science can not ever "prove" anything because science can not account for the unknown.

And hence, you step off tall buildings because gravity isn't proven. :2wave:

 

[tryreading]

You may be interested to read When the "State Became the Church"
The Library of Congress is home to an exhibition unlikely to be found in the library of any modern American public school. One of the most striking features of the “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic” exhibit is the story behind Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state.”
Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring these Connecticut faithful that the government would not interfere with their churches and the free exercise of their devotion to God. Only two days later President Jefferson began to attend the services of a church that was meeting in the chambers of the House of Representatives!
Thomas Jefferson went to church in the U.S. Capitol building with the words “wall of separation between church and state” still fresh on his mind.
The Library of Congress exhibit asserts, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washing-ton, during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and James Madison (1809-1817), the state became the church.”
Have we believed a lie, propagated by the modern U.S. Supreme Court? How ironic, especially since the Library of Congress specifically notes that during the Jefferson presidency, “The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.” n

—Adapted from the Introduction by Dr. D. James Kennedy to Reclaiming The Lost Legacy: The Founders and the First Amendment.

Jefferson was not a churchgoer, but for political reasons, he began the practice you mention above, traveling to church very publicly, on horseback.

Here is another government site further explaining what you began above. Remember, by 1801, Jefferson had obviously become a politician, he had run for, and been elected President. Politicians take steps for the sake of political expediency, even Thomas Jefferson. Note the third paragraph below. Jefferson did not want to endorse religious observations as president.

Jefferson was being accused of being an athiest, by the Federalists and even members of his own party. This was a very damning charge, true or not. He used the excuse to respond to the Baptists as a political tool to help temper this claim:

That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion. His letter, he told Lincoln in his New Year's Day note, was meant to gratify public opinion in Republican strongholds like Virginia, "being seasoned to the Southern taste only."

In his New Year's note to Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a "condemnation of the alliance between church and state."

Airing the Republican position on church-state relations was not, however, Jefferson's principal reason for writing the Danbury Baptist letter. He was looking, he told Lincoln, for an opportunity for "saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did" and latched onto the Danbury address as the best way to broadcast his views on the subject. Although using the Danbury address was "awkward" -- it did not mention fasts and thanksgivings -- Jefferson pressed it into service to counter what he saw as an emerging Federalist plan to exploit the thanksgiving day issue to smear him, once again, as an infidel.

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

 

[tryreading]

The essential idea behind ID is that some structures simply could not have evolved but rather MUSt have been "designed."

Yeah, intelligent design is based on the science of ignorance:

"I can't figure out how this thing occured, so ID is valid."

How logical.



You on this site who claim God exists because of your stupidity are probably not currently His proudest 'creations.'

 

[tryreading]

Science can not ever "prove" anything because science can not account for the unknown. All one can do is present evidence to support a theory, and then submit it for social-political approval. Haven't you ever read, for example, The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper?

Science can't prove anything? Science can't account for the unknown?

Do you know how science 'accounts' for the unknown? It makes the unknown known.

Present evidence to support a theory, then submit it for social and political approval? Any 'researcher' who does this is no scientist.

Exactly what grade are you in?

 

[steen]

Yeah, intelligent design is based on the science of ignorance:

"I can't figure out how this thing occured, so ID is valid."

How logical.



You on this site who claim God exists because of your stupidity are probably not currently His proudest 'creations.'

You weren't talking to me, right? I agree with ID being stupid and deliberately deceptive in the attempt to get creationist lies into the classroom.

 

[tryreading]

You weren't talking to me, right? I agree with ID being stupid and deliberately deceptive in the attempt to get creationist lies into the classroom.

No, I wasn't. I was using your argument to launch from.

 

[steen]

Good. Yes, the loons bearing false witness are indeed void of logic, and even more pronounsed, void of factual knowledge.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Dear Steen,

I was wondering if you could, in a few sentences, tell me what exactly I.D. is, and dont be wise about it, im just curios to see your own honest perspective of it.

 

[Busta]

Perhaps you should read up on the stuff from those who actually published on this?

Such as William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Duane Gish.

And, BTW, for your descriptions, #1 is creationism, not ID. And #2 and #3 specifies a creator, which the actual ID is wehemently against. So whatever YOU are writing about is not what is known as "intelligent design."

Perhaps THAT is where your confusion stems from?

I'm not confused at all, steen.
Creationism is a subtype of I.D., because God is intelligent and designed everything.

Thanks for the names, I will defiantly check them out.

 

[Busta]

Nope. ID does not follow the Scientific Method, and hence is not Science. Your repeated claim to the contrary, regardless of the evidence presented, that raises doubt of your credibility here.

I accuse I.D. of being a valid scientific topic, suitable for public schools, and then give evidence supporting such, and you respond with an attempt to change the subject with a veiled ad hominem (abusive) attack on my person.
Come now, steen, I need logical, factual critiques of the afore posted references.
You are my sub-micron filter against bs.
You will teach me nothing through personal attacks.

Not about DNA, perhaps, but certainly about other structures (The eye, the flagella, the bombardier beetle etc).

I will give you the eye.
I have, on another thread and some time ago, said that the eye could not have possably evolved.
I have since seen an evolutionary model to the contrary, and concede that the eye does comply with the norms of evolution.

However, I do not recall making any claims about flagella or the bombardier beetle. If I have made such claims, please cut-and-post them for all to see.

The essential idea behind ID is that some structures simply could not have evolved but rather MUSt have been "designed."

I disagree with that idea, though; and in so disagreeing I uncouple myself from the many quasi-scientists and their followers.
I am in persuite of hard, religiously sterile science backing up I.D. I do NOT wish for any I.D. theory to be based on a religious text or a prerequisite of believing in a deity, because such ideas and beliefs have no place in the science classroom.

And hence, you step off tall buildings because gravity isn't proven.

My falling off of a building is evidence of gravity, not "proof" of gravity.

 

[Busta]

Yeah, intelligent design is based on the science of ignorance:

"I can't figure out how this thing occured, so ID is valid."

How logical.

How is this idea reflected in the work of Lloyd Pye, Christopher Knight and Alan Butler, Richard C. Hoagland or Stanton T. Friedman?

You on this site who claim God exists because of your stupidity are probably not currently His proudest 'creations.'

LOL,
Who is the one who said "God exists because of my stupidity"?
Please cut-and-post it, I wish to toy with such a person.

Even if such a person would not be one of God's proudest creations, said person would still be one of God's creations; which miens that God created him/her and, not-withstanding extenuating circumstances, the whole humanity.

 

[Busta]

Science can't prove anything? Science can't account for the unknown?

Do you know how science 'accounts' for the unknown? It makes the unknown known.

Present evidence to support a theory, then submit it for social and political approval? Any 'researcher' who does this is no scientist.

Exactly what grade are you in?

Ahh, I bask in your hate.....your uneasiness and insecurity washes over me like a hot shower. Your personal attacks are evidence that you can not or choose not too divorce emotion from logic/reason.

Matthew 5:11-12;
11 "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I will concede that "social-political" was my interjection, based on the bies that I have observed in the "main-stream" scientific comunity. I believe that the correct term is "peer-review".

Oh, are you saying that Matthew Alper is not a scientist?
Surly this is not so.
Shall I provide a quote from his book which says that science can not "prove" anything because science can not account for the unknown?

The God Part of the Brain is a good read, a compliment to any library and well worth your money......and I say that as a "believer".

 

[steen]

Dear Steen,

I was wondering if you could, in a few sentences, tell me what exactly I.D. is, and dont be wise about it, im just curios to see your own honest perspective of it.

Well, I did delineate it in post #84, that the essential idea behind ID is that some structures simply could not have evolved but rather must have been "designed," and that therefore life had to have been created by an intelligent force because it is too complex to have happened otherwise. And that this proves evolution wrong.

That is borne out by the writings of the ID proponents and also demonstrated in the recent trial in Dover, where Behe testified for ID.

 

[steen]

I'm not confused at all, steen.
Creationism is a subtype of I.D., because God is intelligent and designed everything.

Oh, you just trashed the ID's very carefully designed deception that it is NOT creationism at all. That was the reason it was "created" as an alternative way of getting creationism into the classroom after creationism itself was outlawed in science class.

 

[steen]

I accuse I.D. of being a valid scientific topic, suitable for public schools, and then give evidence supporting such, and you respond with an attempt to change the subject with a veiled ad hominem (abusive) attack on my person.

Rather, I have now SEVERAL times pointed out to you that Science is what is being evaluated through the appliocation of the Scientific Method. THAT is what you have completely ignored, merely claiming that it is science because you say so, despite the PROVIDED evidence directly contradicting your claim.

Come now, steen, I need logical, factual critiques of the afore posted references.
You are my sub-micron filter against bs.

They are non-scientific crackpots. They push speculation and eprsonal belief as 'science" in a veryy deceptive fashion. They also are not promoting what is known as "Intelligent Design," which is why I recommended the authors who actually have published in this area.

Pye is claiming some form of pan-spermia idea. It is utterly bogus and based on his subjective beliefs only.
Knight and Butler are talking about placing black holes to draw material out of the earth to create the moon, and that this was done through future humans time-traveling to the way distant past. Utter nonsense, incl. that we are missing those black holes today. There is absolutely no evidence and no scientifically formulated hypothesis. It is wild imagination.
Hoagland seems a conspiracy crackpot. For one, he is talking about designed items found on Mars, and secondly about all these secret multi-Government missions to the moon.
Friedman seems to be a master-level technician with a UFO fixation.

No science, no Scientific Method, pure subjective and wild speculation. And not "Intelligent design" either.

You will teach me nothing through personal attacks.

And YOU will learn absolutely nothing and instead show serious and grave disrespect when you continue to ignore factual evidence provided to you, instead repeating the same, already-disproved claims.

I will give you the eye.
I have, on another thread and some time ago, said that the eye could not have possably evolved.
I have since seen an evolutionary model to the contrary, and concede that the eye does comply with the norms of evolution.

Exactly. The argument against evolution and for ID is based on conjecture, on speculation and on serious ignorance of the actual science.

However, I do not recall making any claims about flagella or the bombardier beetle. If I have made such claims, please cut-and-post them for all to see.

You haven't, but they are the issues that the ID crowd use as "evidence" just like with the eye, and with the same kind of supportive evidence as with their "just because I say so" wishful thinking misrepresented as fact. The flagella is the hallmark of ID argument.

I disagree with that idea, though; and in so disagreeing I uncouple myself from the many quasi-scientists and their followers.

Well, that IS the idea known as "intelligent design." THIS is what is being debated in the courtroom, THIS is what is being pushed in publications and discussions on ID.

So you disagree with what actually is known as ID. That speaks to your benefit.

I am in persuite of hard, religiously sterile science backing up I.D. I do NOT wish for any I.D. theory to be based on a religious text or a prerequisite of believing in a deity, because such ideas and beliefs have no place in the science classroom.

Given that the VERY PREMISE of ID is that somebody or something must have "designed" structures (hence the name), you won't find any hard, religiously sterile science.

My falling off of a building is evidence of gravity, not "proof" of gravity.

Like there is EVIDENCE for Evolution.

And if you knew science, you would know that "proof" is something in mathematics, not in the physical sciences. However, there certainly is proof in each individual research paper that these events happened.

 

[tryreading]

How is this idea reflected in the work of Lloyd Pye, Christopher Knight and Alan Butler, Richard C. Hoagland or Stanton T. Friedman?



LOL,
Who is the one who said "God exists because of my stupidity"?
Please cut-and-post it, I wish to toy with such a person.

Even if such a person would not be one of God's proudest creations, said person would still be one of God's creations; which miens that God created him/her and, not-withstanding extenuating circumstances, the whole humanity.

If someone claims that God must exist because they can't see how something could have evolved, that is ignorance, and illogical.

If they persist in claiming that ID is valid based on this, they are stupid.

 

[tryreading]

Ahh, I bask in your hate.....your uneasiness and insecurity washes over me like a hot shower. Your personal attacks are evidence that you can not or choose not too divorce emotion from logic/reason.

I make a simple joke at your expense, and this is the response?