|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2018 13:04:30 GMT
1) Why just talk? If you believe you can prove relativity in your kitchen, why don't you? Put it on Youtube. Because I have no need. I did the experiments at university. Did it again as a teacher, though there just to demonstrate the principles. No you wouldn't, you'd change the subject and start talking about the origin of life or something. Running away like a coward, as you always do. The laughing doggie is laughing again. We both have agendas, Arlon. Mine is truth. Yours is the determined ignorance of truth. Naturally. You've never seen god, either. And yet. No, the belief that there is no god was never mentioned in the entire trial, you ignorant buffoon. You have no need to prove relativity if you want to grant it cannot be proven, otherwise yes you have a need. In all truth you have no idea what I've seen about god. And yes I in all truth have granted that others might have evidence of relativity, only that they have not shown it to me. Refusing to accept the evidence of intelligent design is in fact for the purpose of saying "there is no evidence of a god," which many here say (or did) on a daily basis. It's something they could not do if the case were overturned.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 5, 2018 13:07:25 GMT
People here accuse me of being rambling and incoherent, but I am always connected to actual real life measurements, never confusing them (except maybe at 2 a.m.) with speculation or theory. When I speculate or theorize it is always in the context of interesting or entertaining fiction. The description of the experiment you mentioned appears to be of one easily repeated in a college or maybe even a high school lab. Why isn't it then? Perhaps you think the use of radium is too dangerous. When I was young extremely small quantities of radium were used for quite many things and rather safely. Toys that glow in the dark were sold. Watches had dials that glowed from an extremely small quantity of radium. That isn't done anymore, but not because any ill effects were noted. It was because of the association in the public mind with far more dangerous nuclear events. Glow in the dark toys now use phosphorescent materials that gain energy from ambient light. Watches use battery power. Still, for controlled settings like college laboratories it would seem a small matter to use a tiny quantity of radium to "prove" relativity. When I see that I will agree with you. Meanwhile I would ask you to please remember that neither I nor you have seen it. The article skips over quite much detail. There are no pictures (as in or it didn't happen). If it didn't skip so much detail and if it had more pictures I might accept the results without being in the lab myself. Are you doubting the results of the Kaufmann experiments or that they were even done in the first place? Your rambling commentary of the minor risks of dealing with radium are irrelevant to the point. There is a lot of established science concerning quark theory. The developers of Quantum Chromodynamics were awarded the Nobel Prize in phyics in 2004. I can tell you that that has nothing to do with the Kaufmann experiments in part because the energy levels involved are far too small for quark theory to matter. I'm doing what a lot of people wish they could do, treating all people the same. I am a skeptic, but not just any skeptic. I am an equal opportunity skeptic. Aren't you? I try to find the value in the things people believe whether it is science or religion. I often do find some treasures. Not everything people believe is a treasure though, and that goes the same for science and religion. A problem I and my real life friends discussed in high school science class is how the protons are jammed in the center area of an atom when their like charges should repel them out of that situation. But did any of us dispute that protons are in the center area? No. We supposed then and now that magnetic forces from some sort of motion counter the the obviously powerful electrostatic forces. Please notice though that the complete explanation is not available even now, even with all you believe you know about these things. As for harmonizing Kaufmann experiments with quarks, or at least finding an excuse not to, I'm impressed but not much. You have masses traveling at 90 percent of the speed of light, how much more energy is there? Did you want to try again or are you happy with your last answer?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2018 14:45:53 GMT
Refusing to accept the evidence of intelligent design is in fact for the purpose of saying "there is no evidence of a god," which many here say (or did) on a daily basis. It's something they could not do if the case were overturned. What is the positive evidence for intelligent design, Arlon? (As opposed to nebulous God of the Gaps arguments, or just making negative statements about science)? As proper science it didn't cut the mustard in Dover - see below - and probably won't again. And I don't think I saw your alternative to the current Einsteinian physics either. Is there a problem? I suspect it is, being asked of someone who, apparently, doesn't even know how old the universe and earth are! And when is that copyrighted appeal of yours happening against the landmark Dover judgement? Time is getting on, you know. People might suspect that nothing is forthcoming. But I naturally know that is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2018 15:00:37 GMT
It [the Dover Trial] demonstrated that backward rogues attacked their own school system because it did not support their belief that there is no god.
No, if anything it demonstrated that one side was mendacious in replacing terms of 'creationism' with 'Intelligent Design', often by clumsy cut-and-pasting, clearly evidenced in a disputed textbook Pandas and People - all the while denying the two were not one and the same. And, much more importantly, it demonstrated to a Republican Federal judge that, even with a hand-picked team of apologists (notably star witness Michael Behe) fundamentalists were unable to prove ID a science - and finally were forced to concede that it is akin to astrology. You know, this was the side that lost lol
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research." - from the final verdict
And as for who were the rogues :
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. "
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 5, 2018 15:14:32 GMT
It [the Dover Trial] demonstrated that backward rogues attacked their own school system because it did not support their belief that there is no god.
No, if anything it demonstrated that one side was mendacious in replacing terms of 'creationism' with 'Intelligent Design', often by clumsy cut-and-pasting, clearly evidenced in a disputed textbook Pandas and People - all the while denying the two were not one and the same. And, much more importantly, it demonstrated to a Republican Federal judge that, even with a hand-picked team of apologists (notably star witness Michael Behe) fundamentalists were unable to prove ID a science - and finally were forced to concede that it is akin to astrology. You know, this was the side that lost lol
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research." - from the final verdict
And as for who were the rogues :
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. "
For me, the most damning evidence was Michael Behe's--you know, the expert witness for ID/defendants--own testimony: "As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27] In response to a question about astrology he explained: " Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well."[28] This basically translates to: "ID isn't science and I'd have to change the definition of a scientific theory in order to make it one, and in changing the definition it would make astrology a scientific theory as well."
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 5, 2018 16:07:16 GMT
Are you doubting the results of the Kaufmann experiments or that they were even done in the first place? Your rambling commentary of the minor risks of dealing with radium are irrelevant to the point. There is a lot of established science concerning quark theory. The developers of Quantum Chromodynamics were awarded the Nobel Prize in phyics in 2004. I can tell you that that has nothing to do with the Kaufmann experiments in part because the energy levels involved are far too small for quark theory to matter. I'm doing what a lot of people wish they could do, treating all people the same. I am a skeptic, but not just any skeptic. I am an equal opportunity skeptic. Aren't you? I try to find the value in the things people believe whether it is science or religion. I often do find some treasures. Not everything people believe is a treasure though, and that goes the same for science and religion. You seem to have abandoned skepticism for a certain religion and transferred it to modern physics, resulting in delusional thinking and erroneous ideas( for instance that there is little scientific backing of quantum mechanics and relativity.) Congratulations! I would have half expected you to deny the existence of subatomic particles, and clung to the classical notion of indivisible atoms. That would be consistent with your denial of modern physics. Given your deliberate ignorance of physics post 1905, I would't expect you to appreciate the theory behind quantum chromodynamics and the strong nuclear force, and yet your bringing up the problem of atomic nuclear stability seems to indicate that perhaps some part of your mind is following some of this stuff. I'm not the one dismissing the scientific consensus with my quackery, and yet I'm the one that ought to try again? How about you answer my question: do you accept the results of the Kaufmann experiments? Edit: to answer your question "how much more energy is there?", there is no limit. Kinetic energy is not a linear function of velocity in either Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2018 0:58:00 GMT
No, if anything it demonstrated that one side was mendacious in replacing terms of 'creationism' with 'Intelligent Design', often by clumsy cut-and-pasting, clearly evidenced in a disputed textbook Pandas and People - all the while denying the two were not one and the same. And, much more importantly, it demonstrated to a Republican Federal judge that, even with a hand-picked team of apologists (notably star witness Michael Behe) fundamentalists were unable to prove ID a science - and finally were forced to concede that it is akin to astrology. You know, this was the side that lost lol
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research." - from the final verdict
And as for who were the rogues :
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. "
For me, the most damning evidence was Michael Behe's--you know, the expert witness for ID/defendants--own testimony: "As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27] In response to a question about astrology he explained: " Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well."[28] This basically translates to: "ID isn't science and I'd have to change the definition of a scientific theory in order to make it one, and in changing the definition it would make astrology a scientific theory as well." From the time of Darwin and the primitive science of that time some people have believed that life might have formed on Earth "spontaneously" or without the necessity of divinity or even intelligence. As the science of biology developed it became less likely not more that such "random" or "spontaneous" or whatever you want to call it sort of assembly is possible. However there were and are people clinging to the hope that the secret of the original assembly of life would be found in mindless natural processes. Two groups developed and an ongoing if not always openly public debate. The group that hoped to discover "random" assembly identified itself with "science" and perhaps rightly so at first. With more and more research and observation of what RNA chains might do or not it became increasingly obvious that science no longer stood with that group. Several things were written in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case intended to shut down the obvious shift of science from one group to the other. They shouldn't have done that. It is a big mess. Things like that shouldn't be said especially if it turns they will have to be taken back. That is going to be most embarrassing when it does have to be taken back. When I showed my arguments to executives at my local Public Broadcasting System (PBS Network) facilities it was obvious they understood what a mess there was. I believe they appreciated the advance notice I gave them it would be necessary to do some cleaning up. No real life official in government, science, education, broadcasting or publishing after reading my arguments has doubted that the very big mess will have to be cleaned up eventually. The current delay in overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover is waiting for the Republicans to do that without my help. I explained that long ago. If you believe they are not succeeding, I suspect you're right. I think I know why. They don't believe in god as much as they claim. Also, we know they aren't great scientists. Many of them do however believe in doing what they are told to do. That means believing what "scientists" and "doctors" tell them or in many cases whatever they want to believe that seems to them to give them more power. Most of them have never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover and don't even know there is an issue because they haven't seen it on television lately.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 6, 2018 2:46:49 GMT
1) Here's a good overview of the history: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5535674/ Footnotes 16-18 are likely to answer you question. 2) And what difference does that make? You do realize that experts publish books and papers, yes? Why do I have to meet them to learn from them? I've never met Helen Vendler or David Bordwell either, but most of what I know about poetry and film I learned from reading them. 1) I'm quite certain and would agree that radiation therapy is less risky than it was whenever it began. That does not by any means indicate that it is not risky. It still is very risky and 2) if you would go to a real doctor he or she will tell you so. 1. Now you're just blatantly moving the goalposts. The issue was whether or not cancer treatments had improved, not whether they were completely without risk. 2. A real doctor will tell me what? That cancer treatments have risks? No duh. Again, that was never the disagreement. I am a skeptic, but not just any skeptic. I am an equal opportunity skeptic. Aren't you? I try to find the value in the things people believe whether it is science or religion. Yeah, you've really showed your skepticism when it comes to ID/Creationism, especially considering how there's zero evidence for it and how, when given the biggest opportunity, its proponents completely failed to prove it was science at all.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 2:54:23 GMT
For me, the most damning evidence was Michael Behe's--you know, the expert witness for ID/defendants--own testimony: "As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27] In response to a question about astrology he explained: " Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well."[28] This basically translates to: "ID isn't science and I'd have to change the definition of a scientific theory in order to make it one, and in changing the definition it would make astrology a scientific theory as well." From the time of Darwin and the primitive science of that time some people have believed that life might have formed on Earth "spontaneously" or without the necessity of divinity or even intelligence. As the science of biology developed it became less likely not more that such "random" or "spontaneous" or whatever you want to call it sort of assembly is possible. However there were and are people clinging to the hope that the secret of the original assembly of life would be found in mindless natural processes. Two groups developed and an ongoing if not always openly public debate. The group that hoped to discover "random" assembly identified itself with "science" and perhaps rightly so at first. With more and more research and observation of what RNA chains might do or not it became increasingly obvious that science no longer stood with that group. Several things were written in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case intended to shut down the obvious shift of science from one group to the other. They shouldn't have done that. It is a big mess. Things like that shouldn't be said especially if it turns they will have to be taken back. That is going to be most embarrassing when it does have to be taken back. When I showed my arguments to executives at my local Public Broadcasting System (PBS Network) facilities it was obvious they understood what a mess there was. I believe they appreciated the advance notice I gave them it would be necessary to do some cleaning up. No real life official in government, science, education, broadcasting or publishing after reading my arguments has doubted that the very big mess will have to be cleaned up eventually. The current delay in overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover is waiting for the Republicans to do that without my help. I explained that long ago. If you believe they are not succeeding, I suspect you're right. I think I know why. They don't believe in god as much as they claim. Also, we know they aren't great scientists. Many of them do however believe in doing what they are told to do. That means believing what "scientists" and "doctors" tell them or in many cases whatever they want to believe that seems to them to give them more power. Most of them have never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover and don't even know there is an issue because they haven't seen it on television lately. Wow! just Wow! This is truly impressive nutbaggery!
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 6, 2018 3:04:01 GMT
For me, the most damning evidence was Michael Behe's--you know, the expert witness for ID/defendants--own testimony: "As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27] In response to a question about astrology he explained: " Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well."[28] This basically translates to: "ID isn't science and I'd have to change the definition of a scientific theory in order to make it one, and in changing the definition it would make astrology a scientific theory as well." From the time of Darwin and the primitive science of that time some people have believed that life might have formed on Earth "spontaneously" or without the necessity of divinity or even intelligence. As the science of biology developed it became less likely not more that such "random" or "spontaneous" or whatever you want to call it sort of assembly is possible. However there were and are people clinging to the hope that the secret of the original assembly of life would be found in mindless natural processes. Two groups developed and an ongoing if not always openly public debate. The group that hoped to discover "random" assembly identified itself with "science" and perhaps rightly so at first. With more and more research and observation of what RNA chains might do or not it became increasingly obvious that science no longer stood with that group. Several things were written in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case intended to shut down the obvious shift of science from one group to the other. They shouldn't have done that. It is a big mess. Things like that shouldn't be said especially if it turns they will have to be taken back. That is going to be most embarrassing when it does have to be taken back. When I showed my arguments to executives at my local Public Broadcasting System (PBS Network) facilities it was obvious they understood what a mess there was. I believe they appreciated the advance notice I gave them it would be necessary to do some cleaning up. No real life official in government, science, education, broadcasting or publishing after reading my arguments has doubted that the very big mess will have to be cleaned up eventually. The current delay in overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover is waiting for the Republicans to do that without my help. I explained that long ago. If you believe they are not succeeding, I suspect you're right. I think I know why. They don't believe in god as much as they claim. Also, we know they aren't great scientists. Many of them do however believe in doing what they are told to do. That means believing what "scientists" and "doctors" tell them or in many cases whatever they want to believe that seems to them to give them more power. Most of them have never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover and don't even know there is an issue because they haven't seen it on television lately. Yes, Arlon, I'm well aware of your fallacious Argument from Incredulity ("I can't believe abiogenesis happened, so it must be false") against abiogenesis. It fails on three fronts: one, it fails to disprove abiogenesis (because it's a blatant fallacy); two, even if it was successful, it wouldn't make ID/creationism any more scientific. You don't prove one theory (or even make it a theory) by disproving another theory; and three, it basically ignores all of the research that is actually out there on abiogenesis, an as usual you mistake your ignorance for the ignorance of science. The Miller/Urey experiment is a billion times more scientific/credible than anything that has been produced on the side of ID, which is nothing. Also: Comedy gold!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 3:10:49 GMT
From the time of Darwin and the primitive science of that time some people have believed that life might have formed on Earth "spontaneously" or without the necessity of divinity or even intelligence. As the science of biology developed it became less likely not more that such "random" or "spontaneous" or whatever you want to call it sort of assembly is possible. However there were and are people clinging to the hope that the secret of the original assembly of life would be found in mindless natural processes. Two groups developed and an ongoing if not always openly public debate. The group that hoped to discover "random" assembly identified itself with "science" and perhaps rightly so at first. With more and more research and observation of what RNA chains might do or not it became increasingly obvious that science no longer stood with that group. Several things were written in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case intended to shut down the obvious shift of science from one group to the other. They shouldn't have done that. It is a big mess. Things like that shouldn't be said especially if it turns they will have to be taken back. That is going to be most embarrassing when it does have to be taken back. When I showed my arguments to executives at my local Public Broadcasting System (PBS Network) facilities it was obvious they understood what a mess there was. I believe they appreciated the advance notice I gave them it would be necessary to do some cleaning up. No real life official in government, science, education, broadcasting or publishing after reading my arguments has doubted that the very big mess will have to be cleaned up eventually. The current delay in overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover is waiting for the Republicans to do that without my help. I explained that long ago. If you believe they are not succeeding, I suspect you're right. I think I know why. They don't believe in god as much as they claim. Also, we know they aren't great scientists. Many of them do however believe in doing what they are told to do. That means believing what "scientists" and "doctors" tell them or in many cases whatever they want to believe that seems to them to give them more power. Most of them have never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover and don't even know there is an issue because they haven't seen it on television lately. Yes, Arlon, I'm well aware of your fallacious Argument from Incredulity ("I can't believe abiogenesis happened, so it must be false") against abiogenesis. It fails on three fronts: one, it fails to disprove abiogenesis (because it's a blatant fallacy); two, even if it was successful, it wouldn't make ID/creationism any more scientific. You don't prove one theory (or even make it a theory) by disproving another theory; and three, it basically ignores all of the research that is actually out there on abiogenesis, an as usual you mistake your ignorance for the ignorance of science. The Miller/Urey experiment is a billion times more scientific/credible than anything that has been produced on the side of ID, which is nothing. Also: Comedy gold! Excuse me! Not to be picky or Arlonesque, butt isn't a billion times nothing, still nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 6, 2018 3:13:29 GMT
Yes, Arlon, I'm well aware of your fallacious Argument from Incredulity ("I can't believe abiogenesis happened, so it must be false") against abiogenesis. It fails on three fronts: one, it fails to disprove abiogenesis (because it's a blatant fallacy); two, even if it was successful, it wouldn't make ID/creationism any more scientific. You don't prove one theory (or even make it a theory) by disproving another theory; and three, it basically ignores all of the research that is actually out there on abiogenesis, an as usual you mistake your ignorance for the ignorance of science. The Miller/Urey experiment is a billion times more scientific/credible than anything that has been produced on the side of ID, which is nothing. Also: Comedy gold! Excuse me! Not to be picky or Arlonesque, butt isn't a billion times nothing, still nothing? Yes, but I wasn't being literal.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2018 6:15:21 GMT
From the time of Darwin and the primitive science of that time some people have believed that life might have formed on Earth "spontaneously" or without the necessity of divinity or even intelligence. As the science of biology developed it became less likely not more that such "random" or "spontaneous" or whatever you want to call it sort of assembly is possible. However there were and are people clinging to the hope that the secret of the original assembly of life would be found in mindless natural processes. Two groups developed and an ongoing if not always openly public debate. The group that hoped to discover "random" assembly identified itself with "science" and perhaps rightly so at first. With more and more research and observation of what RNA chains might do or not it became increasingly obvious that science no longer stood with that group. Several things were written in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case intended to shut down the obvious shift of science from one group to the other. They shouldn't have done that. It is a big mess. Things like that shouldn't be said especially if it turns they will have to be taken back. That is going to be most embarrassing when it does have to be taken back. When I showed my arguments to executives at my local Public Broadcasting System (PBS Network) facilities it was obvious they understood what a mess there was. I believe they appreciated the advance notice I gave them it would be necessary to do some cleaning up. No real life official in government, science, education, broadcasting or publishing after reading my arguments has doubted that the very big mess will have to be cleaned up eventually. The current delay in overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover is waiting for the Republicans to do that without my help. I explained that long ago. If you believe they are not succeeding, I suspect you're right. I think I know why. They don't believe in god as much as they claim. Also, we know they aren't great scientists. Many of them do however believe in doing what they are told to do. That means believing what "scientists" and "doctors" tell them or in many cases whatever they want to believe that seems to them to give them more power. Most of them have never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover and don't even know there is an issue because they haven't seen it on television lately. Yes, Arlon, I'm well aware of your fallacious Argument from Incredulity ("I can't believe abiogenesis happened, so it must be false") against abiogenesis. It fails on three fronts: one, it fails to disprove abiogenesis (because it's a blatant fallacy); two, even if it was successful, it wouldn't make ID/creationism any more scientific. You don't prove one theory (or even make it a theory) by disproving another theory; and three, it basically ignores all of the research that is actually out there on abiogenesis, an as usual you mistake your ignorance for the ignorance of science. The Miller/Urey experiment is a billion times more scientific/credible than anything that has been produced on the side of ID, which is nothing. Also: Comedy gold! Are you in charge of the rules now? Guess who else thinks they're in charge of the rules? None of you are. I know how the rules work. I know I win in the end. Why? Because open your eyes, that's why.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2018 12:35:45 GMT
Are you in charge of the rules now? Guess who else thinks they're in charge of the rules? None of you are. I know how the rules work. I know I win in the end. Why? Because open your eyes, that's why. Is this where you argue with the rules, too and win?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2018 12:40:11 GMT
Are you in charge of the rules now? Guess who else thinks they're in charge of the rules? None of you are. I know how the rules work. I know I win in the end. Why? Because open your eyes, that's why. Is this where you argue with the rules, too and win? My school will win. I will be helping just a bit with that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2018 12:41:44 GMT
Is this where you argue with the rules, too and win? My school will win. I will be helping just a bit with that. You still go to school? That explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 6, 2018 12:45:28 GMT
My school will win. I will be helping just a bit with that. You still go to school? That explains a lot. You don't? That explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2018 12:47:56 GMT
You still go to school? That explains a lot. You don't? That explains a lot. Not for some time. But I am glad it helps.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 6, 2018 15:28:31 GMT
Is this where you argue with the rules, too and win? My school will win. I will be helping just a bit with that. Please mind the loose ends of your cloak. You don't want them to get tangled up in the windmills.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 7, 2018 1:25:39 GMT
Yes, Arlon, I'm well aware of your fallacious Argument from Incredulity ("I can't believe abiogenesis happened, so it must be false") against abiogenesis. It fails on three fronts: one, it fails to disprove abiogenesis (because it's a blatant fallacy); two, even if it was successful, it wouldn't make ID/creationism any more scientific. You don't prove one theory (or even make it a theory) by disproving another theory; and three, it basically ignores all of the research that is actually out there on abiogenesis, an as usual you mistake your ignorance for the ignorance of science. The Miller/Urey experiment is a billion times more scientific/credible than anything that has been produced on the side of ID, which is nothing. Also: Comedy gold! Are you in charge of the rules now? Guess who else thinks they're in charge of the rules? None of you are. I know how the rules work. I know I win in the end. Why? Because open your eyes, that's why.
|
|