Wow... this rivals RM's Trolling 101 as an explanation for Z's posts on this site. Certainly we know that Z has suffered a lot of failures in his life - he has told us as much in years past posting under different user names. He continues to fail in his attempts to control his drinking. It's also a good short explanation for the trap of PC 'culture of victimization, special interest group of one' thinking that dominates the left. It's pretty clear that these people exemplify the rejection of personal responsibility. It is odd that we find them on a trader's site, where the whole game is about taking responsibility for one's own actions since there is no one else involved with your entry and exit decisions. Nice job in this thread, guys. I have never seen Z back on his heels as far as he is here.
John Dough wrote: That hypothesis fits within the ID paradigm and is being investigated by design theorists. John Dough wrote: Not necessarily. The trail could be pretty cold after several billion years. In any event, the inability to identify the designers doesn't thwart a design inference. If archaeologists found a Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars they would immediately infer it had an intelligent cause. They would do this in the absence of any evidence of who designed it. John Dough wrote: The evidence supporting a non-teleological origin of life is weak to non-existent, so why hasn't science discounted this possibility to a practical nullity? By the way, what would you accept as evidence that the first cells were products of bioengineering? John Dough wrote: I don't know who you are referring to as the "ID community". For all I know it is Biblical creationists that are sympathetic to ID. I'm not aware of any ID theorists that include God in their hypotheses. In fact, I personally know a half dozen agnostics that are ID'ers. John Dough wrote: Actually it's often discussed among ID theorists. Again, I don't know who you are referring to as the "ID community". John Dough wrote: Sure, there is a community of people out there that wants to promote the idea that we are the product of a supernatural deity, who created us in His image for a divine purpose. There is also a community of evangelical atheists like Daniel Dennett, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins, that passionately promote the metaphysical implications of Darwinism as part of their anti-religious agenda. Neither group is doing science. John Dough wrote: So, if a Mount Rushmore-like structure was found on Mars there would be zero scientific evidence that it was designed, absent some credible evidence that alien life forms had visited the planet? John Dough wrote: Well, ID theorists are ahead of you. They already suspect that the first cells on earth were products of bioengineering without having to know who the bioengineers were. They are embarking on the same type of investigation you say you would be on board with. The dispute between you and them is over what warrrants a suspicion. Big deal. If the ID theorist's suspicion of design is wrong, their investigation will go nowhere. So, in the meantime, what's all the fuss about?
Whats wrong with it is that its not falsifiable, isn't science, relies on allegory as an acceptable logical argument, and waters down the scientific education of our populace, making us less competitive in a highly competitive global market. Theres no logical difference between believing those cells were bioengineered, created by a flying spaghetti monter, or designed by God. Its all equally unprovable, and ergo equally logical. You're free to believe what you want- but you can only call things science when they follow the scientific method.
Your post is an example of why ID is not received with any seriousness. You act like ID should be self evident, and that everyone should agree with you. Modern science is all about conducting affirmative experiments, not declaring your opponent's experiments flawed by demanding the absolute exclusion of any possible contrary theory. So, show me the money. Where is your Mt. Rushmore sized monument that you hypothesize? Show me findings and conclusions which meet the are peer-reviewed and actually published. This, ironically, is always demanded by the ID advocate from the evolution advocate. Yet, when the evolution advocate demands the quid pro quo, the ID advocate acts like the request is absurd. Is it theoretically possible that we are the product of an alien natural intelligence whose evidence trail has gone cold? Maybe so, but where is your research showing how you searched for the trail and found something indicating that "they were here?" It's not enough to merely hypothesize -- you need actual affirmative proof that withstands peer review from your opponents in the majority. That's how the game is played. Not fair? Tuff. Life ain't fair. If you can't produce credible affirmative proof for your assertions, other than dismissive statements, e.g., "design is self-evident" and "no way to prove or disprove chance", then your hypotheses are no more sound than a hypothesis advancing the actual existence of Middle Earth. On the other hand, if and when you survive the scrutiny of your opponents, then you will be able to proclaim a scientific result. Now, if you launch back into a claim that Dr. Susskind has demonstrated that the cosmological constant proves design, when the fact is that he has stated that this is not his scientific position, then you will again be regarded as not credible. If you want to be credible, then you need the good Dr. to come out in a peer reviewed publication, affirmatively stating that his research shows that intelligent design is more likely than not, and that the scientific community needs to reconsider its entire theory of existence. I've repeated myself over and over in this post for effect. It's really simple as pie: Hypothesis + affirmative repeatable confirming experiment + peer review + publication = modern science. Nothing else is sufficient. Period.
thats got nothing to do with science... the fuss is yours... you started this thread... the discovery institute, ID's alma motha, published the infamous "wedge document" etc etc... you haven't got even the beginning of a single scientific result to show for all your words... good entertainment though keep going
John Dough: How you got any of that from what I posted is beyond me. John Dough: What experiments did I declare flawed by demanding the absolute exclusion of any possible contrary theory? John Dough: Well, there's no need to get into that so long as you insist that one can't infer something is designed without knowing who designed it. John Dough: I see you are moving the goal posts. Originally you asked me for evidence of ID. Now it has to be evidence peer-reviewed and published. John Dough: I've never asked for evidence of evolution. I don't dispute that evolution has occurred. John Dough: What happened to the assertion that ID is creationism, that ID invokes the supernatural, that ID is anti-evolution? Maybe we are making progress. John Dough: All in due time. John Dough: I never made those statements. John Dough: You have me confused with someone else. I never made any reference to Dr. Susskind. John Dough: I don't dispute your definition of modern science. I started this thread to dispute that ID is creationism, that ID invokes the supernatural, that ID is anti-evolution.
and presumably the Discovery Institute has got nothing to do with ID, right? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=80929
Astrology doesn't invoke the supernatural, either. But, it's not science because no experiment can be performed to repeatably confirm any Astrological predictive value with any more accuracy than raw probability would confirm. So what is it exactly that you want? Do you want the AAAS to acknowledge that biology is front loaded and that evolution is directed by an alien lifeform from a galaxy far far away, or what? And for whatever it is you're advocating, what scientific proof do you have?
I'm merely an interested observer without much expertise in any of the required fields or philosophies, so I beg mercy. I have but one small request. Could you provide a brief description of the peer-reviewed, and therefore most-likely correct, theories of existence? ... (I'm sorry for being an ass, this is a lively discussion and I appreciate reading highly intelligent people debate, but I'm always left dumbfounded when relatives of apes argue the "theory of existence" can only be discussed in a purely scientific terms)
guys like u are more likely to have come straight from the banana imo http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1276082&highlight=fucking#post1276082 http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1278909&highlight=csg#post1278909 now, here's a short intro to evolution for people who can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution otherwise there is always the discovery institute