info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Where is the science of intelligent design?
102 views
Skip to first unread message
RonO
Jul 4, 2015, 11:16:18 AM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The latest By their fruits thread seems to have brought out the "best"
in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
supporting ID.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5kcf1_1b5eg/GHFp4SJ3nmsJ
For some reason they all seem to be into denial about what a rational
course of action should have been years ago. All of them just can't
seem to accept the fact that intelligent design became a creationist
scam that the creationists ran on themselves over a decade ago.
A few months ago I went back and looked up what could still be obtained
about the Ohio bait and switch back in 2002. Along with the expected
evidence I found a report by Wells on the Ohio bait and switch where he
states that the ID perps got together and decided ahead of time to run
the bait and switch, and the Ohio rubes were not going to get the
promised ID science.
This is a link that any one can use to access the history that they may
have missed.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
At the bottom of the post I link to the Dover creationist lead lawyer's
comments on what he calls the "strategy" of the Discovery Institute, but
he was just pointing out that the bait and switch went down.
The bait and switch has gone down on every single legislator and school
board that has ever stepped forward and wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design. All the IDiots ever get is a switch scam that is
just the old scientific creationist obfuscation scam that doesn't
mention anything about intelligent design/creationism. That has been
the policy of the guys that sold the ID scam since March 2002.
As lame as IDiocy is at this time there are still IDiots. They whine
about reality, but never seem to be able to face it.
When will the time come when facing reality is an option? Denial hasn't
resulted in anything. The ISCID (the IDiots international science
society) died 7 years ago. The ID Network (supposedly composed of
academics supporting IDiocy) died 6 years ago. The Discovery Institute
has removed the statement that they had a scientific theory of ID to
teach in the public schools from their current education policy and the
ID perps have started multiple religious web sites linking IDiocy to
their religious convictions. The lies that ID was about the science so
that they could circumvent existing law seems to be over. How can they
make that legal claim when they have junk up on their religious sites
claiming that theistic evolution is as bad as atheism? They not only
have religious intent, but they obviously have a narrow religious view
point that does not include a large fraction of their fellow Christians.
Instead of running in denial, why is it not an option for the IDiots to
get together and try to figure out what they can salvage from the bogus
ID scam. What needs to be done to bring IDiocy up to the level where
some valid discussions might occur?
One of the most dishonest aspects of IDiocy was that it was the plan to
never present any testable IDiot hypotheses. The IDiots had learned
from the scientific creationists that parts of their model could be
tested, and they did not like the answers that they got. The guys that
ran the ID scam were careful to never present anything that was
testable. When IC came under fire Behe made it totally untestable in
his response to his critics at the turn of the century. The rest of the
bogus IDiot junk like specified information and the new law of
thermodynamics never made it close to the testable stage.
The way to figure out what is testable about your alternative is to
first put the alternative forward for evaluation and get the parts
sorted out. This was never an option for the IDiots because no one ever
wanted to test the junk because some of it had already been tested and
failed.
I put up three basic IDiot models:
Dorks from Ork model of space alien designers:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Jp8NXxBTtv4/0QK126O2SLkJ
One Biblical model:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Jp8NXxBTtv4/T4lbKDNk47YJ
The IDiot tweeker model"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Jp8NXxBTtv4/nFoZINzf-kcJ
Most IDiots likely have one of these in mind or some variant.
The next step for a scientist would be to attempt to differentiate the
models and drop out the dead wood. Surprisingly, even though the Dork
from Ork model is the most scientific model little meaningful effort can
be applied to trying to figure out if it is valid or not. There are
Dorkier models, but why try to differntiate them? About the only thing
that anyone can do is start looking for ancient alien space probes.
Good Luck. So if you were going to do something and expect to get
results in a reasonable time frame and with reasonable effort variants
of the last two models is what a rational scientists would try to
differentiate.
So what testable hypothesis could be created to differentiate the two
remaining types of creation models? It turns out to be very straight
forward. The two models can be tested by their differential time frame
of creation. There is over 5 orders of magnitude difference in the age
of the earth between the two models (4.5 billion compared to less than
10,000) and time is one of the things that science can deal with and has
the means to estimate. This is such a simple thing that the only reason
that the ID perps did not do it is because they depended on the YEC
creationist rubes for the major part of their support base. Any
rational testing would demonstrate that YEC was not the correct model.
There is very little scientific doubt that YEC cannot be supported with
the existing data.
With a single round of temporal testing the IDiots could have done some
real science and narrowed their focus to alternatives with some
reasonable expectation of getting somewhere with. The only reason that
this was not done is so the ID perps could keep sucking money and
political support out of the YEC IDiots. There was no scientific reason
for not doing what was doable.
So now the IDiots on this board know where to focus their attention in
trying to improve the remaining IDiot models. Different Old earth
creationist models can be differentiated. You could look at the order
of creation of life on earth. Science can and has tested that. One
global flood was ruled out by science before Darwin. So the remaining
models can be effectively refined. Go for it. Refine the model to the
best tweeker model that you can obtain by scientific testing and see
what you come up with.
Refusing to test what can be tested is stupid and dishonest. Just
because you do not want to know the answer is no excuse for not refining
any model that you can come up with. Such refusal is the major reason
why IDiocy is idiocy.
Ron Okimoto
in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
supporting ID.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/5kcf1_1b5eg/GHFp4SJ3nmsJ
For some reason they all seem to be into denial about what a rational
course of action should have been years ago. All of them just can't
seem to accept the fact that intelligent design became a creationist
scam that the creationists ran on themselves over a decade ago.
A few months ago I went back and looked up what could still be obtained
about the Ohio bait and switch back in 2002. Along with the expected
evidence I found a report by Wells on the Ohio bait and switch where he
states that the ID perps got together and decided ahead of time to run
the bait and switch, and the Ohio rubes were not going to get the
promised ID science.
This is a link that any one can use to access the history that they may
have missed.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/H2Sw6NFIi4s/c7cRQzCvA2YJ
At the bottom of the post I link to the Dover creationist lead lawyer's
comments on what he calls the "strategy" of the Discovery Institute, but
he was just pointing out that the bait and switch went down.
The bait and switch has gone down on every single legislator and school
board that has ever stepped forward and wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design. All the IDiots ever get is a switch scam that is
just the old scientific creationist obfuscation scam that doesn't
mention anything about intelligent design/creationism. That has been
the policy of the guys that sold the ID scam since March 2002.
As lame as IDiocy is at this time there are still IDiots. They whine
about reality, but never seem to be able to face it.
When will the time come when facing reality is an option? Denial hasn't
resulted in anything. The ISCID (the IDiots international science
society) died 7 years ago. The ID Network (supposedly composed of
academics supporting IDiocy) died 6 years ago. The Discovery Institute
has removed the statement that they had a scientific theory of ID to
teach in the public schools from their current education policy and the
ID perps have started multiple religious web sites linking IDiocy to
their religious convictions. The lies that ID was about the science so
that they could circumvent existing law seems to be over. How can they
make that legal claim when they have junk up on their religious sites
claiming that theistic evolution is as bad as atheism? They not only
have religious intent, but they obviously have a narrow religious view
point that does not include a large fraction of their fellow Christians.
Instead of running in denial, why is it not an option for the IDiots to
get together and try to figure out what they can salvage from the bogus
ID scam. What needs to be done to bring IDiocy up to the level where
some valid discussions might occur?
One of the most dishonest aspects of IDiocy was that it was the plan to
never present any testable IDiot hypotheses. The IDiots had learned
from the scientific creationists that parts of their model could be
tested, and they did not like the answers that they got. The guys that
ran the ID scam were careful to never present anything that was
testable. When IC came under fire Behe made it totally untestable in
his response to his critics at the turn of the century. The rest of the
bogus IDiot junk like specified information and the new law of
thermodynamics never made it close to the testable stage.
The way to figure out what is testable about your alternative is to
first put the alternative forward for evaluation and get the parts
sorted out. This was never an option for the IDiots because no one ever
wanted to test the junk because some of it had already been tested and
failed.
I put up three basic IDiot models:
Dorks from Ork model of space alien designers:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Jp8NXxBTtv4/0QK126O2SLkJ
One Biblical model:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Jp8NXxBTtv4/T4lbKDNk47YJ
The IDiot tweeker model"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Jp8NXxBTtv4/nFoZINzf-kcJ
Most IDiots likely have one of these in mind or some variant.
The next step for a scientist would be to attempt to differentiate the
models and drop out the dead wood. Surprisingly, even though the Dork
from Ork model is the most scientific model little meaningful effort can
be applied to trying to figure out if it is valid or not. There are
Dorkier models, but why try to differntiate them? About the only thing
that anyone can do is start looking for ancient alien space probes.
Good Luck. So if you were going to do something and expect to get
results in a reasonable time frame and with reasonable effort variants
of the last two models is what a rational scientists would try to
differentiate.
So what testable hypothesis could be created to differentiate the two
remaining types of creation models? It turns out to be very straight
forward. The two models can be tested by their differential time frame
of creation. There is over 5 orders of magnitude difference in the age
of the earth between the two models (4.5 billion compared to less than
10,000) and time is one of the things that science can deal with and has
the means to estimate. This is such a simple thing that the only reason
that the ID perps did not do it is because they depended on the YEC
creationist rubes for the major part of their support base. Any
rational testing would demonstrate that YEC was not the correct model.
There is very little scientific doubt that YEC cannot be supported with
the existing data.
With a single round of temporal testing the IDiots could have done some
real science and narrowed their focus to alternatives with some
reasonable expectation of getting somewhere with. The only reason that
this was not done is so the ID perps could keep sucking money and
political support out of the YEC IDiots. There was no scientific reason
for not doing what was doable.
So now the IDiots on this board know where to focus their attention in
trying to improve the remaining IDiot models. Different Old earth
creationist models can be differentiated. You could look at the order
of creation of life on earth. Science can and has tested that. One
global flood was ruled out by science before Darwin. So the remaining
models can be effectively refined. Go for it. Refine the model to the
best tweeker model that you can obtain by scientific testing and see
what you come up with.
Refusing to test what can be tested is stupid and dishonest. Just
because you do not want to know the answer is no excuse for not refining
any model that you can come up with. Such refusal is the major reason
why IDiocy is idiocy.
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
Jul 4, 2015, 11:31:18 AM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mn8t6r$e5b$1...@dont-email.me...
arguments to such a shameful imbecile as you?
[snip propaganda for a failed ideology]
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
news:mn8t6r$e5b$1...@dont-email.me...
> The latest By their fruits thread seems to have brought out the "best"
> in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
> supporting ID.
You are a stooge for scientism. Who bothers to present rational
> in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
> supporting ID.
arguments to such a shameful imbecile as you?
[snip propaganda for a failed ideology]
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RonO
Jul 4, 2015, 11:46:17 AM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
cogent argument? Why is it that all you can do is remove reality and
pretend that it doesn't exist?
It isn't my failed ideology. The post was about what IDiots could do to
improve the scientific status of their IDiocy. Running from reality
makes you what you are. I just point out what you are doing.
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
Jul 4, 2015, 12:01:17 PM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
news:mn8utc$kul$1...@dont-email.me...
You're a stooge, Ron. Just keep posting your little faux cop-talk and
keep pretending that we're all cowering in fear at your phony
accusations. Ron Quixote, tilting at scarecrows.
keep pretending that we're all cowering in fear at your phony
accusations. Ron Quixote, tilting at scarecrows.
RonO
Jul 4, 2015, 12:41:17 PM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
stooge in this case when you can't come up with any promised ID science,
and you keep going back to the guys that you know lied to you for more
bogus junk?
Why keep pretending? Why not do something sensible like put up and
defend your alternative?
Why lie about phony accusations. Demonstrate that they are phony. Why
just lie and run? It doesn't change reality, so why keep doing
something that never amounts to anything except demonstrate what a lying
whiner you are?
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
Jul 4, 2015, 1:21:17 PM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO
Jul 4, 2015, 3:11:17 PM7/4/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
usual. If you are having issues don't try to drive today it is a
holiday weekend.
Ron Okimoto
Mr. B1ack
Jul 5, 2015, 3:11:17 AM7/5/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:14:53 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>The latest By their fruits thread seems to have brought out the "best"
>in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
>supporting ID.
There ARE NO facts supporting 'ID' ... it is *unnecessary*
>The latest By their fruits thread seems to have brought out the "best"
>in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
>supporting ID.
regardless, ordinary natural selection serves.
OTOH ... there are no facts that DENY at least some kinds
of "ID" - from the cozmik "Zap ! It's a universe !" to random
meddling from more ordinary extratrerrestrials. This should
be kept in mind as well.
Data will continue to be collected. As decades pass it will
become more clear as to whether meddling aliens have
fooled-around with earthly life. While it's surely 99.9%
unlikely, don't become completely smug. Follow the
evidence, no matter where it leads.
The "Big Zap" theory really IS disproven at this point.
Life on earth is a continuium, not anything just zapped
into existence as-is. Lesser forms of 'ID' remain a
viable question.
RonO
Jul 5, 2015, 8:21:15 AM7/5/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
do some real science, but they choose not to do any. There are some
questions that they can answer about their models even if they can't
currently demonstrate the existence of their intelligent designer.
Science can't conclude things like the world was not created last
Tuesday with all of our collective memories intact, but there are parts
of the various IDiot alternatives that obviously can be dealt with.
If the IDiots want to claim to be doing science, why don't they ever try
to do any science? Pretending to do science by putting up untestable
hypotheses obviously is not what they should be doing.
Ron Okimoto
Mr. B1ack
Jul 5, 2015, 4:21:13 PM7/5/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:19:41 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>On 7/5/2015 2:08 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:14:53 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The latest By their fruits thread seems to have brought out the "best"
>>> in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
>>> supporting ID.
>>
>> There ARE NO facts supporting 'ID' ... it is *unnecessary*
>> regardless, ordinary natural selection serves.
>>
>> OTOH ... there are no facts that DENY at least some kinds
>> of "ID" - from the cozmik "Zap ! It's a universe !" to random
>> meddling from more ordinary extratrerrestrials. This should
>> be kept in mind as well.
>>
>> Data will continue to be collected. As decades pass it will
>> become more clear as to whether meddling aliens have
>> fooled-around with earthly life. While it's surely 99.9%
>> unlikely, don't become completely smug. Follow the
>> evidence, no matter where it leads.
>>
>> The "Big Zap" theory really IS disproven at this point.
>> Life on earth is a continuium, not anything just zapped
>> into existence as-is. Lesser forms of 'ID' remain a
>> viable question.
>>
>
>The obvious point of the post was to demonstrate that the IDiots could
>do some real science, but they choose not to do any.
Anybody *can* ... but ideology generally trumps reality.
>On 7/5/2015 2:08 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:14:53 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The latest By their fruits thread seems to have brought out the "best"
>>> in the IDiots, but that did not include any rational arguments
>>> supporting ID.
>>
>> There ARE NO facts supporting 'ID' ... it is *unnecessary*
>> regardless, ordinary natural selection serves.
>>
>> OTOH ... there are no facts that DENY at least some kinds
>> of "ID" - from the cozmik "Zap ! It's a universe !" to random
>> meddling from more ordinary extratrerrestrials. This should
>> be kept in mind as well.
>>
>> Data will continue to be collected. As decades pass it will
>> become more clear as to whether meddling aliens have
>> fooled-around with earthly life. While it's surely 99.9%
>> unlikely, don't become completely smug. Follow the
>> evidence, no matter where it leads.
>>
>> The "Big Zap" theory really IS disproven at this point.
>> Life on earth is a continuium, not anything just zapped
>> into existence as-is. Lesser forms of 'ID' remain a
>> viable question.
>>
>
>The obvious point of the post was to demonstrate that the IDiots could
>do some real science, but they choose not to do any.
Unfortunate, but true.
>There are some
>questions that they can answer about their models even if they can't
>currently demonstrate the existence of their intelligent designer.
something dontchaknow. 'Faith" HAS to come
first and foremost and facts will just have to
flow around that somehow.
>Science can't conclude things like the world was not created last
>Tuesday
of old-fashioned "trickster god" being involved who
deliberately salted the place with isotope decay products
and fake dinosaur bones .....
>with all of our collective memories intact, but there are parts
>of the various IDiot alternatives that obviously can be dealt with.
is say "I *believe*" and they collect followers faster
than ISIL. It's a problem.
>If the IDiots want to claim to be doing science, why don't they ever try
>to do any science?
b) They don't NEED anything more than pretense.
>Pretending to do science by putting up untestable
>hypotheses obviously is not what they should be doing.
different rules apply.
For a fanatic, anything is fair game. Alas for a 'scientist',
he's stuck in his little corner, restricted to offering just the
evidence at hand - to hundreds of millions who slept through
science classes and don't understand a word of it. So, as
shapers of future public policy and law, the 'ID' people
have a considerable advantage.
dcl...@qis.net
Jul 6, 2015, 12:56:13 AM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 11:16:18 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
[snip out political discussion]
Finally something worth reading from you Ron. Thank you.
Yes, theistic/spiritual models of the metaphysics behind our universe need to be testable. But you start from the wrong point -- you start with the complete model. That is not how methodological naturalism works -- it starts with features and behaviors, and builds up models from the ground up, rahter than the top down. Top down is religion.
Start with consciousness. We experience life as a ghost in a machine. Run with that, and you arrive at interactive spiritual dualism. Spiritual dualism models better match consciousness studies than any materialist models. Every materialist model has refuting test cases, while my dualist model has none.
Move on to NDEs, OBEs, and psi. All have been well documented. Psi is shown with multiple statistically significant results in over a half dozen forms. the effect is weak, so interaction is weak. NDEs and OBEs have behavioral consistencies. Assume they proive accurate data, and work from there. Souls exist, and are separable from the body.
Add in data from past life and between life hypnotic regressions. Look at it for consistency between researchers.
Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
With a fragmentary spirit realm, a long-term guided evolution theory is not plausibly sustainable, a la the RCC version of evolution. The most intervention that is plausible is very occasional. This is a weak version of your "tweaker" hypothesis. the only obvious candidates for tweaking are the introduction of the first protocell, and the diversification of multicelled life with the Cambrian Explosion. The rest of life looks to be naturalistically evolved, and maybe the Cambrian Explosion was too.
[snip out political discussion]
Yes, theistic/spiritual models of the metaphysics behind our universe need to be testable. But you start from the wrong point -- you start with the complete model. That is not how methodological naturalism works -- it starts with features and behaviors, and builds up models from the ground up, rahter than the top down. Top down is religion.
Start with consciousness. We experience life as a ghost in a machine. Run with that, and you arrive at interactive spiritual dualism. Spiritual dualism models better match consciousness studies than any materialist models. Every materialist model has refuting test cases, while my dualist model has none.
Move on to NDEs, OBEs, and psi. All have been well documented. Psi is shown with multiple statistically significant results in over a half dozen forms. the effect is weak, so interaction is weak. NDEs and OBEs have behavioral consistencies. Assume they proive accurate data, and work from there. Souls exist, and are separable from the body.
Add in data from past life and between life hypnotic regressions. Look at it for consistency between researchers.
Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
With a fragmentary spirit realm, a long-term guided evolution theory is not plausibly sustainable, a la the RCC version of evolution. The most intervention that is plausible is very occasional. This is a weak version of your "tweaker" hypothesis. the only obvious candidates for tweaking are the introduction of the first protocell, and the diversification of multicelled life with the Cambrian Explosion. The rest of life looks to be naturalistically evolved, and maybe the Cambrian Explosion was too.
RonO
Jul 6, 2015, 8:01:12 AM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
have any answers how are you going to get some? We are still looking
for gravitons. It is obvious that we should not have started there. So
what did happen? Scientists observed things and came up with things
that they could do to learn something about nature. Why isn't that an
option for intelligent design? Why keep working on the untestable junk
and getting nowhere?
What you will also find if you attempt to do any science is that the
most direct means of finding something out is to look into the issue,
come up with something that you might have a unique twist on and use
that insight to develop tests to see if you could be correct. Even if
you are wrong you often find something out that leads to different
experiments and new knowledge.
For centuries intelligent design was the default explanation for Western
science. It amounted to nothing. No intelligent design alternatives
are left standing today. It was actually an impediment to constructive
advance in our scientific knowledge. The default did get some people to
try to catalog creation and this allowed the collection of data so that
hypotheses could be formed and tested. One of the main things that kept
scientists going was to see if they could figure out how the designer
might have done something. Otherwise intelligent design is a science
stopper. You claim to have the answer, but it really isn't an answer.
So the default explanation in science today is that we just don't know,
but if we are clever enough we might figure out a way to discover new
knowledge. So if you can come up with a story, you better be able to
test it and demonstrate that it might have some basis in reality.
> Start with consciousness. We experience life as a ghost in a machine. Run with that, and you arrive at interactive spiritual dualism. Spiritual dualism models better match consciousness studies than any materialist models. Every materialist model has refuting test cases, while my dualist model has none.
actually do something with the tools that you have available? How have
you determined that spiritual dualism models better are a better match
than something else?
> Move on to NDEs, OBEs, and psi. All have been well documented. Psi is shown with multiple statistically significant results in over a half dozen forms. the effect is weak, so interaction is weak. NDEs and OBEs have behavioral consistencies. Assume they proive accurate data, and work from there. Souls exist, and are separable from the body.
think that you can demonstrate something to a level where you can get a
lot of people to agree that, that something exists in nature, that would
be great. How do you get from psi experiments to claims that souls
exist and are separate from the body? Do you see your problem? With
souls, you are dealing with an issue that you have about no chance of
demonstrating anything, so you aren't going to make much progress. Real
science would keep souls in mind and an effort would be made to think of
new things that could be tried, but an effort would be made to see if
there was an end around. Why are souls needed in your model? Start
broadening your approach and see if you can answer questions that could
lead you to a better understanding of what a soul is. In order to do
this you may have to reach back all the way to what you got out of your
religious beliefs and start testing them if that is all you could do.
> Add in data from past life and between life hypnotic regressions. Look at it for consistency between researchers.
testing been done?
> Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
correlations exist?
In science we know that we do not know everything and we know that we
are likely to be incorrect in our inferences, so testing your inferences
is one of the most important parts of science.
This might help you think about how science works and why ID never did.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html
Have you played with jigsaw puzzles? How many times are you wrong in
your hypothesis testing? How many times do you expect to be wrong in
your scientific inferences based on incomplete knowledge? Testing is
essential and if you can't test your junk it is just junk. The best
that you could hope for is that it is inspirational junk, and that
someone else may come up with something better. What inspiration have
IDiots gotten out of IC? Why isn't Behe trying to test IC. He claimed
that he had a test for it, but admitted that he had never done the
testing around 10 years ago. He probably still hasn't done any testing,
and what has IC amounted to in around two decades?
> With a fragmentary spirit realm, a long-term guided evolution theory is not plausibly sustainable, a la the RCC version of evolution. The most intervention that is plausible is very occasional. This is a weak version of your "tweaker" hypothesis. the only obvious candidates for tweaking are the introduction of the first protocell, and the diversification of multicelled life with the Cambrian Explosion. The rest of life looks to be naturalistically evolved, and maybe the Cambrian Explosion was too.
go. You can try to convince Kalk and Glenn to collaborate with you so
that you can improve your story and make it more convincing.
When you make claims like this there are testable claims that could be
made to support what you say. Those are the claims that you should
concentrate on and demonstrate that they can be confirmed. You could
establish when the Cambrian explosion happened and how much time you
have to tweek the system. Using the genome data you will soon be able
to determine how much tweeking went on before the Cambrian explosion.
Some researchers have already started this with gene families and
demonstrating things like what happened in the common ancestor of all
multicellular animals before the Cambrian explosion could occur.
You should be able to understand what should have been done, so why was
it never done? Right now Intelligent design creationism is just a scam
that the creationists are running on themselves. It will not get any
better until the IDiots decide that they need something better. The sad
thing is that most of them already know that they do not want to know
the answers that they can already come up with. For good or bad, that
is about the only reason that the scam exists today instead of rational
inquiry.
Ron Okimoto
dcl...@qis.net
Jul 6, 2015, 9:51:17 AM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> > Start with consciousness. We experience life as a ghost in a machine. Run with that, and you arrive at interactive spiritual dualism. Spiritual dualism models better match consciousness studies than any materialist models. Every materialist model has refuting test cases, while my dualist model has none.
>
> Why start there? Why not start somewhere simpler and where you can
> actually do something with the tools that you have available? How have
> you determined that spiritual dualism models better are a better match
> than something else?
>
> > Move on to NDEs, OBEs, and psi. All have been well documented. Psi is shown with multiple statistically significant results in over a half dozen forms. the effect is weak, so interaction is weak. NDEs and OBEs have behavioral consistencies. Assume they proive accurate data, and work from there. Souls exist, and are separable from the body.
>
> So what? In science we know that we do not know everything. If you
> think that you can demonstrate something to a level where you can get a
> lot of people to agree that, that something exists in nature, that would
> be great. How do you get from psi experiments to claims that souls
> exist and are separate from the body? Do you see your problem? With
> souls, you are dealing with an issue that you have about no chance of
> demonstrating anything, so you aren't going to make much progress. Real
> science would keep souls in mind and an effort would be made to think of
> new things that could be tried, but an effort would be made to see if
> there was an end around. Why are souls needed in your model? Start
> broadening your approach and see if you can answer questions that could
> lead you to a better understanding of what a soul is. In order to do
> this you may have to reach back all the way to what you got out of your
> religious beliefs and start testing them if that is all you could do.
>
Separability of soul from body is also a prediction, and it has supportive data from OBEs and NDEs.
These experiemnts and studies DO provide evidence to better understand what a soul is. I don't think we have enough yet to get beyond speculation.
> > Add in data from past life and between life hypnotic regressions. Look at it for consistency between researchers.
>
> And what do you get that you can test and confirm? Why hasn't this
> testing been done?
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/James%20Pandarakalam%20%20A%20search%20for%20the%20truth%20of%20Past%20Life%20Regression.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=bR-lAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&lpg=PT18&dq=clinical+hypnotic+regression+journals&source=bl&ots=cRshICwhxW&sig=mvMhSUtiM4lBsYyfSsldFDWK8tY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=136aVef4IsS5-AHcoITgBg&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=clinical%20hypnotic%20regression%20journals&f=false
>
> > Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
>
> Again, why weren't these conclusions tested and confirmed if such
> correlations exist?
>
There are few with a science bent involved in Past Life Regression or channeling.
> > Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
>
> Again, why weren't these conclusions tested and confirmed if such
> correlations exist?
>
> In science we know that we do not know everything and we know that we
> are likely to be incorrect in our inferences, so testing your inferences
> is one of the most important parts of science.
>
> This might help you think about how science works and why ID never did.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html
>
> Have you played with jigsaw puzzles? How many times are you wrong in
> your hypothesis testing? How many times do you expect to be wrong in
> your scientific inferences based on incomplete knowledge? Testing is
> essential and if you can't test your junk it is just junk. The best
> that you could hope for is that it is inspirational junk, and that
> someone else may come up with something better. What inspiration have
> IDiots gotten out of IC? Why isn't Behe trying to test IC. He claimed
> that he had a test for it, but admitted that he had never done the
> testing around 10 years ago. He probably still hasn't done any testing,
> and what has IC amounted to in around two decades?
>
> > With a fragmentary spirit realm, a long-term guided evolution theory is not plausibly sustainable, a la the RCC version of evolution. The most intervention that is plausible is very occasional. This is a weak version of your "tweaker" hypothesis. the only obvious candidates for tweaking are the introduction of the first protocell, and the diversification of multicelled life with the Cambrian Explosion. The rest of life looks to be naturalistically evolved, and maybe the Cambrian Explosion was too.
>
> My guess is that you are farther out on a limb than most IDiots want to
> go. You can try to convince Kalk and Glenn to collaborate with you so
> that you can improve your story and make it more convincing.
>
> When you make claims like this there are testable claims that could be
> made to support what you say. Those are the claims that you should
> concentrate on and demonstrate that they can be confirmed. You could
> establish when the Cambrian explosion happened and how much time you
> have to tweek the system. Using the genome data you will soon be able
> to determine how much tweeking went on before the Cambrian explosion.
> Some researchers have already started this with gene families and
> demonstrating things like what happened in the common ancestor of all
> multicellular animals before the Cambrian explosion could occur.
>
> You should be able to understand what should have been done, so why was
> it never done? Right now Intelligent design creationism is just a scam
> that the creationists are running on themselves. It will not get any
> better until the IDiots decide that they need something better. The sad
> thing is that most of them already know that they do not want to know
> the answers that they can already come up with. For good or bad, that
> is about the only reason that the scam exists today instead of rational
> inquiry.
>
RonO
Jul 6, 2015, 7:06:11 PM7/6/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
something that the IDiots can claim as a verifiable piece of knowledge
that supports IDiocy?
You can't make untestable hypotheses your life's ambition if you want to
learn anything about nature.
>
>>> Start with consciousness. We experience life as a ghost in a machine. Run with that, and you arrive at interactive spiritual dualism. Spiritual dualism models better match consciousness studies than any materialist models. Every materialist model has refuting test cases, while my dualist model has none.
>>
>> Why start there? Why not start somewhere simpler and where you can
>> actually do something with the tools that you have available? How have
>> you determined that spiritual dualism models better are a better match
>> than something else?
>>
> Most simple stuff has already been done. The simple stuff working off a materialist perspective for the last century plus has not yielded an understanding of consciousness. meanwhile, consciousness is directly experienced by everyone, hence easily approachable. And that experience is basically one of being a ghost in a machine. It is time for science research to reconsider this foundational assumption.
What does it matter as to whether life evolved or not? Even if you
could demonstrate that your soul exists, what does that tell you about
intelligent design? Realy, say that you know that you have a soul and
it is a fact, so what? Does it make IC systems IC? Does it solve the
new law of thermodynamics issue that IDiots brought up? Does it
demonstrate that the IDiots cosmic designer exists? No in all cases.
>
>>> Move on to NDEs, OBEs, and psi. All have been well documented. Psi is shown with multiple statistically significant results in over a half dozen forms. the effect is weak, so interaction is weak. NDEs and OBEs have behavioral consistencies. Assume they proive accurate data, and work from there. Souls exist, and are separable from the body.
>>
>> So what? In science we know that we do not know everything. If you
>> think that you can demonstrate something to a level where you can get a
>> lot of people to agree that, that something exists in nature, that would
>> be great. How do you get from psi experiments to claims that souls
>> exist and are separate from the body? Do you see your problem? With
>> souls, you are dealing with an issue that you have about no chance of
>> demonstrating anything, so you aren't going to make much progress. Real
>> science would keep souls in mind and an effort would be made to think of
>> new things that could be tried, but an effort would be made to see if
>> there was an end around. Why are souls needed in your model? Start
>> broadening your approach and see if you can answer questions that could
>> lead you to a better understanding of what a soul is. In order to do
>> this you may have to reach back all the way to what you got out of your
>> religious beliefs and start testing them if that is all you could do.
>>
> There has been a small minority working off non-material worldviews, and one of the expectations of interactive spiritual dualism is that the spirit should be able to achieve some interactions that reach outside the head. This has been confirmed in psi research.
>
> Separability of soul from body is also a prediction, and it has supportive data from OBEs and NDEs.
>
> These experiemnts and studies DO provide evidence to better understand what a soul is. I don't think we have enough yet to get beyond speculation.
go from there? It is sort of a dead end in terms of intelligent design
creationism. Once you identified your soul and could determine what it
was, how do you know that it wouldn't just be a natural construct of the
brain? Since you don't know what a soul is how can you say it will be
an unnatural construct?
>
>>> Add in data from past life and between life hypnotic regressions. Look at it for consistency between researchers.
>>
>> And what do you get that you can test and confirm? Why hasn't this
>> testing been done?
> Here are two summaries from a mostly skeptical science perspective:
> http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/James%20Pandarakalam%20%20A%20search%20for%20the%20truth%20of%20Past%20Life%20Regression.pdf
> https://books.google.com/books?id=bR-lAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&lpg=PT18&dq=clinical+hypnotic+regression+journals&source=bl&ots=cRshICwhxW&sig=mvMhSUtiM4lBsYyfSsldFDWK8tY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=136aVef4IsS5-AHcoITgBg&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=clinical%20hypnotic%20regression%20journals&f=false
matters to what gets discussed around here.
>>
>>> Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
>>
>> Again, why weren't these conclusions tested and confirmed if such
>> correlations exist?
>>
> There are few with a science bent involved in Past Life Regression or channeling.
funding for the research from the ID perps? Maybe you can convince them
to start a new division of the Discovery Institute. I do not know what
they would do if they actually found out that you could demonstrate that
people had a past life, but my guess is that their major backers
wouldn't like it. It isn't very biblical for one thing.
>
>> In science we know that we do not know everything and we know that we
>> are likely to be incorrect in our inferences, so testing your inferences
>> is one of the most important parts of science.
>>
>> This might help you think about how science works and why ID never did.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html
>>
>> Have you played with jigsaw puzzles? How many times are you wrong in
>> your hypothesis testing? How many times do you expect to be wrong in
>> your scientific inferences based on incomplete knowledge? Testing is
>> essential and if you can't test your junk it is just junk. The best
>> that you could hope for is that it is inspirational junk, and that
>> someone else may come up with something better. What inspiration have
>> IDiots gotten out of IC? Why isn't Behe trying to test IC. He claimed
>> that he had a test for it, but admitted that he had never done the
>> testing around 10 years ago. He probably still hasn't done any testing,
>> and what has IC amounted to in around two decades?
>>
> There is little of value that has come out of the ID or SC movements, as their advocates do not want to make testable predictions, as you noted. A few of their ideas can be used to make testable predictions, and a few of them have not yet been refuted.
claims. If they are testable demonstrate it. Currently untestable is
untestable. Look at the string theory guys. Currently some things may
be testable if they can build a super collider pawerful enough, but
currently untestable is still untestable.
>
>>> With a fragmentary spirit realm, a long-term guided evolution theory is not plausibly sustainable, a la the RCC version of evolution. The most intervention that is plausible is very occasional. This is a weak version of your "tweaker" hypothesis. the only obvious candidates for tweaking are the introduction of the first protocell, and the diversification of multicelled life with the Cambrian Explosion. The rest of life looks to be naturalistically evolved, and maybe the Cambrian Explosion was too.
>>
>> My guess is that you are farther out on a limb than most IDiots want to
>> go. You can try to convince Kalk and Glenn to collaborate with you so
>> that you can improve your story and make it more convincing.
>>
> A forum like this tends to attract committed apologists for a particular POV. Apologists are highly allergic to refutations of their POV. Methodolgical naturalism works primarily by refuting speculations, until you start getting a few that are more robust. I do not expect to find or make many allies for a methodologically naturalist approach to dualism here.
and if it is worth getting there for what you want to do.
>
>> When you make claims like this there are testable claims that could be
>> made to support what you say. Those are the claims that you should
>> concentrate on and demonstrate that they can be confirmed. You could
>> establish when the Cambrian explosion happened and how much time you
>> have to tweek the system. Using the genome data you will soon be able
>> to determine how much tweeking went on before the Cambrian explosion.
>> Some researchers have already started this with gene families and
>> demonstrating things like what happened in the common ancestor of all
>> multicellular animals before the Cambrian explosion could occur.
>>
> I consider abiogenesis to be a more productive subject to explore, as the disconnect between acheived organization and duration is much greater, and the materialist based research has shown so little progress. Discussion of my opening thread here made clearer to me how difficult it is to use as an evidenctial test case however.
even if they come up with the most probable explanation probably arose
just once and it could have happened in a less likely fashion. But even
as bad of a science as abiogenesis currently is, you have nothing as
good as your not good enough. You have to bring your argument up to the
level that you claim isn't good enough. Until creationists can do that
all they have is denial.
>> You should be able to understand what should have been done, so why was
>> it never done? Right now Intelligent design creationism is just a scam
>> that the creationists are running on themselves. It will not get any
>> better until the IDiots decide that they need something better. The sad
>> thing is that most of them already know that they do not want to know
>> the answers that they can already come up with. For good or bad, that
>> is about the only reason that the scam exists today instead of rational
>> inquiry.
>>
> Yes, there are non-scientists and anti-scientists contaminating the subject with non-useful material, and they are currently the main contributors to the discussion. You should be looking for the exceptions that actually are interesting, rather than condemning all who write or think about this subject.
that put forward something worth looking into. Right now I just list
them all and let who ever cares decide for themselves.
Ron Okimoto
John Stockwell
Jul 9, 2015, 6:01:02 PM7/9/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
-John
Kalkidas
Jul 9, 2015, 6:26:01 PM7/9/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c56260f-d157-4c84...@googlegroups.com...
0 new messages