Rick Reuben wrote:You're getting closer. I have said that atheists have declared intelligent design to be unscientific, which implies that the theories that they offer are the opposite: scientific.

Which implies? Oh for pete's sake. So i won't be getting that concrete example i've been asking for. OK, good to know. Straw man for sure.

Here's a simple way of thinking about the God question. All it requires is personal humility. Tell yourself this:

"If there is a God, I would not know it. If there is not a God, I would not know it."

Hey, i tell myself that all the time. If anything, i'm a believing agnostic, in that i have my own reasons for believing that there's a god thing of some sort, but that all human attempts to describe it have likely been dismal failures. But where we differ is that i really don't care what anyone else believes, since i don't pretend that anyone cares what i believe. Atheists don't want to believe? That's cool with me. Wanna be a fundamentalist Christian cook? If you're able to keep your nose out of my business while you're doing it, awesome (although granted, that's hard for most of them).

Anyway, since you apparently started this whole stupid thread based on something you're inferring only so that you can build your own straw man to attack, i shall now revert back to my normal operating mode of not getting involved in your threads. Keep chasin' those windmills, Rick.

Rick Reuben wrote:ID is not in the realm of current science. Science may catch up to it.

True.

Similarly, the word "lkjsdhkjasdfhkjasdhflkjashdlfkjasdhlfkjasdhfl" is not in the realm of current English.

However, some day, if the English language knows what's good for it, it'll wise up and acknowledge "lkjsdhkjasdfhkjasdhflkjashdlfkjasdhlfkjasdhfl" as the father of all words.

Until then, English, if you wanna call it that, does not appeal to me.

steve wrote:Of course it's possible that life had an intelligent designer. Of course it's possible. It's just a long way from possible to reasonable.

It's possible that we're all brains in jars being stimulated by electrodes to have the sensations of independent lives. That something is possible doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.

Of the two, life being designed by spacemen and life being designed by a magic dude in a robe, I'd say the spacemen theory is relatively less ridiculous.

But still ridiculous.

After that rather arduous discussion about about "God" and "To Be" and "Being" that a bunch of us had here last year, I am surprised that you still don't understand that to a genuine Christian "God" can be nothing less than Existence-as-Existence or "To Be" or "YHWH".

Rick Reuben wrote:

Skronk wrote:But ID is not in the realm of science, because it cannot be tested, nor is there any evidence of it's work. .

ID is not in the realm of current science. Science may catch up to it.

No, it's not in the realm of science past, present, or in any conceivable future, until the ID'ers can produce some evidence. The rules of science are established. ID could only become science by playing by those rules. Current ID is not in the realm of science. It's up to the ID'ers to play catch up.

To think that I believed that my opinion of Bob Rick could not sink further.

Rick Reuben wrote:That is your concrete example. By inventing the category of 'unscientific' for intelligent design, the category of 'scientific' is automatically created alongside it.

DrAwkward wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:This agnostic atheist calls "false dichotomy"!

I'll add that to the list of Rick Reuben's Favorite Logical Fallacies.

Bobrick wrote:They all say that. I can count those who have held to it on one hand. The next time Mr. Provocative gathers his audience at the head of General Discussion, you'll either be lurking and reading every post, or you'll be diving in to attempt to 'set me straight' for the 900th time. See you again soon. ( Unless I get banned. It has to be coming. rick reuben at prison planet forum if it does. Peace out. )

Seriously, y'all, i hope you read this shit in Comic Book Guy voice for maximum effect like i do.

It's that simple, Nerbly. The Jews have always been smaller in numbers and the original 'outsiders' in the lands of others, so they were the perfect candidates to wear the uniform of the whipping boy.

Ricky baby, you are full of tremendous amounts of shit. During the middle ages, Christians were denied profiting from usuary. Jews were not. Without Jews, laziz-faire capitalism that all you liberals favor would have evolved more slowly. I think they became whipping boys cause of their stinky food.

You still haven't favored us with your world view. What would Reubenia look like? Would we all be fat pimply losers with mcjobs like you?

Hahahahahahahaha! Clocker Rick doesn't understand the meaning of the word "scientific"!

Rick Reuben wrote:ID is not in the realm of current science. Science may catch up to it.

To say that a given paradigm is "scientific" means that the idea is a demonstrable explanation that describes a specific set of observable phenomena or known features of the Universe, and it is backed up by quantifiable material and/or experimental evidence as well as sound logical reasoning.

For a concept to be scientific it must must describe an observation made under repeatable circumstances, it must adequately and completely explain that observation, and must provide concrete proof in the form of material evidence and mathematical and/or deductive reasoning. It must be the simplest possible explanation that takes into account all observable and measurable factors, and must not include factors which are unquantifiable or impossible to prove, like for instance the supernatural.

The arbiters who decide on the validity or defectiveness of scientific theories are the community of scientists at large. They decide based on the criteria I explained above.

Now I could go around saying that leprechauns obviously must exist because rainbows are often seen in the sky and until science is capable of building a leprechaun detector, you can't prove they don't exist, so the "final verdict" is unknown. Of course that would be unscientific and unreasonable. It doesn't mean you can't believe in it if you want, it just means you would be wrong to call it science.

The fact that science cannot adequately explain the origins of matter does not at all diminish the validity of such firmly founded theories as evolution, relativity, electromagnetism, cellular biology, gravity, plate tectonics, etc. which adequately and completely explain certain specific real-world conditions, and have nothing to do with the primal origins of matter.

It is very important for scientists to maintain the integrity of their profession because (especially in America) there are lots of crazy notions and claims being passed off as "science" all the time. Our capitalist political system pretty much allows anyone to say whatever they want in the interest of selling shit, so anybody can make easy money by falsely claiming their product or idea to be "scientific". Most of the charlatans who cash in on pseudoscience are selling harmless yet useless garbage to credulous idiots, but when these duplicitous assholes start trying to corrupt the education of our kids and ruining their ability to tell the difference, it becomes a very serious matter.

I cannot believe that even a reasonably intelligent person cannot understand the distinction here. However, I can understand how a dishonest politician can willfully obfuscate the difference to exploit the ignorance of stupid people for his own personal benefit. I can also understand how an Internet troll can argue against logic and reason in such a contrary way to inflate his own ego by drawing a lot of smart people into a pointless debate.

Rick, why don't you take a little time off from your loopy "Prison Planet" websites and read something educational: http://srikant.org/core/node2.html#SECT ... 0000000000

Antero wrote:To think that I believed that my opinion of Bob Rick could not sink further.

Quite foolish I'd say, I'm wondering if I'll ever hit bottom. What really amazes me is that people still engage him in argument as if he's ever going to concede a point or admit he was wrong.

They all say that. I can count those who have held to it on one hand. The next time Mr. Provocative gathers his audience at the head of General Discussion, you'll either be lurking and reading every post, or you'll be diving in to attempt to 'set me straight' for the 900th time. See you again soon. Laughing ( Unless I get banned. It has to be coming. rick reuben at prison planet forum if it does. Peace out. )

When someone makes a statement like this it is a clarion call that they're desperately lonely and insecure. Negative attention is after all attention.

Rick Reuben wrote:Atheists are the ones mistakenly using current science toclaim that they have proven a negative, by claiming that, "If science can't see it, it isn't there."

Find me one single quote of anyone saying what you claim they're saying.