Posts by Do Keep Trying


log in
21) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Having Fun RIGHT! (WFG: Mach III) (Message 1437107)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Guess it should have stayed having fun WRONG, eh?
22) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437101)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Evolution is not the topic here.


Now you're using Saul Alinsky's, Rules for Radicals, Of means and ends, rule #4 against me.

Your very last line is a flame. You are trying to suggest I am a radical.


Looks like you're starting to get it. I was pointing out the Saul Alinsky rule I'm using against you. I'm the radical in this case, not you.

And now you're beginning to see that we're both radicals. Right?

The question remains, which one of us was the radical FIRST?

(Possible responses: Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, On Tactics, Rules #2, #3, #5, #12 and #13. If it were anybody except you in here, I would expect rule #5. From you I'm expecting rule #12. Are you going to take the high road or the low road?)


I am not going to follow any of your perceived rules.
Evolution was not, is not and will not be the topic in here.
Neither will faith be the topic here.
23) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437077)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
And all I'm doing is pointing out that:

Evolution = circular reasoning NOT = science

You should recognize it for what it is.

(Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, On Tactics, Rule #4)


You have not pointed out anything. If you had, you could defend it. You cannot.
Evolution is not the topic here.
Your very last line is a flame. You are trying to suggest I am a radical.
24) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437070)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
"the term irreducible complexity assumes both the hypothesis and only one possible, desired, [sic] conclusion". This is circular reasoning. Even if they were doing experiments, the initial setup is flawed.


Hmmm, hypothesis working towards one possible, desired conclusion...

Random chance or something (or someone) started it in motion.

You have to use doublespeak to explain doublespeak.


"Circular reasoning" is well-defined. You are engaging in baiting and sophistry.
"Random chance" and "something (or someone)" setting things in motion were not mentioned in the very first post of this thread. The flaw at the very core of I.D., circular reasoning, making it NOT science is the topic of this thread.
25) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437062)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Well, there are still many people claiming evolution is not science either.


Evolution was not mentioned in the very first post of this thread.
One "claiming" evolution is not science would have to state the correct definition of what science is and then show how that field of study violates the long accepted tenets of what science is.

But if you look at the methods of science, you can see folks doing those steps in both evolution and in ID. They are just beginning to do those steps in ID. Why not allow them?


The term "irreducible complexity" assume both the hypothesis and the conclusion. This is circular reasoning. Just beginning? What experiments have they performed, as opposed to analyzing the research of others? Even if they performed experiments, if the base is flawed, they would be building a house of cards.
26) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437059)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
ID is a subject that is being riduculed [sic] by many right now.]/quote]

You will find no ridicule in the very first post.

[quote]A quick google turns up many famous scientists who started out as crazy people as described by their peers:

Galileo Galilei (The sun is the center?)
Robbert Goddard (space travel?)
Georg Ohm (linear equation for electricity?)
Karl Jansky (radio astronomy?)
James Lovelock (CFC's harming our atmosphere?)

All absolutely crazy ideas at the time. They must be wrong. It's so obvious they were wrong at the time.

Just to name a couple. They turned out to be right after some time and someone ELSE made their discoveries also.

Many, many times people have published ideas in science that were initially rejected by their peers simply because they went against the accepted wisdom of the time. These people submitted their work to journals only to have them repeatedly rejected with comments from the referees stating that the author simply could not be right.

Phillip Johnson (not a scientist), Michael Behe and William Dembski are unjustifiably getting the same treatment right now.


The rejection put forward in the very first post is not on the grounds of "that's just so different from what we currently accept that it can't be right!" nor on the grounds of faith, religion or lack thereof. The rejection put forward in the very first post of this thread is "the term irreducible complexity assumes both the hypothesis and only one possible, desired, conclusion". This is circular reasoning. Even if they were doing experiments, the initial setup is flawed.
27) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437051)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
I have yet to find 1 legitimate Science Organization through all my googling on a certain person's subjects that back there is any real science involved at all with intelligent design.

Intelligent design – a war on science.
The “War on Science” documentary showed that there is no real controversy within science about evolution. This battle is actually occurring in the non-scientific world – the courtrooms, school boards, politics and the battle for the hearts of minds of the non-scientific population. Robert T. Pennock, professor of history and philosophy of science at Michigan State University, USA, pointed out that “at its base [the creation/evolution debate] is about religion and it is about philosophy.”

Intelligent design/creationism may indeed be carrying out a war on science, but it is not a controversy within science. If anything it is a conflict within religion.

Cheers.


From what I can see, IDers do not perform experiments themselves, but "analyze" what researchers have published, looking for something that fits their conclusion.
28) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Goodbye (Message 1437046)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
When I joined the project, I had no idea that the forums existed.
I was just going to allow SETI to run on my machine.

If postings are causing you grief, avoid the forums and just leave BOINC running in the background.


+1
29) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Goodbye (Message 1437041)
Posted 168 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Life is tough out there in the big bad world so when one needs a good belly laugh, pop onto these forums.

I have only the one hypocrite filtered everyone else is free to spam me.

Oh and in case anyone is wondering, well you will be wrong, it is not Chris S.

Now there's a surprise.


Darn. It's not me, either.
30) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437017)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
PURE and REAL science. Undeniable. You must face it.


hmmmm, where and who have I seen similiar words from?


You might think it was from I.D. You'd be wrong, as I have defended what I have said, and succinctly.

Now, if you wish to truly discuss this, then point out, if you can, how I am wrong. I am pretty sure you cannot. Not because of your abilities or beliefs, but because deep down, you know I am correct. Return to topic.
31) Message boards : Politics : We Are Family (Message 1437016)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
I'm sorry, you've mistaken the classic "Fahrenheit 451" for the classic "1984". In this current situation, the former is the one that is germane.
32) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437008)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
For a number of reasons Guy, that I know you are fully aware of, I would support that view. But as Wiggo points out ID has made so many threads, that they will all have to go over.

+1


Don't even engage him. He knows full well my original post succinctly and eloquently explains what science is and why ID is not science. If he moves this thread, he will learn of the message board version of "Revelations".
33) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1437004)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Should I point out an inconsistency? Ok, I'll do it to make a point.

I don't see any science in here, so shouldn't this thread be moved to politics?


Shall I point out that you must not have read the original post? Why, yes, I shall. Very very very much all science and nothing else. PURE and REAL science. Undeniable. You must face it.
34) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1436902)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him.


It does not go round-and-round. Science is well-defined. It is shown in the very first post how ID is not science.
35) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Goodbye (Message 1436894)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Yes, ID can post all he wants and so can you. It doesn't need the approval of people with more brains and knowledge to do so, whether it is declared as science by whoever or not.s it.


1) Spam is not allowed.
2) Brains or lack thereof, and opinions, do not get to decide what science is. The definition and years and years and years of following that definition ... that is what decides what science is.
36) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1436878)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?



1) "They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC)." In the sciences, the terms must not be ambiguous. You cannot form a researchable question upon ambiguous terms. The term "irreducible complexity" assumes the observation and the desired conclusion.


Evolution is not mentioned in this post.
Religion/faith is not mentioned in this post.
This post succinctly and eloquently provides the slam dunk: ID is NOT science. Using their own words, we examine their terminology ... their operational terms. Their operational terms are not well-defined. The term "irreducible complexity" jumps straight to the desired conclusion of "intelligent design". Very unscientific. At its very core. No post here has denied that nor shown it to be in error.
Slam ... dunk ... game over.
If it wasn't flawed at its very core, we could examine the fact that they do not conduct experiments but instead analyze the experiments of others from their own "understanding" and desire to show that there is "IC" and "ID". But, because it is flawed at its very core, it's not even worth following up on this part.
37) Message boards : Politics : ID = circular reasoning NOT= science (Message 1436843)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
The topic is "ID uses circular reasoning, and is therefore not science". Specifically, the term "irreducible complexity" is ambiguous and, most importantly, assumes both the observation and the conclusion. Please return to topic. :)
38) Message boards : Politics : English/UK Citizens have Nothing To Do. So, They Post Ad Nauseam about USA (Message 1436763)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
LOL !!

You see, my fellow Americans, the Brits DO have a sense of humor !!


You have nothing, NO-thing, to say for your fellow Amerioans.
39) Message boards : Politics : English/UK Citizens have Nothing To Do. So, They Post Ad Nauseam about USA (Message 1436757)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying
I don't disagree with you. We are long overdue for a change in Washington DC. Get rid of all of them and start over with a clean slate.

Libertarians will get their way soon.


Hope most of them won't call me a THUG when I'm out one cold night with a hoody on. I know some of them are scared of long-haired dudes. Which is funny, because they're the hippies smoking legal weed.


Typical Spin


What a fracking joke, Mr. Typical. Time to block yer butt, just like somewhere else.
40) Message boards : Politics : We Are Family (Message 1436753)
Posted 169 days ago by Profile Do Keep Trying


Previous 20 · Next 20

Copyright © 2014 University of California