Hey, ID Creationists!

[gnostic]

Are you meaning "creationists" as in YEC or just in general about people who believe the universe was created?

This topic is focused on Intelligent Design, which is also a form of creationism.

ID creationists can be either YEC creationists or OEC creationists. Most followers are YEC creationists, but there are OEC creationists among them, like Michael Behe.

But it doesn’t matter if a creationist is a Young Earth or Old Earth follower, Intelligent Design is garbage that have already been refuted and deemed as pseudoscience.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which discoveries indicate that the Abrahamic God is very likely not real?



Are you meaning "creationists" as in YEC or just in general about people who believe the universe was created?
I can point to statements in the Bible about origins and say that science has shown these things to be true. That is not a prediction but it is evidence on behalf of the Bible, assuming that the science is true. (sorry, but I do need to make that assumption)
I can make predictions based on what the Bible says but the thing is that science would probably never agree that these predictions are correct because they involve a supernatural being, and science would rather keep going forever to try and show their naturalistic answers are correct than to bring God into the equation.

Demonstrate the existence of supernatural beings, and science will consider them.
Until then, there is no reason to take them into consideration and/or insert them into our models of the world that work just fine without the insertion.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That’s just circular reasoning, not evidence that god exist.

In fact, what you have stated, it isn’t even logical. It’s just confirmation bias.

I'm pretty sure by the emoji that Brian2 was joking - he was trying to prove my point by agreeing with the ridiculousness of this circular reasoning.

 

[Brian2]

This topic is focused on Intelligent Design, which is also a form of creationism.

ID creationists can be either YEC creationists or OEC creationists. Most followers are YEC creationists, but there are OEC creationists among them, like Michael Behe.

But it doesn’t matter if a creationist is a Young Earth or Old Earth follower, Intelligent Design is garbage that have already been refuted and deemed as pseudoscience.

There is a strange belief amongst sceptics that something that has been called a pseudoscience is therefore not true.
If "design" as a concept cannot be classified in science or accepted in science, that does not mean that there is no design in nature.

 

[Brian2]

Demonstrate the existence of supernatural beings, and science will consider them.
Until then, there is no reason to take them into consideration and/or insert them into our models of the world that work just fine without the insertion.

It is not true that science will accept a supernatural being even if it is shown to be true. The thing is that science only accepts certain sorts of evidence and science, because of that, cannot say whether there is or is not a God.
So you are right, science will blindly plug on trying to come up with naturalistic explanations or even presuming that the explanations are naturalistic, even if they are not.
And you are right that there is no need to insert a supernatural being into how physical things operate. The insertion would be just a waste of time as with most things it is assumed that people actually know that for example the reason friction causes heat does not show that a God did or did not cause that to be the case by creating it that way or not.
Some people however do seem to know that.
And of course science does not help in this regard when it is reported as being on the brink of knowing how life began on earth etc as if the presumption of no God is actually a fact instead of a presumption.
It is a case of false news really and many people actually believe it.

 

[gnostic]

There is a strange belief amongst sceptics that something that has been called a pseudoscience is therefore not true.
If "design" as a concept cannot be classified in science or accepted in science, that does not mean that there is no design in nature.

And you have completely ignore the most part in Intelligent Design that is pseudoscience - the DESIGNER.

it is this claim that nature required a “Designer” that you cannot show ev Of its existence except through circular reasoning and confirmation bias, that just about every creationists used in their unsubstantiated arguments.

So until you can show that this Designer exist “physically” then Intelligent Design is no better than the nonexistent Easter Bunny or some pixies or the leprechaun’s pot of gold on the other side of rainbow.

Intelligent Design is using the same superstitions to spirits existing in natural objects or claims that some invisible gods were responsible for rain, thunderstorms, movements of sun and moon, etc...the only differences is that you are calling your superstition - Designer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not true that science will accept a supernatural being even if it is shown to be true. The thing is that science only accepts certain sorts of evidence and science, because of that, cannot say whether there is or is not a God.

Science involves any evidence for any phenomena that is demonstrable, testable and/or repeatable. Yes, that is a "certain kind of evidence." It's the kind of evidence that can be verified by more than just one person and isn't based in anecdotes and "personal experiences."

If someone could demonstrate the existence of some supernatural world/beings, then the science community would have to consider it.
If there is no good evidence for a thing, then why on earth should anyone even consider it in the first place?

So you are right, science will blindly plug on trying to come up with naturalistic explanations or even presuming that the explanations are naturalistic, even if they are not.

I didn't say anything about science "blinding plug[ging] on."

Scientists will continue investigating and testing the world around us and producing evidence for the explanations they come up with. "God did it" isn't an explanation for anything, as it doesn't actually explain how anything actually happened.

Demonstrate to anyone that there is some good evidence indicating that some supernatural world exists in the first place, and the science community will have to consider it. It's pretty simple.

And you are right that there is no need to insert a supernatural being into how physical things operate.
The insertion would be just a waste of time as with most things it is assumed that people actually know that for example the reason friction causes heat does not show that a God did or did not cause that to be the case by creating it that way or not.

Great, so why do you keep insisting that scientists should include supernatural beings/worlds in their explanations of how the world around us operates, when they work just fine without them.

Some people however do seem to know that.
And of course science does not help in this regard when it is reported as being on the brink of knowing how life began on earth etc as if the presumption of no God is actually a fact instead of a presumption.
It is a case of false news really and many people actually believe it.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is a strange belief amongst sceptics that something that has been called a pseudoscience is therefore not true.
If "design" as a concept cannot be classified in science or accepted in science, that does not mean that there is no design in nature.

I think you are confusing the pseudoscience that is the movement of Intelligent Design with the concept of design. Intelligent Design the movement is the pseudoscience. Design the concept remains as it is.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Sorry for the late response - I just needed a break from all the stupid on this site - like your posts.

Man - I could practically feel you shaking in your little booties when reading them. You were so scared!

Am I the first person you've encountered who actually read more that the headline of the articles you provide?

Am I the first one to actually delve into the reports you claim prove your point - but they actually don't?

And all throughout you apply the same circular reasoning, "leftist" tactics and hypocrisy.

I know you won't be reading this post - but I'm going to respond anyway so that others - like @Dan From Smithville - the guy who "liked" your nonsense can see it.

Yeah, I don't need a bizarre lecture about how racist things aren't racists or how hate crimes are just misreported arguments (or whatever) between people of different races.

All this proves is that you didn't read my post, or the FBI report your article referenced.

Also - this is you simply restating your original position - that what I said was racist - and you trying to use that restatement as evidence of your initial claim.

Which is circular reasoning - a logical fallacy.

You are repeating your initial claim over and over again - and that is not evidence that supports your initial claim.

It's like a "Christian" claiming that God exists because the Bible says so and that the Bible is true because God says so - and so on and so on - round and round we go.

"What you said is racist because it is racist to say what you said because it is racist."

It makes no sense.

And you also trying to use your initial claim as an excuse to not read my post or the FBI report referenced in your article is a classic "leftist" tactic.

You use your outlandish and unsupported claim - that I said something racist - to either shut down or disengage from a conversation that you are losing.

You are trying to gain some imagined moral high ground in order to claim that what I say is somehow beneath you - that you don't have any need to "stoop" to my level - giving you an unjustified excuse to run away.

It is a tactic born of ignorance and arrogance - a common "leftist" tactic.

Also - it is now hypocritical of you to claim that what I said was racist based on what you have recently said.

I pointed out the fact that the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" in the U.S. were perpetuated by Blacks or African Americans.

You claimed that what I said was racist - then in your more recent posts you claimed that White people are responsible for committing the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes".

So - you believe that it is racist for me to claim that Blacks or African Americans commit the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" - yet it is not racist for you to claim that White people commit the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes"?

If it is racist for me to claim that a particular race of people is committing the majority of a particular crime - then it should be just as racist for you to claim that a particular race of people is committing the majority of a particular crime.

That is hypocrisy.

You would have realized that if you were responsible and consistent with the things you say - but you aren't.

And that data that you provided actually supports my initial claim - not yours.

You would have known that had you read more than just the headline of your articles - but you didn't, and you won't.

Your position is far too entrenched in your political leanings to have any sort of fruitful discussion about this.

Boom - the same "leftist" tactic again.

"I am your moral superior - therefore I have no need to engage with you. I don't have to listen to what you say - because I am so righteous - but I will judge you and what you said without considering anything you wrote. There is no need to discuss this since I am so amazing, I already know that you are wrong. What would be the point?"

A tactic born from ignorance and arrogance.

Besides that, this thread is supposed to be about creationism.

No - it is about COVID and science.

And don't forget that you were the one who responded to my post to Audie.

You began this discussion by saying that I was a gullible conspiracist.

Now we're really done.

Have a nice life.

I feel that shaking again. You quake with fear.

Why you're still going on about black people committing all the hate crimes against Asians at this point is beyond me. It's not helping your case.

I never claimed that Blacks or African Americans committed "all" of any crimes. Stop lying.

I claimed that Black and African Americans committed the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" because it is the truth and also it contradicts your claim that President Trump is somehow responsible for the recent spike in anti-Asian "hate crimes".

Black and African Americans in democrat cities do not represent Trump's base.

Partisan nonsense.

I believe that you are right - well-reasoned arguments supported by data are partisan - found only on the Right.

Yet - you only call them "nonsense" because you literally cannot say anything else. You have nothing.

You have no evidence that backs up your claims. The sources you provided in an attempt to back up your claims actually contradicted you and supported mine.

You claim that it is nonsense because you have no other recourse - it is a tactic born from ignorance and arrogance - a "leftist" tactic.

Sure it is. She knew the party was in July and she knew who was at the party (PJ and Squi), because they participated in attacking her.
And then there's Kavanaugh sitting there with a calendar he saved (for some strange reason?) that has the party occurring in July and it even says who was there - PJ and Squi!

None of that is "evidence" of anything - other than that she found out - at some time - when the party took place and some of the people who attended it.

She had no evidence that she attended the party. She did not know where the party took place. And no one could claim that she ever even met Kavanaugh.

I know exactly where JFK was when he was shot. I know exactly when he was shot. I know exactly who was with him in the car when he was shot.

Does any of this mean that I have any actual evidence about the assassination of JFK?

Him keeping a calendar from High School could mean that he is sentimental - that he enjoyed High School - and also that he likes to be well-organized and keep meticulous notes and schedules.

Sounds like a guy who was destined for the Supreme Court to me.

Who cares?

People who care about law and order, the presumption of innocence and the need for actual evidence of a crime in order to convict someone of a crime.

I don't remember the address of the place where I was raped and I can't even remember how I got home after it happened (I was kinda traumatized, ya know?). But I remember every single detail of being raped.

There was no evidence of any rape. There was no evidence of trauma.

And also - no one could collaborate that she even went to that party.

People knew that PJ and Squi and Kavanaugh were there - but no one - and I mean no one - claimed that Ford was there.

She also told her therapist about it and a friend.

Who and when?

And could they collaborate anything she said?

And now we find out that the FBI didn't even bother interviewing Kavanaugh and only interviewed about 6 people, when 24 people actually came forward wanting to be interviewed.

None of this matters.

When six people who were present at the party claim that not only did no rape occur - but the supposed victim did not attend the party where and when she said it occurred - there is no need to interview anyone else.

Ford had literally no evidence.

Most people have "zero evidence" of being raped.

All proven cases of rape had evidence proving that there was rape.

She had a lot more than that.

No - she offered literally nothing.

What were you looking for, a DNA sample?

Yes.

And if that is unattainable - then at least a single witness to the crime. Or a witness to some circumstantial evidence to the crime.

But she had nothing.

I understand why your name is SkepticalThinker - because everyone should be skeptical about the way you think!

What circular reasoning, "leftist" tactics or hypocrisy are you going to employ now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry for the late response - I just needed a break from all the stupid on this site - like your posts.

Man - I could practically feel you shaking in your little booties when reading them. You were so scared!

Am I the first person you've encountered who actually read more that the headline of the articles you provide?

Am I the first one to actually delve into the reports you claim prove your point - but they actually don't?

Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident.

And all throughout you apply the same circular reasoning, "leftist" tactics and hypocrisy.

I know you won't be reading this post - but I'm going to respond anyway so that others - like @Dan From Smithville - the guy who "liked" your nonsense can see it.

Circular reasoning you can’t seem to elaborate upon?

LOL You don’t even know what my political leanings are. But here you are attempting to brand me with your “leftist” generalizations and stereotypes. That seems to be a theme with you.

All this proves is that you didn't read my post, or the FBI report your article referenced.

I’ve read all your posts.

And I’ve read all the articles I’ve cited.

Also - this is you simply restating your original position - that what I said was racist - and you trying to use that restatement as evidence of your initial claim.

You are repeating your initial claim over and over again - and that is not evidence that supports your initial claim

Which is circular reasoning - a logical fallacy.

It's like a "Christian" claiming that God exists because the Bible says so and that the Bible is true because God says so - and so on and so on - round and round we go.

No it isn’t.

What is circular reasoning? Re-stating my initial claim? That’s not circular reasoning. Also, I wasn’t just re-stating my initial claim.

"What you said is racist because it is racist to say what you said because it is racist."

It makes no sense.

Good thing that’s not what I said.

I actually explained why I feel it’s racist.

And you also trying to use your initial claim as an excuse to not read my post or the FBI report referenced in your article is a classic "leftist" tactic.

No idea what you’re talking about.

You use your outlandish and unsupported claim - that I said something racist - to either shut down or disengage from a conversation that you are losing.

LOL Nope.

You are trying to gain some imagined moral high ground in order to claim that what I say is somehow beneath you - that you don't have any need to "stoop" to my level - giving you an unjustified excuse to run away.

Nope. You are really bad at this.

It is a tactic born of ignorance and arrogance - a common "leftist" tactic.

Remember how I said that you’re too deeply entrenched in your political views to have a fair discussion with? Here’s more evidence of that.

Also - it is now hypocritical of you to claim that what I said was racist based on what you have recently said.

How’s that? Are you now claiming I’m racist?

I pointed out the fact that the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" in the U.S. were perpetuated by Blacks or African Americans.

You claimed that what I said was racist - then in your more recent posts you claimed that White people are responsible for committing the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes".

What I said was there has been a rise in anti-Asian sentiment since the pandemic began and since Trump has been branding COVID as “Kung-Flu” and the “China Virus.” Who cares which races are involved? You do, for some reason. I don’t see why it’s relevant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So - you believe that it is racist for me to claim that Blacks or African Americans commit the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" - yet it is not racist for you to claim that White people commit the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes"?

First of all, I didn’t say “White people” commit the majority of anti-Asian hate crimes, nor did I imply it. I simply said there has been a rise in anti-Asian hate crimes. And there has been.

Why you felt the need to point out that it’s most black people is the point of contention here.

I don’t care which races were involved – only that there has been a rise in anti-Asian hate crimes. Why do you care what colour their skin is? What difference does that make?

If it is racist for me to claim that a particular race of people is committing the majority of a particular crime - then it should be just as racist for you to claim that a particular race of people is committing the majority of a particular crime.

That is hypocrisy.

Why you think I said the crimes were committed by white people is beyond me.

You would have realized that if you were responsible and consistent with the things you say - but you aren't.

I’ve been consistent since the start.

And that data that you provided actually supports my initial claim - not yours.[/quote]

What was your big point in pointing out that black people are supposedly committing most of these crimes? What are you getting at and why? What differences does it make what colour their skin is?

You would have known that had you read more than just the headline of your articles - but you didn't, and you won't.

Who cares and why? That’s my entire point.

Boom - the same "leftist" tactic again.

Ooops, there’s that political bias again.

"I am your moral superior - therefore I have no need to engage with you. I don't have to listen to what you say - because I am so righteous - but I will judge you and what you said without considering anything you wrote. There is no need to discuss this since I am so amazing, I already know that you are wrong. What would be the point?"

A tactic born from ignorance and arrogance.

What on earth are you talking about?

No - it is about COVID and science.

And don't forget that you were the one who responded to my post to Audie.

This is a public forum and I have every right to do so.

You began this discussion by saying that I was a gullible conspiracist.

I guess don’t cite conspiracy nonsense then.

I feel that shaking again. You quake with fear.

It’s boredom, actually.

I never claimed that Blacks or African Americans committed "all" of any crimes. Stop lying.

I claimed that Black and African Americans committed the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" because it is the truth and also it contradicts your claim that President Trump is somehow responsible for the recent spike in anti-Asian "hate crimes".

Why do you feel such need to point that out? What are you getting at?

Black and African Americans in democrat cities do not represent Trump's base.

What’s a “Democrat” city? Are you under the impression that there are no people of other political stripes that live in “Democrat cities?”
Why are you stereotyping based on race?

I’m not the one tying political/racial affiliation with these crimes. That would be you.

I believe that you are right - well-reasoned arguments supported by data are partisan - found only on the Right.

What’s that, you’re generalizing and stereotyping again? Please top demonstrating my points for me already.

Yet - you only call them "nonsense" because you literally cannot say anything else. You have nothing.

You have no evidence that backs up your claims. The sources you provided in an attempt to back up your claims actually contradicted you and supported mine.

My claim is that there was/is a rise in anti-Asian hate crimes since the start of the pandemic and since Trump has branded it as “Kung-Flu” and “China Virus.” My sources backed that up. The race of the perpetrators involved is irrelevant. Well to me, but obviously not to you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You claim that it is nonsense because you have no other recourse - it is a tactic born from ignorance and arrogance - a "leftist" tactic.

Again with the political bias from you. Talk about hypocritical.

Oh, wait I get it! You’re projecting! That makes sense now.

None of that is "evidence" of anything - other than that she found out - at some time - when the party took place and some of the people who attended it.

She had no evidence that she attended the party. She did not know where the party took place. And no one could claim that she ever even met Kavanaugh.

It’s evidence that she knew of the party she claimed to be at, as well as Kavanaugh, who had it marked on his calendar with the very people Blasé-Ford claimed were there. Without Kavanaugh’s calendar, that couldn’t have been confirmed. It certainly lends credence to her side of the story.

I know exactly where JFK was when he was shot. I know exactly when he was shot. I know exactly who was with him in the car when he was shot.

Who cares? Were you sexually assaulted on that day?

You know all of this, because it’s a part of recorded history that can be verified in any number of ways. That is a terrible comparison.

I was sexually assaulted 30 years ago. I have no idea of the address where it took place. I don’t even know the last name of the guy who assaulted me. I don’t remember how I got home afterward because I was in such a daze. But I damn well know I was assaulted

Blasey-Ford said she was attacked at a party with certain people in the room. Kavanaugh had a calendar with a party marked off on a particular date, as well as the names of the people Blasé-Ford said were there with him.

Does any of this mean that I have any actual evidence about the assassination of JFK?

Him keeping a calendar from High School could mean that he is sentimental - that he enjoyed High School - and also that he likes to be well-organized and keep meticulous notes and schedules.

You completely missed the point about the calender. See above.

The dude brought in evidence that he was at the party in question, with the very people in question.

Sounds like a guy who was destined for the Supreme Court to me.

“I love beer.”

Yeah, totally.

People who care about law and order, the presumption of innocence and the need for actual evidence of a crime in order to convict someone of a crime.

There was no evidence of any rape. There was no evidence of trauma.

And also - no one could collaborate that she even went to that party

Who and when?

And could they collaborate anything she said?

I think you mean corroborate?

This wasn't a court of law where anybody was being convicted of a crime. It was a Supreme Court hearing.

There was evidence of the party taking place where Blasé-Ford said she was sexually assaulted. She didn’t claim she was raped, by the way. The evidence of trauma was obvious to me in the way she presented her testimony. As a person who suffers from PTSD, I can see trauma in others. It’s really not that hard to identify. Also, she had been seeing a therapist and told that therapist and another friend about the sexual assault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

People knew that PJ and Squee and Kavanaugh were there - but no one - and I mean no one - claimed that Ford was there.

Oh, so Blasey-Ford just happened to make up a story about a party and particular people and it’s just a coincidence then, that the party actually took place and the people she claimed were there were actually there? Come on.

None of this matters.

Of course it matters whether or not a proper investigation was done. It wasn’t. That is a problem.

When six people who were present at the party claim that not only did no rape occur - but the supposed victim did not attend the party where and when she said it occurred - there is no need to interview anyone else.

Three of those six people were the alleged attackers so .. .yeah.

The other three wouldn’t know if there was an attempted rape unless they were in the room. So of course they don’t remember an attempted rape that took place in a room in which they were not present.

Ford had literally no evidence.

Repeating that doesn’t make it true.

All proven cases of rape had evidence proving that there was rape.

She didn’t claim she was raped. Not sure what evidence you’re looking for.

The fact that she told at least two people about it during her lifetime is evidence. Knowing who was at the party in question is confirmation that the party occurred and that said people were there. Kavanaugh never denied that the party occurred or that PJ and Squee were there.

This is the problem with attempted rape. There generally isn’t much evidence. It’s not like the people involved in the attempted rape are going to own up to it.

No - she offered literally nothing.

Now I’m convinced you don’t know what the word literally means.

Yes.

And if that is unattainable - then at least a single witness to the crime. Or a witness to some circumstantial evidence to the crime.

Um, this wasn’t a criminal trial. It was a Supreme Court hearing.

I understand why your name is SkepticalThinker - because everyone should be skeptical about the way you think!

What circular reasoning, "leftist" tactics or hypocrisy are you going to employ now?

Oh boy, more repetition of your political mantras that display how deeply you are entrenched in your political biases. More generalizing and stereotyping from you. What circular reasoning?[/QUOTE]

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

WOW! Good challenge. I am new here so I think that you need to know me. I am the founder of the new ID. Well, I did actually and published in Zenodo about the COVID-19 ORIGIN. I finished the Part 1... the Part 2 is in progress...

 

[ppp]

WOW! Good challenge. I am new here so I think that you need to know me. I am the founder of the new ID. Well, I did actually and published in Zenodo about the COVID-19 ORIGIN. I finished the Part 1... the Part 2 is in progress...

Did you publish in a mainstream peer reviewed science journal?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Did you publish in a mainstream peer reviewed science journal?

I submitted, they did not understand me.

 

[Astrophile]

What I was speaking about is the ideas that life and the universe came about naturally,,,,,,,,,,and comparing that with the idea that they came through a creator.
Other scientific predictions might be able to be tested. Can these ones be tested? Do they have predictions? If not then they may be as much pseudo science as the idea of a creator.

Yes, the hypothesis that the universe came about naturally has a prediction, and it has been tested and found to be valid. In 1948, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman used the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe to predict that the expansion of the universe from a hot initial state should have produced a cosmic background of microwave radiation with a wavelength of about one millimetre. This prediction was ignored at the time, but turned out to be correct when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the microwave background in 1965.