Sandbox

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

1,772 thoughts on “Sandbox

  1. Joe G: If he didn’t address the question of origin then he has nothing.

    Yes, Newton had nothing according to Joe.

    Yet in 100 years Newton will still be celebrated. And Joe will be as celebrated then as he is now.

  2. Joe G: ID does away with materialism because it went through it.

    The Explanatory Filter

    ‘Fraid that isn’t what that site indicates. Nice try though Joe.

    Again Robin, your ignorance is not a refutation.

    Nope. Care to try again?

  3. Joe G:
    If he didn’t address the question of origin then he has nothing.

    Not only that but he was unaware of the fabric of space-time. And taht means he is irrelevant to this discussion.

    LOL. Joe the celestial mechanic tells us that Newtonian mechanics is irrelevant. :)

  4. OMTWO: Yes, Newton had nothing according to Joe.

    Yet in 100 years Newton will still be celebrated. And Joe will be as celebrated then as he is now.

    Newton was a Creationist

  5. Joe G: Not only that but he was unaware of the fabric of space-time. And taht means he is irrelevant to this discussion.

    yeah, because you and your bowling ball on a sheet have it down pat. Whatever.

  6. Sorry about all the shunting.

    I’ve moved most of the orbital mechanics stuff into the new thread here, as well as some stuff to Guano.

    I haven’t been as thorough as I’d have liked, so I’ll move the odd comment to the appropriate places as I find them.

    Joe G: I had taken you off moderation, then found a load of rule-violating posts, mostly from you. For some reason the softward to put you back on didn’t work, but I think I have now done it manually.

    The rules are pretty easy, so please try to keep to them.

    Thanks.

  7. LoL! Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required. The EF mandates that we go through necessity and chance before considering a design inference.

  8. Joe G: Einstein did that.

    Einstein did not make Newton irrelevant. At speeds well below the speed of light and in weak gravitational fields, Einstein’s theory of relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics and gravity. For an Earth-sized planet moving around a Sun-sized star at 1 a.u., Einstein’s theory predicts essentially the same motion as Newton’s. The orbits are stable anyway in both theories.

  9. Joe G:
    Umm that isn’t evidence- he cannot accout for gravity except to say it just is.

    And you account for gravity how, exactly?

  10. Joe G: Einstein did that.

    So do you use Einstein’s or Newton’s methods to calculate the future positions of moving objects that are slow (compared to c) moving?

  11. Joe G:
    LoL! Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required. The EF mandates that we go through necessity and chance before considering a design inference.

    Joe, let’s break this down a bit:

    Materialism is a philosophy. That philosophy does not hold a monopoly on the use of such concepts as matter, energy, necessity, and chance. In fact, there are a variety of philosophies – physicalism, naturalism, dualism, monism, pluralism, neoplatonism, etc – that all provide different understandings of the interaction of matter, energy, necessity, and chance. But here’s the kicker – materialism holds that only matter/energy exists. Clearly then, ID cannot go though materialism since as far as ID teaches (and the site on the Explanatory Filter even outright states such) that there’s more than just matter and energy.

    So I’m afraid Joe, you’re in disagreement with Dembski. Dembski does not hold that the explanatory filter relies upon materialism at all; it can’t, because according to Dembski, materialism cannot even exist since there’s more than just matter or energy.

  12. LoL! As I said if someone can demonstrate that matter and enrgy are all that exist then ID falls.

    Yes, ID says there is more than materialism, ie more than matter and energy. THAT means ID went through matter and energy to get to the design inference.

    So I’m afraid, Robin, that you just do not know what you are talking about.

  13. Joe G:
    LoL! As I said if someone can demonstrate that matter and enrgy are all that exist then ID falls.

    Irrelevant to the point – if materialism is false, then ID cannot (as you claim) “pass through” it.

    Yes, ID says there is more than materialism, ie more than matter and energy. THAT means ID went through matter and energy to get to the design inference.

    It may well go through matter and energy and a whole lot of other things for all I care, but it clearly can’t go through materialism according to Dembski, which is contrary to what you claimed.

    So I’m afraid, Robin, that you just do not know what you are talking about.

    ‘Fraid that claim does not help you rebut the fact that Dembski disagrees with you regarding ID.

  14. LoL! Look ID adds an entity on top of matter, energy, necessity and chance.

    Also I am reading Dembski and he agrees with me- I will send him and email and even ask over on UD.

    Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required.

    The EF gives that position- materialism- the first chance to make its case. If materialism cannot make its case then the design inference gets its chance. The design inference includes all that materialism has to offer PLUS includes a designer.

    THAT means the design inference goes through materialism.

    In “the Design of Life”- by Dembski and Wells- page 142 supports my claim

    Materialistic evolution does not merely embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent Design, by contrast, contends taht biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whatever it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent steps.

  15. Robin:
    Irrelevant to the point – if materialism is false, then ID cannot (as you claim) “pass through” it.

    By going through materialism to reach the design inference THAT makes materialism false. It was given a chance and failed, ie it is false.

  16. Joe G:
    No- again not according to the US Supreme Court

    Why do you keep asking me the same questions? Do you think my answers will change or are you just a moron?

    You’re likely asked the same questions in the hope that someday you might answer them in a relevant, rational, realistic, honest way. Either that or it’s just fun to watch you make a gigantic fool of yourself and the ID agenda as you repeatedly lie, project, pretend, baldly assert, melt down, and flounce.

  17. Joe G (from Dembski/Wells)

    Materialistic evolution does not merely embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent Design, by contrast, contends taht biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whatever it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent steps.

    Designers are not so much rejected as seemingly non-existent, outwith a few members of the animal kingdom, who can hardly be expected to design themselves. If biological design is empirically detectable, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble in … ummm … stepping up and empirically detecting some.

    Note that doing so does not involve saying “[some alternative paradigm] cannot explain how X arose, therefore design”. An indirect result of the empirical detection of design would be demonstration of the existence of non-animal designers. Inferring such designers from the scraps that materialism has yet to explain seems a particularly half-assed methodology.

  18. Joe G:

    No- again not according to the US Supreme Court

    No not what according to the US Supreme Court? And what the heck do they have to do with science – or much else, outside the US?

    Why do you keep asking me the same questions? Do you think my answers will change or are you just a moron?

    I’m just a moron.

  19. Allan-

    I get it- you have no evidence to support your position. We have stepped in and empirically detected some design. OTOH your position has no way of testing its claims.

    And yes determining design means eliminating all more simple explanations. That is how it works in archaeology and forensics.

  20. According to the USSC Creationism is directly linked to the Bible.

    The Bible does not guide me in any way. I could care less if it was proven to be just a bunch of stories. Therefor according to the people that matter, I am not a Creationist.

  21. Joe G: In “the Design of Life”- by Dembski and Wells- page 142 supports my claim

    “Materialistic evolution does not merely embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent Design, by contrast, contends taht biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whatever it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent steps.”

    So Dembski and Wells clearly disagree with your position that materialism doesn’t have any testable hypotheses.

  22. Strange that we are still waiting for you to produce such a testable hypothesis wrt materialism.

    Why is that?

  23. Joe G:
    Allan-

    We have stepped in and empirically detected some design.

    Citation and examples please.

    And who’s “we”?

  24. Joe G:
    According to the USSC Creationism is directly linked to the Bible.

    The Bible does not guide me in any way. I could care less if it was proven to be just a bunch of stories. Therefor according to the people that matter, I am not a Creationist.

    If?

    So, you say that according to a judicial authority that you appeal to, creationism must be biblically based. And, that authority is “the people that matter”. But, when the same court or any other court rules that creationism/religion/ID cannot be taught in public schools you get all bent out of shape and say that you are going to change all that and see to it that ID, which is just creationism/religion, will be taught in public schools. Strange that. Go figure.

    And how about the koran? Does it guide you in any way?

  25. Joe G: No, they do not. And they never say what such a hypothesis would be.And guess what? Neither can you…

    Hypothesis: Biological evolution proceeds entirely by physical, material processes, with no intervention from a non-material intelligence.

    Are you disagreeing with Dembski and Wells that the above hypothesis can be tested against observations? Are you suggesting that there is not and cannot be empirical evidence to support the I.D. position on biology?

  26. Hi Alan-

    IDists have formulated testable hypotheses wrt ID.

    OTOH you cannot formulate a testable hypothesis for your position- strange that.

  27. LoL! ID does not require intervention and that “hypothesis” is totally bogus, ie is not a hypothesis at all.

    And there is plenty of empirical evidence to support ID.

  28. ID doesn’t have anything to do with any religion- or perhaps it deals with all of them, including atheism.

  29. Joe G: LoL! ID does not require intervention and that “hypothesis” is totally bogus, ie is not a hypothesis at all.

    The standard view of I.D.ists like Dembski, Wells and Behe is that I.D. intervention in the biosphere is required in order to produce the results we see around us. You clearly disagree with them on many things.

    If you don’t understand words like “hypothesis”, then I suggest that you stop using them. And the same goes for phrases like “testable hypothesis”.

    And there is plenty of empirical evidence to support ID.

    If you believe that, then why do you keep making claims like “materialism isn’t a testable hypothesis”? The two claims are mutually exclusive.

  30. Please reference any of tehm saying that any intervention is required for biological evolution.

    And I understand words like “hypothesis” and “testable hypothesis”, however it has become clear that you do not.

    And please support you claim of being “mutually exclusive”.

    You could just produce a testable hypothesis for materialism and we could see…

  31. Joe G:
    Robin:
    Irrelevant to the point – if materialism is false, then ID cannot (as you claim) “pass through” it.

    By going through materialism to reach the design inference THAT makes materialism false. It was given a chance and failed, ie it is false.

    And according to joe gallien, coulrophobic muslim creationist toaster repair technician and tick breeder, science long ago surpassed the official time limit on its chance to show that materialism (as defined by joe) is true. Therefore it is false, for all time. Ergo jesus or mohammed or god or magic ticks or designers or miracles or angels or aliens or pink unicorns, or something.

  32. Joe G: Please reference any of tehm saying that any intervention is required for biological evolution.

    Behe: “It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on.”

    Evolution couldn’t happen without the intervention of the designer, who has designed the “fundamental mechanisms of life” on which it depends, according to Behe.

    And I understand words like “hypothesis” and “testable hypothesis”, however it has become clear that you do not.

    You could just produce a testable hypothesis for materialism and we could see…

    If you understand what hypotheses are, then you’ll agree that this is one:

    Materialist hypothesis of evolution: Biological evolution proceeds entirely by physical, material processes, with no intervention from a non-material intelligence.

    Dembski and Wells use the phrase Intelligent Design to denote a non-material process, as you can see from the quote you provided, in which they clearly use it as the opposite to “materialistic evolution”.

    Dembski & Wells: “Materialistic evolution does not merely embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent Design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whatever it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent steps.”

    You cannot claim that the materialistic hypothesis isn’t testable against observations while at the same time contending that observations can be made which contradict it (as D & W do, and as you did above when you said “there is plenty of empirical evidence to support I.D.”.).

    And please support you claim of being “mutually exclusive”.

    See above.

  33. LoL! We were talking about BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, not the OoL. And BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION does NOT require any intervention.

    And strange that you cannot say how to test materialism.

    BTW design is a material process- it takes matter, energy and information and makes stuff out of it- material stuff.

    And no, you do not get to refeence yourself.

  34. Joe G:
    LoL! Look ID adds an entity on top of matter, energy, necessity and chance.

    Irrelevant since that isn’t what I’m referring to. I’m referring to your misused of the term “materialism”.

    Also I am reading Dembski and he agrees with me- I will send him and email and even ask over on UD.

    The words I quoted demonstrate otherwise. According to Dembski, ID does not use materialism at all; it completely conflicts with materialism.

    Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required.

    Yep, and ID insists that more is required. Ergo, it contradicts materialism.

    The EF gives that position- materialism- the first chance to make its case. If materialism cannot make its case then the design inference gets its chance. The design inference includes all that materialism has to offer PLUS includes a designer.

    Dembski disagrees with you on this. According to Dembski, materialism can’t enter the picture.

    THAT means the design inference goes through materialism.

    Not according to Dembski.

    In “the Design of Life”- by Dembski and Wells- page 142 supports my claim

    Read it – it doesn’t indicate that the EF goes through materialism.

  35. Joe G:
    By going through materialism to reach the design inference THAT makes materialism false. It was given a chance and failed, ie it is false.

    That makes absolutely no sense Joe.

  36. Joe G:
    ID doesn’t have anything to do with any religion- or perhaps it deals with all of them, including atheism.

    Not according to Judge Jones’ ruling…

  37. Materialism is the premise that matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required. And the EF mandates that necssity and chance, ie materialism, be eliminated before considering a design inference. That means the design inference goes through materialism.

    Yes ID contradicts materialism, but it does NOT exclude matter, energy, necssity and chance- IOW ID does not say everything is designed.

  38. Robin agrees that:

    Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required.

    The EF mandates that necessity and chance be eliminated before considering the design inference. That means the way to the design inference is through materialism.

    IOW Robin is not a scientist as children understand this.

  39. Joe G: LoL! We were talking about BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, not the OoL. And BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION does NOT require any intervention.

    I suggest that you write to Michael Behe and ask whether or not he agrees with you on that. :)

    And strange that you cannot say how to test materialism.

    Dembski and Wells have explained, whether you understand them or not. A fundamental plank of the I.D. position is that materialism can be tested, and they hope to falsify it.

    BTW design is a material process- it takes matter, energy and information and makes stuff out of it- material stuff.

    I agree. But Dembski and Wells do not agree with us on that point. And how would you test that materialist claim?

    And no, you do not get to refeence yourself.

    I wasn’t. The rest of the post had explained why your claims were mutually exclusive.

  40. LoL! Please reference Behe saying ID requires intervention.

    And strange that you still cannot say how to test materialism.

    And Yes bot Dembski and Wells agree with me about design taking matter, energy and information and making material stuff.

    But anyway seeing tat you cannot tell us how to test materialism I can only assume it cannot be tested.

  41. Joe G:
    Robin agrees that:

    Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all that is required.

    The EF mandates that necessity and chance be eliminated before considering the design inference. That means the way to the design inference is through materialism.

    IOW Robin is not a scientist as children understand this.

    Eliminate is not the same as “go through”?

    Are you ever going to show where there’s an official time limit on the “first shot” that science (what you call materialism) gets?

    Why do you and the other IDiots avoid so many relevant questions? Do you really think that you’re going to change or eliminate science by doing that, and by ignorantly and belligerently asserting and demanding? How’s that working out for you so far?

  42. LoL! He made a ruling- he has never supported it. Heck he still doesn’t know what ID is and he sure as heck cannot produce any positive evidence for materialism.

    You really don’t know anything, and it shows.

    And no, I don’t even care about his ruling, which only applies to a little insignificant district in Pennsylvania. Heck if the Discovery Institute were as you people think they would be paying a teacher in that district to violate Jones’ ruling just to get another shot. (John Scopes was paid to present evolution just so they would have a hearing/ test the law).

Comments are closed.