My responses are in bold type.
Science and Miracles
October 17, 2011
Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
It should have been posted under unintelligent scam.
“Disagreement is not an easy thing to reach. Rather, we move into confusion.” John Courtney Murray
Well, you IDiots certainly are confused.
My “Mirror” post has generated quite a few comments concerning “miracles” and the relevance of “miracles” to ID. Further thoughts are in order.
You're incapable of thoughts that make sense.
First, let us define terms.
Who's "us"? And why do you IDiots talk as though you're more than one person? Do you think that that adds credence to your bald assertions?
My dictionary defines “miracle” as “an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause.”
Second, ID does not posit miracles.
That is an outright LIE. ID is totally dependent on positing miracles.
In this post I established the following contest: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” The prize has gone unclaimed.
Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether ID posits miracles. You're trying to mix two very different things, in a lame, sneaky attempt to make it look like ID is scientific and not based on religious insanity.
It should be clear by now that ID is a theory about the detection of patterns that point to design. ID is agnostic about the nature of the designer.
It is abundantly clear that ID is strictly a non-scientific, religious and political agenda and that IDiots believe (and promote) that the so-called designer is the alleged christian god. ID does NOT even come close to meeting the accepted standards of a scientific "theory", and ID has detected absolutely nothing.
Conclusion: However one comes out on the question of whether science may take account of miracles, the question is a sideshow vis-à-vis ID, because ID does not posit that a miracle is necessary to create one of the “patterns that point to design” that are described by the theory.
What "theory"? All you have are unfounded, non-evidential assertions and wishful, delusional thinking. And you're lying again about whether ID posits miracles. You actually believe that you IDiots are going to replace science with your festering religious crap, don't you?
Third, plainly scientists may take account of miracles.
Huh? How so?
If Jesus were to appear today and divide a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands and a scientist were to observe that event, the scientist would not be bound by naturalistic explanations. He would be perfectly entitled to conclude the event constituted a miracle.
IF this, IF that. You Idiots always come up with the most ridiculous examples. How about this one barry-boi: What IF jesus and a cow had wild monkey sex and produced offspring that look just like you? If a scientist were to observe those events, would the scientist be bound by naturalistic explanations, or would he/she be perfectly entitled to conclude that it was a miracle that a cow would stoop to having sex with jesus?
Would such an explanation be a scientific explanation?
Well, in one sense it does not matter whether we append “scientific” to the explanation, because whatever category we place the explanation in, it remains the fact that it is the best explanation for the data.
WHAT "data"? Your example is way too retarded and ridiculous to even bother with whether science could explain it. Your asinine example is only deserving of mockery. The only "explanation" that could possibly apply to your example is that you need mental help, badly.
I would suggest, however, that it is perfectly valid to call the explanation a “scientific” explanation. Science is the process of forming hypotheses and testing them. Here the investigator has a null hypothesis that it is not possible to divide a few loaves and fishes such that they can feed several thousand people with several baskets of leftovers. He compares the data with the hypothesis and finds the hypothesis falsified. At this point the scientist can either throw up his hands or posit an alternative hypothesis: The laws of nature have been suspended, i.e., a miracle has occurred. He can then compare the data to his alternative hypothesis and find that it has been confirmed.
Wow, you are really deranged. Tell you what barry-the-loon, when an alleged guy named jesus, who allegedly died a couple of thousand years ago, shows up alive with a few loaves of bread and a fish or two and feeds thousands of people, and has leftovers, let me know. In the meantime, SEEK mental help, NOW!
Some read my comments in the “Mirror” thread and concluded that I believe science cannot take account of miracles.
And some read your comments and realize that you're certifiably insane, and a con man. You've never had any intention of paying the thousand dollars no matter what anyone pointed out to you. You're even ripping off your fellow IDiots.
I never said this. In fact, I said exactly the opposite when I wrote the following in response to one of Mr. Murray’s comments: “Certainly a scientist can “take account” of a miracle in the sense of saying “this is beyond the ken of known natural causes” with respect to any given event.
Oh come on! NO "scientist", speaking as a "scientist", would say "this is beyond the ken of known natural causes" and conclude that it's a miracle. Only IDiotic godbots like you would say something like that. A "scientist" would look for a realistic, scientific explanation and the evidence to support it. Just because something isn't known right now, doesn't mean it's attributable to a miracle.
Something that really irks me about you IDiots is that you obviously think that science will never discover anything that is currently unknown, and that science will never find better explanations for things that are currently not fully explained. You project your extremely limited way of thinking onto science and believe that science has nothing more to discover or explain. And, you WANT science to stop discovering and explaining things so that your antiquated religious beliefs are safe from being even more exposed as the fairy tales that they are. You might as well forget it. Science will continue to discover and explain things. Yours is a lost cause. You will never replace science with your wacky religious beliefs.
A scientific theory cannot, however, be predicated on the occurrence of miracles, because they are, by definition, unpredictable.
Which of course means that ID, or anything else that has to do with religious beliefs, is not and cannot be a scientific theory, or any part of one.
That was all I was saying.
You said a lot more than that, and you're trying to sneak your religious ID crap into science by lying about what you IDiots posit. You mistakenly believe that scientists and science supporters won't notice that you're using the very old and very lame bullshit that IDiots have been using to try to fool people into thinking that ID is scientific and doesn't rely on alleged miracles and a lot of other religious mumbo jumbo. It ain't gonna work, barry-boi. You're only fooling yourself and other IDiots.
It is illustrated nicely by the following: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php ”
You and the rest of the IDiots should pay very close attention to that cartoon.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-and-miracles/
Science and Miracles
October 17, 2011
Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
It should have been posted under unintelligent scam.
“Disagreement is not an easy thing to reach. Rather, we move into confusion.” John Courtney Murray
Well, you IDiots certainly are confused.
My “Mirror” post has generated quite a few comments concerning “miracles” and the relevance of “miracles” to ID. Further thoughts are in order.
You're incapable of thoughts that make sense.
First, let us define terms.
Who's "us"? And why do you IDiots talk as though you're more than one person? Do you think that that adds credence to your bald assertions?
My dictionary defines “miracle” as “an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause.”
Second, ID does not posit miracles.
That is an outright LIE. ID is totally dependent on positing miracles.
In this post I established the following contest: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” The prize has gone unclaimed.
Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether ID posits miracles. You're trying to mix two very different things, in a lame, sneaky attempt to make it look like ID is scientific and not based on religious insanity.
It should be clear by now that ID is a theory about the detection of patterns that point to design. ID is agnostic about the nature of the designer.
It is abundantly clear that ID is strictly a non-scientific, religious and political agenda and that IDiots believe (and promote) that the so-called designer is the alleged christian god. ID does NOT even come close to meeting the accepted standards of a scientific "theory", and ID has detected absolutely nothing.
Conclusion: However one comes out on the question of whether science may take account of miracles, the question is a sideshow vis-à-vis ID, because ID does not posit that a miracle is necessary to create one of the “patterns that point to design” that are described by the theory.
What "theory"? All you have are unfounded, non-evidential assertions and wishful, delusional thinking. And you're lying again about whether ID posits miracles. You actually believe that you IDiots are going to replace science with your festering religious crap, don't you?
Third, plainly scientists may take account of miracles.
Huh? How so?
If Jesus were to appear today and divide a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands and a scientist were to observe that event, the scientist would not be bound by naturalistic explanations. He would be perfectly entitled to conclude the event constituted a miracle.
IF this, IF that. You Idiots always come up with the most ridiculous examples. How about this one barry-boi: What IF jesus and a cow had wild monkey sex and produced offspring that look just like you? If a scientist were to observe those events, would the scientist be bound by naturalistic explanations, or would he/she be perfectly entitled to conclude that it was a miracle that a cow would stoop to having sex with jesus?
Would such an explanation be a scientific explanation?
Well, in one sense it does not matter whether we append “scientific” to the explanation, because whatever category we place the explanation in, it remains the fact that it is the best explanation for the data.
WHAT "data"? Your example is way too retarded and ridiculous to even bother with whether science could explain it. Your asinine example is only deserving of mockery. The only "explanation" that could possibly apply to your example is that you need mental help, badly.
I would suggest, however, that it is perfectly valid to call the explanation a “scientific” explanation. Science is the process of forming hypotheses and testing them. Here the investigator has a null hypothesis that it is not possible to divide a few loaves and fishes such that they can feed several thousand people with several baskets of leftovers. He compares the data with the hypothesis and finds the hypothesis falsified. At this point the scientist can either throw up his hands or posit an alternative hypothesis: The laws of nature have been suspended, i.e., a miracle has occurred. He can then compare the data to his alternative hypothesis and find that it has been confirmed.
Wow, you are really deranged. Tell you what barry-the-loon, when an alleged guy named jesus, who allegedly died a couple of thousand years ago, shows up alive with a few loaves of bread and a fish or two and feeds thousands of people, and has leftovers, let me know. In the meantime, SEEK mental help, NOW!
Some read my comments in the “Mirror” thread and concluded that I believe science cannot take account of miracles.
And some read your comments and realize that you're certifiably insane, and a con man. You've never had any intention of paying the thousand dollars no matter what anyone pointed out to you. You're even ripping off your fellow IDiots.
I never said this. In fact, I said exactly the opposite when I wrote the following in response to one of Mr. Murray’s comments: “Certainly a scientist can “take account” of a miracle in the sense of saying “this is beyond the ken of known natural causes” with respect to any given event.
Oh come on! NO "scientist", speaking as a "scientist", would say "this is beyond the ken of known natural causes" and conclude that it's a miracle. Only IDiotic godbots like you would say something like that. A "scientist" would look for a realistic, scientific explanation and the evidence to support it. Just because something isn't known right now, doesn't mean it's attributable to a miracle.
Something that really irks me about you IDiots is that you obviously think that science will never discover anything that is currently unknown, and that science will never find better explanations for things that are currently not fully explained. You project your extremely limited way of thinking onto science and believe that science has nothing more to discover or explain. And, you WANT science to stop discovering and explaining things so that your antiquated religious beliefs are safe from being even more exposed as the fairy tales that they are. You might as well forget it. Science will continue to discover and explain things. Yours is a lost cause. You will never replace science with your wacky religious beliefs.
A scientific theory cannot, however, be predicated on the occurrence of miracles, because they are, by definition, unpredictable.
Which of course means that ID, or anything else that has to do with religious beliefs, is not and cannot be a scientific theory, or any part of one.
That was all I was saying.
You said a lot more than that, and you're trying to sneak your religious ID crap into science by lying about what you IDiots posit. You mistakenly believe that scientists and science supporters won't notice that you're using the very old and very lame bullshit that IDiots have been using to try to fool people into thinking that ID is scientific and doesn't rely on alleged miracles and a lot of other religious mumbo jumbo. It ain't gonna work, barry-boi. You're only fooling yourself and other IDiots.
It is illustrated nicely by the following: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php ”
You and the rest of the IDiots should pay very close attention to that cartoon.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-and-miracles/
