tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post6180638762784306803..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: The Fruitlessness of ID "Research"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50984468120880291632011-12-07T09:20:06.657-05:002011-12-07T09:20:06.657-05:00Dear "Term Papers":
Your comments will ...Dear "Term Papers":<br /><br />Your comments will not be published, as they are a form of blogspam. You can submit them without a link to your "term papers" website.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77395375194853672152011-12-07T07:18:40.975-05:002011-12-07T07:18:40.975-05:00Perhaps because all forms of a life were in one wa...Perhaps because all forms of a life were in one way or another conceived by intelligent researchers.Term Papershttp://www.e-termpapers.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-88389421088502968372009-12-17T07:49:19.464-05:002009-12-17T07:49:19.464-05:00A bit more evidence (as if more is needed...) for ...A bit more evidence (as if more is needed...) for the religiousness (christianity to be more exact) of ID: <br /><br />"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -Dembski, <a href="http://www.touchstonemag.com/" rel="nofollow">Touchstone journal of mere christianity</a>, 1999.<br /><br />"[Our goal is to] defeat [the] materialist world view represented by the theory of evolution in favor of a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." - The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy" rel="nofollow">wedge strategy</a> action plan of the Discovery Institute.<br /><br />The <a href="http://ncse.com/files/images/CRSC-logo-adam.gif.gif" rel="nofollow">banner</a> of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was originally a religious icon.<br /><br />This banner was, eventually, secularized because it is the agenda of ID and DI to try to infiltrate simpletons with their stupidities, simpletons who are not necessarily religious, by convincing them that ID is a science that can be understood by the layman. Their proselytizing tactics include putting aside their own foundational principles (creationism) only for the benefit of expanding their cult.Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56180883829716319382009-12-16T18:47:16.560-05:002009-12-16T18:47:16.560-05:00IOW Jones accepted the lies of the atheists with a...<i>IOW Jones accepted the lies of the atheists with an agenda.</i><br /><br />More lies from Joe. <br /><br />1. Not all the pro-science people who testified were atheists.<br /><br />2. ID is religious, as amply documented over and over.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-12326055291023583102009-12-16T18:29:11.056-05:002009-12-16T18:29:11.056-05:001- Jones says that ID requires the supernatural. Y...1- Jones says that ID requires the supernatural. Yet both ID experts testified that it does not.<br /><br />IOW Jones accepted the lies of the atheists with an agenda.<br /><br />2- <a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697" rel="nofollow"><b>Dr Behe responds to Jones</b></a><br /><br />3- And Jones conflated the school boards' motivations with ID.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-2673306051406149892009-12-16T17:41:15.366-05:002009-12-16T17:41:15.366-05:00Judge Jones didn't accept any "findings o...<i>Judge Jones didn't accept any "findings of fact".</i><br /><br />A lie. Even the <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/3829" rel="nofollow">DI agrees he did</a>; they just object to the ones he accepted.<br /><br /><i>It is pretty obvious that he didn't even listen to the testimony of the ID experts.</i><br /><br />A lie. He listened and even queried some of them.<br /><br />All Joe can do is lie, because he has no evidence for his loony claims.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-43428838172419312852009-12-16T16:29:59.326-05:002009-12-16T16:29:59.326-05:00Judge Jones didn't accept any "findings o...Judge Jones didn't accept any "findings of fact".<br /><br />It is pretty obvious that he didn't even listen to the testimony of the ID experts.<br /><br />It is also obvious that the Dover school board didn't know what ID was- they most likely still do not.<br /><br />The school board gad religious motivations and JJ conflated that with ID.<br /><br />However, as I said before, his decision is meaningless outside of his little district in PA.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-86274705570461211192009-12-15T20:46:37.759-05:002009-12-15T20:46:37.759-05:00What percentage is common for judges? Did Jones go...<i>What percentage is common for judges? Did Jones go WAY beyond what is "common"?</i><br /><br />And if he did, what then? Judges accept findings of fact all the time. That is why lawyers prepare briefs. Turning it into a "plagiarism" charge is simply ridiculous.<br /><br /><i>Maybe they had their own criteria that didn't match your friend's.</i><br /><br />The burden of proof is on you to produce those criteria, not simply assume they exist.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48996259970223473992009-12-14T02:36:00.561-05:002009-12-14T02:36:00.561-05:00"It appears you (a) still don't understan..."It appears you (a) still don't understand what judges do and (b) can't admit the DI lied when it created its 90% figure."<br /><br />a) What percentage is common for judges? Did Jones go WAY beyond what is "common"?<br /><br />b) Your friend wrote: "Somebody at the DI eyeballed it and said that.s close enough."<br /><br />You go for unsubstantiated charges?<br />I can't tell if DI lied. Maybe they had their own criteria that didn't match your friend's.<br /><br />So, weakness and weaseling in one comment.Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21835826766558090172009-12-13T07:19:06.485-05:002009-12-13T07:19:06.485-05:00It appears from your friend's analysis that Jo...<i>It appears from your friend's analysis that Jones plagiarized 66 percent.</i><br /><br />It appears you (a) still don't understand what judges do and (b) can't admit the DI lied when it created its 90% figure.<br /><br />So, stupidity and dishonesty in one comment. No surprise there.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29029330197142695032009-12-13T04:44:29.858-05:002009-12-13T04:44:29.858-05:00"my colleague, co-author, and friend Wesley E..."my colleague, co-author, and friend Wesley Elsberry who did the comparison, showing that the Dishonesty Institute lied when they created their 90% figure. "<br /><br />It appears from your friend's analysis that Jones plagiarized 66 percent.<br /><br />Elsberry gets real mathematical on us when he writes "The whole ruling has quite a bit of text that did not come from the PPFOF."<br /><br />I'm sure you are put much more at ease about Jones' ruling!Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56841278226150207212009-12-12T12:16:27.298-05:002009-12-12T12:16:27.298-05:00Takis,
Your projection is duly noted.
That said ...Takis,<br /><br />Your projection is duly noted.<br /><br />That said I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is.<br /><br />Ya see I know your only "sources of information" are the already refuted Wikipedia article and the oft-refuted comments from Forrest and her ilk.<br /><br />Also you have refused to read anything I have posted starting with the fact that ID doesn't say anything about the designer and therefor cannot be an argument for the existence of "God".<br /><br />You ignore what I post as if your ignorance is meaningful discourse.<br /><br />And you also ignore that the ancient Greeks were discussing teleology long before any US Court decisions.<br /><br />Is there a Greek proverb for a person who is proud that his head is up his arse?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24517457447927976832009-12-12T10:57:21.873-05:002009-12-12T10:57:21.873-05:00There is a Greek proverb, beautifully applying in ...There is a Greek proverb, beautifully applying in your case:<br /><br /><i>Στου κουφού την πόρτα όσο θέλεις βρόντα.</i><br /><br />Translation: At the deaf person's door [you may] knock as much as you wish [in the sense that it's of no use to knock].<br /><br />I would substitute "deaf" by "deaf and blind".Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3854229399174202009-12-12T10:04:22.560-05:002009-12-12T10:04:22.560-05:00Takis,
You have yet to present a rational argumen...Takis,<br /><br />You have yet to present a rational argument.<br /><br />You have to attack people as opposed to their arguments.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-12141145502827436062009-12-11T11:50:06.118-05:002009-12-11T11:50:06.118-05:00Joe G:
As Jeff said, it's pointless arguing w...Joe G:<br /><br />As Jeff said, it's pointless arguing with some who is not amenable to rational argument. Shouting (boldface) and cursing doesn't get you anywhere. <br /><br />Even your citations stink of religion, read what I wrote about the New World Encyclopedia. Are you part of the "Moonies"?<br /><br />And please (I'm saying this for the fifth time), go ahead and alter the Wikipedia article.Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-83898888977130443352009-12-11T09:22:06.235-05:002009-12-11T09:22:06.235-05:00Jeffrey,
You have yet to post a rational argument...Jeffrey,<br /><br />You have yet to post a rational argument.<br /><br />Until you do we will not know if I am amendable to one or not.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58339198416912176582009-12-11T09:20:22.956-05:002009-12-11T09:20:22.956-05:00Other people have also weighed in on this- includi...Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:<br /><br /><b>"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."</b>Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47961478798371298442009-12-11T09:19:52.443-05:002009-12-11T09:19:52.443-05:00Takis,
I provided what the Discovery Institute sa...Takis,<br /><br />I provided what the Discovery Institute says.<br /><br />Have you read any of it?<br /><br />Here is another article for you to ignore:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349" rel="nofollow"><b>The wedge document- so what</b></a><br /><br />Again what Dembski thinks personally doesn't have any more or less impact on ID as what Dawkins thinks.<br /><br />That Dembski is religious does not mean ID is.<br /><br />IOW if we use YOUR logic then the tyheory of evolution is an atheistic theory.<br /><br />As for modifying Wikipedia- will they pay me to do all the work that has to be done?<br /><br />And when you attack people as opposed to the evidence it is a clear sign that you have nothing at all.<br /><br />As I said Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about the designer and for that reason alone cannot be an argument for the existence of "God".<br /><br />You seem incapable of understanding that simple concept.<br /><br />You also ignore Anthony Flew, David Berlinski, the testimony of Behe and Minnich, the words of Richards and Gonzalez.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-26121925956550687732009-12-11T08:19:57.930-05:002009-12-11T08:19:57.930-05:00More on NWE:
Sorry folks but I can't hold it ...More on NWE:<br /><br />Sorry folks but I can't hold it back. I wasted a few minutes watching a <a href="http://www.uptv.org/play.php?168" rel="nofollow">video</a> by a certain Dr. Gordon L. Anderson who promotes the New World Encyclopedia by saying things like "the problem with Encyclopedia Britannica is that it is scientistic", and "our encyclopedia will not just be facts but tell people about values", and "the values will be woven into the tapestry of an article". In other words, he is promoting a biased encyclopedia. <br /><br />Who is this Gordon Anderson? A little search shows that he has studied philosophy of (you guessed it) RELIGION and that he is Secretary General of Professors World Peace Academy.<br /><br />What on Earth is this World Peace Academy? You may have guessed it: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_World_Peace_Academy#Educational_organizations" rel="nofollow">The Professors World Peace Academy</a> was founded by Sun Myung Moon who claims to be God himself.<br /><br />I thank Joe G for pointing out explicitly that everything he says and everything he refers to is not just religion but religion of the worst kind.Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82158614166313166002009-12-11T08:15:34.475-05:002009-12-11T08:15:34.475-05:00It's pointless, Takis. The guy is clearly not ...It's pointless, Takis. The guy is clearly not amenable to rational argument. He's like a one-man Dunning-Kruger case study.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-52809800639080074612009-12-11T08:06:52.295-05:002009-12-11T08:06:52.295-05:00Joe G:
I actually thank you for being polite once...Joe G:<br /><br />I actually thank you for being polite once.<br /><br />Evidence? Have you read the previous postings? For the third time on this page, read (and I won't put it in boldface) this:<br /><br />Discovery Institute says:<br />Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.<br /><br />Have you seen Dembski's page? http://www.designinference.com/ He clearly states his religious aspirations all over!<br /><br />What additional evidence do you need? They say so themselves.<br /><br />----<br /><br />As for Wikipedia, you said (again and again and again):<br /><i><br />Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.<br />The wikipedia article on Intelligent Design is easily refuted.<br />Why would Takis accept something that is so easily refuted?<br /></i><br /><br />Fine. You claim it can be refuted. Refute it then. This is the fourth time I'm asking you to refute it by modifying it. I bet that IDists will not let you modify the article!<br /><br />----<br /><br />Last but not least, you said you prefer, instead of Wikipedia, the New World Encyclopedia (NWE). Have you bothered to read my comment on it? Scroll back and read: NWE was established by the "Moonies". This is religion of the worst kind!<br /><br />What other evidence do you need? Religion is all over, even in your references!Takis Konstantopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14675216467783238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13724547165388467312009-12-11T07:39:57.514-05:002009-12-11T07:39:57.514-05:00Discovery Institute and "Theocracy".
Ove...<a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/2735" rel="nofollow"><b>Discovery Institute and "Theocracy".<br />Overview:</b></a><br /><br /><b>Periodically certain Darwinists make false and unsubstantiated claims that Discovery Institute advocates “theocracy” or is part of the “radical Christian right” or supposedly supports something called “Christian reconstructionism.” These charges are little more than smears, and they show the bankruptcy of the Darwinists’ own position. Rather than argue about the substance of the scientific debate over neo-Darwinism, all Darwinists can do is engage in baseless ad hominem attacks.</b>Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-72024117110880514992009-12-11T07:36:25.016-05:002009-12-11T07:36:25.016-05:00As for Judge Jones his decision is only valid in a...As for Judge Jones his decision is only valid in a small insignificant district in Pennsylvania.<br /><br />It doesn't have any weight outside of that district.<br /><br />Not only that a judge isn't in any position to determine what is and isn't science.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49180848932448885712009-12-11T07:34:45.355-05:002009-12-11T07:34:45.355-05:00Takis:
I was just curious why Joe G keeps pointing...Takis:<br /><i>I was just curious why Joe G keeps pointing to the above encyclopedia and why, on the other hand, is so furious with Wikipedia.</i><br /><br />Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.<br /><br />The wikipedia article on Intelligent Design is easily refuted.<br /><br />Why would Takis accept something that is so easily refuted?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-86286166974864317442009-12-11T07:32:00.599-05:002009-12-11T07:32:00.599-05:00Takis:
The founders and promoters of ID are all re...Takis:<br /><i>The founders and promoters of ID are all religious.</i><br /><br />And your evidence for that is?<br /><br /><i> ID was created in order to make the religious goals of creationism appear scientific.</i><br /><br />And your evidence for that is?<br /><br /><i>But the very fact that the people who promote ID are doing so part time due to religious purposes is evidence that ID is religion.</i><br /><br />And your evidence for that is?<br /><br />So Takis doesn't have any evidence and instead thinks his bald assertions are meaningful discourse.<br /><br />You may be disgusted with ID but your position doesn't have anything to offer.<br /><br />Ya see the fact is if you could just support the claims of your position ID would go away.<br /><br />But seeing that the ONLY evidence for your position is the refusal to allow the design inference you really don't have anything at all.<br /><br />And then there is Anthony Flew- once an atheist and now accepts the design inference based on the scientific data.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com