Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Overwhelming evidence?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  04:49:41  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
It's just a little more of the same, ridiculous, old bilge... but here it is anyway. It is, I think, of more interest than the usual frothing put forth by the ID contingent.
quote:
Has I.D. provided peer-reviewed testable claims?

Critics of Intelligent Design often present the same few objections to our theory: They claim that we do not yet offer a testable theory, and that we avoid peer-review of our discoveries because we have something to hide.

Those of us who have spent hard years grappling with the finer points of Intelligent Design know that nothing could be further from the truth: There is no group I know who work harder to attempt to explain these difficult scientific topics than ourselves. We engage with all levels of society, and our findings are plainly true to anybody with an open mind. More importantly we are on the verge of some of the most important scientific discoveries in the entire history of science which could yield benefits to the whole of mankind were it not for a conspiracy of Darwinists who will stop at nothing to preserve the reputation of their absurd science.

"The reputation of their absurd science." Is that a fact? Is it a fact that centuries of hard work and dedication are trumped by sitting around and speculating upon the unfalsifiable supernatural? I think that argument has some rather gaping holes in it.

And in conclusion:
quote:
For example, how was Elijah able to read the mind of the king of Syria, and tell the king of Israel the words Syria's king spoke in the privacy of his bedchamber (see 2 Kings 6:8-23) – the same mechanisms that power quantum-creation may also enable this kind of telepathy.

These are exciting times for true scientists like us. Intelligent Design is the tiny-seed from which will grow an enormous tree of science, one which I am certain will soon prosper and provide benefits to every living soul.



But did they actually get a peer review? To read is to weep.... Or laugh....




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  04:56:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
I just got a few paragraphs into it when I read this:
quote:
But what of the claim that our theories have not been tested and that we have not published peer-reviewed papers. It is initially quite astonishing that something as obvious as intelligent design should even need testing. Do we test the idea that the sun will rise in the morning? It's just not needed because we can be certain that it will. Nonetheless, the skeptical biological community demands that our theories be tested – and so in due time I predict that it will be one of the most rigorously tested theories known to man.
Get that? ID is so obvious, it doesn't even need testing! If it weren't for those obnoxious skeptics, we wouldn't even bother!

Good stuff!!

Reading just a bit further, you find a discussion of recent ID "discoveries" from which some "extracts from a recent peer-reviewed paper published at the American Chronicle show the depth and breadth" of ID research, with "recent peer-reviewed paper" linked here. But is the American Chronicle a "peer-reviewed" publication? Or is an on-line publication that gets most of its articles from people who are encouraged to submit their own work? Perhaps part of the problem with ID and peer-review is that IDers don't even know what "peer review" means!

The summary of "discoveries" are nothing of the sort. Rather, it lists some "predictions" that sound a bit shadey:
quote:
We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum's zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed's biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent.
Uh, yeah. I can't wait to see the results of the test which confirms that "dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe."
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/01/2007 05:58:03
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  06:34:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Yeh, the AC is one of those on-line dustbins where 'peer review' is asking the lunch-counter girl what she thinks. This is anything but a scientific publication. Here's their submission rules.
quote:
We have several methods that allow you to submit your work for publication:

To send us press releases and announcements, email us at editor@amchron.com or editor@californiachronicle.com. Please word-wrap text and separate paragraphs directly into the body of your email.
If you are an established contributor, you may submit your work through our contributor gateway (requires login id and password). For more information about contributing as an author, visit our Writer Information page.
You may send your work in an email to us (attachments are not accepted), or
You may send your submission to us by surface mail to:

Managing Editor

PO Box 6158
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

And after the usual prohibitions against the usual, we find this:
quote:
The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here.
The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for this content.

In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates.

So much for peer review.

I'm not knocking the American Chronical. At the admittedly brief scan I gave it, it seems a perfectly ordinary, on-line publication; one that will allow anyone to publish anything, within their rules. However, it is an excellent, if loathsome, venue for the outright lies told by the ID blatherskites, as well as anyone else with a little deceit to throw around. Which makes it little different from many others.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  07:13:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
quote:
More importantly we are on the verge of some of the most important scientific discoveries in the entire history of science which could yield benefits to the whole of mankind were it not for a conspiracy of Darwinists who will stop at nothing to preserve the reputation of their absurd science.


I don't understand this sentence. Are they on the verge of something, or they would be if it weren't for those meddling kids? And how exactly do "Darwinists" prevent them from producing "some of the most important scientific discoveries."?

Do these guys even read what they write? Or is more of a "it doesn't matter what we write because our target audience will agree with everything we say anyway."?

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  07:23:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
This stuff's the most solid evidence, from a horse's mouth that Creation Science is not science. Nor are these so-called peer-reviewed papers anything but rambling theological arguments, mere apologetics, without a hint of science in 'em. No testing required = no science required. Argument from personal certainty.

This guy, Kazmer Ujvarosy, has attacked ID and the Discovery Institute when he writes:
quote:
If it's a fact that ID does not infer supernatural intelligence, then logic dictates that the intelligence ID theorists have in mind cannot be the cause of design in nature, and must lack the ability to observe and measure the universe, simply because it is confined within the boundaries of the universe. Stated differently, only intelligence beyond the bounds of the universe – i.e., only supernatural intelligence – can be the designer, observer and measurer of the universe.

So ID's claim that the inferred intelligence is not supernatural doesn't sound plausible simply because no such intelligence can be the cause of design in nature. The only unquestionably existing intelligence that qualifies to be the designer, observer and measurer of nature is human intelligence. Design by human intelligence is evident from nuclear engineering to genetic engineering, and for us the universe is observable and measurable. We have models of the universe based on our observations, we measured its parameters, and we calculated the proportions of its content. The fact that we are the observers and measurers of the universe constitutes evidence that our intelligence exists beyond the bounds of the universe. But if human intelligence exists beyond the bounds of nature, then by definition it is not only supernatural, but eternal as well.
Wonder what DI thinks of the guy. My impression is that his style is basically non-ID "Creation Science," meaning no science at all, but apologetics with big words like ID uses, except different ones. The only differences between ID and Creation Science are that the IDers have decided strategically to deny their "Designer" must be God, and don't choose between "Young Earth" and "Old Earth." The only thing keeping their artificial little charade going is the millions Ahmanson is giving to them. (By "artificial," I mean ID's neither supported by science NOR by biblical literalism, pissing off everyone in scienece, and many Creationists, too.)

That use of Dark Matter crap by Kazmer Ujvarosy is like the way the New Agers throw out quantum theory to confuse people, and to justify magic. It's not intended to explain, but merely to confuse. With his God of the Gaps driven further into crevices and into the cool, wet places under rocks by advancing science, Ujvarosy seeks to find new hidy-holes and niches for Him, not within science, but within the minds of believers.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/01/2007 07:28:27
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  07:40:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
It's even more fun to read the comments to the blog. In the blog in question, the author, "quizzlestick" raves about the work of one Kazmer Ujavorsy, an ID "researcher." Midway through the comments, Kazmer starts posting (did he Google himself to find the blog?) and says at the end of his long comment "By the way, Quizzlestick is displaying an exceptional understanding of this living cosmology. I still have to find a person who has comparable capacity for clear thinking." Really? You're a scientist proposing great new ideas and the only person you can find who understands you is come kid writing a blog?

But it gets better-- a few comments down the page, Kazmer comments to quizzlestick "I'm in the process of writing an article with the above title. If you have comments, please let me know by e-mail." He wants comments from the random blogger. Another good sign-- made even better when quizzlestick replies "I'd love to help - let me know what I can do? If you want to run a draft by me I can make comments? I'm not really an expert in these matters." Sadly, from what Kazmer says, I'd say you are an expert, quizzlestick!
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  07:57:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

I just got a few paragraphs into it when I read this:
quote:
But what of the claim that our theories have not been tested and that we have not published peer-reviewed papers. It is initially quite astonishing that something as obvious as intelligent design should even need testing. Do we test the idea that the sun will rise in the morning?

(emphasis above mine)
It is also obvious that a when dropped from a high place, a 2kg stone will drop twice as fast as a 1kg stone. It was the established truth for decades, wasn't it?

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  08:53:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
The "idea" that "the sun will rise" is testable - in that the earth rotates and orbits the sun (becasuse it is not flat and not the center of the universe, other "obvious ideas" that were believed for all of human history until a few hundred years ago) and the sun comes into view. The fact that the earth rotates and orbits the sun can and has been tested and verified, therefore we know "the sun will rise" for next few billion years...

If we didn't know these things, then we would have to take "on faith" that the sun will rise, but we really wouldn't know that...

To these types, taking something "on faith" is the same as knowledge, and that is pitiful...


by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Edited by - pleco on 02/01/2007 08:57:23
Go to Top of Page

McQ
Skeptic Friend

USA
258 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  10:11:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send McQ a Private Message
Boy, the comments were a great read! I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am surprised at the things these guys come up with. Peer reviewed? Are they joking?

I have to go back and read through all of the comments when I have more time. This is good stuff.

(edited for typos)

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette
Edited by - McQ on 02/01/2007 14:09:16
Go to Top of Page

leoofno
Skeptic Friend

USA
346 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  11:17:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send leoofno a Private Message
Could someone help me, I can't figure out what this means:

"“The elusive Higgs boson – so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed “the God particle” – is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed's biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction. “

Both of these are 100% testable scientific statements. For example, to falsify we merely have to observe a Higgs boson to see if it has the expected properties. What could be simpler? "

So... if the Higgs boson is identical to the genotype of the phenotype universe...and its the same as a human genome... then ID is true? Because mass-giving is life-giving because of the cosmic seeds quantum vaccume?

Ummm... what does that mean? I laughed when I read "What could be simpler?".

Also, I agree that his blog seems to confuse "discovery" with "hypothesis" just as it confuses "peer reviewed" with "we publish any old thing".

"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
Edited by - leoofno on 02/01/2007 11:20:56
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25977 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  11:24:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Lots of discussion of Kazmer Ujvarosy at the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread, including Quizzlestick's sychophancy, Ujvarosy's book (The UFO connections of Jesus Christ), as well as Ujvarosy's gotta-read-it-to-believe-it cancer "cure".

(Oh, and elsewhere in that huge thread, Michael Tuite gives the world this wonderful image, good for many chuckles.)

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  12:21:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
The cancer cure reduced to one line is - "Why don't you go blow yourself."

whoa....




If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Edited by - furshur on 02/01/2007 12:22:13
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  13:52:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
And here I thought the cancer cure was just telling me to eat my own shit. Thanks for the correction, furshur.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 02/01/2007 13:53:09
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  14:04:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
Actually, here's the last sentence of the paper:
quote:
In the final analysis it seems evident that if persons with cancer and other noninherited diseases would feed back their body's genetic output into the bloodstream of their own body, that information feedback would enable the human organism to detect errors in its own operation and to drive the errors closer to zero. [emphasis mine]
I read that as you must inject your own semen directly into a vein. I wonder if this is a regimen that Mr. Ujvarosy currently follows. I have no idea what women are supposed to do.

On a broader note, ID is no longer sinking, it has officially sunk. All we're hearing now is the muted wails of those trapped on the bottom of the ocean.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  15:23:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Actually, here's the last sentence of the paper:
quote:
In the final analysis it seems evident that if persons with cancer and other noninherited diseases would feed back their body's genetic output into the bloodstream of their own body, that information feedback would enable the human organism to detect errors in its own operation and to drive the errors closer to zero. [emphasis mine]
I read that as you must inject your own semen directly into a vein. I wonder if this is a regimen that Mr. Ujvarosy currently follows. I have no idea what women are supposed to do.

On a broader note, ID is no longer sinking, it has officially sunk. All we're hearing now is the muted wails of those trapped on the bottom of the ocean.



I think DI has promised some kind of "science" to come out of a lab they hired. So maybe there will be some fun when/if that nonsense comes out.

You read it here, first: I predict it will be some kind of statistical nonsense supposedly proving that genetic complexity does not/cannot increase over time in cultured microorganisms. The announcement will include photos of people in real lab coats, real Petrie dishes, real lab equipment, and everything. Very sciency. It will be complex enough a pronouncement that it will require at least a whole week for a real scientist to thoroughly shoot it down.

Remember, as long billionaire Ahmanson is footing the bill, they are in the game and will need to be answered from time to time, even though the score is 87-0 in the fifth quarter.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25977 Posts

Posted - 02/01/2007 :  15:30:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Very sciency.
Chock full of truthiness.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.27 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000