Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

John Paul

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About John Paul

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    44
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Muslim
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Maynard, Massachusetts
  1. John Paul

    Beginning Of The Universe/big Bang Discussion

    Lightning is static electricity. The cause of that static electricity is the ionization that takes place in the atmosphere. The ionization is caused by particles (atoms and/ or compounds) moving against/ across other particles (atoms and/ or compounds). And yes usually clouds are involved. As we all know clouds are mainly water vapour. This gives the mass requirement- ions need to gather on something or else the charge is negligible. When the charge in the cloud(s) is large enough it discharges to ground (Earth) So we have clouds that have a lot of motion in them and amongst them. This is akin to dragging your feet across a carpet in a room with very low or no humidity. As for peer-reviewed articles I will be addressing that in either the thread I started for comments on the formal debate or I will start another thread.
  2. John Paul

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    Pulling this over for the Math/ ID thread: What IDists are investigating resides in the natural world. Also what is obvious is that natural processes can't account for the origin of that natural world. Also it should be noted: OK so what IDists are concerned with resides in the natural world. And we now should understand that any arbitrary "rules" of science cannot be used to reject an idea because those "rules" may also be in question. ID is testable and falsifiable by observations and experiments conducted in the natural world. The bottom line is there are only 3 options as to our existence: 1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes 2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes 3) A combination of 1 & 2 and the fact remains that if option 1 were supported by observations & experiments conducted in the natural world no one would have choosen options 2 or 3.
  3. John Paul

    Is Mathematics A Positive For Id ?

    QUOTE(John Paul @ Sep 20 2005, 10:12 PM) That is wrong. With ID the inference was reached by considering the data. IOW the design inference is based on the evidence. Continuing to deny that fact just further exposes your ignorance of ID. Been there, done that QUOTE Again I will ask you- What books/ articles about ID, written by IDists, have you read? IOW you basically have little background and understanding of ID. Thanks, it shows. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Apparently not. What IDists are investigating resides in the natural world. Also what is obvious is that natural processes can't account for the origin of that natural world.
  4. John Paul

    Bush The Creationist.

    Can chance even follow a discussion? The evidence demonstrates he cannot: On the scientific research that was the catalyst for The Privileged Planet QUOTE By who? Please point out one person, scientist or not, who has read the book and disputes that it is based on scientific research. And it would be helpful if that person(s) substantiated their claim. Ya see what I mean? Has chance read the book? No. So why would I start with you? BTW science is not about "proof". But anyway the data that supports the design inference can be found in the book The Privileged Planet. I am not going to read it to you. Transitional fossils of whales? Just how can anyone make that determination without genetic evidence? IOW "transitionals" are that only in one's mind. Not one of those articles demonstrates that such a transformation is possible. IOW they are speculations based on the assumption. I bet you didn't even read one of them. The only one I haven't read is the second on your list.
  5. John Paul

    Is Mathematics A Positive For Id ?

    That is wrong. With ID the inference was reached by considering the data. IOW the design inference is based on the evidence. Continuing to deny that fact just further exposes your ignorance of ID. Again I will ask you- What books/ articles about ID, written by IDists, have you read? BTW ID is not a "default" position. It is a position borne from the evidence. IOW if we didn't observe CSI or IC there wouldn't be a design inference. However it should be noted that IF there is a "default" position it would be naturalism. How elde can anyone infer that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, when there isn't any evidence that such a process can account for either?
  6. John Paul

    Bush The Creationist.

    A simple reading of The Privileged Planet demonstrates that ID stands on scientific research. By who? Please point out one person, scientist or not, who has read the book and disputes that it is based on scientific research. And it would be helpful if that person(s) substantiated their claim. Start reading. BTW Max Planck said what he did based on his many years of scientific research. Unlike evolutionists, real scientists understand that they may be wrong. However they base their inference on the data as opposed to some worldview. And as for peer-review, I am still looking for an article that shows that RM&NS can allow a population of land animals to evolve into a population of cetaceans. Ya see THAT is being taught in schools without being supported in peer-review. Can anyone say "double-standards"? There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that do that. So it doen't matter how many times we go down that road, it is still a dead-end.
  7. If that were all evolution proposed we wouldn't be having this debate. But perhaps evolution shouldn't be debated. Rather what evolutionists are doing with the theory and all its tangents is the real issue.... Another thread for that
  8. John Paul

    Beginning Of The Universe/big Bang Discussion

    How would you know whether or not ID falls short on the evidence? Please tell us all of the literature for ID, written by IDists, that you have read. Ya see I know that ID is based on the evidence. I know that because I, unlike you, have actually followed the debate.
  9. John Paul

    Bush The Creationist.

    But who made the reviewers "experts"? Statistically speaking most of what is written in peer-reviewed journals gets overturned with future research (actually it is closer to 50%). So who are these "experts" whose ability to review someone else's science winds up being no better than a coin toss? A simple reading of The Privileged Planet demonstrates that ID stands on scientific research. BTW Max Planck said what he did based on his many years of scientific research. And as for peer-review, I am still looking for an article that shows that RM&NS can allow a population of land animals to evolve into a population of cetaceans. Ya see THAT is being taught in schools without being supported in peer-review. Can anyone say "double-standards"?
  10. John Paul

    Bush The Creationist.

    First- Creation and ID are NOT the same. Therefore any attempt to conflate the two just exposes the main reason why ID should be taught (education cures ignorance). Second- What "experts" do we present the evidence to? Is the Nobel prize winner Max Planck an expert? After all it was his scientific research that led him to say the following: "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
  11. John Paul

    Who Created Darwin?

    First rate engineering is more like it. Engineering based on the scientific knowledge of the day and the desire to apply what we know for a practical use.
  12. John Paul

    Is Mathematics A Positive For Id ?

    I would say it is more like: "If life resulting from chance & natural law is just too improbable and there isn't any evidence to support that it could and it meets the criteria for intentional/ intelligent design then we can infer it was designedâ€ÂÂ. Science is not about absolute proof. It is about making a reasonable inference based on our current knowledge. And based on our current knowledge the design inference appears to be better than winning the cosmic lottery inference... (added via edit:) It should be noted the the Drake equation mentioned by chance has been updated twice since its inception- the first update was by Ward & Brownlee in The Rare Earth and then that was updated in The Privileged Planet. Both updates were "caused" or due to scientific research.
  13. John Paul

    Bush The Creationist.

    This is true with ID. It appears that very few people outside of ID understand what it is. That is obvious by reading the anti-ID literature. It is exactly for that reason, as well as our general curiosity, that ID needs to be taught in schools. It is also the only way to properly refute/ falsify a theory/ idea- discuss it publicly and see if it holds water. But anyway I have written an essay as to why ID is scientific: ID is scientific
  14. John Paul

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    I thought I made this thread's intentions clear with my OP: I added a link to the debate. What that means is that BEFORE you join this thread you should read it. That is the point- how can you comment on something that you haven't read? You will not be replying in the debate thread. The comments on the debate and subsequent discussion/ clarification will occur in this thread. You can send skeptic-er-guy a PM but don't expect a response: From his opening post: (emphasis added) As for my discussing if ID is scientific- see the debate...
  15. John Paul

    Intelligent Design- Is It Scientific

    OK I started THIS thread to discuss the debate- including the posts made in it. Skeptic-err-guy posted and by his words it looks like he is finished. IOW there wouldn't be any "butting in". My position is defended in my essay. Again I will re-quote Dr. Behe: In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven. How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.â€ÂÂ
×

Important Information

Our Terms