A calm debate

[emprworm]

your fallacies are piling up, Acriku.

SO now we discredit scientists based upon what they do in their off time do we?

"Oh look! That physicist just went to church! HE IS A PHONY!"

"Look! Einstein said 'GOd does not roll dice.' GRRRR...He is a fake! Throw his research away...IT IS INVALID!"

"Look! That scientist said "God is Dead." YES! FINALLY! We have a REAL, bonafide scientist!"

lol

pathetic man. how many fallacies can you spew man?

Seriously, i thought you were better than that Acriku. When you start using someone's personal beliefs to summarily declare their professional merits as a scientist to be 'unscientific' ESPECIALLY when you have no scientific credentials yourself, it tells me you are more emotional than rational.

Again: I, emprworm, will not judge an atheist scientists qualifications to based upon his personal membership in an atheist 'club.'

Yet you do so. So now we check a scientists personal life, rather than his professional merits, before he should be hired? Are you really that superior? Honestly...do you really think that atheists are superior life forms? I am asking this question not to mock, but out of real honesty, because I actually think you believe that.

[Acriku]

Hey emprworm, get your head out of your ass ;) Notice I said this in a calm manner.

Emprworm, do those atheist organizations make theories called the "atheist" theory, with goals in mind to get rid of material science? I don't think so, ID is the only one I know of that does. I cannot have knowledge of their goals and at the same time think they are doing it for scientific purposes, when what they do with their theory is going towards getting rid of material science. It was made to get rid of material science. I don't think I can trust a theory like that.

This isn't a fallacy, it's a bona fide reason to be skeptical of them. What can scientists do with ID theory? Besides say "Oh, look Bob, it must have a designer" You can do many things with evolution, but not with ID theory? For example medicinal purposes.

Am I superior to everybody else? I don't know. I doubt it. And I do not know how you came to this conclusion, ignoring the fact you like to put words in my mouth a lot.

[nemafakei]

A list of scientists who believe in certain things doesnsn't means these things are true, let alone scientific. On the other hand, if these scientists had produced proof of ID theory, that'd be a different matter. Lists of scientists in some way religiously inclined proves only that such scientists are only human.

[emprworm]

lol head in my ass eh? I'm not the one summarilly dismissing a massive list of highly qualified scientists simply because they don't fit my preconceived conclusions. You think you are better than all of them, I'd say someone has a superiority complex around here. Now that Acriku checks personal lives before he decides someone is qualified to be a scientist, its pretty obvious that you are unable to be objective regarding science.

Emprworm's position: An atheist scientist who belongs to an atheist club (or any other club) by no means invalidates his work and knowledge as a scientist

Acriku's position: So, do you belong to any private theist organizations? If "Yes," then your credentials as a scientist can be tossed out.

Your arrogance has been laid bare before all. i think this debate has just wrapped up. Just before I depart this thread, I would like to thank and acknowledge the scientific contributions in biologiy and all the work that these accomplished and well

respected scientists have done in their lives.

Partial (very small) List of Scienistst Who Conclude ID

Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a

David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience

Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology)

Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics

Robert Franks, M.D.

Robert H. Eckel, M.D.

Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology

Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology

David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology

Raymond V. Damadian, M.D.

Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology

Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology

Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology

Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular Genetics

Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology

Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology

John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry

Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D. (Board Member)

Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Technical Advisory Board)

Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (Technical Advisory Board)

Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education

Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology

Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology

Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology

Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences

Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry

Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology

David A. Demick, M.D.

Randy Guliuzza, M.D.

Keith Swenson, M.D.

George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany

David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy

Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology

Inis J. Bardella, M.D.

Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.

Donald Hamann, Ph.D. Agricultural Science - Virginia Tech

Agard, E. Theo, Ph.D.

Allan, James, Ph.D

Armstrong, Harold, Ph.D

Arndt, Alexander, Ph.D

Austin, Steven, Ph.D

Barnes, Thomas, Ph.D

Batten, Don, Ph.D

Baumgardner, John, Ph.D

Bergman, Jerry, Ph.D

Boudreaux, Edward, Ph.D

Catchpoole, David, Ph.D

Chadwick, Arthur, Ph.D

Chaffin, Eugene, Ph.D

Chittick, Donald, Ph.D

Cimbala, John, Ph.D

Clausen, Ben, Ph.D

Cole, SidCook, Melvin, Ph.D

Cumming, Ken, Ph.D

Cuozzo, Jack, Ph.D

Darrall, Nancy, Ph.D

Dewitt, David, Ph.D

DeYoung, Donald, Ph.D

Downes, Geoff, Ph.D

Eckel, Robert, Ph.D

Faulkner, Danny, Ph.D

Ford, Dwain, Ph.D

Frair, Wayne, Ph.D

Gentry, Robert, Ph.D

Giem, Paul, Ph.D

Gillen, Alan, Ph.D

Gish, Duane, Ph.D

Gitt, Werner, Ph.D

Gower, D.B., Ph.D

Grebe, John, Ph.D

Grocott, Stephen, Ph.D

Hawke, George, Ph.D

Hollowell, Kelly, Ph.D

Holroyd, Edmond, Ph.D

Hosken, Bob, Ph.D

Howe, George, Ph.D

Humphreys, D. Russell, Ph.D

Javor, George, Ph.D

Jones, Arthur, Ph.D

Kaufmann, David, Ph.D

Kennedy, Elaine, Ph.D

Klotz, John, Ph.D

Koop, C. Everett, Ph.D

Korochkin, Leonid, Ph.D

Kramer, John, Ph.D

Lammerts, Walter, Ph.D

Lester, Lane, Ph.D

Livingston, David, Ph.D

Lopez, Raul, Ph.D

Marcus, John, Ph.D

Marsh, Frank, Ph.D

Mastropaolo, Joseph, Ph.D

McCombs, Charles, Ph.D

McIntosh, Andrew, Ph.D

McMullen, Tom, Ph.D

Meyer, Angela, Ph.D

Meyer, John, Ph.D

Mitchell, Colin, Ph.D

Morris, Henry, Ph.D

Morris, John, Ph.D

Mumma, Stanley, Ph.D

Parker, Gary, Ph.D

Peet, J. H. John, Ph.D

Rankin, John, Ph.D

Roth, Ariel, Ph.D

Rusch, Wilbert, Ph.D

Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D

Snelling, Andrew, Ph.D

Standish, Timothy, Ph.D

Taylor, Stephen, Ph.D

Thaxton, Charles, Ph.D

Thompson, Bert, Ph.D

Thomson, Ker, Ph.D

Vardiman, Larry, Ph.D

Veith, Walter, Ph.D

Walter, Jeremy, Ph.D

Wanser, Keith, Ph.D

Whitcomb, John, Ph.D

White, A.J.(Monty), Ph.D

Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest, Ph.D

Wile, Jay, Ph.D

Williams, Emmett, Ph.D

Wise, Kurt, Ph.D

Wolfrom, Glen, Ph.D

Zuill, Henry, Ph.D

I listed them for a very specific reason. I want people in here to get a taste of the sheer volume of PhD scientists that Acriku (who has even a bachelor's degree?) is summarily dismissing just because Acriku doesn't like what they believe in their personal lives. And you say that I have my head up my ass? Man, dude. What scientists have I dismissed as unscientific again? Please list some names, thanks.

tell me, Acriku, when you summarily discredit all these scientists in the name of your biased presupppositions, do you feel a power rush? What is it like to be a superior being?

[emprworm]

So now, Nema too is going to Lord himself over a myriad of well-accomplished scientists and summarily dismiss them as being non-scientific too?

Is atheism just the most arrogant world-view on the planet or what?

Amazing. You people really DO consider yourselves superior.

[TMA_1]

thats cool. Duane Gish is a fabulous biologist. I know a few of them.

[emprworm]

not according to Nema, and Acriku.

To these two guys, if Duane Gush believes in ID, he is suddenly no longer credible. I think its pretty obvious that atheism induces in its host, a sense of superiority.

[nemafakei]

I knew you were about to post such a list, so I pre-empted you to point out that it was irrelevant. And if you'd kindly read what I've written, rather than what you think I'm writing, you'll see that I'm not accusing scientists of being anything, but I'm saying that their beliefs are not proof.

[TMA_1]

yeah that is because the majority of scientists take the evolutionary model as canon. most diest or athiest scientists who believe in evolution as the key to life discredit ID believers. Many scientists are starting to believe in what they call scientifically the "vital force". basically believing that some intelligence or non intelligent power continually starts the ball rolling for non biological and biological evolution.

[emprworm]

Nema, and what I am trying to tell you is that no scientist on earth has proof for their theories- otherwise it would not be a theory! ::)

ID is a THEORY

Evolution is a THEORY

many of those scientists were once evolutionists who, as a result of years of professional work, concluded in ID after examining the evidence.

Having you and/or Acriku making massive ad-hominem fallacies to now call them "unscientific" is arrogance in an extreme nature.

You do not have to believe their theory of ID...but - it - is - still - a - scientific - theory!

Regardless of what a couple of FED2k non college graduate forum posters say about a list of 200 PhD scientists, I think its pretty clear that the scientists are well enough qualified to AT MINIMUM say "I believe in the scientific theory of ID"

And what was your qualifications, Nema to say to all those scientists: "Your theory of ID is not scientific?"

[Acriku]

Emprworm I think you are arguing for me. As in, I haven't said any of that, but you make an argument based on what I didn't say. I don't think all of those scientists' credibility is questioned, if they do in fact believe in the ID theory (which has yet to be proven, you just provided a list of a lot of names) I think that I need to question how they came to accept this theory. And what they will use it for. Your assumptions of atheism leave me to wonder if you have any deep down hatred for it.

[emprworm]

i do not hate atheists. as I have said several times:

An atheist scientist who believes in evolution is a qualified scientist that believes in a scientific theory.

The hatred I sensed came from you (well not hatred, but arrogance) when you are not prepared to say the same thing:

A theist scientist who believes in ID is a qualified scientist that believes in a scientific theory.

Can you say that, Acriku? Or are you still going to dismiss all those scientists as holding a theory that is "unscientific"

Remember: it is not required for you to BELIEVE a theory just to admit that it is scientific.

[nemafakei]

I hope I don't have to say this more than once: DON'T TWIST MY WORDS

"You do not have to believe their theory of ID...but - it - is - still - a - scientific - theory!"

Why do you say that? Just because there are some scientifically minded people who happen to believe it more probable than evolution alone, doesn't mean it's a reasonable scientific theory. They may believe in ID, they may be right, but the fact that they believe it does not make it a reasonable theory without some decent evidence. Until then, it is conjecture, given that you have been splitting hairs between theory and truth.

"And what was your qualifications, Nema to say to all those scientists"

Irrelevant!

My point is that the fact that 200 Phd or MD scientists (I notice) agree with a conjecture does not qualify it to be theoretically supportable. If you want to make a useful list, you'll need evidence of there being almost as many ID PhD scientists as Evolution alone scientists.

[emprworm]

lol, Nema. There IS evidence. You probably never really even examined it, but lets assume for a moment that you did...and that you did so obejctively as any scientist should.

It still might not be evidence subjectively to Nema Fakei ()...

but thank goodness that Nema Fakei is not the objecitve standard upon which to judge credibility for scientific evidence.

I think you missed this part about my statment above:

Many of those PhD scientists were once evolutionists who concluded in ID only after years of research and examination of the evidence.

Regardless of what a couple of FED2K non-graduates say about it, these well-trained respected scientists have concluded, based upon evidence, in the theory of ID. Your acceptance of the theory AND/OR the evidence that supports it is NOT REQUIRED for it to still be a scientific theory.

[nemafakei]

"Regardless of what a couple of FED2K non-graduates say about it"

Are you deliberately trying to sound arrogant and rude?

If not, be more careful about what you say and how you say things. If so, stop now.

"Many of those PhD scientists were once evolutionists who concluded in ID only after years of research and examination of the evidence."

If so, I'd be interested to read some of their papers, though I've seen few. Or did they just conclude for themselves - which still amounts to the same thing - conjecture.

"Your acceptance of the theory AND/OR the evidence that supports it is NOT REQUIRED for it to still be a scientific theory."

But some proof still is, else it's still popular conjecture.

[emprworm]

as for being rude....no, I am not trying to be rude. I am a FED2k non-graduate poster too. I just state things how they are, not meant to be rude. Let me know if the statement is incorrect, I will take it back. I didn't think any of us had graduate degrees. Perhaps you are being sensitive to my statements because they are not in agreement with you? Not sure.

Peter W. Atkins, Ph.D, Chemistry

Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Leicester

Professor of Physical Chemistry at Lincoln College at Oxford, England

Peter Atkins concludes in macro-evolutionary theory based upon the evidence.

Emprworm has no credentials to tell this man that his conclusions for evolution are unscientific, or that the theory itslef is unscientific.

Now, your turn

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology

Education:

B.S. Chemistry/Biology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

M.A. Biology, Harvard University

Ph.D. Biology (Major in Ecology/Minor in Biochemistry), Harvard University

Honors:

Sigma Xi

Cum laude degree

MBL Ecology Award

Lambert Kingsley Honorary Biology Society

Bausche & Lomb Science Award

Fishery Scientist (American Fishery Society)

Organizations:

American Institute of Biological Sciences

Botanical Society of America

Ecological Society of America

Ken Cumming has concluded, based upon the evidence, in the theory of ID.

What are your credentials, Nema, to tell this man that his conclusions are unscientific?

[Acriku]

It has no regard as to how many credentials someone has, a person with less can just as well come a scientific conclusion. But what I fail to see is the evidence they have used to conclude that it is indeed a scientific theory. Also, the 200 or so people you listed, how do you know they all were once evolutionists and now believe in the ID theory? How do you know they all examined the evidence for both and concluded the ID theory? How do I know you didn't just find a list of scientists with good credentials, and post them here? It doesn't stand so far.

[emprworm]

Well, Acriku, as far as them being ID scientists there really is no way I am going to look them all up to prove it to you. I was hoping my reputation around here for deliberately posting false information would not be in question. You will just have to take my word for it that they are. But I'll do you this one favor and I will look one of them up for you.

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)

The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

[nemafakei]

"Perhaps you are being sensitive to my statements because they are not in agreement with you?"

I am impartially stating that what you said can be easily offensive to many people, and it

My credentials (no, I'm not revealing my personal information and qualifications) are that I am of sound mind and reasonably well informed, and there have been no proofs or significant indicators (unless you or he can give me one) of the conjecture in which he believes.

All you need is some evidence or logic - If I gave you 201 PhDs who claimed ID was non-scientific, would you believe me?

[emprworm]

Do you have such a list? PhD's only please

I would imagine that anyone with a PhD would be reasonable enough to understand that ID is a scientific theory...just not one they would agree with.

Please present even 2 or 3 of them. PhD's in biologiy related fields only please (all my scientists I provided had degrees in biology)

[TMA_1]

argh people are forgetting the METHOD. I capitalize not to be arrogantly sarcastic, but to say that it is the true nature of science.

idea turns to hypothosis: An intelligent creator must have been the initial action behind the reaction we call time-space and matter.

Hypothosis to Theory: Tests need to be made to support the simple idea. Things like strata finds and rare isotopes that only have a certain half-life are used. Just a few among myriads ID theorists propose. Also the refutation of other theories using fossil evidance and hydrolic geology to show that a new* earth theory is possible. (* New for the timescale evolutionists propose. i.e. from 7000 to millions or even billions b.c.e.)

There are many kinds of theories. Tentative, supported, acclaimed. There is data that ID scientists use to support their theory and it hasent run into any direct roadblocks. If it did, the scientific method would destroy the theory of creation. Are you saying that ID scientists are not even scientists? that they are breaking the METHOD? I would say you have a lot of gull to propose that idea. Seeing that none of us are at a level to argue with them.

[Acriku]

So tell me, where is the data? I can't see how any data could be formed to prove ID theory, since it involves the supernatural and we can't measure the supernatural at all.

[emprworm]

ID in itself doesn't concern itself with the supernatural.

It just so happens that many (not all) who subscribe to ID believe in God, but that is irrelevant since there are some who subscribe to evolution who also believe in God.

Belief in God is irrelevant to the scientific theory of ID

[Acriku]

Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. Fundamentally speaking, Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's famous Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

According to Paley, if you came across a watch on a beach, you would not assume that it had assembled itself due to chance. Instead, its intricate design and functioning would cause you to conclude that it must have been designed and created by a skilled watchmaker. The same, he argued, should be concluded about the universe - and this is the basis for Intelligent Design Creationism today.

Hmm?

[nemafakei]

My question was not rhetorical. Would you, if presented with such a list, believe that it was not scientific theory? Or do I have to find a 400-long list?

NB also:

"In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design"

I'm questioning Emprworm's interpretation of the evidence - he thinks that scientists who believe in ID believe that this constitutes that not only they think it is scientific theory, but also that this means that it is scienticic theory.

Oh, yes, and I'd also appreciate if you be careful not to assume that I think that ID is not at least a remotely feasible idea.