What you are saying is that if something cannot be tested, than it is false. That is stupid. No I am saying if it is not testable it is not science. Science cannot give you the Truth however as it works it asymptotically approaches the Truth. Which is better than someone who just pull some wild guess out his ass.
If what you are talking about is actually true science will eventually come up with some approximation. You just can't admit that some bronze age civilation 2000 plus years ago might not have has as good an idea of the natural world as we do today.
Michael Behe is one of the liars for Jesus I am talking about. He tried to use such a broad definition of science to include ID at the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover School Board trial that he had to admit under oath that be his definition astrology would be admissible as science.
Also in the same trial the devout Catholic biochemist Ken Miller specifically debunked the bacterial flagellum, in that the I believe the Type 3 bacterial secretory system has a majority of the components of the bacterial flagellum, and could be a functional system that evolution co-opted for the flagellum. Also a large stack of books and papers were placed in front of him showing scientific research on how this type of system could have evolved.
But I suppose having an arguement so utterly trounced in court that even the Bush appointed Christian judge pretty much called the defense (i.e the creationists) liars in his court decision and found for the prosecution. Is no reason to bring up the debate here.
Not even the fact that Michael Behe's book _Darwin's Black Box_ at this point has been so discredited that he has a new book trying to make god the great mutator since the god of the gaps arguments in the previous book do not hold water.
Interesting too that he still has his job at LeHigh university. He does apparently know his biochemistry in other areas. Even though he is a complete shill for the Discovery Institute (the creationist lobby). Kind of goes against the whole premise of the Expelled movie. Why is that? Probably because the people who made Expelled are complete and total liars and know they don't have a real fact to stand on.
Why do people automatically assume Evolution is true just because they don't understand what other theories actually mean? People do not automatically assume evolution is true. It is a well tested theory that provides a good explanation for the word and has made good and testable predictions. It does not explain everything and does not claim to and is working to find the answers.
Intelligent Design (or as Christopher Hitchens has referred to it Ignorance Deified.) is not even a theory and provides not useful understanding in how life works. If the ID people want to be taken seriously. They can produce good research and put forward a good testable hypothesis that can better explain the world or the liars for Jesus can just STFU.
Why do people assume a completely untested assertion is a legitimate competitor in the marketplace of ideas?
I seem to remember James Randi at one of Amazing meetings mention that one of the reason they stopped testing the Breatherians is they got tired of stationing someone at the hotel for the claiment to catch them sneaking out for a midnight snack. Which all of them have done.
It is also way the challenge has changed to go for people who have some kind of media presence, because they are tired of the claiment with some very random claim that you can't even find a test for because they can't be specific enough.
Is there something supernatural out there? Who knows? But so far it seems any supernatural claim that can be tested with a good double-blind test, does seem to go away when you run the test.
Also some people here are mentioning dowsers. There have been a few who sincerly beleived but then realized they were mistaken when given an honest test.
Would you like to provide evidence or are you just trolling. I haven't been on the Randi's site in a while, and I have let my membership in the JREF lapse, but I see it the opposite way. People who want the money keep making more and more convoluted challenges until it is hard to see what they are proving, or wanting to provide "proof" that would be so statistically variable as they would win as far as chance.
Randi's claim has always been they will come up with a protocol that will try and minimize a positive result being just chance, and make the results be something that can be independently and objectively judged. Would you like to provide proof to the contrary or do you know because you just believe on faith.
I handle Microsoft licensing for my company. Microsoft is desperate to keep getting their Software Assurance income. I suspect this company is paying for software assurance which gives 1 home license for each end user up to the amount of the corporate licenses. Basically each user pays for just the media and shipping which comes to about $25 for the full office suite. This is nothing unusual. You also get free Tech Net subscriptions and free training vouchers for MS training. So this in nothing special for the company in the article.
I call complete BS on this. One belief in god is roughly the default condition in the US, it might be hard to prosecute a believer. Also in a creative writing assignment most atheists, even militant ones will think of your logic as using one type of mythology in an essay. The only time you are probably really going to get nailed is if you are using a class assignment to proselytize, when it is inappropriate. Perhaps the militant atheist might get there a little faster, and give you more of a bad grade. From my experience it is almost always the believers who get upset when they don't get their god given way.
Slashdot Mirror
Michael Behe is one of the liars for Jesus I am talking about. He tried to use such a broad definition of science to include ID at the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover School Board trial that he had to admit under oath that be his definition astrology would be admissible as science. Also in the same trial the devout Catholic biochemist Ken Miller specifically debunked the bacterial flagellum, in that the I believe the Type 3 bacterial secretory system has a majority of the components of the bacterial flagellum, and could be a functional system that evolution co-opted for the flagellum. Also a large stack of books and papers were placed in front of him showing scientific research on how this type of system could have evolved. But I suppose having an arguement so utterly trounced in court that even the Bush appointed Christian judge pretty much called the defense (i.e the creationists) liars in his court decision and found for the prosecution. Is no reason to bring up the debate here. Not even the fact that Michael Behe's book _Darwin's Black Box_ at this point has been so discredited that he has a new book trying to make god the great mutator since the god of the gaps arguments in the previous book do not hold water. Interesting too that he still has his job at LeHigh university. He does apparently know his biochemistry in other areas. Even though he is a complete shill for the Discovery Institute (the creationist lobby). Kind of goes against the whole premise of the Expelled movie. Why is that? Probably because the people who made Expelled are complete and total liars and know they don't have a real fact to stand on.
I seem to remember James Randi at one of Amazing meetings mention that one of the reason they stopped testing the Breatherians is they got tired of stationing someone at the hotel for the claiment to catch them sneaking out for a midnight snack. Which all of them have done.
It is also way the challenge has changed to go for people who have some kind of media presence, because they are tired of the claiment with some very random claim that you can't even find a test for because they can't be specific enough.
Is there something supernatural out there? Who knows? But so far it seems any supernatural claim that can be tested with a good double-blind test, does seem to go away when you run the test.
Also some people here are mentioning dowsers. There have been a few who sincerly beleived but then realized they were mistaken when given an honest test.
Would you like to provide evidence or are you just trolling. I haven't been on the Randi's site in a while, and I have let my membership in the JREF lapse, but I see it the opposite way. People who want the money keep making more and more convoluted challenges until it is hard to see what they are proving, or wanting to provide "proof" that would be so statistically variable as they would win as far as chance. Randi's claim has always been they will come up with a protocol that will try and minimize a positive result being just chance, and make the results be something that can be independently and objectively judged. Would you like to provide proof to the contrary or do you know because you just believe on faith.
No that top level already has a name. Operating Thetan, and you too can get there for a series of small fees.
I handle Microsoft licensing for my company. Microsoft is desperate to keep getting their Software Assurance income. I suspect this company is paying for software assurance which gives 1 home license for each end user up to the amount of the corporate licenses. Basically each user pays for just the media and shipping which comes to about $25 for the full office suite. This is nothing unusual. You also get free Tech Net subscriptions and free training vouchers for MS training. So this in nothing special for the company in the article.
I call complete BS on this. One belief in god is roughly the default condition in the US, it might be hard to prosecute a believer. Also in a creative writing assignment most atheists, even militant ones will think of your logic as using one type of mythology in an essay. The only time you are probably really going to get nailed is if you are using a class assignment to proselytize, when it is inappropriate. Perhaps the militant atheist might get there a little faster, and give you more of a bad grade. From my experience it is almost always the believers who get upset when they don't get their god given way.