Message 32 of 151 (506566) 04-27-2009 4:26 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by Larni 04-22-2009 4:40 AM

[b]That is probably true. However, this by itself does not render I.D. irrelevant as metascience.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : I'm experimenting with html

Message 38 of 151 (506677) 04-28-2009 10:37 AM

Reply to: Message 35 by Larni 04-27-2009 6:03 PM

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/

Message 40 of 151 (506682) 04-28-2009 11:01 AM

Reply to: Message 39 by Larni 04-28-2009 10:51 AM

I know that. However, I.D. has given me some possible insights into the intentions of our creator. I'm not sure if my creator wants me to tell the world about some of these things. I do believe in science because it has its uses. I don't trust the people who disseminate science to the public.

Message 44 of 151 (506690) 04-28-2009 11:26 AM

Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote 04-28-2009 11:09 AM

We can debate the epistemological obligations of science but I can't see how science can explain everything when it MUST dismiss any and all supernatural possibilities. Neo-Darwinism is the epitemy of that sort of thought process.

Message 45 of 151 (506691) 04-28-2009 11:31 AM

Reply to: Message 43 by ramoss 04-28-2009 11:16 AM

I think it explains the evidence. I agree that this could be considered to be lame but it makes me think when I engage the evidence. Remember, science requires creativity and imagination.

You get a large number of unsupported claims, and invalid attempts at trying to criticize evolution (mainly through logical fallacies), but nothing else.

I am not criticizing evolution. I just don't believe in neo-Darwinism.

Message 48 of 151 (506694) 04-28-2009 11:42 AM

Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote 04-28-2009 11:32 AM

May your science serve you well.

Message 49 of 151 (506695) 04-28-2009 11:47 AM

Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric 04-28-2009 11:31 AM

I strongly suggest that you use start to utilize your best judgement because there are people out there who want you to hear what they want you to hear. I never said that we shouldn't get our information from them. I believe that we should also get our information from sources other than them.

Message 60 of 151 (506933) 04-30-2009 12:08 PM

Reply to: Message 55 by onifre 04-29-2009 12:54 PM

It would be quite a process if you wished to explain everything you encounter with science. Try explaining the people you need to deal with with science. Science doesn't explain everything in terms as though it is the truth. It gives the best explanation that fits the evidence until another theory comes along.

Consider the theory that the universe is a hologram and that it contains holograms within it of various sizes. So far, as strange as this theory may seem I have not encountered any evidence that refutes it. Maybe I have not dug deep enough. But there seems to be legitimate scientific evidence to support it. There also seems to be pseudo-scientific evidence that supports it. Where do you draw the line if there is scientific evidence that supports it and none that proves it wrong?

Message 62 of 151 (506938) 04-30-2009 12:29 PM

Reply to: Message 61 by Perdition 04-30-2009 12:23 PM

Of course, there is psychology but there are several different theories based on psychology. People are complex and to stand their analyzing them might prove to be availing, would you really want to explain everyone you have to deal with this way?

Message 66 of 151 (507083) 05-01-2009 11:16 AM

Reply to: Message 65 by onifre 04-30-2009 1:38 PM

Yes, science does have some good uses. It keeps people honest but I think people can be deluded by its use. For example, there are concepts that you cant test such as the anthropic principle.

I had a chance to think about your post overnight. Let's state a version of this argument in one sentence.

"If something cannot be tested by the scientific method, it cannot be true."

How does someone test this statement with the scientific method?

Or let's take a pseudo-scientific statement such as this one:

"Pseudo-science credits the supernatural when natural causes are unable to adequately explain the phenomenon."

How do you disprove that statement with the scientific method?

Steven Jay Gould recognized that science had its boundaries. He is an evolutionist and I think he is intelligent. (I don't know if he is still with us.) You can read about his concept of NOMA in wikepedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

I'm running out of time. If you haven't noticed I have been taking on more than one person with these debates.

I think the Improv is upstairs near the theater in City Place? I have never been inside. I have lived here for about two years.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Message 69 of 151 (507168) 05-02-2009 12:35 PM

Reply to: Message 68 by Taq 05-01-2009 4:02 PM

Why does it have to be this way? Why can't we use science to filter some of evidence out?[/i]

This is made clear in the Wedge Document where the authors state, "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."

Why does it have to be Christian? Why can't it be represented by Muslim or Hindu traditions?

Edited by traderdrew, : html edit

Message 71 of 151 (507170) 05-02-2009 12:46 PM

Reply to: Message 67 by onifre 05-01-2009 12:04 PM

In other words, the trend has been finding evidence that renders suspected supernatural activity as naturalistic explanations. Is this what you are saying? Trends are one thing but trends don't necessarily disprove the existence of something.

Message 76 of 151 (507294) 05-03-2009 2:19 PM

Reply to: Message 75 by onifre 05-03-2009 11:33 AM

I thought I was answering your points except for the one on the holographic universe. You asked for some science as I recall. It is not hard to find it on google.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203081609.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203130708.htm

And I think you are right that I am part of the irony. I wouldn't mind meeting with you at least once at City Place. I am not like this in real life. I don't push my agendas on people who don't want to hear about them. Of course I do it here because you have a choice if you wish to read it or not or engage me.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Message 77 of 151 (507297) 05-03-2009 2:21 PM

Reply to: Message 72 by lyx2no 05-02-2009 2:05 PM

What if I told you that I am a Jedi from Star Wars and I believe that we were created by the Force?