Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 77 (539704)
12-18-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Arphy
12-18-2009 6:11 PM


Varia
I do not not think that it is impossible for science to demonstrate the need for an intelligent designer.
Bring empirical evidence. Your need does not constitute empirical evidence. And all of these scenarios that IDers come up with, that can just as easily be explained by natural means, do not constitute empirical evidence. See, for example, Behe's testimony at the Dover trial. He ended up with heap big egg on face because he was pushing a religious belief (disguised as irreducible complexity) and ignoring scientific explanations for the same phenomena--and those scientific explanations came back to haunt him. (You can't just ignore data when its inconvenient, as creationists are wont to do, as inconvenient facts don't just go away no matter how much you ignore them.)
Especially if an intelligent designer (i.e.God) has told us a plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do (i.e. the flood)? How is this not science? It is both testable and falsifiable.
1) To the degree that it can be tested by science, the biblical flood hypothesis has been falsified. The early creationist geologists, seeking to prove the flood, gave up nearly 200 years ago in the face of overwhelming geological evidence that the flood story could not have happened as described. Since then the evidence from a variety of different fields has led to the same conclusion. So, don't try to use the "plausible explanation for why the fossils exist as they do" when that explanation has long since been falsified by science. (Of course there are some who, for religious reasons, refuse to accept the evidence but that doesn't constitute proof of any kind.)
2) The intelligent designer is not "God" as that would make ID into religion instead of science. The intelligent designer, if such exists, must remain unknown. (Didn't you get the memo?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 6:11 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 39 of 77 (539716)
12-19-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-19-2009 12:16 AM


Re: I Demand My Pre-Cambrian Rabbit!
You first show me why in flood geology we would expect to find a rabbit in pre-cambrian rock. To find a rabbit in such a place would be very unlikely in the flood geology model.
Let's do a separate thread on flood "geology" and all its implications.
It is off topic here.
Besides which the early creationist geologists seeking to prove the flood gave up about 200 years ago.
But if you think there is any real evidence for a global flood as written in the bible, start a thread and we'll discuss the issue.
(ps. I have evidence from my own professional research that disproves the flood as it is written. Although it is not geology, I'll be happy to contribute that evidence at no extra cost.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-19-2009 12:16 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 77 (540761)
12-28-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Peg
12-28-2009 6:07 PM


Please be more careful!
...becaues their is no evidence of life before the cambrian period...
Peg, you are off by about three billion years.
Please be more careful in your statements purporting to be accurate reflections of scientific data.
You just make yourself look foolish, and you make the scientists among us extremely frustrated.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 12-28-2009 6:07 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024