Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1141 of 1273 (549164)
03-04-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1135 by Smooth Operator
03-04-2010 10:01 AM


Re: ancient common ancestors aren't around anymore to breed ... they died
Now let me give you some facts.
You have no obervable evidence that animals on the bottom were not sterile.
You have no obervable evidence that animals on the bottom were had any offspring.
You have no obervable evidence that animals on the top are offspring of the animals on the bottom.
You have no obervable evidence that animals on the top and the animals on the bottom EVER EVEN MET!
You have not evidence that the observed pattern is a pattern of transition from the animals on the bottom to the animals on teh top.
You don't have any evidence that any of those animals even died there!
The only facts we have is that we have a bunch of bones in teh ground. And now we can do some scientific extrapolation. Since animals live today. They could ahve lived in the past. They also get buried by dirt and get fossilised. Layers of ground get worked up and down.
So the only thing we can infer from this. Is that some animals lived in the past and than died. Before they decomposed they got buried by dirt, and got fossilised. MAyb some died before some later. Maybe those that are on the top died before. You see, layers can get reworked by earthquakes. Maybe some animals of those never even met. And they lived pretty much far away from others. But due to reworking they were found very close. So basicly this is all that we can reasonably infer.
If only you would apply such stringent evidentiary requirements to your biblical beliefs perhaps we could have more meaningful discussions.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1135 by Smooth Operator, posted 03-04-2010 10:01 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1203 of 1273 (550970)
03-20-2010 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1200 by Smooth Operator
03-19-2010 10:51 PM


Re: Wrong again
For instance. In the case of the Coelacanth, it's supposed fossil dated about 400 million years shows it to be the same as today. Therefore, no divergence took place according to you.
So we don't get a 20 page reply/response I'll be brief.
You are wrong.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by Smooth Operator, posted 03-19-2010 10:51 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1245 of 1273 (552132)
03-26-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1240 by AZPaul3
03-26-2010 2:33 PM


Re: The Big Lie
You just wrote my summary for me. Thanks!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1240 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2010 2:33 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1254 of 1273 (626707)
07-30-2011 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1252 by Portillo
07-30-2011 11:05 PM


Explaining ID
ID is the theory that things are intelligently designed. Like the computer your using or the car you drive didnt evolve on their own, but were specifically designed by an intelligence. That kind of theory is applied to life and the universe.
OK, here is your chance. Explain ID in such a way that it can be a theory.
First, you must understand how the term "theory" is used in science. It does not mean "my best guess" or "an idea." In science a theory is along these lines:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
Since ID claims to be a science, it must adhere to the rules and methods of science.
So, here is your big chance. Explain ID in such a way as to qualify as science using the rules and methods of science. [But be cautioned that ID has already been determined by a federal court to be religion (Dover).]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1252 by Portillo, posted 07-30-2011 11:05 PM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1260 by Portillo, posted 08-07-2011 12:23 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1261 of 1273 (628146)
08-07-2011 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1260 by Portillo
08-07-2011 12:23 AM


Re: Explaining ID
ID is no different to any sciences except for the fact that it claims that things are designed, not random accidents.
But the basis for that claim is religion, not empirical evidence. ID is exactly opposite the scientific method as its conclusions come first and its goal is to find evidence that supports those conclusions, while ignoring or misrepresenting evidence that contradicts those conclusions.
The history of ID is well known. It came into being shortly after the US Supreme Court tossed creation "science" out of the schools, so creationists had to find another dodge to try to fool the courts.
See Missing link: cdesign proponentsists for some of the sordid details.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1260 by Portillo, posted 08-07-2011 12:23 AM Portillo 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