|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
We do observe evolution occuring. For example, we can observe that mutations occur in bacteria that cause them to be antibiotic or bacteriophage resistant. We can also observe that these mutations become fixed in the presence of antibiotic or bacteriophage. So we can directly observe the production of variation through random mutation and the subsequent selection of those mutations. In this sense, evolution is a fact. It does occur. From our observations of how evolution occurs in the past we can make hypotheses about what we should and should not see in the morphology of living species, in the genomes of living species, and in the fossil record if this same process were active in the past. For example, if evolution occurred in the past then we should see transitional fossils that are part mammal and part reptile. At the same time, we should NOT see fossils that are part mammal and part bird. We then use the fossil record to test these predictions. The same applies to the distribution of characteristics in modern species and to comparisons of genomes found in living species. No disagreement here, but can you test and measure where all of these wonderful things came from in the first place, to perform those functions? can you test that these things were not DESIGNED to operate in that manner to begin with? I have no real disagreement with your theory or the evidence you use to demonstrate it. Only that you ascribe to design requirements that you do not to yourself, namely that which I have mentioned above Namely that we must provide evidence of the designer outside of design itself, but you yourself need not worry about your initiator of the evolutionary process, because for some strange reason all the RULES change when it comes to your theory
So what testable predictions does ID make? What should we NOT see if ID is true, and why? What types of fossils should we NOT see if ID is true? What type of shared genetic markers should we NOT see if ID is true? The theory of evolution is capable of making these types of predictions, but is ID capable of the same? Yes Again your jumping the gun assuming I am talking about ID instead of design. design is obvious by all the same test you use, who designed it is another question. Design is measurable and testable by the fact that it operates orderly, and by laws it was designed to perform, to accomplish a specific purpose. Thats testable How MANY SCIENTIFIC MODEL rules should design follow, if one demonstrates its measurable evidence? Now this is for the people that I have just reponded to. its not a matter of whether either is true, it is a matter of whether both can be evidentually demonstrated f rom a standpoint of data and logic. the answer is yes, both can be demonstrated Now listen up kiddies The reason both can be factually demonstrated is because they are the only two demonstratable logical choices for existence, as they have been since time began, knotheads its a matter of logic, not a scientific methodDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Design is measurable and testable by the fact that it operates orderly, and by laws it was designed to perform, to accomplish a specific purpose. Thats testable No, that's just a petitio principii.
Namely that we must provide evidence of the designer outside of design itself, but you yourself need not worry about your initiator of the evolutionary process, because for some strange reason all the RULES change when it comes to your theory This is, of course, not true.
The reason both can be factually demonstrated is because they are the only two demonstratable logical choices for existence, as they have been since time began, knotheads its a matter of logic, not a scientific method Logic would actually suggest that two incompatible theses cannot both be "factually demonstrated".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Admittedly, accreditation to ID institutions will limit the graduates in finding jobs, but there are a number of employers who would rather hire ID scientists and educators over secularist evolutionist ones. And if they were offering a degree in "Intelligent Design", then those employers could exercise their choice. But they want to call it a degree in "Science", thus disguising people who have been educated (and I use the term loosely) in creationism as people who've been educated in science.
Why can't Texas allow creditation based on the science premises of both naturalistic and ID science premises so long as they meet reasonable academic standards? But the basis for refusing them accreditation was that they didn't meet reasonable academic standards. Someone who has merely learned to recite creationist bibble about the second law of thermodynamics would not know how to derive the Kelvin-Planck statement of that law from the Clausius statement, nor be able to use that law to calculate the maximum theoretical efficiency of a refrigerator. Someone who has merely learned the dogmas of "flood geology" wouldn't know a schist from a shale or foliation from stratification. Someone who has merely learned creationist arguments against the Big Bang wouldn't know Einstein's GR equations or understand them if he did. And this would be true even if the creationist arguments were all right rather than being all wrong. Merely learning how to argue for creationism does not constitute an education in any field of science; nor, it was found, were the staff of the college academically qualified to offer such an education even if they should wish to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Buzsaw writes: Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? Exactly. ICR cannot do science as long as the begin with an assumption that the Bible is factually correct. LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Secularists have noting to do with it. The problem is that ICR state a priori that the bible is correct no matter what. That's not how science works. If evidence is found that contradicts earlier held beliefs, those beliefs need to be discarded or modified. This can't happen with ICR "science", therefore they're not doing science.
LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Let's try this Buz.
Put an egg in a cup of vinegar. Leave it in there for 24 hours. What happens? It is really rather neat. Did you try and guess what would happen? Were you surprised that you were wrong (if you were)? Guess what: you just did "secular science". Science is fun Buz. You should try it sometime. Here, check this out: experiments you can try at home. Science isn't some evil monster that you need to fight tooth and nail and be afraid of. Rather, it is simply a process. I'm sure you use the scientific method every day without knowing it. Now, let's check some "ID science" What sort of experiment could you have me perform that is in accordance with "ID science"? Your god believes in Unicorns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dawn Bertot writes: I have no real disagreement with your theory or the evidence you use to demonstrate it. Only that you ascribe to design requirements that you do not to yourself, namely that which I have mentioned above You're again making the claim that design and evolution are being held to different standards. Here you say you mentioned this difference "above," so here's all the text that appeared above:
Dawn Bertot writes: Taq writes: We do observe evolution occuring. For example, we can observe that mutations occur in bacteria that cause them to be antibiotic or bacteriophage resistant. We can also observe that these mutations become fixed in the presence of antibiotic or bacteriophage. So we can directly observe the production of variation through random mutation and the subsequent selection of those mutations. In this sense, evolution is a fact. It does occur. From our observations of how evolution occurs in the past we can make hypotheses about what we should and should not see in the morphology of living species, in the genomes of living species, and in the fossil record if this same process were active in the past. For example, if evolution occurred in the past then we should see transitional fossils that are part mammal and part reptile. At the same time, we should NOT see fossils that are part mammal and part bird. We then use the fossil record to test these predictions. The same applies to the distribution of characteristics in modern species and to comparisons of genomes found in living species. No disagreement here, but can you test and measure where all of these wonderful things came from in the first place, to perform those functions? can you test that these things were not DESIGNED to operate in that manner to begin with? I've read through this several times. Could you clarify what you think are the different standards? What are the standards applied to design, and what are the standards applied to evolution, and how are they different? If I could anticipate a bit, I think your claim is based upon a misunderstanding. You see us accepting natural processes but not design as a valid inference from the evidence, and you assume it must be because we're applying different standards. But we're not applying different standards. We're applying precisely the same standard to both design and natural processes. We're only inferring processes for which we have evidence. While we have evidence for natural processes, we have no evidence for design and implementation by a designer. All it takes for design to become accepted as a valid inference is for someone to produce evidence that design and implementation by a designer is something that happens in the real world. For example, in mutation experiments with bacteria all we see is natural processes at work. You need to perform similar experiments and find some kind of activity by a designer. In the absence of such evidence all we can do is infer that the same natural processes driving mutations in bacteria today were responsible for bacterial mutations in the past.
Again your jumping the gun assuming I am talking about ID instead of design. design is obvious by all the same test you use, who designed it is another question. Design is measurable and testable by the fact that it operates orderly, and by laws it was designed to perform, to accomplish a specific purpose. Thats testable. One of the reasons we reject design as a valid inference is that there's no evidence for the claims you're making about design. Natural processes follow laws that have been established by scientific research. We know how natural processes operate today, and we infer from the evidence that they operated the same in the past. If design is "orderly" and governed by "laws," where is the research that has established this orderliness and these laws, and what are those laws? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
hooah212002 writes:
Take an a priori assumption about something, distort the actual evidence, lie about stuff like other publications on the subject not existing, write a book, and commit purgery in a court.
Now, let's check some "ID science" What sort of experiment could you have me perform that is in accordance with "ID science"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Buzsaw writes: Percy writes:
Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science. Uh, pretty much. Revelation isn't science.
Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion? Because naturalistic is part of the definition of science. You call it secular science, so sticking with your terminology, Texas is providing accreditation for curriculums judged competent at teaching secular science. In Message 186 you drew a stark contrast between secular science and what you called "the creationist 'higher power' interpretive mindset." You clearly understand that secular science and creation science are not the same thing, and it is secular science that Texas is providing accreditation for. To the extent that ICR shares your views, it makes no sense that they are seeking accreditation for something they know they don't teach. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I would actually like to see a response from DB or Buz, since they are both touting a separate form of science. It would make for a good thread, I think. I mean, if there is such a thing as "ID/Creation science", there should be some experiments we could perform, right? There are millions upon millions of "secular science" experiments that ANYONE can perform with household items, so there should be at least a few "ID/Creation science" experiments we could do.
This is such a silly argument. Science is not an "it" it's not a "thing": it is a way to figure shit out. I'm beginning to wonder if these individuals even know what secular means........ {ABE}I didn't mean that to sound as though I didn't appreciate your response, Huntard (the first line sounds a bit rude now that I read it in thread). Sorry mate. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Your god believes in Unicorns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your last post. I think it would probably be sufficient if you just explained what you think the "unobservered events" are that evolution is claiming as evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
That would indeed make an interesting thread, I'll see if I can start one on it this evening. Unless you want to start one yourself, of course.
I didn't mean that to sound as though I didn't appreciate your response, Huntard (the first line sounds a bit rude now that I read it in thread). Sorry mate.
Your daddy raped you didn't he? Don't worry mate, if there's one thing about me, I am not easily offended, nor did I read your first line as such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: Buzsaw writes: Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? Exactly. ICR cannot do science as long as they begin with an assumption that the Bible is factually correct. LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate. I'm sorry but that is simply another false statement. In fact, I can't imagine how you could be more wrong. The basic premise of Science is that you must go where the evidence leads, not where you want to go. When the evidence refutes your favored answer then you MUST throw your favored answer away. As long as ICR demands that the Bible be factually correct, they cannot do Science. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
commit purgery in a court.
Is that what happens when you take to much Milk of Magnesia before court?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate. If you folks are so down on real science, and so enamored with your "alternative" sciences, why don't you just found your own discipline and leave real science alone? Just think of all the discoveries you could make unfettered by our narrow definition of science! Have at it! Knock yourselves out and quit bitching at us! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024