Two types of science

Marc, why are you no longer discussing the subject of your OP? Is it because you now realize your position on that topic is indefensible, or do you just have a really short attention span?

They are certainly permitted to. But have they in fact done so? I have yet to read their recantation. You inadvertently said something true --- separation of church and state is not even slightly forbidden by "U.S. foundings" (bizarre phrase). You might want to go back and edit it so that it says something false.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think everyone who has ever posted at these forums knows that. I was more focused on what he said, not who he is. There are a few things that William Provine and Richard Dawkins say that I fully agree with. It's best to concentrate on what is actually said, not poisoning wells. "Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning? That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use.

Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear.

Evidently so. Evidently not.

Clear to you, perhaps; the rest of us, who can't see the world in your head, would need to have it described to us.

No, a way to get the thread started in a concise, readable way. And expound on it as the thread progresses. If I'd have stated everything all at once it would have been labeled a "rant" by a half dozen opponents. Personal attacks happen no matter what a non-evolutionist does. I asserted nothing about cosmological papers. I'll address, if I choose, what is directly presented to me. I never said it was "inappropriate". Any study, or any activity involving long distances increases chances for error, and greatly weakens the possibility of meaningful testing, or falsification. I'm just comparing it to all the rigorous testing and falsification requirements that were demanded of Intelligent Design. No, because they don't involve long distances. If it were the criteria required for Intelligent Design, it should be a criteria for anything else in science. There's no way to convince you otherwise. Evolutionists are every bit as closed minded as the religious people they criticize for being closed minded. If I get the attention of just one student who may happen to be reading here who isn't quite convinced yet to become a liberal atheist just because their science class encourages him to, then it's worthwhile for me to be here, however temporarily. My words will LIVE ON!!!! (if admin doesn't delete them) In those cases, it may not be. Those blends are best detailed in popular books, such as "How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist", or "The God Delusion", both written by scientists, and receiving no notable objections from the scientific community or its followers. And that all changed with global warming. I wonder if that's the only subject it changed with. From message 2 of this thread; (the one that referred to Weinberg's remark) Just the ones who want to keep their jobs. "Religion gets in the way" good terminology! Gets in the way of Cloning, abortion, transplanting animal organs to humans, embryonic stem cell research, almost countless other morally troublesome things. I'm engaging in the philosophy of science by noting what is actually going on in science education. They're often not performing actual science.

All I require is for ID to be falsifiable. I don't need it to be 'complex'. A big reason why ID isn't falsifiable is that it does not actually propose any mechanism of how the design gets implemented. Basically all ID says is 'at some time or times an entity that possesses intelligence designed life and implemented this design by unknown means'. That's not good enough. It's no double standard, other ideas have been also thrown out for being vague or otherwise ill-formed.If the genome is complex and messy and thus unfathomable or at least stupendously challenging to humans: Proves there's a designer. If the genome is simple and orderly: Proves there's a designer. If life appears suddenly: ID, if it appears gradually in fits and bursts: ID. If it is a perfectly smooth transition: ID (events with random elements don't go smoothly, that requires a smoother).When just about any evidence that comes out is seen as confirming and no evidence could falsify the idea - it is not a scientific theory and should therefore not be taught to children. Agreed?

Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true. The addition of MTBE to gasoline to cleanse our air wasn’t shown to work when it actually polluted ground water to a much more dangerous extent. If those who represent science make those conclusions, they need to address them when they enter the political realm in any way, whether it be science education, or major screw-ups like MTBE. We're getting to it, we're getting to it, everyone's so impatient! There are several terms that represent metaphysical science, This link seems to describe them very well, and yes, I realize it's not a conservative Christian link. Pathological science, junk science, hoax science, fraudulant science, scientific misconduct. Or even "bad science". They can come from all worldviews, including atheism. This has largely happened with global warming. A few years ago, an intercepted email from a professor at the Climate Research Unit in England to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania warned him; "Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act", and urged the American professor to delete any emails he may have sent a colleague regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.When a private business accused of fraud begins shredding its memos and deleting its emails, the news media are quick to proclaim these actions as signs of guilt. But after a destruction of evidence by global warming advocates, the big television networks went for days without reporting it, or commenting on it. Very little is widely known about it or discussed about it yet today. The problem is, politicized science has too big of a stake in the global warming hysteria to let it become properly scrutinized, or falsified by actual science. This is only one example of the second type of science that is the topic of this thread. It's not a simple problem to reverse, as isn't the problem with atheism that's become rampant in science education. Not because they conflict with my worldview, because they conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment. It is now, but only partially- only by the naturalist worldview. In some cases, yes. To keep from being accused of a "rant". To help keep the responses more focused. (I don't think that worked too well )

7060 years? Not a problem, you’re two for two. But you've only made a progression of 2000 years, it will take you.....let’s see.....2 1/4 million more messages to get to 4.5 billion years at that rate? Is that right? Sorry, I plan on summarizing before you have time for that. Could you step up the process a little bit?From your later messages; How could the tree rings tell you if those trees (alive or dead) were simply surrounded by water for a period of 40 days? Repeatable and testable, but are they falsifiable at those great distances? Unless we're getting light bursts from some other source at those great distances. If your faith in scientific precision is strong enough, I guess that's all that’s needed for naturalists.The Vangard 1 satellite is one of the oldest still in orbit around the earth. Here is a partial paragraph from Wikipedia describing it;

quote:

---

...Original estimates had the orbit lasting for 2000 years, but it was discovered that solar radiation pressure and atmospheric drag during high levels of solar activity produced significant perturbations in the perigee height of the satellite, which caused a significant decrease in its expected lifetime to only about 240 years.

---

2000 years all the way down to 240 years? Some pretty serious perturbations? Is there a chance that perturbations could also be present in light bursts over a distance of 168,000 light years? Or is there no chance, because naturalists don't want there to be a chance?

Is there a unified, working model that humans cause global warming?

"Atheism" is the absence of religion.It is not a religion and no amount of creationist claims will make it into one.

Thanks for telling me what I didn't read. The word "Skepticism" doesn't appear on either of my links I put in message 20. You are really obsessed with science if you think all other forms of knowledge are just little sub-catagories of knowledge that lead up to the mighty scientific method, the great and powerful end all of knowledge. Not in a science, but to determine if a science is actual science or is psuedoscience, junk science, etc. Not a weapon against actual science, a weapon against metaphysical science. Other forms of knowledge can be used to analyze actual, relevant science.

As I said in my message, nothing in biology just "fell together" by this or any other process. Any biological system you care to mention did, however, evolved through this process of mutation/selection from other precursor systems.What was plain in my message was that your contention that these complex systems just "fell together" in a random process is BS.And yet you did not respond to that. You chose to misrepresent what I said. Or are you going to claim you did not understand the obvious?Regardless, either your reading comprehension or your personal ethics require work. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The plan of living organisms is to survive ... they expend a lot of resources to follow that plan.The purpose of living organisms is to reproduce as often as possible ... this too is pursued with the expenditure of a lot of resources.