|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism/ID as Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4142 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology. Hahhaah. Please tell me how you can test for a supernatural intelligence with science which is the study of the natural world. This outta be good.
biological structures are manufacturing plants. You keep saying this but never respond to criticism of how it's bull. ID is merely if one cannot explain _________ Goddidit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology. But it is a failed science, since it repeatedly identifies as having been designed things which we know not to have been designed. Whereas the successful science of archaelogy correctly identifies natural productions as not having been designed.
On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant was evidence of intelligent design. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants. Or alternatively: "On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant doesn't have a genome nor reproduce with variation. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants." You notice how this is rubbish? We know that organisms are not the same as manufacturing plants in every respect. In particular, we know that they have the capacity to evolve. The notion that if two things are similar in some respect they are similar in some other respect is not science, nor logic, nor within the bounds of common sense, nor anything but a device for reaching false conclusions when you have no real arguments to back you up. The fact that ID seeks to base itself on this childish error in logic proves beyond doubt that it is not science. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of ...
Yes, it is a weak idea, but it is still science. From your link:
quote: Just because you haven't done the science yet doesn't mean it should be ruled out as science eh? ROFLOL. but pathetic. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Hughes,
Your last post has already drawn a number of replies pointing out that you're just restating your initial positions again, ones that have already been discussed and rebutted. If you'd like to discuss the science of design detection, which would mean Dembski and/or Gitt, then please proceed. If you'd like to address the rebuttals about ID being no different than archeology and SETI, then please proceed. If you'd like to address the rebuttals about biological structures being like manufacturing plants, then please proceed. But if you're going to just repeat your initial positions then there's no need to post, for two reasons. First, you've already stated them several times. Second, it's contrary to the Forum Guidelines:
If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you resume the discussion we were having instead of attempting to reset things to square one? Thanks! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6108 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
No, no one claimed that it is science. All it was supposed to do is to provide a speculation of explanation to the origins about which Evolution is totally silent. Call it science or whatever.
On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The guy I was replying to did. The rest of your post is equallly badly informed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
inkorrekt writes: On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why? This thread is discussing Creationism/ID's qualifications as science. Please take discussion of evolution's qualifications as science to the proper thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
No, no one claimed that it is science. All it was supposed to do is to provide a speculation of explanation to the origins about which Evolution is totally silent. Call it science or whatever.
well then tell the morons trying to push it as science to stop it, because they think it is. by the way evolution isn't about origins its about life that already exists evolving, or did you not get the memo?
On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why?
go read a book on evolution please, otherwise this is irrelevent to this thread
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Is SETI Science?
No Intelligent Design Movement is not Science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024