|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta,
Everything you say is so much hot air until you can provide an hypothesis backed by evidence for the following:- 1. Who or what did the designing2. How was it done? You have no evidence. All you have is poorly conceived criticism against an entirely erroneous caricature of evolution. Care to provide that hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta,
Any word on that ID hypothesis and its supporting evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: In fact if they just taught the evidence for evolution and the evidence against the major icons of evolution." All the evidence we have supports the ToE. All of the "evidence aginst evolution" consists of gross scientific distortions peddled by religious activists. If you want to teach ID to kids you need something to teach beyond "evolution is wrong". I have asked twice for a ID hypothesis. You have pointedly ignored these requests. How is it coming on? Without a useful hypothesis you have NOTHING to teach, end of argument! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: What is your point? The point is that there is no ID science to teach. Both you and I know that ID has no theory and no testable hypotheses, so please refrain from fobbing me off with "do your own research"! All ID "science" is merely poorly thought out ToE criticism. To teach ID as science you need to attempt to explain:- 1. How the ID process works.2. How the design process can be seen to exist in nature. 2. What did the designing. Repeatedly saying "evolution is wrong" doesn't cut it. You can criticise the ToE all you like, but ID has NOTHING to offer as a scientific alternative. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: things are better explained by non-material causes How can an non-material explanation be verified if it cannot be tested? Imagine that every time I say "f*ck" I'm struck by lightning that has no apparent physical origin. How do I know that the Biblical God did it instead of the Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus?
Beretta writes: As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man. It's not that ID isn't allowed to mention God, it's that ID has no evidence to support such an entity. The existence of men, on the other hand, is verifiable.
Beretta writes: ..it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life. How do we verify "the truth" when it has no material expression?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: Can astrology be stated as a valid hypothesis and tested using scientific methods? Yes. Only up to a point. The effects of Astrology can be tested, but given that astrology does not posit any material means for the transmission of its influence the underlying mechanism of astrology can not be tested. Even if there was a 100% correlation between astrological predictions and outcomes we would still be no nearer to identifying how astrology works. In this sense it can be regarded as non-science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: ID says it is not good enough, the fossil evidence does not confirm the evolutionary hypothesis. How did the cambrian explosion occur. Where are all the intermediates that are absent in vast numbers? So all ID does is trot out the same tired old PRATTs of ToE criticism. Where is that ID hypothesis that FilesOnly and myself have been asking for? What would kids be taught in ID class besides "evolution is wrong"? Will they learn how ID works? Will they hear about predictions that ID makes? Will they learn who exactly did the designing? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: Same applies to the "non-science" of gravity. We can see the effects of gravitational lensing on stars through telescope. We also know that gravity distorts space-time, thus producing the effects we see. What is still unknown is the exact nature of gravitational radiation, but this is something that can be and is being investigated.
CTD writes: And what holds the nucleus of an atom together? This is no great mystery - the strong nuclear force. Both effects manifest themselves in ways we are able to investigate. Your analogy is flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
FilesOnly writes: CTD writes:I was talking about testing it in the scientific sense: make predictions and see how they compare to results.
What sort of predictions are you looking for? You need to remember the "random" part of random mutation. We have no way of knowing how, what, when, where, or why any particular mutation might occur. While it is true that we may be able to accurately predict one or two of these variables, and/or that we can manipulate one or two of them in a laboratory setting (just ask a geneticists, they do this sort of thing all the time with fruit flies), this will certainly not allow us to predict what future generations of naturally occurring species may look like, nor when the may "speciate", nor any other sort of wild-ass guess you may want us to make. The ToE in conjunction with geology has also made predictions that have guided archaeologists. Tiktaalik, a fish-amphibian transitional, was found due to predictions as to when it might be found in the fossil record and where to dig. Edited by RickJB, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: There's been plenty of work done [on ID] verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. Leaving aside the fact that this is complete nonsense, how does ToE criticism amount to an ID hypothesis? Even if the ToE was incorrect, how does that in any way provide support for ID? This comes back to the question we have been asking Beretta - what hypotheses does ID propose? How does ID work? Who exactly was/is the designer? ID has nothing to say except "evolution is wrong" with endlessly regurgitated PRATTs. Without a hypothesis ID amounts to nothing. Edited by RickJB, : Typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: The game can go on and on. I'm surprised you can't even see one move ahead in such a simple game. Heh. I assure you I've seen this game many times before. It's called the "what is reality anyway?" or "blow up into infinities" game. It's trotted out by anti-science apologists whenever they are unable to provide evidence for their faith-based assertions. For sure science doesn't yet have ALL the answers - maybe it never will, but science explains much more about our universe than "Goddidit" because it makes use of things that are manifest in out universe. Can faith tell you how to make a computer? Can faith make a spacecraft? Can faith develop medicines? All of these have been created because humankind has investigated the observable mechanisms of our universe. Science works, no matter how much you try to deny it. By the way, what's the word on that ID hypothesis we're all waiting for? What are we going to teach these kids...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes:
RickJB writes:
I expect the purpose of this false accusation is to provoke a response. Science works, no matter how much you try to deny it. Then you say:
CTD writes: It's pretty stupid to ask me how I can say something I never said. So you accept that science works and refute the accusation that you deny this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: I'm waiting for just one ["evolutionist"] to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes. Without a testable hypothesis as to how ID works, what exactly are we supposed to be looking at?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024