EvC Forum: Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

kjsimons

Member

Posts: 822

From: Orlando,FL

Joined: 06-17-2003

Member Rating: 5.7

Normal Thread Display

Message 3 of 292 (194120)
03-24-2005 4:35 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by commike37
03-24-2005 4:25 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble Mike, but as it stands now it is a fact that "ID has gotten nowhere scientifically". Simply put ID is not science because the hypothesis ID presents is not falsifiable. It is a requirement for all science that what is being presented, could possibly be proven false. ID can't be proved false, therefore it resides outside of science. God(s) and other superstitions are also not falsifiable and are also outside of science's realm. Sorry!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 4:25 PM		commike37 has not replied

kjsimons

Member

Posts: 822

From: Orlando,FL

Joined: 06-17-2003

Member Rating: 5.7

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 292 (194174)
03-24-2005 5:55 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by commike37
03-24-2005 5:48 PM

Re: Let's get back to abuse

Well Mike, the next time you start new topic don't dilute the main point by posting inflamitory remarks that don't address the main topic such as ...

I do not understand how any progress can be made on a creations versus evolution board and how it can have any purpose if people want to maintain that it is a fact that ID has gotten nowhere scientifically,...

This message is a reply to:
	Message 15 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 5:48 PM		commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 27 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:30 PM		kjsimons has replied

kjsimons

Member

Posts: 822

From: Orlando,FL

Joined: 06-17-2003

Member Rating: 5.7

Normal Thread Display

Message 32 of 292 (194214)
03-24-2005 6:58 PM

Reply to: Message 27 by commike37
03-24-2005 6:30 PM

Re: Let's get back to abuse

it's a debate tactic showing how the the assumption is abusive.

Ummmm, noooooo, the assumption in this case is not abusive it's true. So far ID is not science. If you can provide scientifically peer review papers that provide a falsifiable ID hypothesis with supporting data and if other scientists can replicate the results, then I will back down and agree that there may be some scientific validity to ID. But as yet no-one anywhere has done so. So, for the time being ID is unscientific, period! That is not abusive that is just science, deal with it. Maybe if you goto a major university and start doing science this will all make sense to you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 27 by commike37, posted 03-24-2005 6:30 PM		commike37 has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0