Foundations of ID

The fossil record is evidence for ID?Amazing....

quote:

---

This doesn't make a lick of sense unless I'm missing something. Are you insinuating that something based on philosophy cannot be science? If so, you just shot yourself in the foot as the rules of the scientific method are based on the philosophy of Karl Popper and the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology are based in the philosophy of methodological naturalism

---

Popper was a bit player. He overstated his claims and borrowed most of what he wrote. In practice, his criteria are untenable and silly.
The only reason creationists like him so much is because of his claim regarding evolution - which he later retracted.

quote:

---

You bring up Popper's falsification and rightly so. Yet, nothing in Darwinism is falsifiable. I would love to hear someone falsify common descent, or that man and apes shared a common ancestor, or that huge, ferocious land mammals called pakicetus poofed its legs into flippers, crawled off into the oceans and magically morphed into whales, or that weird looking reptiles shoved their jawbones up into their ears and poofed into mammals.

---

So would I. Since nobody has been able to falsify those things, according to Popper's criterion they must be scientific?
Or do you mean these things must be falsified in order to qualify as science? If so, that makes no snese at all, for if they are flasified they are no longer considered valid and so would not be used.

quote:

---

You talk about a fairy tale for grown-ups. That reads like a poorly written script of Jurassic Park. It would be funny if people weren't teaching it as "facts of science."

---

Yeah, coming from the guy that once referred to genes as 'tissues', your scientific opinion is oh so worthy of consideration...

quote:

---

It seems like a pretty big jump to me. In order for waves to act as particles we have to be observing them, so in order for the universe to exist god has to be oberving it.

---

Ridiculous, isn't it?

This is too funny...

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd love to hear your technical explanation of how a photon detector works.
On second thought, don't bother. A detector cannot observe a photon "going by". To detect a photon, it must hit the detector, it's as simple as that. And when a photon hits a detector, it's no longer available to cause an interference pattern elsewhere.

---

​

COOL! The next time you pass a cop with a radar detector out, floorboard that sucker. Remember, he cannot observe you going by unless you hit him. (I wouldn't recommend that latter one, either).

---

Ummm... Jerry Don?Do you know what the acronym RADAR stands for?