|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What constitutes Intelligent design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
That didn't hurt too bad. The hammering.
Percy writes: It's worth pointing out that you're yet another example of someone arguing for God in the science threads, If my eyes don't deceive me in your quote of me I said: "I say I believe God did it." I think the words I believe qualify my statement to mean that is my personal belief. I also said I think ID stinks. Maybe that was a bad choice of words.Maybe I should have said I do not believe ID in its present state should be taught in the public school system. But there are things that is taught in the name of science that should not be taught at this time either. Percy the fact is as of now: I cannot prove my belief that God did it, is the correct answer. I have enough evidence for me to conclude that it is the best answer. But at some point in the future I expect to be able to prove that He did. Science cannot prove the theories of how everything started as of today. It has been proven to some as to be accepted as fact or at least the best possible answer. But at some point in the future It is expected to be able to do so. Until then you have a theory, I have a theory, jar has a theory, and ID has a theory and I am sure there are many more out there. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
I missed this one.
Percy writes: "God did it" scenario, then yes, we're telling you you're wrong, at least from a scientific perspective. I got no problem with that. I am just telling you that from a spiritual perspective you are wrong. BTW when science proves that the universe and the earth are much older than is now claimed you heard it here first and I got that from the Bible. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If my eyes don't deceive me in your quote of me I said: "I say I believe God did it." I think the words I believe qualify my statement to mean that is my personal belief.
Personal beliefs are not science and so they carry no weight in a science thread. So why bring up your beliefs?
Until then you have a theory, I have a theory, jar has a theory, and ID has a theory and I am sure there are many more out there. Nope! Neither you nor ID has a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. If you meant opinions, well then yes everybody has an opinion, but very few have actual theories as science uses the term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Until then you have a theory, I have a theory, jar has a theory, and ID has a theory and I am sure there are many more out there. Jar and I accept the same theory. You and ID have no theory. That's because theories are developed through an intense period of experiment, observation, analysis, replication and prediction verification, something neither your ideas nor ID's ideas have been through. What you and ID have in common is a religious perspective and a large number of misconceptions about science. You continue to misuse the word "prove" with regard to science. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I cannot prove my belief that God did it, is the correct answer. I have enough evidence for me to conclude that it is the best answer. But at some point in the future I expect to be able to prove that He did. Until you stop believing God is a he, you will never find HER.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Heinrik,
Until you stop believing God is a he, you will never find HER. OK jar replacement Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I do apologise. I thought the one sentence would make the point. Obviously it didn't and I assume responsibilty for not expanding on the statement.
I will try again. As there is no physical evidence of a god, I was making a point that god could be female. In the time of jesus, it was under patriarchal rule (still is) and the impression of a creator would naturally be that of a male. Just because the people of the era believed god to be male does not prove that she is.
OK jar replacement I must say I am bemused by this response.
OK jar replacement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Heinrik,
Heinrik writes: I must say I am bemused by this response. This is a statement jar has made probably 20 times in the last 10 months.
Heinrik writes: I was making a point that god could be female. So was the man refered to as Jesus in the New Testament a she? He said if you have seen me ye have seen the father. We are totaly off subject and I will not respone again. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 639 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I see when you are talking 'theory' you are using the logical fallacy of equivocation. There is a big difference between the layman use of the term 'theory' and a scientific theory. The difference is in falsifiability, evidence, and testability. Theory in the layman term ins
speculative, and that might be called 'hypothesis' in the scientific circles. ID doesn't even make it that far, since it has no evidence for it, nor does it have any explanatory powers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:With this statement you are making at least two serious mistakes. First, you are describing as theories some things that are not in fact theories (for example, ID). Secondly, you are presuming that all such "theories" are equally supported. They are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: You continue to misuse the word "prove" with regard to science. You probably right Percy but I can not find the handy Scientific Dictionary on the internet. I can find:Prove Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster which says:
1archaic : to learn or find out by experience 2 a: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of I also find:Prove legal definition of prove which says: prove v. to present evidence and/or logic that makes a fact seem certain. On Theory I found this:Theory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena Also this
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2: abstract thought : speculation Since your definition is so much different from what I can find you are probably right when you infer I don't have a theory. But according to these dictionary definitions I believe I do. Now I don't claim to have a scientific theory. Now that I can not find the scientific dictionary could you point me to one. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Try the definitions below. I compiled these, and many others, from a variety of sources. They are closer to the way a scientist would use the terms than a layman: Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Percy writes: You continue to misuse the word "prove" with regard to science. You probably right Percy but I can not find the handy Scientific Dictionary on the internet. I explained your improper usage once, then later again, and then later yet again, then I finally stopped wasting my breath and said simply, "You continue to misuse the word 'prove' with regard to science." Can you find the posts where I explained how you were misusing the term, or do you need help? If you'd like something on-line about theory, read at least the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on theory. The article also covers tentativity, which is the principle which makes it nonsensical to use the word "prove" in the sense of 100% certainty in science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Sidelined writes: "I submit that the appearance of design that objects acquire is no more than a consequence of a balance of the undirected forces at work upon these items.This is consistent with what we observe. When we manipulate metals, for instance, to produce something we can observe the changes produced through our actions and we can explain how these manipulations occur. The structure of the world and the life therein obey the four known forces of nature {strong ,weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces}. I would say that design by an entity must show a mechanism by which these four forces can be manipulated. In no way is there evidence that these forces are manipulated by unknown entities nor any hypothesis brought forth to claim they are." (My response)As we turn this method of observation inward we can neither claim to be intelligent nor design. As everything that is us is composed of and driven by the same forces. Another thing to consider is that currently both intelligence and design are completely subjective terms. There is no scientific standard, that is nonsense. One cannot prove a system or object has the property of design nor can we say it is intelligent without an accepted tenet. In my mind it is scientific to ask what intelligence is first. Then what can be intelligent. One can not discuss the subjective quality of design until the question of intelligence is answered as intelligence must be established for natural forces to be considered design. One still comes back to the fact that we are considering ourselves intelligent and capable of design based on belief alone.To me, it doesn't leave one much to work with other than we again think we are the center of everything. I apologize for not highlighting. It's been a while. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Created quote box for Sidelined quote (use "peek" to see how it's done). Also added a blank line in the quote. Also deleted the "(Sidelined)" as the beginning of the message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eclogite Junior Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
The structure of the world and the life therein obey the four known forces of nature {strong ,weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces}. I would say that design by an entity must show a mechanism by which these four forces can be manipulated. What if the design is resident within the existence, character and magnitude of these forces? Edited by Eclogite, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024