|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4762 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What does ID theory say? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Please do not post in this thread again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This statement illustrates quite nicely that you don't understand what "science" means. Science doesn't hold anything to be true. In science, all conclusions are tentative, subject to new evidence or a better theory to explain existing evidence. This opinion is representing Darwinian "science" correctly. Education presupposes gnosis or a sure way to know. Education does not presuppose Agnosticism or Skepticism.
Well, special creation was an important scientific theory before 1859... Honest-objective admission.
....but subsequent discoveries and theories have shown it to be erroneous. This is certainly what evolution claims.
That is why scientists in the 1860s abandoned it; it had nothing to do with atheism, it had everything to do with the evidence. This is basically true.
Here you are confusing the scientific theory of special creation from the mid 1800s with creationism as practiced today. The two actually have very little in common. Since my comment specified which Creationism I have not confused anything. And I agree that 19th century Creationism and 20th century Creationism have nothing in common. This is why I routinely sign my name saying that I am a Paleyan Designist or Creationist. I do not want to be lumped in with YEC Fundies. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : grammar Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Why do you even bother posting in the Science Forum?
Certainly nothing you post resembles science (except, perhaps, for creation "science"). Are you evangelizing among the "Darwinists" as a penance or something? That's often what it seems like. I would really like to know, because your posts make no contributions to science and perhaps a reply would help me understand where you are coming from. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
1800s special creation was testable and falsifiable. It was tested and found lacking, and it was falsified. I agree. However, the remnant disagree. I am a scientific descendant of the remnant. Science was wrong to accept evolution. Pre-1859 science was and is correct. I am still writing a paper to prove these claims.
Creationism as practiced today is neither testable nor falsifiable. It is not science. I completely agree. Please remember what I said in my previous post. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
According to your definition of evolution, the Pope is an atheist. Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Both Wells and Dembski have stated they accept 'microevolution', as does the discovery institute which includes speciation in its definition of 'microevolution', Let's suppose this is true, what is your point since my only point was that they are not Fundamentalists (= morons).
....which contradicts your view that species are immutable. Yes, if true they disagree. Again, what is your point? My point is that we agree that nature reflects ID. This fact means Divine causation IS operating in reality and not unguided material. Maybe Wells and Dembski could explain why they accept microevolution (assuming they do) and not Divine causation producing each immutable species? As it sits now they accept two mutually contradicting forces existing in nature. I would love to place both of them on the spot. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: While most of what you write is nonsense, I can understand most of it. This is gibberish.
quote: Yes, I've heard all about your magnum opus. I don't believe any such paper exists any more than anyone else here. In any event, it certainly adds nothing to the dialog to keep mentioning it without including actual content. But it does keep your entertainment value up, so it's not a complete waste of bandwidth. I'll give you credit for one thing though, Senor Martinez, if that is your real name, I've met very few, if any, people who are so proudly wedded to theories that all of science discarded 150 years ago. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3077 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
So are these folks fundamentalists or atheists? False dichotomy. Question also presupposes IDists to be Fundamentalists. Acceptance of ID and Creationism means you are intelligent, informed. While plenty of Fundies accept both we do not apologize. Just like evolutionists do not apologize when racists and Holocaust deniers accept evolution. We cannot control the bad element.
Given such a great disparity in beliefs about what constitutes intelligent design, is there a single intelligent design hypothesis, or is it simply so vague that anyone can shoehorn their views into it? There are two major ID paradigms. Each, of course, has objective claims: 1. Paleyan Watchmaker thesis (1802). Claims: the observation of design and organized complexity and contrivance (= adaptation) correspond directly to the work of an invisible Watchmaker. 2. Current DI IDism. Claims: reality and nature reflect Intelligence and Design.
If the species were designed, why did they abruptly disappear? What does this tell us about your intelligent designer? God is sovereign. God is the Boss. God is the shot caller. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
1. Before 1859 the special creation hypothesis was held true by science; therefore Creationism is a scientific explanation-interpretation of evidence. Darwin was able to convince most of his scientific peers that the hypothesis was erroneous and that his transmutation hypothesis correct. This fact renders your blanket assertion that Creationism to not be testable to be false based on the fact that science before Darwin 1859 held Creationism to be true. This is a logical fallacy based on an appeal to belief. The majority of the population at that time also believed that blood-letting was an effective medical procedure that does not make it true. This "special creation hypothesis" you are talking about was the defacto religious world view by the Christian world from the time of Jesus to the mid-20th century. It was not recognized as a "hypothesis" of science per se, but instead it was a adopted on its value of being part of what they interpreted was "the inspired word of God". That is, it was adopted not as a result of scientific evidence but was instead adopted on the basis of the faith of the believer. However, the increase in critical thinking and reasoning in the post-renaissance world caused many scientific minds (not just Darwin) to question this world view. For example, James Hutton, the founding father of modern geology in the 18th and 19th century observed clear evidence that reflected the old age of the Earth. Much older than 3-4 thousand years that the Christian world had previously thought. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Acceptance of ID and Creationism means you are intelligent, informed. No it means you refuse to accept evidence ILO scripture. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project. Documentation please. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: This is not entirely accurate. In fact, most scientists proceeded on the basis of a creation hypothesis, but then attempted to conduct genuine scientific investigation for evidence in support of the hypothesis. While certainly one can criticize much of what passed for science 150 years ago, in particular if one compares it with science of today, it is a fact that many genuine scientists of the time did genuine scientific work to try to support the hypothesis of creation. It was in large part because that work was fruitless, and often pointed in different directions, that the creation hypothesis was rejected as scientifically unsupported. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
So are these folks fundamentalists or atheists?
False dichotomy.
I believe this was a legitimate question and not an assertion. Questions do not fall under the rules of logical fallacies. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
This is not entirely accurate. In fact, most scientists proceeded on the basis of a creation hypothesis, but then attempted to conduct genuine scientific investigation for evidence in support of the hypothesis. While certainly one can criticize much of what passed for science 150 years ago, in particular if one compares it with science of today, it is a fact that many genuine scientists of the time did genuine scientific work to try to support the hypothesis of creation. It was in large part because that work was fruitless, and often pointed in different directions, that the creation hypothesis was rejected as scientifically unsupported. I agree. I probably didn't phrase this exactly the way I understand it. Yes, many pre-modern scientists i.e. Newton, Galileo, etc worked off the premis that the universe was divinely created. My point is that there was no alternative theory of how the universe could have come into existence according to their worldview. It is as you said, only by digging deeper into the inner mechanics of the universe i.e. a geo-centric solar system vice a helo-centric one or discovering the old age of the earth, that these early scientists began to discover that the actual science did not match their previous religious beliefs. "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
We only seek to rescue science from the bad element: Darwinism, Materialism, Atheism. No you only want to revert to the dark ages when people thought that science & religion were the same thing. When people didn't attempt to question anything or risk being killed as being in league with the other non-entity Satan. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024