The theory of evolution is based entirely on empirical observation.
Hi Acadelphia. Welcome! You mean like alleged observation of the process of emerging primordial soup into the simplest life thingy which through a gazillion intricate natural non-intelligent processes to intelligent complex humans, etc, disorder and chaos, all the way to the order and complexity observed today? Who observed all of this?
Who observed the BB singularity event, having no space to have existed, no time into which have happened and no outside of in which to have expanded? Who has observed all of those multi verses.
After all this time on this forum, you still think that the Theory of Evolution explains: a) How life began and b) How the universe began.
Jesus Christ on a bike! Do you find it that hard to learn?
Panda, can you LEARN how to seperate paragraphs? His first paragraph is dealing with TOE. THAT is evolution he is talking about. I believe his SECOND paragraph is about the "Big bang". I know it's so easy to always say Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate when you evo's don't have an answer for something but how very convienient! Yes, your not at all concerned where life came from we know, evolution ONLY deals with existing life. Well that's dandy.
I wonder if ALL medical fields did this what would happen? Forget baby shots, the childs history, his parents history of illness or disease, how or if he was premature or where or when he was born and from WHO. I know, CRAZY right? Can you imagine a Doctor doing this? He would be locked up! But when an EVOLUTIONIST says that abiogenesis and Evolution are seperate where just supposed to say- oh yeah! that's right, sorry guys I forgot that makes things more confusing than the already obsurd theory BOTH of then are!...my apologies, I don't mean to confuse you with valid questions to your obsurd theology. Yes, theology.
Science: Science acceptable to Evolutionists Creationism: Science not acceptable to Evolutionists
Real Definition of Science:
Definition of SCIENCE 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.
I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL. Really? How? By the Scientific method? Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.
NoNukes said "Anyone can look up words in the dictionary. But someone who is carrying out a sincere discussion knows that not all of the definitions (and I note in passing that you did not include all of the definitions from your source) are applicable.
For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?"
No, Nuke, I just posted the definition of Science from Merrium Webster. I Do actually know we aren't talking about boxing as a science here.
The fact that ID is VERBATIM Creationism with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponents"
Since you seem ignorant of the definitions of each ID and Creationism i'll quote them. Then, you will be informed, then, you can stop being ignorant.
Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Here's a little tip for you. Don't step up if you can't back it up.
You tried to play big man, you got slap down like a bitch ass punk. Now you just wanna toss insults.
Oh and it's YOU'RE not YOUR you jackass.
LOL. Not really dude. Go get some rest. Come on back, re-read the definitions and try to respond in a way that doesn't make it look like you have no clue what you're talking about.
Remember now Nuggin, argue the postion and not the person. When you argue the person like you are, it makes it look like you are clueless to the topic and instead are resorting to a low level of debating tactics. Sad bro, sad.
And, your point? Good for Philip Johnson that he believes that. So do I believe that God designed. It has nothing to do with the ID theory, incidently. You know?
Here's more from the link I supplied:
Is intelligent design based on the Bible?No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.
Darwin said lot's of things too, about that pesky fossil record, remember?
This is something that you should explain to Phillip Johnson, the father of the Intelligent Design movement, who wrote: "Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator".
Well, maybe that is something you can explain to Professor Sir Fred Hoyle:
Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik Cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.' `There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth.' `The picture of the origin of the Universe . . . as it has unfolded in astronomy is curiously indefinite . . . A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies, a component involving intelligent design . . . '
Oh, I know you've heard that a million times. So what, it doesn't make it any less true.
No matter how you spin it, your religion is no different, sorry.
Stephen Meyer has some new research out and it's fascinating. I'll post some of it soon enough and we can discuss it. ID has come a LONG way since Dover. Michael Behe too.
Tell me, do they ever do what actual scientists do, such as seeking evidence against their own theories?
Tell ME, how they get variation within a kind (i.e. finch beaks) as evidence of the TOE? Not evolution but the TOE? What is the evidence other than variation and natural selection at work? Natural selection is animals adapting to their environment from already existing DNA.
Well, this is amazing arrogance on the part of cdesignists.
Hahahahahahahahahahahah...pot...kettle...black. Yuh, and the ID'ist are arrogant...LOL
Frankly, I know of no other "scientific" theory which brazenly incorporates its own positive assessment of itself inside itself,
Have you ever heard of the "theory of evolution"? Saying that natural selection is the mechanism to TOE is like saying because I can flap my arms like a bird eventually i'll be able to fly.
No evidence whatsoever to back up that claim.
An actual scientific theory is, at its best, not contradicted by nonconforming evidence,
LOL. Have you ever looked at the contradictory evidence against the "theory of evolution?" The entire theory is one huge assumption based on variation within a species. The Bible explains it perfectly as we see animals producing after their own kind. What exaclty are you seeing? Something different?
Have you ever considered the possibility that it is scientists who know what the scientific method is and you who don't?
Impressive rebuttle. Way to address Hawkins points. Scientists know more than you naner naner naner. This after all is a debating site. That's why Hawkins provided his point of view. To debate it. And you say Scientists know blah blah?
Really? Scientists are not debating here and it isn't good enough for a reply. Try again. Show us all why his comment is not at all correct. You know for the lay people who believe it like me.
It's a great comment and I totally agree with all of it. Why am I wrong to agree with it? Tell us instead of just saying Scientists know more than him.
Just like you said in the other thread to me on transitionals, how Scientists know more than me about anatomy. Show WHY they are intermediate instead of just saying the scientists know more. Evidence Doc, just like you tell Buz.