Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 10:23 AM
28 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,634 Year: 3,671/19,786 Month: 666/1,087 Week: 35/221 Day: 6/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 241 of 249 (347208)
09-07-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hughes
09-07-2006 1:21 AM


Re: IS ID Science?
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology.

Hahhaah. Please tell me how you can test for a supernatural intelligence with science which is the study of the natural world. This outta be good.

biological structures are manufacturing plants.

You keep saying this but never respond to criticism of how it's bull.

ID is merely if one cannot explain _________ Goddidit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hughes, posted 09-07-2006 1:21 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 242 of 249 (347214)
09-07-2006 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hughes
09-07-2006 1:21 AM


Re: IS ID Science?
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection. No different than detecting design in archeology, seti, or even cryptology.

But it is a failed science, since it repeatedly identifies as having been designed things which we know not to have been designed.

Whereas the successful science of archaelogy correctly identifies natural productions as not having been designed.

On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant was evidence of intelligent design. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants.

Or alternatively: "On a microscopic level, biological structures are manufacturing plants. An objective observer would say that a manufacturing plant doesn't have a genome nor reproduce with variation. So too, the same conclusion can be made about the biological manufacturing plants."

You notice how this is rubbish?

We know that organisms are not the same as manufacturing plants in every respect. In particular, we know that they have the capacity to evolve.

The notion that if two things are similar in some respect they are similar in some other respect is not science, nor logic, nor within the bounds of common sense, nor anything but a device for reaching false conclusions when you have no real arguments to back you up.

The fact that ID seeks to base itself on this childish error in logic proves beyond doubt that it is not science.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hughes, posted 09-07-2006 1:21 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 243 of 249 (347227)
09-07-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hughes
09-07-2006 1:21 AM


Re: IS ID Science?
In a nut shell, Intelligent Design is simply the science of ...
Yes, it is a weak idea, but it is still science.

From your link:

quote:
Regarding not being "testable", such cannot be summarily ruled out. Just because we have not encountered or thought of a good test yet does not rule out the potential of testability.

Just because you haven't done the science yet doesn't mean it should be ruled out as science eh?

ROFLOL. but pathetic.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hughes, posted 09-07-2006 1:21 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 244 of 249 (347231)
09-07-2006 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Hughes
09-07-2006 1:21 AM


Re: IS ID Science?
Hi Hughes,

Your last post has already drawn a number of replies pointing out that you're just restating your initial positions again, ones that have already been discussed and rebutted.

If you'd like to discuss the science of design detection, which would mean Dembski and/or Gitt, then please proceed.

If you'd like to address the rebuttals about ID being no different than archeology and SETI, then please proceed.

If you'd like to address the rebuttals about biological structures being like manufacturing plants, then please proceed.

But if you're going to just repeat your initial positions then there's no need to post, for two reasons. First, you've already stated them several times. Second, it's contrary to the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you resume the discussion we were having instead of attempting to reset things to square one? Thanks!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Hughes, posted 09-07-2006 1:21 AM Hughes has not yet responded

    
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 245 of 249 (353316)
09-30-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
09-07-2006 2:13 AM


Re: IS ID Science?
No, no one claimed that it is science. All it was supposed to do is to provide a speculation of explanation to the origins about which Evolution is totally silent. Call it science or whatever.

On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 09-07-2006 2:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2006 6:07 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Admin, posted 09-30-2006 9:16 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 248 by ReverendDG, posted 10-01-2006 12:20 AM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 246 of 249 (353318)
09-30-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by inkorrekt
09-30-2006 6:02 PM


Re: IS ID Science?
quote:

No, no one claimed that it is science.

The guy I was replying to did. The rest of your post is equallly badly informed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:02 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 247 of 249 (353356)
09-30-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by inkorrekt
09-30-2006 6:02 PM


Re: IS ID Science?
inkorrekt writes:

On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why?

This thread is discussing Creationism/ID's qualifications as science. Please take discussion of evolution's qualifications as science to the proper thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:02 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 248 of 249 (353371)
10-01-2006 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by inkorrekt
09-30-2006 6:02 PM


Re: IS ID Science?
No, no one claimed that it is science. All it was supposed to do is to provide a speculation of explanation to the origins about which Evolution is totally silent. Call it science or whatever.

well then tell the morons trying to push it as science to stop it, because they think it is. by the way evolution isn't about origins its about life that already exists evolving, or did you not get the memo?

On the other hand, no evidence has ever been provided for any evolutionary processes. Yet it is claimed to be factual science which can never be questioned or challenged. Why?

go read a book on evolution please, otherwise this is irrelevent to this thread
This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:02 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

    
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 249 of 249 (374428)
01-04-2007 2:14 PM


Is SETI Science?

No Intelligent Design Movement is not Science.


  
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019