RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,05:52   

Please make a point which can then be discussed.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:10   

And before you or someone else asks me who the creator or designer is or was, I didn't say there is or was one. It will be interesting to see if any of you respond to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
rossum



Posts: 174
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:20   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct. †Science cannot prove that an undetectable being of infinite power (Ubip) did something and then perfectly covered up her tracks.

Science cannot prove that Ubip is not going to turn the soap in your bathroom into the most delicious and nutritious food overnight. †Despite that, how many people do you know who try taking a bite out of their bar of soap every morning, just in case?

Science works within limits, which is part of what gives it its power to explain things within those limits. †A Ubip is outside the limits of science so the actions of the Ubip, or similar, are not susceptible to scientific enquiry.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
fusilier



Posts: 208
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:24   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

In addition to rossum's point, scientific inquiry does not "prove" anything.  Scientific inquiry evaluates hypotheses based on the preponderance of evidence.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:24   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct, but non controversial.

1) Science can't ever "prove" anything. It provides evidence in support of explanations, but that is never at the level of "proof". Thus it could provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and lots of people are doing that. What is the evidence supporting the notion of intelligent design?

2) Nobody, not even you, can prove a negative, which is basically what you are saying when you say something is "impossible".

Boring.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
† † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:33   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
You're funny. Really you are. You're obviously just trying to bait me into something where you think you can tear apart anything I say and try to make me out to be a bible thumping creationist. Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.

Mind reader is it now then?
†  
Quote
You want a point for "rational discussion"?

No, rather you made the claim that specific issues cannot be discussed rationally here and it's all about bashing religion. And I want to disconfirm that claim. If you don't want to play, that's fine by me.
†  
Quote
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.


To me that's not a very interesting claim. And as others already have, I'm happy to agree with it. Many things are possible but it's about what you have evidence for.

A similar but equally vapid claim would be:
†  
Quote
Science cannot prove invisible pink unicorns did not create the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks.

A more interesting claim would be
Quote
Science has proven that intelligent design and not evolution is responsible for the creation of biological organisms and their their building blocks

Then evidence would be required to substantiate that claim. Should none be forthcoming, then it's just yet another empty claim.

There is plenty of evidence that evolution is responsible for the creation of biological organisms, do you dispute that?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10071
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:36   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 21 2011,08:24)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Correct, but non controversial.

1) Science can't ever "prove" anything. It provides evidence in support of explanations, but that is never at the level of "proof". Thus it could provide evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and lots of people are doing that. What is the evidence supporting the notion of intelligent design?

2) Nobody, not even you, can prove a negative, which is basically what you are saying when you say something is "impossible".

Boring.

Well, Kris has shown us his knowledge, and been found wanting. And I was hoping for a sophisticated arguement.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:51   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with this statement.

What you will encounter is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:57   

Science cannot prove that I did not create the universe either.  yawn

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,08:59   

I'm pretty sure Kris just pwned us.  He made a statement and everyone here agreed with it.  Science loses.  Good science wins.  That probably makes sense to someone.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:18   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,09:04)
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Kris,
Proving or disproving the existence of a god or an "intelligent designer" is not the goal of Science.  The goal of Science is to understand the world as it is based on a preponderance of evidence.  The weight of that evidence built over the last couple of centuries has supported a 13+ billion year old universe, a 4+ billion year old earth, and the evolution of life on this planet over it's long existence.  It also supports the idea that humans are related to all other life forms on this planet, and that our closest living kin are probably chimpanzees.

If you have evidence to dispute any of this that can stand up to scientific scrutiny you are welcome to present it here.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:21   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
Kris says

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Yes.

I'd like to point out however, that science can and does show that abiogenesis is chemically possible (at least, it hasn't been discovered to be impossible yet).

Intelligent Design is not anything that can be examined by science.  And this is purely because the proponents of ID studiously avoid making any claims that could be examined by science and really avoid being pinned down on definitions in their claims (like, what is information or complexity).

When ID does make a scientifically testable claim (thanks Behe), it is shown, by science, to be false.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,11:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)

Quote
Well, I've got news for you. I'm not a bible thumper or a creationist.


"Kris", you're such a bible thumping Creationist you make Dr. Dr. Dembski look deist.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,11:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)

Quote
Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.


...which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether ID/creationism is science.

But of course, your 'slip' is now showing - you admonished us for bashing religion and then bring this nonsensical point up. If we are such low-lifes for bashing ID/creationism because they are religious concepts, then why should we care if science can prove such is impossible? If ID/creationism are religious concepts, then they aren't scientific, can't be taught as such in public schools, and are of no concern to us whatsoever.

Thanks for making our point for us.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,11:28   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:10)
And before you or someone else asks me who the creator or designer is or was, I didn't say there is or was one. It will be interesting to see if any of you respond to what I actually said, instead of what you think I said.

You keep claiming to be a scientist, yet you also keep making statements like this.  You also make these pseudo-gotcha zingers as if you think they would demonstrate anything but a lack of understanding.

I read your little disclaimer as a 'get out of showing my work' card: whether or not you are a believer is immaterial at this point.  If you think ID ought to be taken seriously, present the evidence which you think is meritorious.  Coming from someone who does NOT believe in the designer, it would have a bit more weight.

The burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim, which at this point would be ID.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,12:01   

Adda rabba, as my rabbis would say. (Exactly the opposite.)

Science, in the person of Craig Venter, has proven an intelligent agent of far less power than a god, angel, demi-urge, urge, urgette or urgonomic is capable of designing life and its building blocks.

Further, I claim that every time I kick off a cellular automata, I have been the intelligent designer of that (very small) universe.

Now what?

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,12:05   

Any 'designer' that an IDist uses to explain his/her position must contend with some simple facts.

The designer must be "God" for some value of God. (i.e. a deity).

The designer must be a meddler (i.e. the designer must let something happen naturally and other things happen by design).

There is no evidence for such a designer.

Therefore, until ID presents evidence that shows there is a designer, ID is useless.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,22:54   

So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,23:02   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,20:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

You made a statement.

Most responses were "Yep, you're right. So what?"

There was a bit of trash-talk in there, but if you're serious about a discussion instead of a pissing contest, just ignore it.

So:

Kris: "Science can't prove there's no designer."

Everyone else: "Correct."

Next point?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,00:32   

Come on, Kris, you've been lurking here for at least an hour. What's the next point?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,00:44   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

Kris,

As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.

What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.

Your response?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,01:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,22:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

So much for any effort at a point, let alone refutation.

Thanks for confirming my assessment.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,07:40   

He wants to be a martyr for the cause.  He just wants to be banned so he can complain.

Rather than have ANY discussion of substance, he posts multiple regurgative posts on how unfairly he's being treated.

What do you call Kruger-Dunning when it relates to non-skill based things?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:13   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2011,22:44)
† †
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,23:54)
So much for a "rational discussion". Pfft.

Kris,

As above, I don't think you will find anyone here who disagrees with your statement ("Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible"). I agree with your statement.

What you will encounter here is the assertion that ID is not and cannot be a science, the claims of its advocates notwithstanding.

Your response?


Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

Anyway, here goes:

Actually, there are many statements here that assert that ID and/or creation are impossible. Even if the word "impossible" isn't used, the implication is the same.

I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

At the same time, many of you make excuses for science and speak as though science has all the answers to every question. There are tons of things that science has no clue about and there are lots of disputes and disagreements between scientists. Even though there is some good science, there is a lot of lousy science too, and there's some outright fraud too.

Yeah, I know, science allegedly corrects itself eventually. Trouble is, the damage is already done by then and sometimes the damage is profound. For some examples, go here:

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

Among other things, notice how many times the retracted papers were cited. What does that suggest about those other studies and papers that used the retracted papers as any sort of basis for their studies or papers? And what does it do for the reputation of science in general? How about the "peer review" process? Why didn't the 'peers' stop those papers before they were ever published?

Peer review is a joke, and just because something is published, it doesn't necessarily mean it has any basis in fact or truth.

I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.

I'm not saying that ID or creation are real or that they're even necessarily scientific at this point. However, there may come a time when more information will be available, and if nothing else ID and/or creation may be found to be impossible or may be found to be the real thing. Frankly, I doubt that the matter will ever be settled. In the meantime, since science is allegedly "silent" on the matter, scientists should not say they are impossible and should keep an open mind. There are many scientists and science supporters who voice and write their opinions about ID and creation on a regular basis. So much for being "silent" on the matter.

I wrote something last night in response to someone who said that scientists never claim to have 'proof'. This is probably as good a place as any to post it, so here it is:

Scientists regularly say they have proof, or words to that effect.

You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:

Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.

There are still many things that science cannot figure out and there are still things that have not been thought of or are only a thought that will never be testable or verifiable. There are too many people on forums like this one who think they know it all and that science has or will get all the answers to every question. There are still many very basic things in nature and in scientific procedures that scientists don't agree on and regularly argue about.

Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.

Also think about the regularly conflicting reports on medical procedures and tests, prescription drugs, immunizations, etc., and that scientists are constantly claiming that some new discovery is going to bring about a cure for every malady known to man, even though there's often no real connection to any such thing.

You guys who work in science or are just zealous science supporters are often so caught up in your belief system about science that you're just as delusional as those who are caught up in their religious beliefs. You get defensive and think you're being personally attacked when someone questions science or simply doesn't believe 'in' science as much as you do. Science isn't a religion, or at least it shouldn't be considered one. Many of you seem to think it's the only 'religion' that everyone should believe 'in'.

What's so bad about admitting that science doesn't know everything and that a lot of things will never be known? Why is it so hard for some scientists to say, "We don't know and may never know. We're working on it, but it may take a long time to figure it out, if ever. We make mistakes and some of us are even dishonest and commit fraud. We're just as fallible as anyone else is in any other field. Nature is enormously complex and we haven't figured out how to test or verify many things yet, if ever. Some scientific claims are well established. Many are not."?

I don't know if ID or creation will ever be testable or verifiable to science's satisfaction. I don't believe all the fairy tales there are in religions but I also don't feel that the concept of ID or creation have to be linked to religion.

We live in a very big universe and there are lots of hypotheses and theories and guesses about how it came about and what makes it tick. Rather than endlessly argue and fight about Gods or multiverses or divine miracles or how stars form or whether Pluto is a planet or not, I'd like to see the people of this world get together and take better care of the only planet we have; Earth. If people would do that I wouldn't care if they believe that The Wizard Of Oz created and designed everything.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1466
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:25   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
Bill, all of this response of mine isn't necessarily directed to you. In other words, it's more of a general response to whomever it may concern. I don't know enough about how you feel about things, so some of this may not apply to you at all.

Anyway, here goes:

(snip the steaming pile of sanctimonious bullshit.)



Come back when you IDiots get some positive evidence, OK? †We'll leave the light on for you.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:25   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.

Quote
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.


This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.

That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:46   

Here's an argument:

P1: Science is crap.
P2: ID is crap.
C1: ID is science.

As any tracker can tell you, there are lots of different kinds of crap, though. If you've got a definition of science that admits IDC, you've got a non-functioning definition of science. It isn't even close. IDC is, after all, a collection of arguments that have only been ornamented as they have been passed down from natural theology to creationism to scientific creationism to creation science to IDC. IDC hasn't brought a single empirically testable claim *for* its position to the table. As noted in the Kitzmiller trial, whatever is "testable" about IDC is that way because of its class of negative claims about evolutionary science, which *is* empirically testable.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:48   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)

You guys like to make fun of ID and creation or even the concept of them, but think about this:

Two hundred years ago the concept of manned space flight would have been met with the same sort of ridicule. DNA studies would have been considered impossible. Telescopes flying around in space that can see galaxies 10 billion light years away would have been considered impossible. Plate tectonics hadn't been thought of and neither had stem cells. Many other things that seem common now would have been thought impossible.


Yawn. As Carl Sagan once wrote,
Quote
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout Ľ

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,10:13   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 22 2011,07:25)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
I understand that most scientists would like to see right now what they think is a testable theory of ID and/or creation and that they probably won't consider either one to be scientific unless that testable theory is put forth to their satisfaction. One of the things that bugs me is that most of you on this site and on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, etc., expect absolute proof of ID and/or creation before you'll even consider that there could be any truth to them.

There are no absolute proofs in science, you are confusing it with math. We're asking for testable ID hypotheses, not for an absolute proof.

Quote
Where I live the so-called scientists can't even get a weather forecast right, even though billions have been spent on satellites, ground radar and other ground based devices, computer systems and programs, and many years of analyzing weather data. They often don't even get it right an hour ahead of time. Think about what that says about the credibility or reliability of science to the average person.


This is such bullshit. Most dynamical systems are chaotic, which means that small uncertainties in our knowledge of a system's coordinates and velocities grow exponentially in time. It means that, for most systems, we cannot predict their exact state after a certain period of time. Even for such simple systems as a bunch of atoms bouncing inside a cubic box.

That intrinsic uncertainty does not mean that we cannot say anything about the system. To the contrary, dynamical chaos guarantees that we can describe the statistical properties of the system with a high accuracy. Statistical physics is a very successful branch of science. We can't predict much about microstates of large ensembles of particles, but we know quite a lot about their macrostates.

Maybe you should be telling some scientists and science supporters there are no "proofs" in science. Some scientists and science supporters sure do talk or write like they have "proofs".

Personally, I feel that that science has proven many things but there are lots of things that haven't been proven that are touted as though they are proven.

And I'm not "confusing" science with math.

By the way, do you realize that a lot of math is used in science? Some aspects of science are virtually completely based on math, and some scientists seem to think that math is the answer to everything in nature and science. Some seem to think that an equation written on a chalkboard is all the proof that is necessary for their claims.

Regarding your other comments: Huh?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]