RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: FTK Research Thread, let's clear this up once and for all< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:34   

Quote
It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation


Hmm, speculation v's fact. Interesting.

Do you have any specific examples of rampant speculation? Like, something to back up your so far empty words? Or not? Just wondering.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:36   

I'm going to add my voice to the call for which bits of a college biology textbook are speculation.

Come on FTK, actually back up one of your assertions or simply admit that you can't. I don't mind which.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,12:57   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

 
Quote
You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others).  I don't hold out much hope that you will.  I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.


WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

I would applaud you for asking questions of KSUDave.  I do actually think that is a great idea and I learn things by reading his posts.  However, IMO, you don't actually ask him questions with the intent of learning anything from him (I may be wring, that's just my read on the matter.).

You miss the point of what he says repeatedly.  I don't say this because I think you're stupid or that I want to be particularly mean to you.  I say it because it is quite apparent from your posts that you lack the basic understanding of what science IS that would allow you follow what he says.

He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is.  And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do.  You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.

My problem with you is not that you don't know what science is.  My problem is two-fold:

1.  You aren't interested in knowing what science is (because it conflicts with your world-view?).

2.  You pretend to know what science is.  Yes, I've read the comments recently where you admit that you don't understand the literature and whatnot.  This is belied, however, by the number of posts in which you pontificate on things you know nothing about.  If you really admit that you don't know what you're talking about on biological issues, why is it that you think you should be able to make education policy regarding biology?

edit:  the "you" in the last sentence is the collective "you".

--------------
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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,19:29)
My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)

OMITSDNDI,

[anal retentive science geek voice]

But the different models have different physical consequences and the De Broglie atom has been shown by myriad experiments to be the more accurate representation of nature.

[/anal retentive science geek voice]

What? Did I miss the point? ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:12   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?


Because you are making claims like this.

 
Quote
 It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  


In order to make such a claim, you need to *understand the science*.   Which means you need to have read those papers, and be able to discuss intelligently what you think is wrong with them.

You need to be able to explain why you believe it's "speculation".

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:12   

Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,13:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,19:29)
My point is that under your proposed model of the way things should be, we should be teaching the controversy (i.e all of them) and letting the kids decide for themselves. Right?

(edit: not that i'd be particularly against that, it would have made my science lessons more interesting)

OMITSDNDI,

[anal retentive science geek voice]

But the different models have different physical consequences and the De Broglie atom has been shown by myriad experiments to be the more accurate representation of nature.

[/anal retentive science geek voice]

What? Did I miss the point? ;-)

Louis

ah, but you've gotta keep your options open right?
Later experiments could overturn the De Broglie atom model and we could be back to the billard ball model in no time. I mean, the earth could be 10,000 or could be millions of years old, right FTK? We should not discount one or teh other right?
:p

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:14   

Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,13:12)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)


Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?


Because you are making claims like this.

 
Quote
 It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  


In order to make such a claim, you need to *understand the science*.   Which means you need to have read those papers, and be able to discuss intelligently what you think is wrong with them.

You need to be able to explain why you believe it's "speculation".

precisely.

FTK, put up or shut up.

Except, don't shut up, it's far too funny!

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:49   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:36)
Stephen,

You seem to be quite certain that I am being deceived and that you, after several discussions here, have finally seen the light.  When did this occur and what was it that brought you to reality?

Are there old threads I can read where you initially supported ID?  Where are the threads that document your conversion.  I'd be curious to see what the heck brought out of "delusion" and into reality.

To be fair ftk,
My conversion was not on this blog but "Pandas Thumb". But it wasn't really a conversion. I just "followed the evidence".

The thing is that there are no simplistic answers here. You just get a shed load of convergent evidence. All of which are backed up by arguments with evidence/explanations. It is much cooler than arguments from authority.

Guess what. If you can actually provide contrarian evidence, people would actually listen.

You would need actual evidence though.




BTW. You have definately been decieved. Somebody has lied to you.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,13:53   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2007,12:16)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 10 2007,11:06)
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.

yeah, same. I'm going to damm well learn all the math I need to complete that book.

Good for you! I will probably just give up. I haven't got the time to learn. Too damned hard for me.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:35   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)
Quote
Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.


Why indeed.  What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?  Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case).  

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?  What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss?  Ignore the link and move on?  Cripes, you people are unbelieveable.  I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read.  That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now.  I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long.  

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.  I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Oh, puh-leeze.

FTK, why the hell should anyone, anyone at all whatsoever, give a damn what an uneducated housewife like YOU thinks about science?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:37   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:46)
Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.

My, my, FTK --- does your massive martyr complex NEVER take a vacation?


(yawn)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:39   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:46)
 I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically

For the same reason that "the earth is round and revolves around the sun" is taught  . . . uh . . . "so dogmatically".

Sorry if that offends your religious opinions.

Perhaps you  . . . well . . .  need better religious opinions. Ones that don't actually deny reality.  

Any non-fundie church should be able to help you with that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:44   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,12:00)
WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE?  He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS.  Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well.  If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey?  Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby?  You are one angry, pentup little fellow.  Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while.  Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good.  I don't like myself when I act that way.  So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill.  Got any?  Now would be a good time to indulge.]

Uh-oh, getting a little miffed, FTK?  Finger itching to reach for that Banninator Button again, FTK? Don't like lots of people asking you questions that you don't want to hear, FTK?  

Gonna go storming out all in a huff (again), FTK?


"Boo hoo hoo, you're all MEAN to me!!!!!!!!  Sniffle, sob"

Grow up and deal with it.  Stop being such a goddamn whiney crybaby.  Or else go away, shut yourself up into a cloister somewhere, and don't venture out into the real world again.


Your massive martyr complex is old and boring.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:44   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 10 2007,12:01)
Quote
I love you Blipey


Uh oh. Do Richard and Lenny know? :O

I don't mind sharing.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,14:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 10 2007,14:35)
Oh, puh-leeze.

FTK, why the hell should anyone, anyone at all whatsoever, give a damn what an uneducated housewife like YOU thinks about science?

Hey now!   Let's not go insulting uneducated housewives.

FtK's problem is not about being educated -- it's about being educable.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,15:27   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2007,10:11)
Guys, the point is not the journals but the language contained in them...

wait a minute, why am I wasting my breath.

Nevermind, carry on.

i continually wonder the same thing.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,15:53   

Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?


you mean the one you said was far too basic for you?

denial...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,18:44   

Blipey wrote:

Quote
He gave a great comparison of what observational science is compared to what predictive science is. And you followed that up with a long comment listing OBSERVATIONAL things that creationists can do. You didn't see the difference between poking around in a thing and using knowledge ABOUT that thing to proposal novel ideas.


Okay, let’s try this again...I’ll ask Blipey this time...

1.  An evolutionist predicts a “novel idea” due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a “novel idea” due to common ~design~.

2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities, though they disagree as to why that is.  We also know that before Darwin, similiarities were already being classified, and there would be no reason why those classifications wouldn’t have continued to be updated as further research took place.

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn’t make sense to me, and that may just be because I’m dense (have a ball with that one Lenny - make sure to post at least 15 separate comments to cover your response).  Or it could be that I don’t understand how evolution can predict which tree to tap without having researched and classified the trees by their similiarities and grouped them as such.  I don't know why one wouldn't try to group them with other trees that they share the most common traits with unless they believed that the similarities were due to common descent.  That's just a matter of organization and classification.

Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent, look into a crystal ball and predict exactly which tree is needed and use this knowledge to propose novel ideas without researching and classifying all the trees first?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:08   

Quote
2.  Long before Darwin, both creationists and evolutionists were aware that organisms share similiarities,


"evolutionists" long before darwin, you say?

do tell.

please, let's compare the various theories these evolutionists proposed in comparison to boilerplate creationist "theory", long before Darwin.

you start.

show me one comparison, pre-darwin, between a creationist representation and an evolutionary representation.

then we can walk through them step by step; see what the differences are.

good luck.

I suppose you might want to start by defining what the ehll you mean by "evolutionist" before you begin.

OTOH, that might curtail this discussion quite rapidly.

Quote
Can an evolutionist, due to his beliefs about common descent,


that's just it.  a scientist doesn't work from a belief structure, but outwards from the actual evidence.

you're never gonna get that, are you?

*sigh*

and yet we will continue to try and explain it to you, over and over and over....

have YOU ever asked yourself why that is, when it's so blatantly obvious it's a complete waste of time for someone such as yourself?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:16   

I subscribe to Science.  (yea, me!)

I read nine peer-reviewed papers this week, two of which dealt with evolution.  On average I read about 5 peer-reviewed papers a week.

Now, before FtK jumps all over me with congratulations on my scholarship, I would say to her that the US Post Office will deliver Science to your mailbox every week.  Without fail.

So, plunk down your 90 bucks American and join the club!

Put out or shut up.  (Now, that didn't sound right.)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4815
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:20   

Here's my 2 cents:

Nested hierarchy.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:29   

Two things:

1. FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question. I'm posing it again here since it seems to have been overlooked in the other thread.

2.

Quote

Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?


All possible configurations of reality are compatible with the conjecture that a capricious, omnipotent entity wanted it that way. So there is no point is asking for evolutionary science to provide an explanation that is not available to a creationist; the "Omphalos" option covers all possibilities. But that is also precisely why evolutionary science is science, and antievolution isn't. Evolutionary science is constrained by the evidence; antievolution is not.

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

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,19:33   

Quote
FtK, do you assert that no transitional fossil sequences exist? This is a simple yes-or-no question. I'm posing it again here since it seems to have been overlooked in the other thread.


This is a classic example of the kind of question that FTK will probably dodge. You can try making a thread solely about this question in order to force some kind of answer.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,20:05   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,19:44)
1.  An evolutionist predicts a &#8220;novel idea&#8221; due to the notion of common ~descent~, whereas the creationist  predicts a &#8220;novel idea&#8221; due to common ~design~.

Several examples of the former have been given; nobody, including you, has come up with an example of the latter. That's because nobody can predict what an omnipotent Being, with capabilities and understandings far beyond ours, would do.

 
Quote
Now, what prediction can an evolutionist make to propose a "novel idea" that a creationist cannot?  The taxol example doesn&#8217;t make sense to me

Several examples have been given. The fact that you don't understand them is your problem; you need far more education in the basics.  I'm sure many people would be glad to help if you showed some indication of honest desire to learn.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,21:47   

Hey FTK, dolphins and fish live in the same environment, and don't have the same genes.

Why not?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,21:48   

Speaking of "common design", FTK:  Chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA and a "common design".

Humans are, according to creationists, designed in the image of God.

Does that mean, therefore, that God is 98% chimpanzee?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,22:53   

Quote (Louis @ June 10 2007,08:49)
****ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MEAN AT ALL****

FTK,

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

Here's the thing. By most people's standards, I am almost completely uneducated. I.e., I have a diploma from an American high school. I took three science classes in four years of high school (biology, chemistry, and physics—I couldn't fit a science class into my weird freshman year schedule). I took a science class in seventh and eighth grade—a basic biology course and a basic physical science course. That's it in terms of formal education in the sciences.

And I suck at math.

Nevertheless, I have had a life-long fascination with the sciences. I'm interested primarily in physics, astronomy, and cosmology, but after dealing with creationist cranks for the last two years or so, I've also become much more interested in geology, biology, genetics, zoology, paleontology, physical anthropology, and cladistics.

I've read a lot of popular scientific works over the years. I've read (twice, beginning to end) A Brief History of Time. I have Peeble's Principles of Physical Cosmology, and have read it, but the damned thing is bristling with mathematical formulae, my understanding of which is slightly better than a cocker spaniel's. I've read most of Dawkins' books on zoology and evolution other than The Selfish Gene (it's on my list). I've read Michio Kaku, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, and, of course, On the Origin of Species. I've subscribed to Scientific American since 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school (and the cover story was about Benoit Mandelbrot and fractal geometry).

I can't pretend to have understood more than a fraction of this stuff. And this is the popular literature. I probably couldn't understand more than 5% of the actual peer-reviewed primary literature even in the fields I'm currently most interested in, e.g., cladistics, physical anthropology, zoology, and paleontology.

Therefore, when people (young-earth creationists) try to impress me with the claim that they've read peer-reviewed papers, but know nothing about nested hierarchies, radiometric dating techniques and the calibration methods thereof, undirected mutation and natural selection, common descent with modification, or express doubt about the evidence for an earth billions of years old, I laugh at them and make fun of them.

There is simply no way anyone who has even the most nodding acquaintance with fields as diverse as geology, astronomy, zoology, paleontology, or physics could possibly doubt that the universe is tens of billions of years old, that the earth is billions of years old, that life has existed for billions of years, that all organisms that have ever lived are related by common descent with modification from one or a small number of common ancestors, and that biodiversity is entirely accounted for by relatively simple and reasonably well-understood mechanisms of evolution. There is simply no room for reasonable doubt on any of these matters, no matter how much creationists like to pretend otherwise.

A claim to have read primary literature, when one displays yawning gaps in knowledge, preposterously incorrect beliefs about what the standard theories even say, and doubts scientific findings that have been confirmed over and over again by hundreds of thousands of research papers is nothing but an ill-supported appeal to authority.

If you've read them, but haven't understood them, you're worse off than someone like me, who hasn't read them, but at least gets the fundamental concepts.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:07   

Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,09:46)
Let's make this even easier for you.  I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science.  I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.

Here's why, FTK. I want you to think long and hard about this, because it will really give you an idea of why ID is making no headway in the scientific community.

ID basically stands for the proposition that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore evolution at some level (somewhere from special creation of every organism that has ever lived, to merely a nudge by the divine finger every once in a while, to a nebulous front-loading argument where a designer—come on, we all know it's the Christian god—just sort of got the ball rolling), must have been driven by God some unnamed Intelligent Designer.

Now, here's your assignment: I want you to try to imagine an observation or series of observations that would falsify—i.e., make it extremely unlikely to be true—Intelligent Design "theory."

While not the last word in "demarcation criteria"—separating science from non-science—falsification is an important criterion. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it's a pretty safe bet that it ain't science. And I've never heard a single ID advocate ever come up with an example of an observation or series of observations that would definitively falsify ID.

(hint: a statement on the level of "proof that evolution happens" won't cut it. First, that's not an observation, and second, unguided evolution will not falsify ID. Think about it a bit and you'll see why.)

Now, if you need any help with this, I'll give an example of an observation or series of observations that would falsify the Theory of Evolution, or at minimum its most central precept: common descent with modification of all life from one or a small number of common ancestors. Hell, I can give you a whole bunch of them.

But if you cannot, despite wracking your brains for two weeks, come up with an observation that would falsify Intelligent Design, don't feel bad. No one else, proponent or opponent of ID, has been able to come up with one either.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:23   

Hey, Eric, welcome back!

Done filleting AFDave for the time being?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2007,23:40   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 10 2007,21:23)
Hey, Eric, welcome back!

Done filleting AFDave for the time being?

Dave's been AFK since yesterday (I think BWE scared the crap out of him in his formal debate on dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating), so I got bored.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
  748 replies since June 10 2007,02:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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