Have you ever read a book on evolution?Abram said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Abram
Abraham
Lets all learn shall we...linwood said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In this popular sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is a fact and modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution, variation and speciation. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.
Abram said:
Very well. Please supply ID's "falsifiable hypothesis [that] can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation."Abram said:
Abram
Abraham
So glad you asked... Why yes I've read a book or 10 on it. Being that it's my testimony to finding Christ. Wont bore you with the details. But I found that there is a tremendous amount of evidence to prove and disprove it. Same goes for religion. There are 2 world views.Jayhawker Soule said:
1.the world was created by a cosmic accident
2.the world was created by a designer
Science has no place in number 2. NONE! But while science always changes there minds and changes things to accompany new beliefs, example (piltdown man of 1912) a deliberate fraud. But when it got in the way of new evidence they had to come forward with the truth.
God said his piece and never changes...
Does ID belong in school? Why couldn't evolution be the way God built this world? Someone said it best here. "If the child ask about ID, tell them to go ask there parents, just like if they ask their health teacher if they should have sex."
-but all this from someone who thinks education is a waste of time and only a tool to conform this land.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Rhetoric. Please supply ID's "falsifiable hypothesis [that] can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation."
Since sience has a place in the real world; curing disease, aiding travel, making food safer, giving us the internet; I must conclude (based on your presupposition) that "2. the world was created by a designer" is proven false by the useful place of Science.
How is geocentracism doing these days?
It might; but it certainly does not belong in a science class.
Ãsahættr
Active Member
Numbers of books mean nothing. Nor does amount of evidence. What matters is whether the books are written by respected scientists who are supported by their peers, and whether the evidence stands up to criticism from experts. Until ID produces an article in a peer reviewed science journal, of which it still has to produce a single example, its "evidence" can be dismissed as tricks to impress the general public rather than genuine science.Abram said:
Abram
Abraham
I think were getting off the subject here. ID and schools, remember? I don't need to prove to anyone my views on evolution. The info's out there. If someone really wants to know the truth, do what I did. Take a year and really study it, it's fascinating stuff. Go talk to professors at a near by college.Jayhawker Soule said:
But so I don't look like a puss and ignore this question here ya go...
--young earth indicators--
1.Moon dust- sunlight destroys rock
2.oil gusher- we will run out of oil
3.earths magnetic field- 1/2 life of about 14,000 years
4.Mississippi river delta-
5.salinity of the oceans- nitrates & uranium don't break down like salt
6.radio- polonium 218 has a 1/2 life of 3 min.
blah...blah...blah
Again I am in no way taking from evolution, but it is still a theory. So is ID
so start a thread on any of these or others and ask me to join. I love to challenge my faith.
We are simply responding to your claims.Abram said:
You don't need to do anything, least of all make unsupportable assertions.Abram said:
I'll do my best to keep up with you.Abram said:
"Blah...blah...blah" is precisely right. We can discuss that tiresome laundry list yet again in an appropriate thread.Abram said:
For now, try to focus. You claim: "No, evolution is still a theroy. Just like ID is still a threoy..."
Now, please supply ID's "falsifiable hypothesis [that] can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation."
Abram
Abraham
I did... If you can show that the earth is only 5000 years old in "science" then it a good theory.Jayhawker Soule said:
I look at every link you send me. I try to understand your view the best I can, even will agree with you on some points. (The nutty Bible code guy that thinks aliens wrote the Bible.) You should rejoice that you found someone to challenge you. I don't use Bible scripture, but try to deal on a level ground of science. Then you toss it aside and attack. Maybe you and you beliefs are threatened by me. Don't be, no one can force you to love God.
"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other then the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different sprit from the one you received, are different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough" - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
Well Jay, I can tell you that according to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, observable evidence comes at the discretion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For example, "a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."
For more information on the Flying spaghetti monster, and why we dress as pirates, please visit: http://www.venganza.org/
I thought that was pretty funny, even though I am a creationist.
For more information on the Flying spaghetti monster, and why we dress as pirates, please visit: http://www.venganza.org/
I thought that was pretty funny, even though I am a creationist.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Please...bore me, could you cite a single bit of evidence that disproves evolution?Abram said:
I think someone is trying to get off the subject.
Please stick to the subject and answer the question asked.
Please supply ID's "falsifiable hypothesis [that] can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation."
Please supply ID's "falsifiable hypothesis [that] can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation."
..please tell me how exactly is the "theory" of Intelligent Design falsifiable through empirical observation?
It has been asked at least three times and ignored every time.
Considering you are the one who put forth the notion that ID is a "theory" you should show how ID meets the defintion of theory you posted.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
I can answer that for you. I am a creationist and I know what I am talking about when it comes to emperical observations to support the ID theory. So, how does it?linwood said:
It doesn't. ID is not science. ID is creationism. The christian community needs to be honest with itself and stop trying to convince themselves of this lie. It seems to me that the whole idea of ID came about in a backwords way anyway. William Harris was probaly sitting around one day, and said, "how can we make creationism seem more scientific and therefore sneel it into the public school system? I know, we cam try to come up with something that sounds scientific, in order to fit the creation story." And so it began. Just be honest with yourself. There's no shame in stating that you believe in creation. There is shame though in trying to cover it up through made up "science".
Abram
Abraham
That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Your right... So if it's not a theory then it must be fact...:biglaugh: I only used that word so I didn't preach. I ended up in a corner and you right. okay.linwood said:
also I had to look up empirically?
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Well, there ya have it.Abram said:
And for the bazillionth time, if you are going to contend that ID is a scientific theory, which it very clearly is not, then please explain how it fits into the mold of what an actual scientific theory is.
I will concede, that it is possible, however incredibly unlikely it may be, that we are living on a marble created by the Judeo-Christian God 5,766 or so years ago. I will not, however, concede that ID fits within the scientific definition of a theory.
B.
I do not feel at all threatened by you. Now, for the third time, you claim that:Abram said:
"evolution is still a theroy. Just like ID is still a threoy"
Please supply ID's "falsifiable hypothesis [that] can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation."
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
My desk is also not a theory, does that mean that my desk is a fact? Jeez oh man, you are really stretching your Durex thin credibility to its maximum here.Abram said:That Intelligent Design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Your right... So if it's not a theory then it must be fact...:biglaugh: I only used that word so I didn't preach. I ended up in a corner and you right. okay.
also I had to look up empirically?
B.
Ãsahættr
Active Member
Naturalism isn't a basic premise of science as such. Science only assumes naturalism until proven otherwise, because it is the default position. The premise that you are reffering to is that science uses Occam's Razor, and places the burden of proof upon those trying to prove that something exists, rather than those trying to prove that it doesn't. Science will stop being naturalistic the minute there is scientific evidence of the supernatural.Abram said: