The flaws in Intelligent design

[ImmortalFlame]

It's quite the shame you can't ever pay science a visit, that you feel obligated to make everything up as you go.

Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism and Greenhouse Effect are all unfalsifiable theories. The scientific method applies to none of them.

You're just factually wrong. Evolution can be and is tested and meets all criteria of the scientific method. Here's a website with many proposed methods of falsifying and testing evolutionary theory:

How to Test and Disprove Evolution:

Not sure why you dragged greenhouse gasses into this thread. This is the evolution vs. creationism forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's quite the shame you can't ever pay science a visit, that you feel obligated to make everything up as you go.

Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism and Greenhouse Effect are all unfalsifiable theories. The scientific method applies to none of them.

Explain why not. You may need to provide references.

What makes you think that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable? Did you forget all of the times I provided references that showed you to be wrong in the past? Remember, you are not a source. Your word is worth nothing if you cannot support it.

 

[IBdaMann]

First off all events that we observe are in the past.

Observations are not science. I'm the first person to point this out to you, aren't I? You wouldn't have written the above had someone taught you this previously.

Do you see anything in that limiting it to the present?

I would if it were correct. You don't even know what's missing.

I know, post one that is correct so we can discuss it. Good luck!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're just factually wrong. Evolution can be and is tested and meets all criteria of the scientific method. Here's a website with many proposed methods of falsifying and testing evolutionary theory:

How to Test and Disprove Evolution:

Not sure why you dragged greenhouse gasses into this thread. This is the evolution vs. creationism forum.

I know him from another forum where his own beliefs continually showed him to be wrong. He loves the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but does not understand how to apply it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observations are not science. I'm the first person to point this out to you, aren't I? You wouldn't have written the above had someone taught you this previously.


I would if it were correct. You don't even know what's missing.

I know, post one that is correct so we can discuss it. Good luck!

Refer to the simplified flow chart. Observations are part of science. That is another topic that you never understood. When it comes to the sciences you repeatedly show that you lack even a high school level of education in the concept.

 

[IBdaMann]

You're just factually wrong. Evolution can be and is tested and meets all criteria of the scientific method.

You are not a scientist. Ask me how I know.

Science predicts nature. Science cannot speculate about the past. Humans do, yes, but science, no.

Tell me, what is the null hypothesis of Evolution? Let's start there.

 

[IBdaMann]

Observations are part of science.

Absolutely not. Where are the observations in E=mc^2

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science predicts nature. Science cannot speculate about the past. Humans do, yes, but science, no.

Actually, science does that all the time. Basically all of geology, cosmology and genealogy rely on making observations of current structures to make predictions about past states or vice versa. So, again, you're just factually wrong.

Tell me, what is the null hypothesis of Evolution? Let's start there.

The same as it always is, that there is no relation between two observed states.

 

[IBdaMann]

Rude questions do not get any answers.

I saw what you were trying to do there. You were implying that there would somehow be answers otherwise.

Clever. ... but it didn't work. I know that there are no answers to be had.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Absolutely not. Where are the observations in E=mc^2

E=mc^2 is an equation describing mass-energy equivalence. It is not a scientific theory, like the theory of relativity, which is based on observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absolutely not. Where are the observations in E=mc^2

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw what you were trying to do there. You were implying that there would somehow be answers otherwise.

Clever. ... but it didn't work. I know that there are no answers to be had.

I will answer properly asked questions. Rude questions will not be answered. There is no obligation to respond to people that cannot be civil.

 

[IBdaMann]

Actually, science does that all the time.

Once again, ask me how I know you aren't a scientist.

No, there is no science that speculates on the past. Watch, you won't be providing any examples.

Basically all of geology, cosmology and genealogy rely on making observations of current structures to make predictions about past states or vice versa.

How does one predict the past?

The answer is that geologists and astronomers and astrophysicists speculate about the past, but science does not.

So you're just factually wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, ask me how I know you aren't a scientist.

No, there is no science that speculates on the past. Watch, you won't be providing any examples.


How does one predict the past?

The answer is that geologists and astronomers and astrophysicists speculate about the past, but science does not.

So you're just factually wrong.

Please, when you make such sweeping claims you need to support them with valid sources. That you are unable to fellow us that you are wrong.

Let's concentrate on the simplified flow chart of the scientific method I posted. Do you think that you understood it?

 

[IBdaMann]

That cute animated gif is not an observation in E=mc^2

I'm still waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That cute animated gif is not an observation in E=mc^2

I'm still waiting.

Your inability to understand does not mean that you were not given an answer. One that you cannot refute by the looks of it.

Let's forget your present failures and go back to this:

 

[IBdaMann]

I will answer properly asked questions. Rude questions will not be answered. There is no obligation to respond to people that cannot be civil.

You simply cannot answer questions. You have avoided them for years. Your whole shtick about being knowledgeable in science is a sham. You are simply spreading misinformation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You simply cannot answer questions. You have avoided them for years. Your whole shtick about being knowledgeable in science is a sham. You are simply spreading misinformation.

Wrong again. I continually demonstrate a far deeper understanding than you do. That is why I am trying to limit the discussion to ideas that you should be able to understand. The topic right now is the scientific method.

 

[IBdaMann]

E=mc^2 is an equation describing mass-energy equivalence. It is not a scientific theory, like the theory of relativity, which is based on observations.

What it might be "based on" is completely irrelevant. The fact is that there are no observations in either E=mc^2 or in the theory of relativity.

They are both falsifiable models that predict nature.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Once again, ask me how I know you aren't a scientist.

Keep your childish posturing on the playground, please.

No, there is no science that speculates on the past. Watch, you won't be providing any examples.

How does one predict the past?

Because they all make predictions about the past based on observations of the present, i.e the decay of rocks, changes in biology, the behaviour of celestial bodies, etc.

The answer is that geologists and astronomers and astrophysicists speculate about the past, but science does not.

Except geologists, astronomers and astrophysicists ARE scientists, and they produce testable theories designed to make predictions about past states and provide evidence for them.

So you're just factually wrong.

I'm really not.