|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed? Where does the "give up everything else" claim come from?
ID does not follow the scientific method. If something does not follow the scientific method, it can't claim to be science. It's that simple. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry, there is nothing in your post worthy of a reply.
ID simply is not a science, and all the text you can produce won't make it one, for a simple reason -- ID does not follow the scientific method. Edited by Coyote, : speelling Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Oh no, the Darwinist/ atheist stranglehold on science will have to be reigned in, and no one but an outraged general public will ever be able to do it. Until then, no challenges to Darwinsim will ever see the light of day. Ask Michael Behe. His work was not fairly judged, it was emotionally shouted down. Darwinism is a financial/social empire, many lifelong careers are dependent on it. It is far more socially entrenched today than religion was in 1859.
Back a couple of centuries we had this event, now called The Enlightenment. Basically, it means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans, of whatever stripe, for fear of being burned at the stake or some other unpleasantry. Further, it means the religious stranglehold on science, that lasted for centuries (otherwise known as The Dark Ages), is done with. And no amount of moaning and groaning is going to put Humpty back together again. Science has busted loose of religious control, and there's no going back short of an absolute theocracy. Is that what you want? (With your crowd in charge, of course?) Otherwise, better get used to science going where the data lead whether fundamentalists say yea or nay. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Marc.
You're doing a good job keeping up with a whole swarm of opponents. I'm woefully bad at it, and I always end up ignoring and offending some people. A few tips: many people will prefer that you respond with individual posts, using the "reply" button at the bottom right corner of a specific post. It helps them keep track of the conversation better. Also, you can use "qs=person's name" instead of "quote" in the codes, and it makes the blue quote boxes we use. And, you can nest quotes inside other quotes to make it easier to follow the conversation, as I'm about to do here (click the "peek" button at the bottom right corner of a message if you want to see the codes used in the message):
marc9000 writes: Bluejay writes: When it was first coined, I suppose it was probably thought to be a much simpler issue than we view it as being today. Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it... This conflicts with your earlier statement:
marc9000, in the OP, writes: The term abiogenesis has been around for hundreds of years... At the time, I couldn't find any information about the term predating Huxley, but I’m not an expert on this topic, so I just assumed you knew something that I didn't. I don't care which of your two statements is true: I would just prefer that you stick with one story. If we go with the Huxley origin of the term, it was coined as the opposite to "Biogenesis" (Pasteur's "omne vivum ex ovo"). Since evolutionary ideas were first popularized, the Biogenetic Law was always thought to be a problem for it, and Huxley’s Abiogenesis was a counter-argument to that. Here’s the actual quote from Huxley, if you don’t believe me:
quote: I hope you take the time to read that entire essay (even though it’s quite long): it gives you a great view into the level of understanding and the speech habits of scientists in Darwin’s and Huxley’s time. -----
marc9000 writes: ...and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently. Again, stop conflating usage with definition. If I said, this spider is large, would you assume that I meant that statement to be upheld in a size comparison with a rhinoceros? In scientific circles, words can only be applied to scientific ideas. But, in public circles, including this debate, we have to find a way to incorporate non-scientific ideas into the framework that defines our worldview. Doing so apparently offends you. I don’t object to the idea of using the term abiogenesis to only mean naturalistic hypotheses (and I have agreed to restrict my usage accordingly), but I do object to your accusation that evolutionists are intentionally equivocating on the meaning of the word in order to conspire against creation and Christianity. I repeat: I am a Christian. -----
marc9000 writes: I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here. I believe I have now shown you that Biogenesis not only is an issue here, but is the issue here. Reread every scientific paper you’ve read on the subject with what I presented above in mind, and I think you’ll realize that scientists have only been dealing with the dichotomy of life-from-life vs life-from-nonlife, and that supernatural creation introduces an entirely new axis of variation, one that requires us to adjust our usage of terms to fully engage in debate. -----
marc9000 writes: Bluejay writes: [dembski quote]Life arose naturally; then it evolved over time. Life was created by God; then it evolved over time. This is what TalkOrigins meant when it said, Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. I have since agreed not to use the word abiogenesis in this way, but the principle is still there: even life that was originally created by God can evolve in the Darwinian fashion. No further contest at this time, except to say that "evolution" is a slippery word, and I believe talkorigins authors to be slippery people. First off, I wasn’t quoting Dembski: why did you say I was? Second, even if evolution is a slippery word, what difference could that possibly make in this case? The point here is that any arguments against abiogenesis are not arguments against evolution, no matter what evolution is taken to mean, so the meaning of evolution is totally irrelevant. You’re just being anal about words for the sake of being anal about words. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Hi again marc9000, just a brief question:
Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues? I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me. I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of most posters here, but am not surprised that one or two obviously wish I would stop posting.
quote: Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
quote: I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month.
quote: quote: I'll work on doing a better job at keeping things condensed, and it will involve ignoring roundabouts from one or two posters who seem to be able to go as far as taunt, use vulgar words, and go un-noticed and un-criticized by anyone but me.
quote: But I see this forum has one thing that I've seen so much of before, one poster that seems to gauge his success on how quickly he can bully someone out - make someone who disagrees with him stop posting.
quote: I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.
quote: But the less I throw off replies, the more taunts, and more repeated comments I get.
quote: A discussion. I'll be baaaaaack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes: Coyote writes: It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion. As those who control it today start with atheism. Atheism is proportionately more common among scientists than among the general populace, but there are probably still just as many theists in science as there are atheists. Please, stop equating science and atheism! -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month. It's going to take longer than that. You will need falsifiable hypotheses, predictions, experiments, and replicable results. Abiogenesis has scores of these things, because the people interested in it are doing actual work instead of just trying to pit marketing against materialism.
Judge John E Jones III in Dover writes:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are irreducibly complex.17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You seem to be more interested in discussing your fantasy world than any particular scientific issue. Perhaps you could stop amusing us with your paranoia and talk about ... abiogenesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And none of these rule out the possibility that there is a poor argument here and there. Which is all you've got. You've not shown anything to inspire "howls of outrage". The ID movement has done plenty of worse things.
quote: So there are a few books by scientists promoting atheism. And there are books on the other side, too. Is Dawkin's promotion of atheism really that different from Francis Collins' promotion of Christianity ? Neither of them are the equivalent of the Wedge Strategy. But this evades the main point. The ID movement puts doing science very much in second place behind the PR and the politics and the plans for social change. That's not the case with abiogenesis researchers, who are getting on with doing the work.
quote: No, that's just one of the ID movement's smears. There's nothing comparable to your invention of a plan to redefine "abiogenesis". (And, I should point out that it is at least as common to find creationists taking advantage of the different meanings of "abiogenesis" to claim that Pasteurs experiments on spontaneous generation prove abiogenesis impossible).
quote: Then you disagree, since my position is that there isn't a gap to be filled. However you define life one of the most important parts - the origin of the first replicators - is outside of evolutionary theory. It has to be, since without replicators you can't have evolution.
quote: I suppose if you view Darwinism as a conspiracy against Christianity then that argument might make sense. But it sure as hell as nothing to do with the science - or the scientific reasons for viewing abiogenesis as something outside of Darwinian evolution.
quote: Then I have to say that you don't know what you are talking about. Firstly you need to understand that scientific procedures have changed since the mid-Nineteenth century. The peer review system as we understand it was not in place. Secondly Darwin had extensive correspondence with a number of scientists while he was working on developing his theory. Thirdly - and most importantly - Darwin and Wallace presented a paper on evolution to the Linnaean society in 1858. The scientific work - and the presentation of that work to the scientific community took precedence over publication to the public. Even worse is your jumping to the conclusion that people would buy a scientiifc work out of an interest in atheism. Why could it not be an interest in a controversial scientific work ? And how can you jump from public popularity to scientific acceptance ?
quote: The ID movement isn't even trying to offer a genuine sciientific alternative to evolutionary theory. Demanding that a falsehood be accepted as a fact seems an odd way to promote open inquiry. Even if you rule by government fiat that ID is science (itself an unprecedented step) how do you propose to deal with the lack of good quality work supporting ID ? You may assume that simply ruling that ID is science will result in that solving itself, but what if it does not ? Remember that it is the lack of good scientific work that keeps ID from being accepted as science, not any fiat ruling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Actually it seems that you have changed your mind and now include special creation as a form of abiogenesis. As I will demonstrate.
quote: Let us note that it says "a beginning", not "a naturalistic beginning". And just to make it clear that it does not mean only a naturalistic beginning, it also says (in the main text, not a footnote)
A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design...
In other words, you can only claim this essay as support for the idea that evolution requires abiogenesis if you define abiogenesis as the origin of life - including creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, That would be psychology: a science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3890 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Hi marc9000,
If you wish me to actually know you've taken a look at something I posted, please use the reply button, otherwise I'll chance upon it eventually, perhaps, but it may take time. As to the meaning of abiogenesis - I'll know whether I agree with you if you can decide whether the meaning is new (~150 years) or old (~2000) and if you can produce evidence that it's meaning is changing, as you claim, AND whether such a change in popular usage is an issue with texts written under it's original use. I personally think that if somebody were described as being "happy and gay" a hundred years ago, it probably didn't mean they were homosexual. Similarly, if abiogenesis meant simply "life from non-life" when it was used in the past and by those who use it now, then claiming that it shuts out "special creation" in all cases when it clearly doesn't is a falsehood. But sure, go ahead, pound that fist
quote: Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper. Emotion doesn't come in to it, this is just a standard canned creationist objection to a problem that doesn't exist. abiogenesis and evolution are not dependant on one another. they need have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. evolution is true whether god made us or the universe came from the big bang. do you understand this statement? A yes/no is all that is required. If no, read it again until you understand. If yes, don't bring it up again. evolution requires that life began to exist, correct, but evolution does not require any specific form of abiogenesis. Here is your quote-mine in full - please note to expanded context!
quote: Did you catch that? Clearly, the talkorigins usage of "abiogenesis" is thus: * abiogenesis means "life from non-life"* evolution, whilst requiring that life exist, is not dependant on the nature of that abiogenesis * some, however, feel that abiogenesis should be possible through natural means rather than supernatural * those people are busy examining the hows and whys of natural abiogenesis * this still does not affect the status of evolution quote: That’s because I’ve seen it stated many times, and never seen any more detail to go along with it to back it up. If you’d say Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, just like ID has nothing to do with religion", it could be more believable. Or if you had given examples of other subjects that start with step two and see no need for a first step. Ok, I'll start with (very simple) definitions of the words "evolution" and "abiogenesis"
quote: quote: these are not hand-picked to support my points, not vettted, or compared, they're just the first on the list. As I hope you can see, abiogenesis says only "life from non-life" and evolution says "the change in populations over time". Whilst it is obviously true that you cannot have evolution of life which isn't there, I would hope it is trivially obvious to even you that change in the populations of living creatures is not dependant on the method or source of abiogenesis. Do you believe me yet? I mean sure, go ahead, try to find a credible site that says "evolution is dependant on naturalistic abiogenesis to be true" - you won't. Even talkorigins (so far proven to be reliable and correct and unbiased, whatever your apparent feelings for it) doesn't say this. evolution requires abiogenesis - correctabiogenesis MUST ONLY mean natural abiogenesis - incorrect Your bald assertions notwithstanding, the evidence that you yourself have attempted to show discredits you. Something else that starts with step two? how about gravity? We don't know what causes gravity - but if you think you can fly because you don't believe in it you're in for a rude awakening. or a very quick stop. One hopes it isn't fatal How about the big bang? We don't know what caused the big bang, what went on "before" it, but the evidence appears to support it. that's two. I'm sure there are more, but whether there are or not STILL doesn't change things.
quote: This is a clear indicator of the double standard that we have — the shouting down that is going on. It’s forceful enough throughout the scientific community that it seldom gets the discussion that it deserves. double standard? so, uh, where ARE the mountains of papers on ID? Where ARE the peer reviewed works? why is it a double standard to call adherence to a known outcome BEFORE the experimentation is done, non-scientific? ID get the discussion it deserves? Those who think ID should be put on an untouchable pedastal (the ones who wrote the WEDGE document) think that their shouting loudly makes up for the total lack of actual work that hasn't been produced. When there is something to discuss about, you can be sure it'll be discussed. You know what they call "alternative medicine" that actually works? medicine. If ID were scientific, we'd not be having this conversation. If it's not, stop trying to get it taught in a science classroom.
The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible. It is a study for evidence of design. If one or more religious people involved with it tie it into the religion in any way, that is only their personal opinion and nothing more. Yet strangely, the designer is always the judeo-christian god. yet strangely, the ONLY people who believe in ID are (fundamentalist) christians. Yet strangely, the fundies write about ID in their wedge documents and proclaim their intention to "destroy materialistic science". Odd, that.
When Dawkins writes a book called The God Delusion, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. When Victor Stenger writes a book called How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. correct! they have every right to write books about any subject they please, same as your gish's and coynes and what-have-you's. you'll notice, however, that those books are NOT science textbooks. You did notice that, right? right?
If Phillip Johnson, or the late Henry Morris say/said anything that ties ID to their personal beliefs, it’s no more representative of ID than is Dawkins or Stengers opinions on evolution. so...where's the solid work on ID that should go into the textbooks? Oh, sorry, you don't have any. glad to know that you don't think there's an atheist bias in the scientific community because there happen to be atheists that write books on atheistic subjects, the same way you don't think that there's a religious bias in ID because there are theists that write religious books. double standards much?
Your give up everything else claim is false. It’s only part of the emotional shouting down process. It is? So you don't really mean to tie paleontology, geology, cosmology, biology and evolution together, so that if, say, you can point out that there isn't a naturalistic theory of abiogenesis yet, that evolution (and therefore everything else) must be abandoned? Because that's certainly how it appears to me!
The study of ID can be done alongside other things, compared to other things, compete with other philosophies that dominate todays scientific community. An addition doesn’t necessarily have to be a replacement. ID has nothing to add - yet. And still you want it in the classrooms as if it did. By all means investigate ID, but don't pretend that you have anything of substance to teach yet. It is not "stifling criticism" if you get your bald-faced assertions and arguments from ignorance shot down for being meaningless.
If it's speculated on in science textbooks, it really is a big deal, if the ACLU isn't suing. I'm sorry, but speculation on a naturalistic origin of life is not a matter for the american civil liberties union. If experiments were conducted and their occurences documented and backed up, then you may teach about them! If it were saying "it MUST be natural, we don't know how though!", then you'd have a case. Go hunt that snark first, kay? Remember, the establishment cause is about religion, not science. It's quite sad when your own sources say quote:, but let's go on to your now named website. Unbiasedly it proclaims on the very top quote: Anyway, I read through it, and it's amazing how upset they get about experiments made back in what, 1957? Anyway, I don't find their objections all that reasonable - it's all argumentation from ignorance, such as "Fine, these clays can adhere organic molecules such as amino acids, and can direct their polymerisation into proteins, the building blocks of life BUT". It seems, once again, that because the theory is incomplete, abiogenesis must be thrown out, and therefore so much evolution (despite your pleas to the contrary). I don't see why you're so upset about modifying an incomplete hypothesis to deal with issues that arise during investigation! It's as if you expect scientific work to be dogma, unchanging and static! Surely you can't think that scientists think they have the answer from a book that's already been written... and as for nwcreation.net, well yes - excuse me if I think their religious wish to redefine abiogenesis in their favour is not valid. They are mistaken, plain and simple.
It seems that evolution textbook disclaimer stickers in a southern state causes a much different legal reaction than do textbook speculation/instruction of abiogenesis. (the naturalistic kind)
quote: I’ll have to ask again, because I asked in my previous post, and you didn’t address it. Promisory notes are no problem for studies of naturalistic abiogensis, and are unacceptable for ID. Why? Because, and I thought it would be obvious, ID has been proven time and time again to be religious in nature, and there is this "establishment clause" that forbids teaching of religion by the state. naturalistic abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not religious dogma, it is chemistry. Do you, or do you not, understand this? I'll have to deal with the rest of your post later. Cheers, Greyseal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for the reply marc9000.
Hi again marc9000, just a brief question: Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues? I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. ... If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). The software in this forum lets you know when you have a reply when this button is used. You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. ...
Being an ID proponent has little to do with it. I'm a Deist, and that means being an "old school" design proponent. Making erroneous statements about science in general and abiogenesis in particular will open you up to a barrage of replies, while one well considered focused post can answer many questions.
I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me. But the less I throw off replies, the more taunts, and more repeated comments I get. You can waste your reply time on anything you want to. I have never found tit-for-tat responding to "condescension" etc to be effective, especially when one can be called on exhibiting the same behavior as a result.
Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not. Evidence alone is not science, hypothesis alone is not science. Do you agree with the wikipedia definition of science posted in Message 11?
quote: Do you want to start with the broader sense and see how they apply to ID and abiogenesis?
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. Is that a good starting point? For instance, the scientific approach to abiogenesis would hypothesize that if this occurred through natural chemical reaction, that then we should be able to form self-replicating molecules, and if we can't form self-replicating molecules that then abiogenesis could be falsified. Abiogenesis fits the broader definition of science: do you have a similar testable prediction based on ID?
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month. I'll be baaaaaack. No sweat, take your time. Should we consider Astrology as a science? It can be a systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a predictions, yes?
I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID. Funny, I missed that. Could you point to the message/s where you gave that information? Note: typing [msg=-11] results in Message 11, so you can provide a link directly to the message. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips In other news:
Message 35: quote:Predate scientific usage? From Aristotle onward, it has always been about science. Aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher, and we don't need to conflate science with philosophy (particularly if we are going to use the definition above).
Message 54: Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it, and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently. Supernatural creation has always been referred to as creation, and a naturalistic origin of life without the supernatural needed a term as Darwinism was growing in popularity by 1870, and Huxley provided it. The distinction between the two terms (creation=supernatural origin of life, vs abiogenesis=natural, unguided origin of life) made perfect sense. So it did not start with Aristotle? It appears you have contradicted yourself on where and when the term originated and what it means. Be that as it may, let's not equivocate on meanings, and use chemical abiogenesis to mean the formation of life from chemicals.
I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here. Good, for then we can run down a number of scenarios to see how abiogenesis (life from chemicals) is linked (or not) to evolution (life from life):
Can you tell me which ones of these origin scenarios cannot involve evolution as the explanation for how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified from the original source? If you cannot differentiate them, then evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, all it depends on is having life as the starting point, and how that life began is irrelevant to understanding how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
I don’t want any one single special interest group’s personal opinions to be a foundation for education. I don’t want arrogant tenured college professors personal opinions to be foundations for education. And I don't want non-science taught as science, nor do I want the personal opinions of arrogant fundamentalists that are not affiliated in any way with science to dictate the foundations of science. Science is not done by popular vote. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Please, no replies to this off-topic message. I've hidden the contents. I know this post was a response to off-topic comments by others, but it doesn't even pretend to address the topic. --Admin
Briterican writes: The courts have determined that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology or alchemy. Hi Briterican. Of course the courts would. Why? Because of the extent of ToE and BB scientific bias prevailing in America, to which marc0009 aludes.
Briterican writes: Would you like the schools to teach those subjects as if they were supported by evidence? No? Then why would you support the teaching of intelligent design? Perhaps if those subjects were addressed in academia, the supportive evidence of a designer would be addressed. Sudden design leaves no scientific data for progressive design, whereas ToE and BB theory must expend all of what can be mustered up so as to lend support to mainline peer reviewed bully pulpit science. Thus the impotus for design relies on evidence of a superhuman dimension of intelligence in the universe. One must be studied on the fulfilled Biblical prophecies, Biblically interpreted archeology and world history relative to these and other evidences which factor in here.
Briterican writes: Science education inherently has a bias against non-scientific ideas, that's why it is called "science" and not "anything goes". Would you have it any other way? Forthright admission appreciated. The peer reviewed majority bully pulpet has the luxury of defining science.
Briterican writes: The onus is on YOU (ID proponents) to provide evidence for your assertion of an intelligent designer. In the meantime, the scientific community will continue to examine things on a rational, logical basis, and not resort to pseudo-science and bare, unsupported assertions. LoL, Briterican. Unless such evidence meets the criteria of the biased scientific elitist POV, it is not admissable in the science fora, in the peer journals or in mainstream academia. Thus the prevalent prevailing peered PoV prevails. Edited by Admin, : Off-topic content hidden. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Dr Adequate,
I perused this thread for the first time today and noticed that Marc9000 had begun complaining about the behavior of some anonymous others, so I said to myself, "I wonder if Dr Adequate is participating in this thread." And sure enough, you are! And I find these gems:
Dr Adequate in Message 43 writes: You do make a lot of stuff up, don't you? Dr Adequate in Message 68 writes: You seem to be more interested in discussing your fantasy world than any particular scientific issue. Perhaps you could stop amusing us with your paranoia and talk about ... abiogenesis? I'm removing your posting permissions for the Origin of Life forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024