EvC Forum: What does ID theory say?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: What does ID theory say?

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 15 of 67 (488556)
11-12-2008 9:56 PM

Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 7:48 PM

Re: Design theory

Ray

ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature.

That's not a claim of ID. ID's claim is that ID is responsible for mind/intelligence.

ID can make any claim it likes to readily observable facts, that doesn't render it science, what it can't do is provide evidence that ID is responsible for those readily observable facts. That's why it isn't science.

Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific.

Hypocrisy. Evolution "claims" that mind/intelligence evolved. Isn't that just as "scientific" a claim as ID is making, & therefore is science?

Creationism-ID best explains the evidence; therefore the same is science and Darwinism is scientism or pseudoscience.

You're not even ashamed, are you?

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:48 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:18 PM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 20 of 67 (488576)
11-13-2008 6:06 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 10:18 PM

Re: Design theory

Ray,

Your explanation is synonymously true too. I have no idea as to what you are contesting. It appears to be nothing.

I'm contesting the fact that your statement "as is" is untrue.

This comment defines ID to not be science.

No it doesn't. Making claims does not render anything science. Making testable claims does.

We, of course, disagree.

Of course you disagree, & your lack of an example that makes me demonstrably wrong is noted. I, of course, can't disprove a negative.

My point stands.

Yes.

I have objectively admitted as much...

Actually you didn't. You claimed ID was science & evolution wasn't.

From message 9:

Cold Foreign Object writes:

Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific.

ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature. Like I said this is a scientific claim.

Now you're backtracking so as to try to not appear to be applying double standards.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:18 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 2:01 PM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 55 of 67 (488787)
11-17-2008 2:03 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 2:01 PM

Re: Design theory

Ray,

Then explain why and how.

Already did.

Please can you now explain your hypocrisy?

quote:
Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific.

ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature. Like I said this is a scientific claim.

If ID is science because it makes a claim, then evolution must be.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 2:01 PM		Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 56 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-17-2008 5:50 PM		mark24 has replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5225 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 58 of 67 (488803)
11-17-2008 7:36 PM

Reply to: Message 56 by Cold Foreign Object
11-17-2008 5:50 PM

Re: Design theory

Ray,

Both Creationism and Evolutionism interpret and explain the same database of scientific evidence. There is not two sets of evidence. There is one, and two major explanations of this evidence.

But only one makes predictions & is supported by evidence. Ergo, only one matters; evolution.

Since the evolutionary explanation or interpretation is false the same is not science.

Er, no. If something is amenable to scientific enquiry it is science. Its subsequent truth or falsity is irrelevant.

Since the Creationism-ID explanation and interpretation is true it is science.

As above, but evolution has evidence, ID doesn't. Moreover, ID doesn't even make predictions & is therefore unscientific.

The right to call one's explanation "science" or "scientific" is determined by its veracity.

No, it isn't. Veracity has NOTHING to do with it! You really are doing some serious mental gymnastics here, Ray. No wonder you have trouble in this debate.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 56 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-17-2008 5:50 PM		Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/1