Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Taq
Member
Posts: 10033
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 378 of 396 (587604)
10-19-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Because the information in the article on the phenomenon tells us that they are formed by a process of water collection, freeze, and thaw in a natural cyclic weather pattern.
So why can't these processes produce particularized patterns?
That means that for an observer to tell if it is particularized, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience.
So what independent experience leads us to conclude that a protein is particularized?
Just looking at the circles we see a complex pattern, but we do not recognize the pattern as fulfilling any specific purpose.
Then ice crystals are particularized. Their specific purpose is to exclude salt creating denser, cold water that helps to create the thermohaline cycles in the world's oceans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10033
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 391 of 396 (587748)
10-20-2010 3:14 PM


Summing up
Any experiment needs to be risky. That is, the experiment should be able to equally test the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. From my own experience, experimental controls can sometimes take up 80% of the samples in any given experiment. Those controls are there to see if the null hypothesis is correct.
Nowhere do I see ID experiments that test the null hypothesis. For example, JBR suggests that beneficial mutations that occur on bacterial plasmids are due to an intelligent designer. So what is the null hypothesis? I would think that the null hypothesis would be beneficial mutations occuring within the non-plasmid genome, and the literature is full of such examples. So does this mean that non-plasmid beneficial mutations falsify ID? I doubt it. JBR and others will probably claim that these are designed as well. That is certainly what Behe claimed when Hall observed the production of a novel beta-galactosidase gene that occurred within the non-plasmid genome in E. coli (reference).
The other argument is that experiments which fail to produce evolved structures are evidence for ID. Therefore, such experiments can count as ID experiments. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any theory must stand on it's own, and it has been shown that ID can not. As an example, the precession in Mercury's orbit that was not predicted by Newton's Laws which told us that there was something wrong with those laws. However, the falsification of Newton's Laws under certain conditions did not prove the existence of supernatural forces moving Mercury about the Sun. Even if the theory of evolution is proven false it does not evidence the accuracy of ID in any way.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Wounded King, posted 10-21-2010 11:31 AM Taq has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024