|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.
If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive. What is your first language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am not claiming or denying at present that ID is able to be derived from the SM. I am claiming that the IDM is the same as used by the SM. It follows the same logical steps to derive its tenets or conclusions Not noticeably. So far as I've seen, the "IDM" goes like this: (1) Assume without any evidence that the Bible is the literal word of God.(2) Lie. The scientific method is rather different. That's why following it leads to different conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Conclusions about what, could you explain Nature.
You seem to be a very emotional character, simply try and stay focused on one point at a time You are apparently trying to patronize me. This is amusing.
What general methods does the SM use that are not employed by the IDer, to come to thier conclusions Scientists compare the predictions of a theory (neo-Darwinism) with observations of the natural world, and find that they match perfectly. Creationists run like frightened little bunny-rabbits when invited to produce a hypothesis having predictive power; and since observing nature does nothing to support their fantasies, they find that it better suits their purpose to lie about nature --- a practice which would, if anything, be impeded by actually studying it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Ill ignore this comment ... You have a funny way of doing so.
All you did here is restate the basics of the SM and the IDM, without demonstrating exacally why and how we dont follow the same rules of science in the beginning process ... Why? Because scientists are iterested in the truth, and creationists in defending a dogma.
Secondly once into the process, how do we lie about there being order and law, which is a process of scientific evalustion and atleast a clear indication of design, like anyother Conclusion drawn form the SM You lie about it being a "clear indication of design". Obviously it is not "clear". This is why the people who study the order in nature overwhelmingly think that creationism is trash, and attribute it to the non-magical processes that actually produce said order.
Your goal is to simply demonstrate what you use that we do not and then show why ours is not science, or a scientific approach And I have provided you with an explanation: I cannot also provide you with an understanding. If you cannot see the difference between testing a testable theory and failing to test a vacuous and ill-defined proposition then I cannot explain this to you. You are good enough to call me an intellectual; but I am not a miracle-worker.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
An important point that I think needs to be stressed is that determining if something is designed involves observing and testing the methods and practices. For example, in the case of stone tools scientists observe knapping practices, even perform knapping, to see exactly what are the characteristics of a hand made stone tool as opposed to a natural occurring rock or chip. Also if we could observe that knapped stone tools were only ever produced by other knapped stone tools having sex, we'd know for certain that no-one was making them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Marc9000 has not addressed the issues that I made clear should be the focus of this thread. This thread is for making clear how ID follows the scientific method. If you choose to reply to this message please keep it on-topic. --Admin Perhaps you could highlight the bits which you think are on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First off, a religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life. Science refers to the process of gaining knowledge through the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. Observation, using one of the five senses, including sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste, is one of the first and most important steps in this process. Since the theory of macroevolution is an unobservable phenomenon concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life it should be considered a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Evolutionists are the ones who tend to ignore the scientific method. If only you knew anything about the scientific method, you would realize why this sort of half-baked rhetoric doesn't fool any scientists. But even in your present lamentable state of ignorance, you must be aware that it does in fact not fool scientists, even if you don't understand why not. And if you had a little more sense, that would be a kind of hint to you that there must be something wrong with the garbage that you, a non-scientist, choose to write about science, and that scientists, who know about science, disagree with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If we both use the same methods as I have already descirbed several times now ... ... then we would live in a magic alternate universe where gumdrops grow on candy trees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic, reply, but logically defend your religion. Its funny how upset people get when they feel backed into a corner. You have no observable evidence to support your claim or you would have presented it. The problem is that you place your religion before science when instead it should be the other way around. You're so brainwashed that you no longer question your beliefs. The biggest obstacle to finding the truth is believing you've already found it. I graduated from a pro evolution university and have been through the whole brainwashing process. Have you even for a second put yourself in my shoes. No and thats why your the ignorant one. Once again without the silliness and attitude please. You seem to have been so far carried away on your own torrent of lies, rhetoric, whining and personalia as to forget to even mention my point, let alone address it. May I take it that you find it unanswerable?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024