Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4872 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 164 of 325 (592584)
11-20-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2010 2:59 PM


Re: Question everything
And evolutionists pretend that they can prove that this order was produced by a spinning dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Do you see how what I just wrote is no different than what you wrote. By the way what created your spinning dot. Or better yet time, space and matter. Exactly. You say time, space and matter has always existed we say god has always existed, whats the difference? Both are religious to an extent.
Edited by alschwin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2010 2:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2010 6:42 PM alschwin has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 325 (592586)
11-20-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 4:25 PM


Re: Question everything
What types of test would I need to conduct to know or see Order, law and Harmony in nature?
No, the question is: what type of test would you need to conduct to detect design in nature? That's design. Not order, not law, not harmony. Design.
What kinds of tests does the SM conduct to come to its conclusions concerning change, natural selection and mutation
Scientists have a theory consisting of reproduction, mutation, selection,lateral gene transfer, genetic drift, etc, plus common descent. From this theory it is possible to make predictions about the order to be found in nature. Scientists then test these predictions against reality, and find that they are always correct, thus confirming the theory.
Hence they detect evolution as the cause of the order found in morphology, genetics, paleontology, embryology, biogeography, etc.
You should be trying to do something similar. First, you need to frame a hypothesis. So far all you seem to have decided is that you'd like your hypothesis to involve design in some way. This seems a bit premature, like a forensic scientist deciding that whatever working hypothesis he comes up with it must involve cheese and aardvarks. Nonetheless, the scientific method pays no attention to the origin of hypotheses --- you could construct a hypothesis by pulling words randomly out of a hat and it would still in principle be capable of investigation so long as its a hypothesis at all.
But you haven't got to that stage yet. Instead you've jumped right ahead to believing that whatever your hypothesis will be, it will be right, and indeed declaring that it should be taught in schools, without yet vouchsafing to anyone what it actually is. Which prevents anyone from finding out if it is true, and, indeed, from teaching it to anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 4:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2010 3:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 166 of 325 (592588)
11-20-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Buzsaw
11-20-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
What do you reckon Dawn? Is Buz's example in line with how you think ID operates following the scientific method? If not, what distinguishes it from 'mainstream' ID arguments?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 6:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2010 3:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 167 of 325 (592591)
11-20-2010 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by alschwin
11-20-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Question everything
And evolutionists pretend that they can prove that this order was produced by a spinning dot the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
No.
Do you see how what I just wrote is no different than what you wrote.
No.
You say the universe has always existed ...
No.
Both are religious to an extent.
No.
If there is anything else you'd like to be wrong about, and if it is equally off-topic, you might want to start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 6:34 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 6:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4872 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 168 of 325 (592593)
11-20-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2010 6:42 PM


Re: Question everything
So then are you claiming that evolutionists believe time, space and matter has not always existed? honest question, please give and honest answer.
Edited by alschwin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2010 6:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2010 6:58 PM alschwin has replied
 Message 177 by subbie, posted 11-20-2010 7:38 PM alschwin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 169 of 325 (592595)
11-20-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by alschwin
11-20-2010 6:50 PM


Re: Question everything
Wow. You don't even understand the big bang theory, you really are ignorant. You should at least understand one side if you are going to take one.
Did you understand me when I said that if you wanted to be wrong about things that aren't on topic you should start a new thread? Your delusions about cosmology, though amusing enough in their own way, seem to have no relevance to this present discussion.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 6:50 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 7:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 170 of 325 (592597)
11-20-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Buzsaw
11-20-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
1. The universe earth is full of order, diverse elements, operative forces and complicated complexity, all indicative of intelligent design
Order: does not point to a desighner it was shown that order can spawn on its own
Diverse elments: Huh?? well yes they usualy form in stars no desighner needed
Operative forces: huh?? so your saying gravity and the like so gravity is caused by mass and that proves a desighner how?
Complicated complexity: Huh?? So complex things cannot be complex on their own they need a desighner for them to be complex. An simple things can come to be because they are simple like an I beam it is perfectly simpla an I shaped metal beam nothing complex abbout it though i see none acuring in nature.
And the geiser in yelowstone:
The workings are complex at least to the complexity of the i beam and they formed on their own.
Snow flakes verry complex compared to the I beam and abundant in nature and still no simple I beam.
Complexity and simplicty is a flawed argument to support a desighner.
2. LoT1 implicates eternal energy. LoT implicates ultimate equilibrium absent from a working manager, designer.
I dunno what you mean by lot.
3. No model of the BB has been formulated void of pre-existing ID and pre-existing energy, space and time.
Well no because that would be guessing, stabbing in the dark..... Because we have no evidence nothing to show us what could have been.
4. Biblical Record depicting an eternal intelligent creator designer infinitely operative in an infinite Universe is more thermodynamically compatible with LoT1 and LoT2 than BB finite Universe theory.
Why not the greek record, or hindu, or that it happend by the laws of nature.
1. The Biblical record will ultimately be vindicated and corroborated by supportive observations.
Te biblical record gets slaped in the face whit every new discovery that has anything to do whit its record i dout the exsistance of god would be any different.
2, The Universe will continue to be infinite.
Not unless there is a big rip, or a big chill.
3. Space is unbounded and the universe will remain infinitely.
And what is pointing to this conclusion??
4. The Universe will infinitely remain orderly, managed and designed intelligently.
Oh can you predict when he will come to erth i would like to have some of that water turned to wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 6:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 8:23 PM frako has not replied
 Message 207 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2010 3:20 AM frako has replied

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4872 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 171 of 325 (592599)
11-20-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
11-20-2010 6:58 PM


Re: Question everything
so then are you claiming that evolutionists believe time, space and matter has not always existed? honest question, please give and honest answer.
Edited by alschwin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-20-2010 6:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 11-20-2010 7:18 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2010 7:18 PM alschwin has replied
 Message 174 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-20-2010 7:19 PM alschwin has replied
 Message 180 by frako, posted 11-20-2010 7:55 PM alschwin has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 325 (592601)
11-20-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by alschwin
11-20-2010 7:14 PM


Re: Question everything
Of course. Not just evolutionists but Christians and Jews and Cosmologists all believe that "time, space and matter has not always existed", and in fact, that is exactly what the evidence seems to show.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 7:14 PM alschwin has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 173 of 325 (592603)
11-20-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by alschwin
11-20-2010 7:14 PM


Re: Question everything
so then are you claiming that evolutionists believe time, space and matter has not always existed? honest question, please give and honest answer.
Perhaps that is a question for cosmologists, not "evolutionists."
And it is off topic in this thread. The management does not like threads to drift that far off topic.
Start a new topic if you have something to say about cosmology.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 7:14 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 7:49 PM Coyote has replied

  
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 4105 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 174 of 325 (592605)
11-20-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by alschwin
11-20-2010 7:14 PM


Re: Question everything
so then are you claiming that evolutionists believe time, space and matter has not always existed? honest question, please give and honest answer.
Off topic and I'm not sure what that has to do with 'evolutionists'.
AbE : seems I was beaten to the topic-issue by Coyote.
Edited by Zubbbra25, : Coyote has quicker fingers than I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 7:14 PM alschwin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 7:50 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 175 of 325 (592607)
11-20-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 5:02 PM


Re: Question everything
OK, fine. I get it. I've gotten it all along.
You're just bullshitting us. You've got nothing, so you're using the only thing left to you, bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 5:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 176 of 325 (592609)
11-20-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dawn Bertot
11-20-2010 1:45 AM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
dwise1 writes:
Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.
This {ABE: requirement} is nothing new. It has existed from the very beginning. All you ever had to do was to exhibit it.
Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic post but answer my question.
What question? Do you mean this, that I had quoted in my Message 66 to which you replied from your Message 62 to which I was replying:
Please demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your method
That is not a question. And as I pointed out, it is not even a sentence. And it does not even make sense, because you never completed your subordinate clause. You are requesting: "Please demonstrate HOW ... ". "How what"? The rest of what you had written is an interjected conditional phrase, not the completion of your aborted attempt at a sentence.
Dawn, two things that are important in the military are training and communication. Non-comm/petty officer training emphasize our roles in training and communicating; I know that commissioned officers also have management courses and schools and I'm certain that they also instructed in communication. You might have heard rumors about those two subjects when you were in. In communication, you have a message that you, the sender, are to send intact to a receiver, eg, to us. Your responsibility as the sender is to ensure that the message gets across to the receivers. This includes receiving feedback from the receivers as to whether they received the message intact and using that feedback to modify your transmission so as to better ensure that your message gets across. The importance of successful communication in training should be obvious, which is why the instructor repeatedly quizzes the trainees, both formally and informally.
Dawn, didn't you ever learn anything at all in your NCO/PO training? Your 2259+ messages here have amply and consistently demonstrated your inability to communicate. We repeatedly give you feedback that your writing is incomprehensible and you do nothing at all to try to make it more comprehensible. Instead, you resort to insults. I'm not the only one who has noticed this: Percy as administrator has repeatedly addressed this problem of yours with you, but you keep ignoring him. And now you have also lost the privilege to start new topics. What more needs to happen before you begin to realize that maybe you're doing something the wrong way?
Or if your purpose here is not to communicate with us nor to train us in your ideas about ID, then what is it? Because your actions and attitude so far strongly indicates that you are indeed not at all interested in communicating or teaching.
quote:
Tom Lehrer from That Was The Year That Was:
Now, there are people who cannot communicate. Well if they cannot communicate, then the least that they could do would be to just shut up!
So, assuming that this is a restatement of your "question":
If we both use the same methods as I have already descirbed several times now, why are they not science and what is there that you employ that we do not.
Do they indeed use the same methods? You have not demonstrated that, not even attempted to -- nearly 200 messages into the topic and you have not yet tried to support the OP? And just where have you "already descirbed {them} several times now"? You have offered a short list of some basic ideas, but you have most certainly not yet offered any kind description of either method. We keep asking you to and you keep dodging -- probably one big reason for your no longer being able to start new topics. For that matter, you have demonstrated your not even knowing the scientific method, in that you have no idea what a theory is; from your Message 38 (my emphasis added):
There are really only three classifications. The methods you use to form your hypothesis, how things work presently and hypothesis about what might have have happened, as you call them theories
If you don't even know what the scientific method is, then how can you say it's identical to the ID method, which you continue to refuse to present?
To repeat (from my Message 1:
Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?
Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?
Please note, as you had ignored before, that you had the option to address the far-too-often-made request for a methodology for detecting and determining design, with no requirement that it be supernatural. There should be no reason for you to refuse to present that methodology, unless you already know that it does not exist.
Here's a model for what should be an acceptable level of detail, from the OP of my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY):
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.
Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
OK, Dawn, so just what is your ID methology? And just how does it work? In detail!
While you're at it, could you also please present in detail how you think that the scientific method works.
Edited by dwise1, : Correction to the remembered Tom Lehrer quote from decades ago -- it's on vinyl and she got the turntable

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-20-2010 1:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-21-2010 3:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 177 of 325 (592612)
11-20-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by alschwin
11-20-2010 6:50 PM


Re: Question everything
Just a suggestion:
It's considered very bad form and dishonest in a way to edit a post that someone has already responded to by changing or removing a part that they responded to.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 6:50 PM alschwin has not replied

  
alschwin
Member (Idle past 4872 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-20-2010


Message 178 of 325 (592614)
11-20-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Coyote
11-20-2010 7:18 PM


Re: Question everything
Physicist Michael Poole said about this, "Big Bang is scientific shorthand for a 'singularity' in which the ordinary aws of physics are unlikely to have held. Time and space came into being with the Big Bang. This is what scientists talk of as 'origins'."
If time space and matter have not always existed than one would be led to believe that something created them. Sounds kind of religious don't you think.
Since the evolution theory is a religious one and you believe it can be supported through the scientific method you must believe religion can be supported through the scientific method. Is Intelligent design not a form of religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2010 7:18 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2010 8:02 PM alschwin has not replied
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 11-20-2010 8:03 PM alschwin 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