|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alschwin Member (Idle past 4903 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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'." Yes
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. I do not think it is religius, almost all religions say that the world/universe was created, Though SM differs there is no evidence that a god or an inteligent being created it. Science: we know it was made we are not sure about the process that made it. Religion: we know it was made it was definitivly our god. See the diference?
ince 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. Um since when has evolution become a religion?? What makes you think it is? Religion: our god made it all. Science: this is what we know happened with the evidence at hand, this is what we do not know yet. Evolution: This is the evidence we have and it points to this. Where is the religion part in evolution or science. Inteligent desighn is a religion yes it presumes a desighner and uses the desighner to support its theories and then uses its theories to support the desighner ignoring all other evidence a clear sighn it is a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. To call it anything else is delusional, and trolling. And, in this thread, it is also off topic. This forum has strict rules about staying on topic. You should check them out before the moderators' patience wears thin. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If time space and matter have not always existed than one would be led to believe that something created them. Why? We see, generally (although not without exception), that things in the universe tend to have a cause, but how many examples of creations of universes have you studied that lead you to think that there must be a cause for their creation? Please address this in an appropriate thread.
Sounds kind of religious don't you think. What sounds religious to me is the assumption, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that there must have been something that created the universe.
Since the evolution theory is a religious one.... It isn't. If you think you have evidence that it is, I'd be delighted to see that in the proper thread. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alschwin Member (Idle past 4903 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
No, its you who forgot to mention your point. I have yet to see anything relevant come from you. The topic of this thread is intelligent design and whether or not it follows the scientific method. If you would like to provide evidence as to why it does or does not i would be happy to respond. Just getting upset and overly aggressive will not pull you out of the hole you’ve dug yourself into. As for me, I believe that the theory of evolution is a religious one.
Physicist Michael Poole said the "Big Bang is scientific shorthand for a 'singularity' in which the ordinary laws 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Uh, guy, this forum is moderated, as has already been pointed out twice (once directly and again indirectly). Cosmology is not the subject of this topic, so you will need to pursue this in other topic where it is the subject. Or else start your own.
Sorry, but that's just life in the EVC Forum. I'm just a member, so this is peer-counselling. Better to hear it from me than from an Admin, right? Edited by dwise1, : 'splaining
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
frako writes: Order: does not point to a desighner it was shown that order can spawn on its own Yah, sure, Frako, like dried clay is observed to spawn into bricks which stack up to become walls which form into beautifully designed buildings. Like unmanaged buildings which are observed to remain functional when left for years unoccupied. Yah, sure.
frako writes: Diverse elments: Huh?? well yes they usualy form in stars no desighner needed Like all of the diversely complex elements needful for all existing things such as stars spawned into existence by happenstance? That's a matter of opinion, depending on one's scientific hypothetical premise about origins.
frako writes: Operative forces: huh?? so your saying gravity and the like so gravity is caused by mass and that proves a desighner how? From whence comes gravity and all of the forces needful to be in place for any order to exist. From whence comes all of the diverse forces operative on planet earth and throughout the universe so as for it to function in all of it's complexity?
frako writes: 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. Ahh, the geysers and wonderfully designed diverse snowflakes. Geysers and other eruptions, such as volcanoes can be considered chaotic fissures destroying villages and forests or they can be interesting places to visit and observe. Snowflakes depend on the interpretation of the beholder's ideology. We IDists see them as wonderfully designed products of processes implemented by a supreme intelligent designer.
frako writes: . My apologies, Frako, for not being mindful of your local where some of our terminologies are not used. LoT is short for the scientific laws of thermodynamics. I dunno what you mean by lot. frako writes: Buzsaw writes: 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. Mmm, yes, but alas, that alibi never works for ID creationists
frako writes: 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. That depends on from who's perspective. Secularist research applies exclusively to discovering naturalistic phenomena. Your questions about unbounded space, etc entail a different topic. Frako, when my spellcheck came up with your quotes I was concerned that the system might crash. Edited by Buzsaw, : Missed one on the spell check BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alschwin Member (Idle past 4903 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of universe (Wikipedia). There are plenty of non theistic religions, including buddhism. A belief does not have to include god for it to be considered religious. so yes evolution is a religion. So if intelligent design can't be supported by the scientific method because its a religion than neither can evolution.
Edited by alschwin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In order to get you on topic, perhaps you should read my previous post:
Message 133 So if intelligent design can't be supported by the scientific method because its a religion than neither can evolution. Complete nonsense. (Why don't you let scientists worry about these things? At least they are qualified. You seem to be just repeating the same catechism over and over.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
It's hard to get suspended in the Free For All forum, but some members seem to have that as their goal by posting persistently off-topic.
I'm headed off to bed now, but before I start the database improvements tomorrow morning I'll check this thread and will suspend for 24 hours anyone posting off-topic after this message. I'll be indiscriminate, so evolutionists, creationists and IDists take note. The topic concerns whether ID follows the scientific method. The ID side should be providing at least one example of actual ID research following the scientific method, or at least working toward that goal. If you posted off-topic before seeing this message better click that "edit" button now!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Reply to off-topic gibberish removed at Percy's request.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Jar are the methods I have initially set out in the form of Observation, evaluation, experimentation, and predictions scientifically based? {trying very hard not to channel Bill Murray as one of the Not Quite Ready For Prime Time Players (those who know the recurrent skit with Jane Curtin should know to what I refer)} Dawn, {biting my tongue here}, what you list are not methods. Rather, they are bases (please note that the pronounciation is for the plural of "basis", not the plural of "base"). We are not asking for bases, but rather for methodologies. A likely candidate for an actual description of a methodology might be what I reproduced for you at the end of my Message 176. PSC'mon. What are the details of that methodology? Because we really do need to know those details. And the effects they will have on the ability of science to continue to function. For review, do reference the OP of my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY). While you're at it, please also consider the questions of forum members who have asked what difference it would make whether a supernatural creator exists in most scientific investigations. Somewhat akin to whether the scientist doing the research was wearing matching socks. And if you wish to protest that your claims are completely different from those of the leading IDists, then it is incumbent on you to present sufficient information to demonstrate that your approach to ID is significantly different from those of the leadingf IDists and ID organizations. That will require a complete description of your own ideas about ID. Your move. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
I couldn't agree more. I don't understand why you think this is a sufficient answer. It's a generic, baseless assertion. In order to meet the criteria of the question, it needs to be specific, and supported with evidence. Please model your responses after the example I gave in Message 141: doing so will amply demonstrate your point, if indeed your point is true. Dawn Bertot: give an example of what you are claiming! Show: If what you claim is so obvious then presenting an example should be child's play. NB: The answer to a question is not another question, unless you are avoiding giving an answer. *waves at Bluejay* Edited by Panda, : tyops
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I didn't ask what argument you would use. I asked what data you would collect, specifically. Would you weigh leaves? Im sorry observation of microscopic organisms in not an argument. evaluating and studying thier pattern of logical and orderly progression to produce another organism is not weighing leaves Until you can demonstrate why such actions are not science in action and why the order is clearly not there and why i am imagining it, It will be considered by any thinking person as science and evidence of design or even probable design Until you address the example I provided I cant take your responses seriously How many test do i need to conduct to know it is order and harmony? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I hate to dissapoint you but there is no logic in the development faze of lets say a human, Gills are made and then unmade, a tail is made and then unmade.... logicly a small form a human would be made and then grown whit none of these energy wasting illogical steps. Dont worry your not disappointing me, because you are wrong. regardless of your weary observations, there is order in the smallest to the greatest parts visible, demonstratable and observable order Since there is order all you need to do is demonstrate why it is not evidence the same way you draw a conclusion of change and especially Macro-evolution Your mistake is in assuming you system is somehow better or more superior, but no one has demonstrated why, from the basics to the detailed
If there is so much harmony in our bodies what about auto immune desieses when ones own body attacks itself. Would you say that the micro organisms perform this in an orderly and rational fashion if we were to observe thier little behavior. Ofcours they do and of course you would
How much evidence did DARWIN have (well more then ID cause id has none) and he hypothesised evolution and it was later refined and proved. Instead of bragging on him, could you show why his was more scientific and why we dont follow the same rules to the specific details of Order and Harmony
Because ID usualy starts whit an unproven assumption to support its theory and then uses its theory to support the asumption.
Ideas and assumptions can change given enough evidence, that is why the priciple of design has not changed, because no one can demonstrate that law and order do not exist And because they do and I can study them from a scientific approach, they demonstrate probable design Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024