|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How many test do i need to conduct to know it is order and harmony? None, real scientists will do that for you. What you need is to propose a test for design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
We're not talking about "order and harmony". We're talking about intelligent design. How many test do i need to conduct to know it is order and harmony? And so far you haven't done any tests, you haven't described any tests, you haven't specified what you're testing for. I'm asking you for one simple test that you would do to identify design. What would you be holding in your hands while you're doing the test? So far, you've demonstrated that the ID method is fundamentally different from the scientific method because the scientific method does propose detailed experimental procdeures. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
We're not talking about "order and harmony". We're talking about intelligent design. If thats you in the picture, sorry doll face, yes we are talking about order and harmony Things like change and natural selection are all that can be deduced by scientific observation Design is a conclusion, like nature being the sole mechanism for the existence of things. those are conclusions not provable. Whats left is logic by deduction
And so far you haven't done any tests, you haven't described any tests, you haven't specified what you're testing for. If what I provided is not a test could you give me an example of test that involves different and better principles Show me your method, describe the steps
So far, you've demonstrated that the ID method is fundamentally different from the scientific method because the scientific method does propose detailed experimental procdeures. Im sorry to be rude but the above is so funny and indicative of the science mind. it actually believes and cannot distinguish between what is rational and what is needed Ringo a test does not need to be complicated or detailed to be a test, or science Yes science conducts detailed test to and FOR information concerning present information.. that does not mean its conclusions concerning details and events, that are no longer available are as accurate and detailed concerning information and events presently Sorry I had to change that last sentence Why cant you see that distinction Both you and i test for what information can be deduced presently, thats all we can do. Your methods and your conclusions are no better. think about it logically Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
alschwin Member (Idle past 4903 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
Off topic?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. I've also PM'ed alschwin about how to avoid what will be the wrath of Admin when he sees the current version of the message tomorrow. Edited by alschwin, : Off topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
How many test do i need to conduct to know it is order and harmony? Only one; but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.) So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test. Here are some of the problems: Different observers can look at "a leaf" or any other object and come up with different opinions on "order" and "harmony" (whatever those terms mean). Unless you can define some objective criteria you are dealing with the subjective. There are all kinds of leaves, from those you don't want growing in your lawn to fossils hundreds of millions of years old. What data will you collect, and from which leaves will you collect it? What will you do to ensure that your data is not subjective? What criteria will you use to ensure you have enough data? What measurements and observations will you take? How much additional data will you need from other organisms? You didn't think you could just study leaves, did you? When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? What assumptions will you use, and how well supported are they? Will you be able to establish a theory that explains all the data, as well as related data, and ignores no important data? When you can start to answer these questions, and literally hundreds of additional related questions, you may be able to come up with a suitable test. But first, you really should establish some relationship between "order" and "harmony" and the real world. At the moment those terms seem more suitable for a sophomore bull session well lubricated with adult beverages and unbridled ignorance.
evaluating and studying thier pattern of logical and orderly progression to produce another organism is not weighing leaves So how are you going to study the "pattern of logical and orderly progression?" Measure them? Study them in historical perspective, using fossils and radiometric dating? Seems like what you are describing is basic biology and paleontology, which is being practiced by thousands of scientists around the world. Their results fill floors in major university libraries. But I think what you are really doing is depicted in the following cartoon:
See, there is that "step two" -- it doesn't bother you because you already know the answer and you have no need to go through all the steps that are customary in science. But that's why you don't have a test you can describe for us. That's why you don't have a method you can describe. That's why you keep coming up with these subjective and undefined terms, such as "order" and "harmony" that ultimately mean nothing. Fact is, you are peddlin' religion lite and we all know it. That's all that ID is, and ever will be. And that is why it has to be promulgated by folks such as yourself and sold to an already religious audience instead of working scientists and peer-reviewed journals. Real scientists won't touch ID with a ten foot cattle prod for the reasons outlined above, and many others. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Only one; Thank you, atleast that is a start
but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.) So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test. I love the science mind it is so funny. ironically it is void of logical deduction, the very thing it needs the most C, all information, not at present and not now available is void of reliable conclusions, but it is not void of logical probabilities Any information derived by the SM, about information not now available or conclusions of the same is at best speculative, but that deosnt mean it is wrong or inaccurate, just not demonstratable So, now listen, pay close attention. The SM, unless it is dealing with present visible information and conclusion that can presently be proved, suffers the same fate as any test or theory Your methods and conclusions are no better, than the IDMs, science approach we use in the conclusions concerning, order, law and harmony It amazes me that you believe I actually need to keep conducting tests to see if order actually is order
When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? Why do you assume my test needs to be complicated to be valid. thats funny Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
No we're not. Nobody disputes that order and harmony exist. What you're trying to do is establish a linkage between order and harmony on the one hand and design on the other hand. If thats you in the picture, sorry doll face, yes we are talking about order and harmony We have something that exhibits order and harmony. Your hypothesis is that that order and harmony originate from a designer. Your claim is that the ID method for testing that hypothesis is the same as the scientific method. The scientific method proposes experiments to test the hypothesis, so if your method is the same as the scientific method, that's what you need to do.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Certainly. I hypothesize that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen in a ratio of 2 to 1 by volume. The equipment that I require is two test tubes, a source of electric current and a beaker of water. I propose to pass an electric current through the water and collect the separated hydrogen and oxygen gases in the test tubes, one over each electrode. If my hypothesis is correct, I will collect twice as much hydrogen as oxygen. I'll test the hydrogen (to a first approximation) by igniting it. I'll test the oxygen (to a first approximation) by inserting a glowing splint to see if it promotes combustion. If what I provided is not a test could you give me an example of test that involves different and better principles I've been asking you to describe a similar experiment in similar detail for distinguishing design from natural processes. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If thats you in the picture, sorry doll face, yes we are talking about order and harmony Dawn, you stupid bitch. No, that's not Ringo. That is Sharon Stone in an Old West movie about an epic race (which also featured Gene Hackman) in whch one member rode with a whisky-soaked bullet bitten by himself -- sorry, but I never have watched that movie, except for a singular scene where one Mexican contestant in that race soaked that bullet in whisky before returning it between his teeth. Unless I'm mistaking it for yet another Western I had not seen in which Sharon Stone was a contestant in a series of noon-day showdowns. I will leave it up to Ringo to resolve that. You have proposed something that is substantially different from what science would have produced. The onus is on you to produce evidence of that. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Only one; Thank you, atleast that is a start
but that one has to produce repeatable results, it has to rely on solid data, and it has to lead to a reliable conclusion stemming directly from the observations. (Subjective opinions and unsupported claims need not apply.) So far you have provided none of these. And you have provided no real-world definitions of "order" and "harmony" that can be used in such a test. I love the science mind it is so funny. ironically it is void of logical deduction, the very thing it needs the most C, all information, not at present and not now available is void of reliable conclusions, but it is not void of logical probabilities Any information derived by the SM, about information not now available or conclusions of the same is at best speculative, but that deosnt mean it is wrong or inaccurate, just not demonstratable So, now listen, pay close attention. The SM, unless it is dealing with present visible information and conclusion that can presently be proved, suffers the same fate as any test or theory Your methods and conclusions are no better, than the IDMs, science approach we use in the conclusions concerning, order, law and harmony It amazes me that you believe I actually need to keep conducting tests to see if order actually is order
When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? Why do you assume my test needs to be complicated to be valid. thats funny EPIC FAIL! And the sad part is you can't even see why. Good night. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn, you stupid bitch. No, that's not Ringo While I dont like the language, that is funny as crap. "You stupid bitch". bastard would be more accurate, I have a pair. You know a guy named sue sort of thing
That is Sharon Stone in an Old West movie about an epic race (which also featured Gene Hackman) in whch one member rode with a whisky-soaked bullet bitten by himself -- sorry, but I never have watched that movie yeah I know that, I watched it again this very day on ION, for about the 10th time. I was hoping ringo was actually Sharon. well you know what they say, poop in one hand and wish in the other and watch which one fills up the fastest Ofcourse no one is faster than Will Mannon (steve forrest) episode of Gunsmoke, where he guns down five bad guys in about 2 seconds, with festus left wityh his mouth haning open The actual quick draws of today are even more impressive. I would hate to get on the bad side of one of those dudes Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. No, again, design is a conclusion of observed evidence. It doesnt mean design is the source, it means it is a logical conclusion of the available evidence of obvious order. I dont need to, nor can I or you produce tests to demonstrate the actual evidence of events that are no longer available. Those are called conclusions Dr A
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. As eloquent as your speech sounds, they do not detect change or evolution as the SOURCE of order found in anything. Nice try though. The source of the order is an event no longer detectable, outside revelation) What they detect is simply change and what we detect is order You are free to believe that natural sources soley, are the cause of order and change or evolution. Demonstrating it in reality, or the physical world, is another thing So when the dust settles and the smoke clears, all we are left with are two logical possibilites, both of whcih are testable in physical properties Both of which are and use the same exact methodology Both of which are science And those are the facts
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. I have already done this and the conclusion of your statement is a misrepresentation of my position As a matter of fact i have stated numerous times its not about design, initially and directly Dawn Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
No, again, design is a conclusion of observed evidence. It doesnt mean design is the source, it means it is a logical conclusion of the available evidence of obvious order. You still do not get it you base your conclusion on the base that order needs desighn to be order. You have not put one argument forward that would say or point to that. Until you do it is more logical to assume that order can spawn naturaly whitout the aid of inteligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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? I value his comments concerning the subject greatly and While i agree with his conclusion as well, I do not think that is initially how the design argument is established, but i personally agree with the majority of its tenets Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Order: does not point to a desighner it was shown that order can spawn on its own To demonstrate you do not Actually understand what you are saying, one simply needs to point out that you have no knowledge of how events started to begin with So claiming that order can start on its own and demonstrating it are two different things Until you can prove that order and all order is and can start on its own, order most certainly points to design perhaps you could conduct one of those complicated, very involved in depth SM test to prove to us that order is not designed and that it in every place starts on its own. especially the beginning of things because we already know the SM is superior to all other forms of investigation and it can answer all questions, even the ones where the direct evidence is no longer available, correct dawn bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn, didn't you ever learn anything at all in your NCO/PO training? At another time i asked you not to lecture me on Military protocol. While you were learning how to not, to dangle your modifiers, I was learning how to scale and not dangle from constantina wire In my stint I actually participated in events, in the line of duty, that would make you puke So if i happen to split an infinative, I think I have already accomplished more in there than you will ever have in the NCO academy so take your regs and pressed shirt and impress someone else with that crapola Pipe down junior
Do they indeed use the same methods? absolutley
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? 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. D, look at this very eloquent and complicated explanation and see if it really involves anymore than i have already indicated. What you have described is nothing more than a commonsense investigation, the likes of which anyone would use and employ The only part other than that is the reference to the supernatural, which is not necessary to formulate the ID supposition, initially that is 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