|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design explains many follies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Admin Director is correct. I provided my resume credentials at his request. I will leave them behind if others will stop impugning my integrity. I will take others at their word, if others will take my word.
As for my assertion of there being a 50/50 chance of there being an Almighty God, I offer this explanation. There’s a big difference between saying whether a statement is true or not true concerning the existence of God, than in determining the chances of whether or not an arrow will hit the target when shot. Either God exists or God doesn’t exist - there is no in between. I did not say there was exactly a 50/50 chance God exists. I said the %s were no worse than 50/50 that God exists. But when it comes to shooting and hitting a target with an arrow, it depends on many factors - the component quality of the bow & arrow, the skill of the archer, the distance the arrow has to travel, the weather conditions, etc. Therefore, there’s not a 50/50 chance the archer will hit the target. It could be very low when the archer first starts shooting and much higher after much practice. The same analogy applies to the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. These theories can be offered as theories, but not as science because of the immense times necessary to prove these theories with some degree of certainty. What is at issue here is precisely that - what degree of certainty can the theory of evolution and abiogenesis be proven? Many here believe it’s proven to a very high degree of certainty. On this point I strongly disagree. To prove to a high degree of certainty that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are true would need the immense amount of time necessary to somehow show these theories really work. Therefore, they must always remain as theories, and not as science. Science must deal with things that can be proven to a high degree of certainty over time with repeatable results, not with theories that can never be proven in their entirety. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
The same analogy applies to the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. These theories can be offered as theories, but not as science because of the immense times necessary to prove these theories with some degree of certainty. What is at issue here is precisely that - what degree of certainty can the theory of evolution and abiogenesis be proven? Many here believe it’s proven to a very high degree of certainty. On this point I strongly disagree. To prove to a high degree of certainty that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are true would need the immense amount of time necessary to somehow show these theories really work. Therefore, they must always remain as theories, and not as science. Umm.. So i guess GR,QM, nuclear physics, and just about everything in science isn't science then according to you? Because guess what? They are THEORYS! Your post is pure nonsense and it still shows that you have no clue about what science is or how it works.since when is a theory not science? its the end point of ideas, or are you using the layman term for the word? which is a hunch? ToE is accepted with almost certianty because of the evidence and denying that evidence would be paramount to willfull ignoraceBy the way you are mixing them, abiogenesis is not as well supported as ToE. We can see evolution in action so there is no need for any more time Therefore, they must always remain as theories, and not as science.
as you say, then nearly everything in science isn't science, which is a load if i ever heard one. You need to go read about science you don't seem to have any understanding of it at all if you are saying this nonsense
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
John 10:10 writes: Admin Director is correct. I provided my resume credentials at his request. I will leave them behind if others will stop impugning my integrity. You're impugning your own integrity. The people here are just calling attention to it. The credentials you listed are wholly incompatible with the rudimentary level of scientific comprehension you have displayed in this thread.
Either God exists or God doesn’t exist - there is no in between. I did not say there was exactly a 50/50 chance God exists. I said the %s were no worse than 50/50 that God exists. So you're saying that because God either does or doesn't exist that therefore the odds are better than 50% for the existence of God. It is the disparity between your credentials and this naive (and, of course, self-evidently wrong) understanding of probability that is causing people to question them. To allow you to continue contributing in the science forums would only be an invitation to people to continue abusing you. I'm removing your posting privileges in the science forums for the following reasons:
AbE: I've left your privileges enabled in the [forum=-11] forum. This message has been edited by Admin, Thu, 04-20-2006 02:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ptman Inactive Member |
The theory of nuclear decay is only a theory and thus not science by your terms. Further, it is based on events in the past that noone has been there to witness, let alone measure. In neither your's nor any other scenario has any human been around long enough to "prove" nuclear decay rates of Uranium. By your argument nothing you do at work has any basis in science and is little more than voodoo. Are you willing to accept this or do you find fault with my logic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
btw, see
http://EvC Forum: Members with restricted posting privileges if you are wondering why there is no answer we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Evolution is change in species over time. That this happens is undeniable, in fact it has been observed in so many scientific experiments that it is accepted by all the major adversaries of evolutionary theory. New traits, new species, even "irreducibly complex" systems have been observed to evolve I am yet to find one ID person to accept what you just mentioned. Can you give some examples of this occuring?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
See ramoss Message 88 question on this and my reply Message 101.
That you have "yet to find one ID person to accept what you just mentioned" speaks to their credibility, especially when claiming that ID is scientific, as scientific means acknowledging (and abandoning) falsified concepts. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
New traits, new species, even "irreducibly complex" systems have been observed to evolve Can you provide some examples of this happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you want to read message 277 again before you look really silly?
If Message 101 is not clear enough for you tryEvC Forum: Can't ID be tested AT ALL? This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*08*2006 07:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Your posts cover IC but there is also the fact that Inkorrect is, again, incorrect about ID persons accepting almost all of evolutionary theory including an old earth and the relationship between other primates and man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But is this a failure of ID or the people that propose ID?
Usually what they end up with is that whatever cannot be explained MUST be evidence of a design\creation. There are those who say it is independant of a young earth (ie - they can accept geological ages). But there is also no logical reason for ID to be incompatible with any of evolutionary theory or the relationship between other primates and man -- if they are scientific and follow the evidence trail where it leads. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Sorry RAZD, I worded that poorly.
It is my understanding that the mainstream IDists all agree with almost all of the biologists on almost all of evolution. That is what Inkorrect is wrong (again) about. But I don't think we have shown him that yet. They disagree (all of them I think) about abiogenesis and a few specific steps of some evolutionary pathways. That's all I've seen. Of course, they are careful to not be too clear on what they agree with. If they do as you say they have to accept too much for their creationist friends or they show how unscientific they actually are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
In my experience, if you talk to an IDist who is conscious of the necessity to promote ID as a strictly scientific discipline, then the views espoused will be as you describe.
Most other IDists, including many of those described above when they feel they're safely in a religious venue or at least are not in the limelight, will blather on about a young earth and the fallacy of radiometric dating and all the other creationist nonsense. And the identity of the designer previously characterized as not relevant to ID research will be freely described as the God of the Christian Bible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: Only if there were no God, of the type, say, the US has claimed to believe in. His creating things eliminates other possiblities. 100%. You have your beliefs, John 10:10 has his. Edited by whisper, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: This may be, but then both of you should be posting in the [forum=-6] forum, and not the science forum.
quote: It most certainly does not. Even if He did create some things, to jump to conclusion that He has created EVERYTHING (which would rule our other possibilities), is a little hasty. Sorry to join in this so late. I should probably go back and address the opening post before continuing. Trék Edited by Invictus, : I was going to reply to the opening post, but I realize that everyone else has done so very well. Not to mention that this late in the discussion talking about the opening post would be almost off-topic (slightly ironic, no?).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024