The Gambler’s fallacy.
Las Vegas was made on it. I prefer my science to be gamble free.
- Status
Las Vegas was made on it. I prefer my science to be gamble free.
Evolution apparently does not have the answer to the question.
But ID does.
Seems to me that people here are using a popular definition one minnute and then switching over to a ‘scientific’ definition when they get into hot water.
If you really wish to be so literal, evolutionary theory has not either.
I have yet to read about evolution performing anything in a lab.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
ID has an answer. Ergo God.
ID’s answer is God.
ID is not science because it has an answer before it goes anywhere else. All data must fit in with the answer that was already determined before any questions started.
First, the sidewinder track does not resemble an S.
Second, an impact crater is not an O.
Are you too also (figuratively speaking) sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs to prevent hearing the simply logic that an SOS on the beach is an example of an intelligent design?
What is the harm in concession of the point?
What possible consequence is there to acknowledging design?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
The only harm I can see in it is tossing out the scientific method that catholics claim to have invented.
In some cases, it may be.
In others it may not.
But I believe it is up to the student to make the determination.
The scientific method is tossed out by acknowledging that an SOS made out of rocks on a beach is an example of intelligent design?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Is it up to the RCIA candidate to make “the” decision in the same way?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I did not say that, and in your desperate attemtps to twist and turn after being questioned you grasp at any available straw you can gather up.The scientific method is tossed out by acknowledging that an SOS made out of rocks on a beach is an example of intelligent design?
Typical ID way of going about things.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You asked:
What possible consequence is there to acknowledging design?
I told you that it would take tossing out the scientific method that catholics claimed to have invented.
What possible consequence is there to acknowledging design?
I told you that it would take tossing out the scientific method that catholics claimed to have invented.
R
rossum
Guest
Many great scientists were wrong about many things. Newton was just one example. It is the nature of science that all working scientists make errors. Scientists propose hypotheses. Other scientists try to shoot down those hypotheses using experimental evidence. No scientist ever gets 100% of her hypotheses correct the first time. It is just that Newton’s hypotheses on gravity took a very long time to be shot down, by Einstein.rossum
**
Was Newton’s theory of gravity ‘proven fact’? Newton was shown to be wrong.**
If Newton was shown to be wrong, why did the Royal Society 5 years ago vote him the greatest scientist who ever lived, even greater than Einstein?
Science advances by shooting down incorrect hypotheses. Hypotheses that have survived for a time are provisionally accepted, until such time as they are in their turn shot down.
There is no contradiction between Newton being a great scientist and Newton being wrong.
Newton’s theory said that light was not affected by gravity. Einstein’s theory said that light was affected by gravity. Einstein was right while Newton was wrong.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
How many times are you going to repeat the falsehood that abiogenesis is chance process? Abiogenesis is chemistry and chemistry is not a chance process. Is the only method of argumentation you have to support ID the repetition of a falsehood? Hardly strong evidence for the scientific correctness of ID.
We have proved that amino acids can arise by chemistry. ID has failed to prove that amino acids can arise from the action of the designer.
We have proved that a chiral amino acid mixture can arise by chemistry. ID has failed to prove that a chiral amino acid mixture can arise from the action of the designer.
We have proved that pyrimidines can arise by chemistry. ID has failed to prove that pyrimidines can arise from the action of the designer.
To me that puts abiogenesis ahead 3-0. The match is not over yet but things aren’t looking good for ID.
That’s what is very noticeable … the inability of ID to produce life even under intelligently designed experiments of humans. Pot. Kettle. Black. Only in this case the kettle has at least got some progress to show, while the ID pot has absolutely nothing, not even a single molecule of amino acid.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
More failure to produce any positive evidence for ID.
More sniping from the sidelines at poorly understood science.
More questions coupled with a complete failure to answer any questions about ID.
The Theory of Evolution does not cover the origin of life. The origin of life is covered by abiogenesis.
Evolution in the lab: Weinberg, et. al, 1992 Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory, Evolution 46: 1214.
Where are your equivalent lab experiments for ID. Where are your references to the ID designer actually doing anything at all? So far, from what you have shown us, the ID designer is completely incapable of acting at all. You have shown nothing.
rossum
I am uncertain what one has to do with the other.
So what exactly are you saying? Apparently your point has been missed.
In a discussion concerning identifying the intelligent design in stones arranged in an SOS on the beach someone has asked what exactly the problem with acceptance of the intelligent design is.
Your response was :
*
Agreed, abiogenesis cannot be a chance process.
Something intelligent put the proper chemicals together in the proper order.
Your prepared script is showing.
I stated no questions.
R
rossum
Guest
And your evidence of an intelligence putting chemicals in the proper order during the Miller Urey experiment is? Of course, any such intelligence must have been present four billion years or so ago when this process was happening.
Got any evidence to show?
All ID has is failed attempts to poke holes in the evidence for abiogenesis and evolution.
Still no ID evidence. You would think that even the ID supporters would have noticed its glaring absence by now.
rossum
- Status