Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[LuvRPgrl]

While you're pondering that thought come up with some real evidence for ID "theory" other than "wow, life is so complex, neato!"

I dont know anyone other than you who thinks that.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's it in a nutshell. If you believe in an intelligent designer you would have to believe in evolution. Such a design would make more sense than one without evolution built in. If anything evolution might be a good argument for the existence of God. I don't see how people don't think like that though.

HA! Nonsense. You want to draw such a logical conclusion and use it as fact, yet a more logical conclusion you want to reject out of hand (irreducable complexity)

Why would a designer have to use evolution? Why couldnt the designer simply have created many animals and species that are extremely similiar.

Breeders of poodle are limited in what they can breed into a dog. All of these traits are in the genes of the original dog. If evolution were true, you would be able to breed any trait into a dog you would desire, if given enough time. But we are extremely limited on what we can breed into a dog. In fact, the notion of "breeding in a trait" is nonsense. What the breeders are really doing is taking traits that are already there and breeding the dogs in a way that the desired trait comes to the forefront.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A theory is a hypothesis that has been deemed, based on available evidence, to be more than likely true. In order for a hypothesis to gain theory status, it requires proof. If ID ever accrues the evidence necessary to be considered a theory, then, and only then, will it be appropriate to include it in science classes as an alternate to the theory of evolution. Of course, if ID ever achieves theory status, it will be at the expense of evolution and would more than likely replace it, not coexist with it.

since you repeated yourself, I will do likewise. Being a theory is not, and should not be a pre requisite for something being in a science class. If need be, re name the class scienphilosophy. Putting ID beside Evolution is good education. It would stimulate discussion, debate and thinking. Funny but its the democrats who mainly oppose ID in science classes, yet the same (HYPOCRITE) dems are always screaming how important it is to debate issues regardless of who is right and wrong.

As usual, the liberal dems principle only applies when it suits their agenda. When it doesnt, suddenly it is no longer valid. (freedom of choice, free speech, etc. etc)

 

[MissileMan]

since you repeated yourself, I will do likewise. Being a theory is not, and should not be a pre requisite for something being in a science class. If need be, re name the class scienphilosophy. Putting ID beside Evolution is good education. It would stimulate discussion, debate and thinking. Funny but its the democrats who mainly oppose ID in science classes, yet the same (HYPOCRITE) dems are always screaming how important it is to debate issues regardless of who is right and wrong.

As usual, the liberal dems principle only applies when it suits their agenda. When it doesnt, suddenly it is no longer valid. (freedom of choice, free speech, etc. etc)

And what other hypotheses are suitable for science classes? Since no evidence is required, I suppose the sky's the limit. If all it takes is for someone to suggest, "You know what? I think the universe was created when a meatball rolled off the Cosmic Plate of Spaghetti and disintegrated on the floor". That's a possible alternative to evolution and ID also.

Science IS about things that can be observed and measured and tested. Quit trying to redefine science so that it can include pseudo-scientific nonsense.

 

[Powerman]

And what other hypotheses are suitable for science classes? Since no evidence is required, I suppose the sky's the limit. If all it takes is for someone to suggest, "You know what? I think the universe was created when a meatball rolled off the Cosmic Plate of Spaghetti and disintegrated on the floor". That's a possible alternative to evolution and ID also.

Science IS about things that can be observed and measured and tested. Quit trying to redefine science so that it can include pseudo-scientific nonsense.

That's the point I've been trying to crush into their heads for so long. Apparently when I say it I'm a lunatic though. Go figure. You are 100% correct on this topic. You can not redefine science to appease people of faith. The problem is data collection. You can not collect metaphysical data therefore anything that involves supernatural ideals can not be science. It's painfully simple to understand if you look at things objectively.

 

[Powerman]

HA! Nonsense. You want to draw such a logical conclusion and use it as fact, yet a more logical conclusion you want to reject out of hand (irreducable complexity)

Apparently you missed the part where we exposed irreducible complexity as being completely false. Better luck next time.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Complexity does imply or outright state that it could not have accidentally formed on its own. Without that possibility, the only other option is creator. Again, simple logical deduction.

Are you talking about complexity from one accident, like 2 bacteria gettin' busy one friday night and popping out a french poodle saturday afternoon? If so, you've introduced a 3rd option.

Evolution does not happen by accident, it is a very well defined process that involves accidents, big difference. Over millions of years, each species was designed just right for it's time and place so it had a better chance of surviving than its great-great-great grandparents. Evolution does not happen by accident at all. Don't confuse 1 mutation with evolution, they are two totally different things.

I think this misunderstanding of what evolution is explains the "watch in the forest" example and why ID proponents even bother to raise it. If a watch is found in a forest, chances are it was created for 2 reasons:
1. We have never witnessed a watch reproduce or die so there is no possibility of natural selection.
2. There is not likely any survival advantage to knowing the exact time in a forest. Since the watch does not have a natural advantage, one can presume that it was placed there.
Evolution is not an accident, it is a process of natural selection that relies on tiny accidents. Since the process is completely not applicable to watches in forests, I actually find that the watch example exposes a very basic misunderstanding of what evolution is all about.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Science IS about things that can be observed and measured and tested. Quit trying to redefine science so that it can include pseudo-scientific nonsense.

I'm beginning to understand the concern of the anti-gay marriage people who don't want the word marriage redefined!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And what other hypotheses are suitable for science classes? Since no evidence is required, I suppose the sky's the limit. If all it takes is for someone to suggest, "You know what? I think the universe was created when a meatball rolled off the Cosmic Plate of Spaghetti and disintegrated on the floor". That's a possible alternative to evolution and ID also.

Science IS about things that can be observed and measured and tested. Quit trying to redefine science so that it can include pseudo-scientific nonsense.

who created the meatball?

 

[Powerman]

who created the meatball?

Translation: I don't have an argument that is logical.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's the point I've been trying to crush into their heads for so long. Apparently when I say it I'm a lunatic though. Go figure. You are 100% correct on this topic. You can not redefine science to appease people of faith. The problem is data collection. You can not collect metaphysical data therefore anything that involves supernatural ideals can not be science. It's painfully simple to understand if you look at things objectively.

I've given lots of reasons why its ok to teach ID in a science class. I have not tried to claim its science. But you guys just keep repeating yourself, without responding to my reasons. Is that scientific? if you just keep repeating yourself, suddenly what you say will become true? And Im not talking about if ID is science, Im talking about if it belongs in the science class.

again, I have given numerous reaasons why it does, and you guys havent refuted any of them.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Apparently you missed the part where we exposed irreducible complexity as being completely false. Better luck next time.

since you didnt expose anything, how could i have missed it?

 

[Powerman]

I've given lots of reasons why its ok to teach ID in a science class. I have not tried to claim its science. But you guys just keep repeating yourself, without responding to my reasons. Is that scientific? if you just keep repeating yourself, suddenly what you say will become true? And Im not talking about if ID is science, Im talking about if it belongs in the science class.

again, I have given numerous reaasons why it does, and you guys havent refuted any of them.

So you don't claim it is scientific yet you think we should teach it in science class? Why? Give me one reason we should teach something that isn't scientific in science class.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you talking about complexity from one accident, like 2 bacteria gettin' busy one friday night and popping out a french poodle saturday afternoon? If so, you've introduced a 3rd option.

Evolution does not happen by accident, it is a very well defined process that involves accidents, big difference. Over millions of years, each species was designed just right for it's time and place so it had a better chance of surviving than its great-great-great grandparents. Evolution does not happen by accident at all. Don't confuse 1 mutation with evolution, they are two totally different things.

I think this misunderstanding of what evolution is explains the "watch in the forest" example and why ID proponents even bother to raise it. If a watch is found in a forest, chances are it was created for 2 reasons:
1. We have never witnessed a watch reproduce or die so there is no possibility of natural selection.
2. There is not likely any survival advantage to knowing the exact time in a forest. Since the watch does not have a natural advantage, one can presume that it was placed there.
Evolution is not an accident, it is a process of natural selection that relies on tiny accidents. Since the process is completely not applicable to watches in forests, I actually find that the watch example exposes a very basic misunderstanding of what evolution is all about.

R U saying there is a design without a designer?

 

[Powerman]

since you didnt expose anything, how could i have missed it?

Might be in another thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Read up. It's been exposed as being pseudoscience.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Translation: I don't have an argument that is logical.

Translation: If you disagree with me, Powerman, you are not logical.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So you don't claim it is scientific yet you think we should teach it in science class? Why? Give me one reason we should teach something that isn't scientific in science class.

talk about missing something. Go back and read my very earlier posts in this thread. I gave lots of reasons.

One is that there are lots of non science things taught in science class. For you to claim nothing but pure science is taught in science class is wrong and disengenuous

 

[Powerman]

talk about missing something. Go back and read my very earlier posts in this thread. I gave lots of reasons.

One is that there are lots of non science things taught in science class. For you to claim nothing but pure science is taught in science class is wrong and disengenuous

I'm not dredging through this 20 page thread to find the reasons. What is an example of something that you would consider to be not science that is taught in science class? I'd love to hear it.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

talk about missing something. Go back and read my very earlier posts in this thread. I gave lots of reasons.

One is that there are lots of non science things taught in science class. For you to claim nothing but pure science is taught in science class is wrong and disengenuous

what are you talking about Luvergirl? Name one thing taught in science class--Kansas science classes don't count--that isn't science.

 

[Powerman]

what are you talking about Luvergirl? Name one thing taught in science class--Kansas science classes don't count--that isn't science.

I think she's full of hot air. I don't know of any non science that we teach in science class.