Evolution of the evolution threads...

Originally posted by PBE6
Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.

Question:

Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we e ...[text shortened]... the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.

Get cracking, Creationists!

What if Eladar is for once correct and no actual predictions can be made?
That does not rule it out as a valid hypothesis.
It does however make it a rather over generalized hypothesis.

To my knowledge, string theory is yet to make any verifiable predictions.

I also see a possible problem in that what we know about God is based to a large extent on what we see around us, so if you ask what we think God would have made, then the first piece of evidence is what he did make - but you have asked us not to use that as evidence.

Its like asking me what Einstein would have done in a certain situation without referencing anything that Einstein ever did.

Originally posted by PBE6
Sometimes you miss the mark by a country mile, Fabian. The entire point of this thread is to show why Intelligent Design isn't science, and the best way to do that is to apply the scientific method and see where Intelligent Design comes up short.

Well it seems that I'm allergic to creation, intelligent design and all other religious pseudo-sciences. To bring in religious retorics into the Science Forum is like invite the devil himself to here. Doesn't feel right.

We have too many discussions about religon fantasies here as it is. I still think that this discussion should be conducted in the Spiritual Forum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What if Eladar is for once correct and no actual predictions can be made?
That does not rule it out as a valid hypothesis.
It does however make it a rather over generalized hypothesis.

To my knowledge, string theory is yet to make any verifiable predictions.

I also see a possible problem in that what we know about God is based to a large extent on ...[text shortened]... tein would have done in a certain situation without referencing anything that Einstein ever did.

The problem with string theory is not that is makes no predictions, but that the energy levels need to test some of those predictions are far beyond our current means. An experiment can be devised that would either prove or disprove the theory, but it can't be carried out at present.

Now, if no predictions can be made about God and what sort of living beings God would create, that actually does rule it out as a valid hypothesis - it reduces that statement to a unsubstantiated claim. As I mentioned in the "Evolution of the eye" thread, abductive reasoning is the rational comparison amongst and selection of the most probable hypothesis from a list of competing hypotheses. Unverifiable claims don't enter into it. The bit about leaving the actual observed data until later was meant to prevent Creationists from asserting "everything would be designed as we see it now", a clear tautology.

You are correct in that no amount of abductive reasoning can ever disprove a hypothesis based solely on the adoption of an alternative hypothesis. However, if one hypothesis makes contradictory assertions, it can be disproved through proof by contradiction. I am highly confident that any agrument for Intelligent Design will fall into this category.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well it seems that I'm allergic to creation, intelligent design and all other religious pseudo-sciences. To bring in religious retorics into the Science Forum is like invite the devil himself to here. Doesn't feel right.

We have too many discussions about religon fantasies here as it is. I still think that this discussion should be conducted in the Spiritual Forum.

Someone should have told Maxwell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Originally posted by PBE6
Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.

Question:

Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we e ...[text shortened]... the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.

Get cracking, Creationists!

God created you with an inability to understand--or an ability to start useful or thought-provoking threads. That's my hypothesis proved out by your thread.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
God created you with an inability to understand--or an ability to start useful or thought-provoking threads. That's my hypothesis proved out by your thread.

Thanks for your input! Now go bang some rocks together. 😠

Originally posted by PBE6
Thanks for your input! Now go bang some rocks together. 😠

thanks for your one cent...i need your approval to make my day better. Now go start another stupid thread.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You cannot ever use scientific methods to prove god's existance.

Why not? Is this true for all types of gods or are you thinking of one in particular?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
thanks for your one cent...i need your approval to make my day better. Now go start another stupid thread.

You're a 33 year old child.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
God created you with an inability to understand--or an ability to start useful or thought-provoking threads. That's my hypothesis proved out by your thread.

…God created you with an inability to understand--or an ability to start useful or thought-provoking threads. That's my hypothesis PROVED out by your thread.. ..…. (my emphasis)

-that is logically flawed -It is part of logic that in order for a hypothesis on reality to be “PROVED” it must be “provable” and in order for it to be “provable” it must be able to make predictions that would be correct if the hypothesis is correct BUT (and this is the critical point here; ) FALSE if the hypothesis is incorrect. In other words, for a hypothesis on reality to be “proved”, it must be “refutable“.

Lets say, just for the sake of argument, you DID prove that Bananarama has an “inability to understand” and you DID prove that Bananarama has the inability to start “useful or thought-provoking threads” -this would NOT “prove” that “god” created that “inability” because there is no logical contradiction between somebody having an inability and a “god” NOT creating that inability -in other words, if you claim that your “god hypothesis” makes this “prediction” then this “prediction” would not be a valid prediction because it could be true REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a “god” and, given the fact that this is true for any “prediction” your “god hypothesis” makes, that means that your “god hypothesis” is not refutable and therefore cannot be “proven”.

P.S. I don’t think he has these inabilities.

Originally posted by Palynka
Why not? Is this true for all types of gods or are you thinking of one in particular?

It is true for all “gods”

The tools available for scientific method are: observations; experiments; applied logic.

Can you, for example, “observe” a “god” through a telescope?

Can you perform an experiment that would demonstrate the existence of a “god”?

Can you prove through logical argument that a “god” exists?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…God created you with an inability to understand--or an ability to start useful or thought-provoking threads. That's my hypothesis PROVED out by your thread.. ..…. (my emphasis)

-that is logically flawed -It is part of logic that in order for a hypothesis on reality to be “PROVED” it must be “provable” and in order for it to be “provable” i ...[text shortened]... makes, that means that your “god hypothesis” is not refutable and therefore cannot be “proven”.[/b]

uh huh...i still think he's obtuse..

p.s. haven't you been dead for over 300 years?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
It is true for all “gods”

The tools available for scientific method are: observations; experiments; applied logic.

Can you, for example, “observe” a “god” through a telescope?

Can you perform an experiment that would demonstrate the existence of a “god”?

Can you prove through logical argument that a “god” exists?

Can you, for example, “observe” a “god” through a telescope?
Some gods are even claimed to have been observed with the naked eye. For such gods, it would also have been possible to observe them through a telescope.

Can you perform an experiment that would demonstrate the existence of a “god”?
For any god that has a tangible effect on the world, this is certainly possible.

Can you prove through logical argument that a “god” exists?
This is unrelated. We're talking about empirical evidence, not logical proofs.

It is true for all “gods”
FAIL.

PS: Please read up on the meaning of "all".

Originally posted by PBE6
Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.

Question:

Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we e ...[text shortened]... the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.

Get cracking, Creationists!

This Is a a great idea PBE6, but I have a feeling creationists will be few and far between in class participation....!!

Originally posted by PBE6
No, we're actually going to do some science here. We're going to see if we can raise the status of the Creationist claim to a hypothesis, with some testable predictions. If we can't, then we can't consider Creationism to be a reasonable alternative to evolution because it will be unverifiable.

So as soon as you get a creationist to answer you tell him to shut
his pie hole and you want to learn how a creationist thinks? I do not
think you are being very honest here. He gave you a valid place to
begin, design requires intent and you blew that off without a second
thought.
Kelly