29 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightThere are equivalents, though, don't you agree?
Um, nobody is burning at the stake here.
For instance, putting aside the complete and utterly disdainful covert machinations of some of the ID camps, are there not scientists whose research calls into question some of the tenets of the faith? (In unison: yes)
Will their work--- in the forseeable future--- ever be peer-reviewed? (No, FreakyKBH, they won't) Why? (They're being burned at the stake, Freak)
That's right.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiScience looks for the most parsimonious argument. If we can explain something without divine interference then we will. It's simpler, and can be proven.
I should have said the believers in TOE presuppose no divine intervention - thus TOE automatically rejects divine intervention.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot true. PNAS recently published a creationist paper. There were no technical violations normally present in work presented by creationists, hence it was published.
There are equivalents, though, don't you agree?
For instance, putting aside the complete and utterly disdainful covert machinations of some of the ID camps, are there not scientists whose research calls into question some of the tenets of the faith? (In unison: yes)
Will their work--- in the forseeable future--- ever be peer-reviewed? (No, FreakyKBH, they won't) Why? (They're being burned at the stake, Freak)
That's right.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightIf you're are to the possibility of ID, then TOE looses its credibility. TOE can only result if one starts with the presumption of no divine intervention. It's too weak to stand without this presumption.
You're just wrong with "assuming there is no God" as being a starting point of TOE.
It just calls it as it sees it.
...[/b]
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSure, just so long as those supernatural elements that are fundamental to the theory are testable naturally. For example, Special Creationism cannot be a scientific theory because it rests upon an entity that can never be tested, namely an omnipotent god. If anything is possible for God, then nothing can be ruled out. The ID that falls into this category fails then for the same reason. The ID that does not rest upon an omnipotent creator's participation is at this point poorly defined. As has been repeatedly pointed out so far, no ID proponent has been able to even tell us what design is. They've only highlighted complexity and then dismissed natural explainations by personal incredulity. The question is at what point does complexity necessarily imply design? Bill Dembski has actually attempted to find such a criterion. Unfortunately anyone with an undergraduate statistics course can see that it's going nowhere.
Do you think a falsifiable theory can incorporate supernatural elements into it?
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo.
There are equivalents, though, don't you agree?
For instance, putting aside the complete and utterly disdainful covert machinations of some of the ID camps, are there not scientists whose research calls into question some of the tenets of the faith? (In unison: yes)
Will their work--- in the forseeable future--- ever be peer-reviewed? (No, FreakyKBH, they won't) Why? (They're being burned at the stake, Freak)
That's right.
It either makes sense or it doesn't.
29 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiColetti, I've been around and around with you on this. You have willfully chosen not to understand. Rather than face the fact that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are very testable and have survived myriad tests for over 100 years, you eventually retreat into some form of universal skepticism, a position which you embrace only in that moment of convenience as we all know you do not believe such nonsense. Given this history, I do not wish to engage with you any further. Maybe some one else here will take your question up further.
Replace the word ID with Theory of Evolution and you get the same problem. Evolutionism is not a satisfactory explanation either, but that's what it does, fill the gaps. Why do that teach such crap if they are not willing to allow equally reasonable explanations?
Edit: For evidence of your chose not to understand, I need only point out the way you keep trying to make atheism a fundamental presupposition of evolution. TOE says nothing about any gods. By your standard (that not explicitly supposing a god = implicit denial of a god) then every theory we have in science is atheistic. No theory of gravity at any level explicitly supposes a god. No theory in hydrodynamics or chemistry presupposes a god. This does not mean that every one of these implicitly supposes that there no god exists. Whether a god exists or not is simply not relevant to the theories as they are currently presented.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou keep proving my point - "If we can explain something without divine interference then we will". This is true no matter how weak the "natural" solution given.
Science looks for the most parsimonious argument. If we can explain something without divine interference then we will. It's simpler, and can be proven.
And I won't let "It's simpler, and can be proven." go by.
First, the "natural" solution is hardly simpler. If anything simplicity has no bearing on validity or truth. If it were, TOE would have been rejected long ago.
Second, you don't prove a scientific hypothesis, you define criteria that falsify them, and test the falsifying criteria. There is no falsifying criteria of TOE. The God-Sci has delivered TOE and so by the authority of God-Sci, the TOE is Truth. Let no one dare speak against the sacred TOE.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiI'm led to believe that this is what you're looking for - I'm not sure I never followed it up at the times but the headline was lodged in my brain.
Peer reviewed?? Do you have a citation?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/20/11216
Of course, you may also wish to purchase (of download a free pdf) PNAS' own Science and Creationism booklet.
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionPlease do tell me what are the tenants of TOE. How are they tenants, and how have they been tested. And then tell me are these tenets the falsifiable criteria of the Great TOE?
Coletti, I've been around and around with you on this. You have willfully chosen not to understand. Rather than face the fact that the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are very testable and have survived myriad tests for over 100 years, you eventually retreat into some form of universal skepticism, a position which you embrace only in that moment of co ...[text shortened]... h to engage with you any further. Maybe some one else here will take your question up further.
But I see this is a hit and run approach, Mere assertions. No real bight left in the little toe-toe. 🙁
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzThank you scottishinnz,
I'm led to believe that this is what you're looking for - I'm not sure I never followed it up at the times but the headline was lodged in my brain.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/20/11216
Of course, you may also wish to purchase (of download a free pdf) PNAS' own Science and Creationism booklet.
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
I will take a look at it.
29 Dec 05
No Col, it was an explaination for why I will not waste my time repeating myself or searching for hours for my posts in which I pointed these things out. Use your fine noodle. I'm sure you can come up with cases where empirical facts would have severely weakened the TOE but did not. Your problem, and that of other creationists, is that if a little issue is not yet answered by the TOE or if some new empirical facts helped us better understand how evolution occured, you demand that the TOE be cast aside! That's ridiculous. The TOE has been so successful for so long that we are pretty doggon sure it is mostly correct (decent with modification over time through a process primarily composed of random mutation and natural selection). We are not going to just cast it aside until the a number of very severe empirical conflicts arise. Then a bright scientist (not an IDiot) will come up with a better theory that can match all the data that the TOE did and also account for the new conflicting discoveries.
By your method, we should have tossed all of Newton's ideas in the garbage heap as soon as we saw the moon bend light. Fortunately, we did not, and Newtonian physics is still very useful for us today.
29 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYou keep proving my point - "If we can explain something without divine interference then we will". This is true no matter how weak the "natural" solution given.
You keep proving my point - "If we can explain something without divine interference then we will". This is true no matter how weak the "natural" solution given.
And I won't let [b]"It's simpler, and can be proven." go by.
First, the "natural" solution is hardly simpler. If anything simplicity has no bearing on validity or truth. If it uthority of God-Sci, the TOE is Truth. Let no one dare speak against the sacred TOE.[/b]
This does not 'prove' anything you said. You say it rejects god because it doesn't have god as a built in assumption. If it required god, and god could be shown to be the only explaination (and that could be tested), then god could easily be added. However, god cannot be tested for, and is not necessary to explain the way the world is. Accept it.
TOE is not simpler if you define simple as saying 'god did it'. TOE is simpler as in it requires only observable real processes to exist.
Scientists don't worship TOE in the way that you, rather theatrically, assume. We accept it and get on with life. TOE explains the world in terms of physics, chemistry and biology; if it didn't - if it had ever been shown to be wrong - we wouldn't accept it. But it has never been shown to be wrong. There are plenty of criteria that could falsify evolution. These criteria could include; spontaneous generation of life from non-complex precursors (i.e. things like CO2, N2 and water forming life spontaneously), organisms having traits for which there would be no adaptive benefit (e.g. bottle openers), organisms that do not require energy for sustainance, amongst others. None of these things could evolve, and would be disproofs of evolution. None of them exist.
[edit; oh, and before you start life evolved from complex precursors, such as amino acids, and RNA, which were created from simpler molecules. CO2 does not spontaneously create complex sugars without an input of energy, abiogenesis without a source of energy would disprove evolution]