The absence of free-thinking in science would mean that it goes nowhere. And of course there are scientists that have more education than I (I don’t know about your educational level), but I’d like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"
I also doubt he/she would be hung up on the word “theory.”
This might be a good time to reiterate a previous statement I posted to you, which you didn’t address. “The pro-ID people are presently engaged in attempting to change the definition of science in an effort to claim ID is scientific. This in and of itself should be a convincing demonstration that ID isn't science.” Am I leaping to an unwarranted conclusion here?
I'm also so secure in my beliefs that I don't need to put people down who don't disagree with me, as you and some other evos have attempted to do. Thou doth protest toooooo much.
You know what? You’re right. I'll apologize for the tone of my last post to you right now. I'm sorry about that, and I'll try harder to stay on an even keel in the future. But I have to add this: It’s not insecurity, it’s exasperation. It seems clear from your stated unwillingness to accept that certain fields have their own vocabulary and their own particular uses for certain words that you’re unfamiliar with the topic you’re attacking. Am I wrong?
To illustrate, let’s go over this one again: My favorite flavor of quark is “charm.” Others are partial to “up.” Do “flavor,” “charm,” and “up” have the same meaning in this context as they do in everyday conversation? Of course not!
ID is a scientific theory, and Evo is a scientific theory.
In what way is ID a scientific theory, as the word is currently defined? Here are three questions every scientific theory must be able to answer in order to be considered scientific. Thus far, no ID proponent has offered answers to any of these:
1)What predictions does it make?
2. What new lines of inquiry will result from it?
3) How can it be falsified?
If you can answer these questions, you’ve done something no ID advocate has done to date. If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or don’t do, or pretend not to understand what “falsifiable” means in a scientific sense, then all you’ve done is demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about
Do you think any of these guys (also free thinkers) might have more scientific education than we do?
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Czech_Intelligent_Design.html
Monday, October 24, 2005
'Intelligent design' supporters gather
By ONDREJ HEJMA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
--snip--
Pavel Kabrt, a Czech who served on the committee that organized the event, said the capital of the ex-communist country _ now a highly secular republic _ was a fitting backdrop for the debate.
"Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school," said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/34122.html
Next science:
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
Read all about it: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm
Last but not least: Now you seem to want me to define science by your criteria, Gumlegs. Here's my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker:
A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.
http://websekolah.bharian.com.my/F1Sci/june15.html
Again, this is a recent discovery.
I was born on this boat and have sailed the seven seas. There is no evidence of water. Its just a THEORY.