Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
That statement only makes sense if you'd be trying to prove that humans designed and created the universe.
Okay. I think I know the statement you are referring to, where I said, "Randomness does not facilitate distinguishability between objects."
Well, It had never occured to me - at least not in any pointed way - that randomness can serve as a tool on the part of the observer. If so, I can only conclude that randomness can also be applied in the interest of itelligence and design. Apparently the use of randomness is an integral part of your vocation, and so I did not word my statement to accomodate that possibility.
Hopefully the ensuing comments make clear that I was referring to randomness as it applies to the object of observation.
And THAT statement makes sense if humans are the only tangible bodies capable of possessing the attributes of intelligent design. Even certain turtles know how to make homes for themslves.
Read it again. How much evidence do we need to conclude that intelligent design is present and operative in the universe? Do we need proof that humans created the universe to conclude there is such a thing as intelligent design? No. A hypothesis like that is more like a given. It only restates the starting point for all science, namely that science cannot take place without intelligent design.
I was trying to be more thoughtful in the second paragraph, because I think it is proposing hypotheses that may indeed be untestable, and I think that is more along the lines of what you want me to do.
P.S. Please do not infer "intelligent design" as a proper noun in my posts unless I designate it as such by capitalizing the words.
1.) To encourage open inquiry in the general sciences, and thus not stipulate what may or may not be proposed as testable hypotheses - including, but not limited to, those that may entail the concept of intelligent design - but rather welcome the creation of reasonable statements representing the observer's understanding of the universe.
2.) To participate in a hearty debate over the merits, or lack thereof, in encouraging the above by questioning in some detail the assertion that the Theory of Evolution is the only valid interpretation of the evidence presented by the known universe.
3.) To be an instrument in the creation of a Theocracy that will jail all public dissidents, especially those who openly engage in questioning the authority of the Bible.
NOTE: One of the above points is entirely unrepresentative of my point. Can you tell which?
#1 an #2 are non-sequiturs, meaningless, or even oxymorons, if you prefer, and #3, while simple idiocy, has its obvious adherents.
I guess all of them, or that you have no point, which is essentially the same position.
Please explain how my points qualify as such.
Excuse me, but I was asked what my point is. I was not asked whether it is "doable," nor was I proposing hypotheses of my own.
For new theories to be useful they must predict or account for all existing data . . .
Huh?! I see you are a fine creator in your own right. ALL EXISTING DATA?????? Please point me to the schnaz that is the ulitmate probe of the universe and thus is alone qualified to assist in the development of theories.
Oh, and by the way, absolutely everything in the universe is proof of intelligence.
There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight O'clock.
Verily....
It's been said before: A proposal that professes to explain all relevant data, yet predicts nothing in particular, and which will accommodate any data that may hereafter be discovered, is a proposition that cannot be tested or falsified, has no genuine explanatory power at all, and therefore doesn't qualify to be termed a scientific theory.
Any hypothesis not grounded in facts, supportable with evidence, or falsifiable through testing is utterly meaningless.
Good. Can science produce a hypothesis to demonstrate the mechanism whereby a living species can emerge without the agents of either intelligence or design?
Can science produce one? Inquiring minds want to know. If so, where is it? I want to take a look at it and see the tests, the assumptions, the results of those tests, and so forth.
In most respects this description fits the Theory of Evolution to a "T."
Emerge? You want to discuss the theory of abiogenesis?
Fine. Have at it.
Um, no, it doesn't - which is why we ask you to study the science before you make a fool of yourself.
Don't believe us? Ask 99% of all biological scientists.
Fester, please, please, please stop showing your ignorance. It's getting really painful here.
Before debating science, learn something about it.
Are you still a student? What are you studying? Take more science courses!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.