Skip to comments.
Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
Tech Central Station ^
| 11/10/2005
| Uriah Kriegel
Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 861-863 next last
To: RunningWolf
Well you are wrong about even this most basic thing. Was I wrong to say that it was Galileo who measured the acceleration of gravity by direct observation of falling objects?
Was I wrong to say that Newton asserted his equations applied to all objects in the universe -- something he could not possibly know from observation?
Was I wrong to say that Newton's equations were generally regarded as receiving their first great confirmation with the reappearance of Halley's comet?
On which statement was I wrong?
101
posted on
11/10/2005 9:00:44 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Thatcherite
As for falsifying evolution, I suspect that if Piltdown Man had been a genuine fossil instead of a crude fake, it would have been an incredible problem, as none of the necessary hominid ancestors existed in the British Isles. But the creationists, in their universal ignorance, keep claiming that Piltdown Man was somehow a pillar of evolution.
102
posted on
11/10/2005 9:03:12 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
To: Pete from Shawnee Mission
If Darwin's theory is so defensible why worry about competing theory?
No one is worried about a competing theory. The problem is that a number of dishonest cranks are trying to push something that is not a scientific theory as if it were.
How has Darwinism been used by social scientists? History would seem to teach that what has been will be again. A truely consistent materialistic viewpoint could actually support the rise of another Hitler.
Evolution is a biological science. It doesn't apply to sociology. Whining about the social implications of a biological theory only demonstrates that you don't actually have a real objection to the theory on its merits, so you want to attack it on ground that it doesn't cover. It's like attacking Calculus because it can't tell you when the Mongols ruled China.
103
posted on
11/10/2005 9:03:58 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Nicholas Conradin
While the author makes some good points, there are a couple of howlers in it.
Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific.
Hardly. The principal objection is what he says later, that ID fails to conform to what we mean by "scientific theory." Obviously Kriegel does not follow the issue very closely.
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted.
Talk about getting it wrong! Kriegel is confusing the predicted discoveries of Neptune (Bouvard/Herschel/...) and Pluto (Tombaugh) based on observed discrepancies in the orbits of other planets with GR's prediction about the precession of Mercury's orbit.
I'm not sure someone so ignorant can add much to the debate.
To: Palisades
"Under that definition, we would have to carve up dogs into several different species, as many breeds of dog cannot naturally mate with other breeds (Great Danes and chihuahuas)."
Not only that, but what about two breeds of dog that can only produce fertile offspring 50% of the time? 90%? 10%?
105
posted on
11/10/2005 9:05:38 AM PST
by
Sofa King
(A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)
To: Dimensio; Pete from Shawnee Mission; SalukiLawyer
Be better to look to Hitler or Marx and their advocates for those answers.
And then maybe actually assert a thing or to yourself every now and then, rather than insisting the other guy is lying and has falsely asserted something.
Will these behaviors and other things happen from the dementeds of the cult of evo..?? Nah.
Wolf
106
posted on
11/10/2005 9:06:06 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(tag line limbo)
To: RunningWolf
Are you ever going to present an argument against the presented evidence for evolution, or is your sole purpose here to fire cheap shots at people who are rational and use logic while defending known liars?
107
posted on
11/10/2005 9:09:03 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
We all already know the answer to that one.
108
posted on
11/10/2005 9:11:44 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
To: gobucks
But be sure of one thing: 'falsifyability' must be philosophically accepted a priori as being 'true' for 'science'.Why is this so hard for anti-Es to understand. There is no philosophical demand of truth, only of utility. It is very clearly useful that a scientific theory make testable predictions. While there are many aims of science, the major one is to control future outcomes. A "theory" that permits no deductions is useless for that.
You make a lot of other errors too. For example, ID doesn't "search" for causes and that Marx's and Freud's "theories" are rejected because of testing.
To: Tom Bombadil
"Irreducible complexity could be falsified by demonstrating reducible complexity for the biochemical reactions cited in ID."
First error:
In no way irreducible complexity (IC) is linked only with intelligent design.
Second error:
How do we know for sure that it is impossible for an evolutionary process to create any form of IC? We can't because every available definition of IC can't eliminate an evolutionary way to an IC status.
Third error:
Is it also impossible to show that IC doesn't exists as it is impossible to show that some deity doesn't exists. You can prove that one system is not IC but you can't show that IC is impossible at all.
110
posted on
11/10/2005 9:15:02 AM PST
by
MHalblaub
(Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
To: PatrickHenry
As for falsifying evolution, I suspect that if Piltdown Man had been a genuine fossil instead of a crude fake, it would have been an incredible problem, as none of the necessary hominid ancestors existed in the British Isles. But the creationists, in their universal ignorance, keep claiming that Piltdown Man was somehow a pillar of evolution.Aha! I've got it now. Piltdown man WASN'T FAKE AT ALL!!!! Those evil liars of evolutionary biologists realised that this great BRITISH discovery undermined the SATANIC theory of evolution. So they not ONLY capitalised random words AND lEttERs, but they tampered with that BEAUTIFUL FOSSIL that falsified evolution to make it SEEM like a fake. Oh the DEVILISH CUNNING of those Darwin Central Black-ops OPERATIVES. [/raving tinfoil hat paranoid creationist mode]
111
posted on
11/10/2005 9:17:27 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
To: Thatcherite
Yes! The suppression of Piltdown Man is part of the conspiracy. We're always covering up embarrassing evidence.
112
posted on
11/10/2005 9:19:51 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
To: I-ambush
The problem is that those on the Darwinism side of the debate refuse to see or studiously ignore the fact that the natural sciences do not contain all possible knowledge. Your ignorance is astonishing. Many, and perhaps most, of those on the "Darwinism side" are religious. Here, let's try a prediction based on your theory: if you poll the "Darwinist" posters here at FR, then, if you are right, none of them should be religious. Try it and let us know the results.
To: js1138
I will get back to you have to go for now.
I need to brush up on my Science history again, so maybe you are not wrong about those things. I was getting of on a tangent there.
I still say this linkage of evo as equal to physical observations of phenomena like gravity is a false one.
Wolf
114
posted on
11/10/2005 9:20:23 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(tag line limbo)
To: Sofa King
Not only that, but what about two breeds of dog that can only produce fertile offspring 50% of the time? 90%? 10%? The black and white areas are easy- housecats and tigers are clearly different species. The gray areas are a bit tougher- lions and tigers can interbreed to create fertile offspring. Perhaps with several more million years of speciation, lions and tigers will lose this ability to interbreed.
Species aren't distinct pigeonholes, but rather a continuum with limitless gradations along the way.
115
posted on
11/10/2005 9:22:49 AM PST
by
Palisades
(Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
To: shuckmaster; gobucks
"ID..non-religious..."BUWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is the way old gobucks tells them. Has me in stitches every time.
116
posted on
11/10/2005 9:25:01 AM PST
by
Thatcherite
(Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
To: Dimensio
Cheap shots? Rational and logic from the demented one defending known liars? LMAO!!
Man you are funny! Glad your here though.
Wolf
117
posted on
11/10/2005 9:25:32 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(tag line limbo)
To: Dimensio
I think you got your answer.
118
posted on
11/10/2005 9:27:02 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: RunningWolf
119
posted on
11/10/2005 9:29:46 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Nicholas Conradin
Karl Popper's dictum holds true for the scientific thought. You make a prediction about your theory and then every one tests to see if its true. Then they look at other claims and put them through similar tests. After empirical verification, if all the predictions hold up, the theory becomes an accepted part of science. Charles Darwin is still hugely consequential because no one has been able to refute his simple and at the same time elegant explanation of how natural processes operate. This doesn't exclude a Proximate Cause; its just that Occam's Razor holds the correct explanation is the one that get things right with the fewest explanations possible. That's why evolutionary theory has such a central place in biology and in understanding the history of life on the planet.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
120
posted on
11/10/2005 9:30:00 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 861-863 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson