Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Oh please. Every day researchers nibble at the details of biology. It is the dream of every researcher to upset the applecart. If ID was a real scientific idea, it would suggest reseach that could upset the applecart.
Quantum theory was a case of a major upset, but if you look at the history, the data that lead to the quantum idea came before the idea. There is [are?] no such data gnawing at evolution.
If you expect to replace evolution with a new theory, first you will need to find something evolution can't explain, not just something that is unknown, but something that contradicts evolution.
Right now you have some structures that are unexplained in detail, but they are typical of the difficult problems in biology, not contradictions. That's it. that all ID has. Some unexplained phenomena. Period.
Irrelevant.
But you have entered the realm of judgement now, rather than proof. Science works exactly like the courts. Scientists, like jurors, must decide the facts, and facts are decided by judgement, not by pure logic. The jury of science has decided about 10,000 to one that the facts favor evolution.
So you think the realm of judgment is different than the courts? Doesn't one have to judge the proof? What good is proof without judgment? Without judgment, proof is merely data
If Science is like the courts, why do evolutionist demand an alternative theory when evidence against their theory is presented? That is not how the courts work.
Are you claiming one should render judgment in the absense of logic? If you don't judge the proof by means of logic - what means do you use? Ordeal? Is it even possible to render judgment without logic?
Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements.
Interesting word-play. Is it possible to have judgment in the absense of truth? Truth is conformity to fact - are you saying science does not seek to conform to fact?
When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence
So what you are saying is science does not seek to conform to fact but it is impressed by longevity.
You will not remove that confidence by nipping at heels.
...so stop questioning and close your mind?
You need to have an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.
Like you said - science is just like the courts therefore in the courts one most have better theory of who IS guilty before one can be found not guilty.
Yeah. Right.
That is contrary to your first statement "anyone really familiar with the subject does not question evolution" - it is impossible to nibble at the details of something you do not even question.
I did not mean it as an insult, but as a comparison of what WE consider evidence now, not being sufficient 2K from now.
Of course there are more accounts now of the H; it was a much larger event, sizewise.
If there had been reports of seeing someone rise up from a pile of stinking corpses, after they'd been exhumed, would you believe it?
8o)
I want a cage near the peanut stand!
Where are we going with this?
If they are valid, real coins, then the tails are down.
Lives of children......
What about 'souls of children'?
"Survival of the adequate."
Well... THIS sure explains it then!
Thats perfect! Much more accurate than "fittest".
I'm fairly positive the M&M's will NOT change their veiws because there are some 'christians' that are traveling the same road....
Evo-Cardinal Js1138 saith: "Science, like justice, does not seek truth. It seeks confidence in its judgements." As evo-Cardinal he might repeat this saying and add in front of the evo-ecclestical court, "This why the evo-heretics before you today must be burnt at the fully evolved stake, along with their vile creationist tractates."
Evo-Cardinal Js1138 writes in a evo-bull: "When a verdict holds for 145 years against all kinds of assaults, it inspires confidence." He might follow that with, "Just as the Holy Roman Church's ruling that the Sun revolves around the earth stood for many centuries. The test of time! That's the ticket, my faithful!"
Calling Mr. Logicperson: this is an 'Appeal to... what'?
OK, so I sometimes post stuff that is badly worded.
Here's why the two comcepts aren't contradictory. Researchers collect data, generally in response to a widely known problem. It is every researcher's hope to find data the forces a rethinking of some aspect of a theory.
ID doesn't collect data. It doesn't do field research. What is does do is scan published articles looking for unresolved problems. This is a completely different kind of nipping at heels. It contributes nothing. It adds nothing to the sum of knowledge. It is just point out the obvious, that we don't know everything.
Here's a nice google assignment. Find a single instance of a scientific discovery that resulted from the assumption of supernatural actions or psychic phenomena. Tell me how the research was conducted and whether the presence of supernatural action was confirmed.
Why... it'd be time for me to buy a lottery ticket!!!
(After all, the odds of winning are SO much better if you buy one; aren't they?)
A good question: which is more likely - me finding a winner someone accidently mis-read and discarded it; or buying my own and winning???
Do you think you are -- the evolved Stochastic -- merely "adequate"?
But one table, one tosser, fifty coins in the air and landing. Then all heads?
What kind of coin are they? This is a test of a scientist! What would science say, beyond any reasonable doubt?
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.