Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: angryoldfatman

ID is not science because it does not produce falsifiable hyptheses. But anyone who support ID don’t know what sceince is or what science does. That’s the root of the problem. ID supporters are creationists trying to overturn sciecne so they can ram their superstitious beliefs down the throats of children, and without a care about how bad their science backgrounds will be. ID is a deception in the step to another dark age where the Chruch ruled and everyone was Christian.


302 posted on 12/06/2007 7:56:57 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies ]


To: doc30

First off Doc- Science doesn’t stand or fall on whether osmethign is falisfiable or not- much in science has progressed without EVER being falsifiable- Secondly- Not that it is even necessary- but ID IS Falsifiable, it is predictable and it is testable- meeting ALL of the irrelevent criteria of Karl Popper. As for hte rest of you post- it’s just more blatant ignorance- Kudos- at least you’re consistent


303 posted on 12/06/2007 9:36:32 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]

To: doc30

Before you go accusing others of ‘not understanding scinece’ perhaps you should hone up on facts before posting- Science need onyl be verifiable

Is Intelligent Design Testable? William A. Dembski: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html

Is Intelligent Design Testable?: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=584

Miller spanked for making the false claim that ID isn’t sicnece because it isn’t falsifiable: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/09/title_43.html

Intelligent Design is falisifalbe: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

OU Biochemist Phillip Klebba on the Bacterial Flagellum:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ou-biochemist-phillip-klebba-on-the-bacterial-flagellum/

Pseudo Scientific Dogma: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pseudo-scientific-dogma/

What Counts as a Plausible Scientific Theory?: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/what-counts-as-a-plausible-scientific-theory/

Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinian-tradition-of-making-grandiose-claims-based-on-piddling-results/


304 posted on 12/06/2007 11:07:35 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson