Forums | MacLife

Hank Rearden wrote:

Yes, ID scientists test hypothesis all the time.

Based on ID?  Or otherwise?  Show me a testable ID hypothesis.

No - they can not form a testable hypothesis to test the intelligent designer.
That is abstracted into philosophy.

Intelligent Design as a Science demonstrates (or tries to anyway) that the most logical answer to the question is one that can not come from science. Science is designed to only address natural phenomena. ID attempts to demonstrate that natural phenomena can not be responsible for the result, and there it must be supernatural phenomena.

They do however use the scientific method and scientific process to attempt to demonstrate that science is not capable of answering the question.

There are some mathematical questions that can not be answered by the set of rational numbers. Pythagoras apparently went whacko when that was proven to him. It was not proven using irrational numbers though, what was proven was that there must be more that what rational numbers are capable of explaining.

ID hypothesizes that the world around us, in particular life, can not be explained by the laws of nature, but can only be explained by going beyond the laws of nature, to the supernatural. The way to scientifically demonstrate this is through paradox - such as biogenesis and shanon entropy, as well as a young earth.

They don't only use paradox in science, though - they also use paradox in religion for christians who believe in an old earth (IE if the earth is old and evolution took place and the fossil record is accurate, then the flood of Noah could not have taken place because it wouldn't be in the fossil record, so then it would have had to be a local flood - but God promised that he would never send a flood like that again, yet there have been many many devestating local floods - so that would make God a liar)

They use science and the scientific method to attempt to demonstrate necessary paradox.
This form of proof is nothing new, it has been used at least as early as the greeks (a lot of the proofs in Euclids geometry are done that way)

JakeTheTall wrote:

I thought someone like mo'ron had some good counter information or such on carbon/radioactive dating of rocks and such...that the starting amount isn't as important as resedit wants it to be, or that there really isn't many ways for the isotope to be altered by other radioactivity.




I just "appeal to authority" and trust the people in white lab coats.

The starting quantities are crucial.
You have to have some way of building an index of ratios in order to be able to date it.

With carbon dating, we know that for most living things, the ratio of C14 to C12 will be about the same as it is in the atmosphere - and we can deduce what those ratios were over time (they change) from tree rings, and assumptions about how many tree rings are produced in a year (which we really don't know, the trees they use are capable of putting on more than one a year in a really wet season)

If you don't have a way to create the index, then you are dating based upon an assumed index. If you assume the earth is old, then saying the earth is old because your dating method that assumes the earth is old says it is old - you have a circular problem.

We don't know the initial quantities of parent and daughter substances when the rocks were formed, so we can't make any kind of a ratio index.

Oh the hell with this debate.  Let's talk about LESBIAN DESIGN!!!

It's fun, rolley49.  Just post something that demonstrates your lack of scientific aptitude or unwise choice of wording, and I'll dredge my vast databases for an unambiguous refutation.

Last edited by jerwin (2005-08-21 6:19 pm)

rolley49 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The advantage of having many threads on this subject is, we get to watch res get pwned on a daily basis, then blithely act as if no pwnage had taken place. It was good for a chuckle.

Its funny, out of all of your the post Iv'e seen about this topic, you just seem to insult people who have a contray view to yours.  I would like to see you give one logical argument before you go around saying every one else is an idiot who doesn't belive in a very flawed theroy.

That's totally untrue! You must be a complete idio ... oh, wait.

jerwin wrote:

It's fun, rolley49.  Just post something that demonstrates your lack of scientific aptitude or unwise choice of wording, and I'll dredge my vast databases for an unambiguous refutation.

I'm still waiting for him to support his claim that more complex organisms have more base pairs against the evidence above.

Seriously, rolley49, please comment on the figures provided by me on page 2 (default settings). I want to know what I'm missing.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2005-08-21 7:09 pm)

rolley49 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

It just makes me think of ATHF: "My dad owns a dealership."

Is your dad posting? No? Then shut up.

I was trying to make the point that not all biologist are evolutionists!  Maybe if some of the people on the board were a little more mature...

My dad died in 1989. He sent me an email from heaven to tell me that ID and Creationism are bullcrap.

Just, you know, thought I'd help out.

rolley49 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

rolley49 wrote:

I was trying to make the point that not all biologist are evolutionists!  Maybe if some of the people on the board were a little more mature...

My dad died in 1989. He sent me an email from heaven to tell me that ID and Creationism are bullcrap.

Just, you know, thought I'd help out.

Wow, you just keep proving my point. Are you done yet?

No, your dad told me to keep going. He's enjoying this.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

rolley49 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

My dad died in 1989. He sent me an email from heaven to tell me that ID and Creationism are bullcrap.

Just, you know, thought I'd help out.

Wow, you just keep proving my point. Are you done yet?

No, your dad told me to keep going. He's enjoying this.

Funny. He told me that rolly49 is grounded for making a laughingstock out of him.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The advantage of having many threads on this subject is, we get to watch res get pwned on a daily basis, then blithely act as if no pwnage had taken place. It was good for a chuckle.

Well, at least you get some value out of it.

Funny, I don't see you denying what I said.

If I did you would just point to it and chuckle as me being pwned and blithely acting as if I didn't.
So what would have been the point of responding?

Really - I'm glad you are getting something out of it.
Otherwise your time here would be a waste.

oatmeal wrote:

As of this post we have five active Intelligent Design / Creation / Evolution threads going on at once.  That seems to more than qualify as "Duplicate Threads."

So let's try something different.  At least until we see how it works, this is the only place for new ID/Creation/Evolution posts.  New threads will be locked with a link to this thread.  I'll leave the ones that are already active alone; they're grandfathered in.

Or, if you think this is a horrible idea, say so (but be brief).

Why, you're a smurfing genius! Can we have a f... I mean ... gay sticky too?

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

At this point, evolution and ID are both just theories, so why shouldn't they both be taught in school?

Did you see the "Intelligent Falling" thread?

Why can't I see any of rolley49's posts now?