|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:28:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Thanks for fixing that I cannot figure out how to place a link into certain words on here like I do in other forums.
|
To make a word link to a website, simply use the following code:
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/"]New York Times[/url]
The end result will look like this:
New York Times
|
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:29:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JerryB
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
|
Well, no, that would just be more poof and you have essentially been down the ICS path on more than one occassion. If you want ID to be consider science or maybe you don't want it to be considered science since you have stated that there is no theory of ID. Which means to me that ID has no explanatory power or predictive use for understanind naturally occurring phenominon or what we should find in the gaps in our knowledge. But so many others have already said the same thing in these two threads. So...
Back to my original point "If you want ID to be considered science, then I would say a good place to start is by addressing the questions raised by your critics and now provided as a list by Dave W." Seems to me that like Darwin did you should have anticipated the concerns of your critics. Short of that it really does just read as Kil has pointed out here.
|
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:45:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives. |
This seems to me to be incorrect. ID is a theory that explains the diversity of life on earth, just like Darwin's ToE.
We can all agree that life on earth in the present day isn't the same as it was a million years ago, and life on earth a million years ago wasn't the same as life on earth 100,000 million years ago.
With this in mind, we might ask why that is, and what mechanisms were in place to change life over time. Darwin's ToE is a very robust theory that has undergone intense scrutiny over time and remains the best explanation to date.
Conversely, ID has little explanatory power. By most accounts, there is no way to identify this "designer" nor the mechanisms by which it designs, or implements said designs. Indeed, all ID seems to do is allow one to give up answering difficult questions by simply saying noting that the thing in question was designed. End of story.
So yes, to ask what the "theory" if ID is isn't silly. But your answer to the question is silly, and quite telling at that. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 12:00:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Macroevolution is intense change wherein the population morphs into another species. |
In your opinion, does macroevolution require morphological changes ("morphs")?| Your point concerning the Precambrian era is well taken. What is simply missing is that there are no transitionals between the Precambrian and the Cambrian. |
Your ignorance of the evidence isn't evidence for ID. ID doesn't hinge on the absence of evidence for some other theory, does it?| This relatively sudden appearance (80 million years or so) of organisms with no antecedents (transitional fossils) leading up to them is where Darwinism fails. |
No, it's nothing more than a gap where a little bit of evidence is missing. Since theories rise or fall on the preponderance of evidence, one little "hole" can't do evolutionary theory in.Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191).
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them. |
Darwin didn't say "did not," but instead "could not." But why don't you show us?| As to a 99% extinction rate, that is close enough for me to accept, however, it says nothing about a designer. It speaks instead to evolution. It shows evolution to be little more than devolution. |
So what is the ID narrative on how life went from single cells to "more complex" forms? How does that narrative logically follow from any ID "tenets?"| It is change in the gene pool of a population over time, yes, but it is not change into more complexity as Darwinism might predict... |
Do you have a citation from anyone entrenched in "Darwinism" claiming that it predicts "change into more complexity?"| ...but change into disorder as ID would predict... |
How does ID predict that? What is it about ID that entails "change into disorder?"
|
Macroevolution certainly requires breeding change...and I would think also at least SOME morphological change. I certainly am not aware of any two species that are exactly the same morphologically. But I also don't think that speciation can be determined only by morphology.
ID doesn't hinge on absence of evidence for another idea. But how many possibilities for origins are out there? Cops begin their investigations by elimination. They eliminate all suspects that evidence leads them to eliminate and then concentrate on those that cannot be eliminated. If I can eliminate Darwinism, how many bodies of thought does that leave standing?
Most IDists don't believe that complex organisms evolved from the more simple any more than we believe that the water in your bathtub can spontaneously heat itself up 200 degrees. All species were designed to be that species.
And you need citations to show that Darwinists believe that more complex critters arose from the simpler ones? I thought that all of you believed EVERYTHING sprang from a common ancestor.
"How does ID predict that? What is it about ID that entails "change into disorder?"
We know the laws of science and apply them--SLOT is one of the most well documented laws of science yet you guys just ignore it. Why don't you ignore it in all the other areas as well?
Why not walk into a perfume filled room, open a sterile bottle and allow the perfume to concentrate itself into it? Next time a tire needs air, just open the valve. Surely the air around you will gush into the tire. And why do you guys buy new cars? Just set your old one out in the sun and it will become new again.
Einstein once was ask to define entropy. He replied: It's when my desk gets messy. But you guys don't buy SLOT, so most surely your house just cleans itself.
Think that was silly? That's exactly the way many of us view abiogenesis and Darwinism.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 12:01:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JerryB
Thanks for fixing that I cannot figure out how to place a link into certain words on here like I do in other forums.
|
To make a word link to a website, simply use the following code:
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/"]New York Times[/url]
The end result will look like this:
New York Times
|
Got it. Thank you. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 12:19:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JerryB
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives. |
This seems to me to be incorrect. ID is a theory that explains the diversity of life on earth, just like Darwin's ToE.
We can all agree that life on earth in the present day isn't the same as it was a million years ago, and life on earth a million years ago wasn't the same as life on earth 100,000 million years ago.
With this in mind, we might ask why that is, and what mechanisms were in place to change life over time. Darwin's ToE is a very robust theory that has undergone intense scrutiny over time and remains the best explanation to date.
Conversely, ID has little explanatory power. By most accounts, there is no way to identify this "designer" nor the mechanisms by which it designs, or implements said designs. Indeed, all ID seems to do is allow one to give up answering difficult questions by simply saying noting that the thing in question was designed. End of story.
So yes, to ask what the "theory" if ID is isn't silly. But your answer to the question is silly, and quite telling at that.
|
No, ID does not attempt to explain the diversity of life, we leave that to biology.
And "life on earth in the present day isn't the same as it was a million years ago, and life on earth a million years ago wasn't the same as life on earth 100,000 million years ago..." really doesn't mean anything as to the origins of more complex life.
If it were seeded or designed in place, no one is saying that it all happened at once. I believe that certain life-forms were designed in the era that we see in the record.
So, if you don't think that my answer: ID has no overall theory was sufficient, please give me the theory of astronomy. If you can't, according to your logic, astronomy is not science either.
And I both identify the designer and propose a methodology for design. I just have not done the latter yet. One point at a time, please. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 12:37:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JerryB
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
|
Well, no, that would just be more poof and you have essentially been down the ICS path on more than one occassion. If you want ID to be consider science or maybe you don't want it to be considered science since you have stated that there is no theory of ID. Which means to me that ID has no explanatory power or predictive use for understanind naturally occurring phenominon or what we should find in the gaps in our knowledge. But so many others have already said the same thing in these two threads. So...
Back to my original point "If you want ID to be considered science, then I would say a good place to start is by addressing the questions raised by your critics and now provided as a list by Dave W." Seems to me that like Darwin did you should have anticipated the concerns of your critics. Short of that it really does just read as Kil has pointed out here.
|
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives.
|
So now ID is a replacement for all of biology?
Holy shit Jerry. I mean, seriously, you need to get on some meds or something.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2011 : 12:57:02 [Permalink]
|
]I DID show them: the many seemingly new species appearing in the Cambrian explosion without transitional fossils leading to them. |
And it has been explained to you why that is.
| But soft tissue DOES fossilize and you will not convince me that soft tissues morphed into shell and bone with no intermediate semi-hard structures: |
I never said that it didn't fossilize, only that it's rare. In fact, fossilization itself is is a very rare occurance. And those earlier tissues did not become shell and bone; that would occur much later. They became chitin.
"The oldest fossil evidence of multicellular animals, or metazoans, is burrows that appear to have been made by smooth, wormlike organisms. Such trace fossils have been found in rocks from China, Canada, and India, but they tell us little about the animals that made them apart from their basic shape."
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml |
We are all well aware of trace fossils. That article is woefully out of date; I have shown you the earliest known fossils, single and multi-celled.
What do I think about the transitionals you have put forth? I chuckled because you have no idea WHAT you are showing. Take the skull.
What is that a man, a monkey or some intermediate? You have no idea and never will and that applies as well to the other transitionals.
It could just be another species. It could be a deformed human or monkey skull. It could be a sub-species of either, much like European men's skulls would differ from African pigmies. There is just no science involved here, it is all supposition.
|
I have not represented the Toumaï skull as anything but a question -- did you open the link? It's a query that is unlikely to be resolved until more and better specimens are found.
Now give us your take on Tiktaalik and the Synaspids. Some of the latter split off from Pelycosauria and became the Cynodonts, and the very ancient ancestors of thee and me. Ain't that great? We're all descended from a bunch of freakin' lizards!  Tell that one to the fool Dembski!
C'mon, Jerry, you can do better than this.
Oh, and by the bye, I've referenced *gasp, shudder* Talk Origins. Can you guess where?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 12:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Dave, it would take me hours to properly answer all those questions. |
Well, your statements here bring these questions to the fore. If you could properly defend your statements, perhaps you'd be able to convince someone that you're right. If you don't have the time to fully engage with people who are honestly interested, why bother making the claims in the first place? To convince those who are willing to be convinced just on your say-so?| I'll just answer one pertinent to the discussion and you can ask the others one at a time if you wish: |
No, I'll keep the list up-to-date, and you can answer as you have time and inclination."Can you provide citations that the fossils of the Cambrian are "as we see [animals] today."
Yes, and I did:
"Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion |
So in your mind, "resemble" means "as we see them today," and "diversity of life" means "animals," yes?
The article referenced as footnote 5 of your citation has a fascinating abstract that summarizes what happened during the "explosion," and notes that while between the early Cambrian and Late Ordovician, life with skeletons increased its "modes of life" by a little more than 50%, in the last 440 million years, however, such life has doubled in its diversity again. There were no birds, reptiles, mammals or any land-dwelling animals at all for another 150 million years. We didn't even get vascular plants or fishes with jaws until 100 million years after the Cambrian ended. So the idea that the post-Cambrian fauna was "as we see them today" might be true for mosses and lampreys (and even that is easily arguable), but it's certainly not true of tuna, pine trees or bears, all of which are absent from 540-million-year-old rocks. And, of course, the flip-side is also true: that there were creatures at the end of the Cambrian for which there exist no living analogs or descendants.
I also take your answer to mean that Wikipedia is as good as a peer-reviewed journal article or a scientist in terms of accuracy, since you were demanding peer-reviewed studies and/or quotes from scientists as references from us, yet here you obviously think that Wikipedia is good enough. Is this the case?
From other posts:| What is that a man, a monkey or some intermediate? You have no idea and never will and that applies as well to the other transitionals. |
What, exactly, does "transitional fossil" mean to you?
Well, it doesn't take much to refute that whole ball of wax in my estimate. You've had over 150 years since Darwin to uncover those fossils, where are they? Nuff said. |
Again: your ignorance of the evidence doesn't mean that that evidence is absent.| It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology... |
Evolution.Atomic theory.To name a few, "classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, electromagnetism, and special relativity," but that's because physics is a tremendously broad field.Plate tectonics and the principles of relative and absolute dating.| Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives. |
No, none of them are "studying science" at all, they're all studies of various aspects of the natural world.| Macroevolution certainly requires breeding change... |
What do you mean by "breeding change?"| ...and I would think also at least SOME morphological change. |
Not interested in your guesses.| ID doesn't hinge on absence of evidence for another idea. |
Follow-up questions: Then why contrast it with "Darwinism," of all things? Why not state your positive case for ID and leave the Darwinism-bashing for a different thread?| But how many possibilities for origins are out there? Cops begin their investigations by elimination. They eliminate all suspects that evidence leads them to eliminate and then concentrate on those that cannot be eliminated. |
Who may all be innocent.| If I can eliminate Darwinism, how many bodies of thought does that leave standing? |
17,392.| Most IDists don't believe that complex organisms evolved from the more simple any more than we believe that the water in your bathtub can spontaneously heat itself up 200 degrees. All species were designed to be that species. |
But the fossil record shows little but single-celled organisms for almost three billion years, and then more and more "complex" critters roamed the Earth as time went on. How does ID explain the observation of life becoming more "complex" over time, if not through evolution?| And you need citations to show that Darwinists believe that more complex critters arose from the simpler ones? I thought that all of you believed EVERYTHING sprang from a common ancestor. |
No, I need a reference that "Darwinism" predicts life going from "simple" to "complex," as you claim it does."How does ID predict that? What is it about ID that entails "change into disorder?"
We know the laws of science and apply them... |
How does one go from "we can detect design" to "SLOT applies to genomes" in logical steps?| ...SLOT is one of the most well documented laws of science yet you guys just ignore it. |
We don't ignore it for isolated systems.| Why don't you ignore it in all the other areas as well? |
Why should it apply to non-isolated systems?| Why not walk into a perfume filled room, open a sterile bottle and allow the perfume to concentrate itself into it? |
Well, if the bottle were really, really cold it might work.| Next time a tire needs air, just open the valve. Surely the air around you will gush into the tire. |
Why? Does ignoring SLOT for an open system like that mean we should also ignore the ideal gas law?| And why do you guys buy new cars? Just set your old one out in the sun and it will become new again. |
Why, are they building cars with solar-powered repair robots, now?| Einstein once was ask to define entropy. He replied: It's when my desk gets messy. |
Einstein's one-liners are legendary, yes.| But you guys don't buy SLOT, so most surely your house just cleans itself. |
It does when I put energy into it. In fact, the mere fact that I can change the entropy of my home in any way I like (messing it up more, making improvements, etc) shows that my home isn't an isolated system, but one which exchanges matter and energy with the outside world, and so SLOT doesn't apply.Yes, it's absolutely ludicrous that you think those are examples of SLOT in action.| That's exactly the way many of us view abiogenesis and Darwinism. |
But you clearly don't understand "Darwinism" if you think it says that chimps mated with something else to beget humans, or even if you think that it "predicts" increases in "complexity" over time.
But this thread isn't about bashing other theories, it's about your understanding of ID (which you say isn't a theory).| I believe that certain life-forms were designed in the era that we see in the record. |
What evidence supports that belief? How would the fossil record look different if that belief were false?| ...please give me the theory of astronomy. |
Observational or theoretical astronomy?| And I both identify the designer and propose a methodology for design. I just have not done the latter yet. |
You haven't done the former yet, either, at least not in a way that anyone else can agree with.
The latest list:- What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
- Where is there evidence that there is purpose in the universe?
- Has ID, as "a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts," ever done so?
- What are the "tenets" of design?
- How have paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics used the "tenets" of design?
- Where is the evidence for a QM intelligence?
- What model does ID provide for "initial design?"
- How can ID provide a model for anything when there is no "theory of ID?"
- How does ID fit into a study of the study of the natural world?
- What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
- What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
- How can ID provide a non-religious alternative for Darwinism when Mike Gene declared that all of science is based on faith?
- Can you provide a citation for your claim that "Darwinism claims there is no such thing ['limits']?"
- Why would anyone call a quantum-mechanical intelligence "God?"
- Why would you use Boltzmann's equation on a system that you know isn't in equilibrium?
- Can you provide citations that the fossils of the Cambrian are "as we see [animals] today."
- Why do you think that no organisms have evolved into a more complex "something else?"
- How can ID explain anything when there's no "theory of ID?"
- How is "As a population becomes interbred over a long period of time, genomes tend to degrade via deleterious mutations" an explanation based on the idea that an intelligence created life?
- How does Muller's Ratchet apply to sexual species?
- How does one get from "life is intelligently designed" to "mutational meltdown occurs" in logical steps?
- What metric do you use to measure "complexity?"
- How does ID predict the observed increase in "complexity" over time in the fossil record?
ID doesn't hinge on the absence of evidence for some other theory, does it?
- Why don't you show us organs, structures and entire organisms that "did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"
- So what is the ID narrative on how life went from single cells to "more complex" forms?
- How does that narrative logically follow from any ID "tenets?"
- Do you have a citation from anyone entrenched in "Darwinism" claiming that it predicts "change into more complexity?"
- How does ID predict "change into disorder?" What is it about ID that entails "change into disorder?"
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 13:48:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JerryB
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
|
Well, no, that would just be more poof and you have essentially been down the ICS path on more than one occassion. If you want ID to be consider science or maybe you don't want it to be considered science since you have stated that there is no theory of ID. Which means to me that ID has no explanatory power or predictive use for understanind naturally occurring phenominon or what we should find in the gaps in our knowledge. But so many others have already said the same thing in these two threads. So...
Back to my original point "If you want ID to be considered science, then I would say a good place to start is by addressing the questions raised by your critics and now provided as a list by Dave W." Seems to me that like Darwin did you should have anticipated the concerns of your critics. Short of that it really does just read as Kil has pointed out here.
|
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives.
|
So now ID is a replacement for all of biology?
Holy shit Jerry. I mean, seriously, you need to get on some meds or something.
|
Ya got any?  |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 13:52:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives.
|
I have spent time catching up with the two threads so I am familiar with your claim that there are many papers that support ID. But this too has been raised as a concern by your critics that you have either misunderstood their work or misrepresentated the work of the authors. This too is something you have not adequately addressed.
Now it looks like (not for the first time) that you are asking us to consider that ID is the study of xxxxx on par with the other sciences biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. That trying to express ID as a Theory is ridiculous. So abscent any definition to the contrary I can only imagine that ID is the study of poof. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 14:21:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JerryB
ID studies biology, chemistry, physics, etc. just as does anyone else. There are many papers that support ID, but they don't have to be written by an IDist. I've presented some on here already.
It's just silly to even ask what is the theory of ID. What is the theory of biology, chemistry, physics, geology.......?
Of course there aren't any, they are just bodies of thought studying science from different perspectives.
|
I have spent time catching up with the two threads so I am familiar with your claim that there are many papers that support ID. But this too has been raised as a concern by your critics that you have either misunderstood their work or misrepresentated the work of the authors. This too is something you have not adequately addressed.
Now it looks like (not for the first time) that you are asking us to consider that ID is the study of xxxxx on par with the other sciences biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. That trying to express ID as a Theory is ridiculous. So abscent any definition to the contrary I can only imagine that ID is the study of poof.
|
Oh, are we back to poofs again? LOL....Well, you must not have read them as closely as you should have, then.
And I have refuted ALL of those who claimed I had no understanding of the presented papers. Would you like to have a go at it?
And is there like a standard play book that you guys all read to get your talking points? Because I must have answered the same dang questions over and over again 50 times:
"Now it looks like (not for the first time) that you are asking us to consider that ID is the study of xxxxx on par with the other sciences biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc."
ID is a body of thought that studies science and applies it to our universe around us. So when one is studying science and applying it, is that science? Yes, then ID is also science. It's not hard to understand this.
Is it on par with the others? Meaning I guess equal to the others? No, it is not taught in schools nearly as much as the others but it is here if you want to study it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 15:02:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And I have refuted ALL of those who claimed I had no understanding of the presented papers. |
So a flat denial and a couple of mined quotes is a refutation, in your mind? That'll make refuting your stuff a whole lot easier. Every time you say "ID is...," all anyone has to do is respond "no it isn't," find a couple quotes that are somewhat relevant and poof: Jerry is refuted by his own definition. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 16:47:21 [Permalink]
|
| One of my ID pet-peeves is the claim that ID predicts anything. It doesn't. But please, JerryB, let me, just like Dave_W, again ask you why you think ID predicts that genomes will degrade. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 17:05:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
One of my ID pet-peeves is the claim that ID predicts anything. It doesn't. But please, JerryB, let me, just like Dave_W, again ask you why you think ID predicts that genomes will degrade.
|
Because I have studied the science, ID applies only real science, the 2nd law is real science, the 2nd law states that with spontaneous reactions, systems will tend to disorder, genomes are systems that mutate with spontaneous mutations and this is only rejected by those who choose to reject science they don't like to support their belief systems: Darwinists. All science is a tenet of ID. That's just one of them. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
