ST wrote:I just told you I wasn't. I may have been using the wrong word. The dictionary definition of "mad" doesn't quite seem to fit. What I'm saying is that you are disconnected from reality through your logic and reasoning.
Lame. I'm flattered that you would spend so much time talking about me, but, if you think that my points are bogus, then why don't you spend some time responding to them?
You said that you think that it reveals something about the nature of the scientific community because ID loses by default. I told you that the reason why ID loses by default isn't because of reasons external to ID but internal to it--because ID isn't science. I challenged you to provide some kind of scientific procedure to detect design. I have yet to hear any. Maybe there is some way, but how can you not expect ID to lose by default if you can't even think of anything? Didn't they cover this in your Ben Stein video?
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:33 pm
by Spidey
I.D. is just so much crap, I can’t even understand why it’s part of this conversation.
Science is valid…
Religion is valid…
I.D. is…well I don’t even know what to hell to call it.
Re:
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:26 am
by Ferno
Spidey wrote:
Science is valid…
Religion is valid…
I.D. is…well I don’t even know what to hell to call it.
creationism?
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:03 am
by Floyd
instead of typing myself, this sums up pretty good what i think of ID:
except that i don't \"laugh at creationists\"...
Spidey wrote:I think way too many people confuse “testing” a Hypothesis with proving it to be fact.
Exactly!
“A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.”
Ditto! A theory can either match or not match to the observable data. This match to the observable data is probably what you mean with the theory being valid, Spidey, correct?
But even if it matches completely, we will never know whether it is "true". There might be different theory that matches equally well or better. This is how science progresses. You try to pit both theories against each other. You find a situation where the two theories make different predictions. You run an experiment, and then you will hopefully see which of the two predictions fits the data better, leading to one theory being falsified, and the other being supported.
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:48 am
by Spidey
Correct.
Re:
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:02 am
by Spidey
Ferno wrote:
Spidey wrote:
Science is valid…
Religion is valid…
I.D. is…well I don’t even know what to hell to call it.
creationism?
I thought it was supposed to be “science” therefore giving it the right to be taught in public schools? (rhetorical)
It’s religion masquerading as science, if it were at least a true meeting of the two, I could respect it.
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:03 pm
by Sergeant Thorne
I watched a few of those videos, and I was unimpressed. I would compare that to someone showing up for a boxing match, displaying some impressive footwork, and then claiming victory based on that. What I watched was really pathetic, considering the subject matter.
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:56 pm
by Spidey
I’m not impressed with those videos either, but for different reasons. I just believe you shouldn’t ridicule people's beliefs in a public forum, like that.