Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

I'm "in the loop", actually. The refutation is actually irrelivent. Refutation of falsibility does not invalidate falsibility. At worst, it turns it into what is known as conventionalist stratagem. But that only works if the refutation is infalible, which in this case it /isn't/. In either event, refutation of falsification does not invalidate a scientific theory. First, the refutation must be safe from logical critique, which in this case ti is not, but moreover even in the event a refutation of falsification is sound, it does not make the theory less of a scientific theory.

That is the point you seem to keep missing. Evolution, as we know it, may ultimatly prove to be completely off base. May, I say, because I consider that highly unlikely given what we know today. Even if it does, it is still science, because it can be falsified, regardless of if the falsifications are refuted.

Inteligent Design, by it's very nature, can never be falsified. Therefor, it is not science.

Ergo, Evolution, while (at worst) questionably correct, is science, and therefor belongs in education. Inteligent design, while possibly ultimatly the 'true' answer, is not, and thus does not belong in education.*

*Outside of a theistic education, of course, which is not what is being discussed.

Why? ID is not very deep, you are giving it to much credit than it deserves. What is so special about it that is "cannot be falsified"? If you ask me from the first time I heard about the idea it just rolled off my shoulders like any other religious gimick.

I'm not giving any "credit", I'm just stating a fact.

Falsified, in context, means there is no fact you could present that would disprove it. "Because god willed it so" is an acceptable response to any seeming problem with ID, since God is omnipotent and doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense.

ANYTHING involving faith shares that trait... "God did it" cannot be factually tested, and therefor cannot be falsified.

Therefor it's not science.

My personal beliefs on the matter don't matter.

I agree completely. That has been my point throughout, macroevolution is a belief, no tests can be done that would falsify it or confirm it.

Let me explain....

ID is a theory that states at some point life was sparked by a creator. The evidence is life, even the most basic, is composed of irreducible complex components. A living being requires a minimum of 4 systems. For the first life to even evolve it would need a mechanism to reproduce, take in nutrition and water, release waste and regulate it's required functions.

To be scientific, we must test the theory of ID. So we test. I take 2 rolls of nickles and stack both rolls neatly, placing each coin heads up, in the center of a shoe box. To falsify ID, the coins should, at some point, return to the original position, after shaking the box. After testing for many years, shaking the box, opening it to verify the coins are not randomly finding order, we can conclude this test doesn't falsify the theory, even though the test has a possibility to falsify.

So, to falsify, the test must say... if the test shows this result it doesn't falsify, but if the result is the opposite, it does falsify.

Testing macroevolution isn't possible, and here is why... no matter what the results of any test, the results will be absorbed by the theory. If one result is found, the theory will incorporate it into the theory. So, the theory isn't testable in the same way. There is no test that will, with one result falsify macroevolution, and with the opposite result, not falsify macroevolution. No matter what result, it will be adapted to.

I provided a test for ID, and the test has resulted in holding true the theory of ID.

Now you explain the test you did to try to falsify maroevolution. Please, don't post from the website that has been proven to "NOT" be examples of falsifying tests. Or we will return to the website shuffle, where my authority trumps your authority etc.

I love how you subtly try to twist what I say to support you. If you were a little more subtle, maybe one person in a million might not notice it.




No, this is where you show that you don't understand the difference between science and faith.

If science discoveres a flaw in its theory, the theory changes to accomodate the new understanding. It is the same basic theory, but revised. This *is* how science works, all science. Macroevolution is not unique here.

ID, on the other hand, never changes. "Because" is still the entierity of the arguement, and all the arguement ever can be.



No, you didn't.



Why should I, a college student, be so arrogate as to claim that researches who have studied this for longer than I've been alive need my help? If you don't want to accept the theory, that's your choice - but that doesn't negate the theory.

Your website, by the way, has proven nothing.

Next time, by the way, don't leave off the relevant qualifying statement just because it destroys your logic.

"Falsified, in context, means there is no fact you could present that would disprove it. "Because god willed it so" is an acceptable response to any seeming problem with ID, since God is omnipotent and doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense."

You can present facts that controdict macroevolution. Thus far, nobody has shown us a seven legged underwater giraffe, but it could, in theory, be done, if one existed. Other acceptable falsifications would include, say, animated, sentient rocks, or a chicken giving birth to a human out of a snake egg. Those would directly controdict macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution can be falsified, and, thus is science, not faith.

There is no way, ever, in any way, to falsify ID. Therefor, it is purely faith, not science.

Watches Reitsuku hit his head repeatedly off of a brick wall.


If you at any point make any significant progress with Kevn, ill give you 1000 $L

Yoyu made the error to demand that he answers your arguments instead simply ignoring them, and for that reason he ignores me already (i had the face to ask him why he alone can determine what discussion relevant topics are and wich form of evidence is "right" and wiuch not)

I read a whole thread, but could you kindly point out where you proved anythng beside staing "Its all wrong" ?
I must have missed it somewhere...

Great, we are progressing. Here you admit my point.... "If science discoveres a flaw in its theory, the theory changes to accomodate the new understanding. It is the same basic theory, but revised. This *is* how science works, all science. Macroevolution is not unique here."

You admit no matter what the results of any tests concerning macroevolution, macroevolution will not be allowed to be falsified. That no matter the results, it will be fit into the theory, and the theory will mold to fit it.

The second thing this post clears up is the fact you depend on what others say to support your belief. This is exactly what religious people do in most cases, accepting the statement of people grounded in the subject, and has accepted its tenants.

No need to independently verify anything, it says so in school text books, is supported by those who believe it, therefore it must be correct and true.

I haven't independently verified your existence, therefore you do not exist.

You admit that you are an evangelistic troll (just following your trick of making up what people said, sorry if it offends).

I add L$5k to the pot.

Lets see, before Einstein presented his Theorie of relativity scietists operatet with some form of theoretical ether to explain how radiowaves and light for example can travel though Vacuum.

Following your logic only because the idea of this ether had to be dropped the complete sciece of physics would have to be dropped and replaced by something new because one aspect was proven wrong and replaced with a working theorie.

If you find evidence wich shows an aspect wrong by presenting a better theorie wich explains how things work your theorie will replace it, if that means that other parts of the general theorie are disproven they will fall too, easy as that.

What you propose is that we run science purely on faith, or in other words, you reject science and its products.

Question remaining, why do you use an computer then?

Actually, I said nothing of the sort. It has nothing to do with "allowing" anything. If science discoveres something that it seems to controdict macroevolution, but can be explained with a modification to macroevolution, then it will do so. If it *can't* explain it under macroevolution, it's time to start testing a new theory.

In either case, the theory has *changed*. Theories change. All theories can change. This, again, is science. Changing a theory does not invalidate a theory, it is an admission that we learn things in a linear fashion.

ID never changes. It cant. It has one tennent, and one tennent alone. No fact can exist under creation that can cause it to change. Not so of macroevolution.

Repeating:

You can present facts that controdict macroevolution. Thus far, nobody has shown us a seven legged underwater giraffe, but it could, in theory, be done, if one existed. Other acceptable falsifications would include, say, animated, sentient rocks, or a chicken giving birth to a human out of a snake egg. Those would directly controdict macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution can be falsified, and, thus is science, not faith.



You are not my doctoral dissertation. You do not take priority over my life.

I *could*, if i so chose, go do these things. That's the point. I don't feel you, this thread, or any internet message board in general is worth that much time, but, if I did, I *could* go do these things, I have indicated.

To put it another way, do you accept that the moon is made of rock? Do you accept that the world is round? Do you accept that stars go nova? Do you accept that the Earth's core is moltan rock? Do you accept that rain is caused by evaporation of water condensing in the upper atmosphere? Do you accept that the change of seasons are caused by the tilting of the earth on it's axis as it rotates the sun?

None of these facts are in dispute, but *you* have never proven any of them. That does not make them faith, however.



I accept logic, and things that can be shown exist as a falsifiable scientific theory, yes, until I have reason to think otherwise.

All these examples are observable. We can examine the moon rocks brought back from the moon, observe pictures of the earth from space, observe the examples of stars go nova, observe that molten rock comes from the Earth, tho we haven't been to the center of the Earth, but it's testable. We have observed evaporation and test it, we can verify the tilt in the axis with observation.

None of those are untested theories, except for the center of the Earth being molten rock. But we do have testable evidence that could be falsified by testing should it be false.

"How was the Earth's core discovered? Recordings of seismic waves from earthquakes gave the first clue. Seismic waves will bend and reflect at the interfaces between different materials, just like the prism below refracts and scatters light waves at its faces." Read the rest here... http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html

You, however, can prove none of them - you're relying on what others have told you.

This experiment is also consistant with the theory that natural forces acting on the constituants of the early earth lead to the development of life, since random chance alone is too improbable to explain the origin of life. It would seem that this experiment is a potential falsifacation of any non-random scenerio of the origin of life.

So either:
This exeriment is not a potential falsification of ID.
or
This experiment shows that all credible theories of the origin of life are falsifyable.

It's not only not a potential falsification of ID, it's not even related to ID. It is, however, a straw man arguement I've heard before.

It's also bogus because its attempting to falsify by the inverse of a theory... "Theory B is false, therefor Theory A must be true" is called a non sequitur , which literally means "doesn't follow" All proving Theory B wrong proves is that Theory B is wrong. It does not support Theory A.

In this case, it doesn't even do that, because Theory B wasn't disproven.

That's reasonable. Abiogenesis is the current world view of how life first originated on Earth. Abiogenesis suggests a completely random process. Do you know of another theory that is workable under the need to be non-random?

"Completely random" indicates that you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the theory of natural selection.

Keep digging though, you should turn up Noah's ark at some point.

Or read a farking book, which everyone of your interlocutors has suggested but which you haven't done. Even the dipshits that you gleefully post links to have read books; they misunderstand them, but they at least have a step up on you.

Do you know what random means?

Most theories I've seen are not based on purely random occurances. Most of them do include randomness as a component, but also include natural forces of chemistry and physics that act on the molecules involved.

For example, lets look at the origin of a star, such as the sun. The probability that all those atoms would come together into a small enough space to sustain a fusion chain reaction purely by random chance is impossibly small. However, in addition to random chance (which is present and important) there is also the force of gravity. Gravity allows the atoms to come together at densities that make a fusion chain reaction possible.

haha, that must be quite a challenge for him. How does someone teach geology while disbelieving most of what it shows? I alternately find this stuff hilarious and terrifying, depending on the day. It certainly doesn't bode well for this country's ability to compete with the rest of the world in the decades ahead.



lol

This thread has become a sick practical joke on humanity.

It became a sick practical joke on humanity?

Do you have proof?

It might have been designed as one.