Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

You learned from evolutionists? And evolutionists say macroevolution is true? Amazing!

Now you say animals fit their environment well, which is proof of macroevolution. If God created animals and the environment, do you think it would have fit?


Asking me for information to prove the fossil record is full of dead ends and no clear descending linage? That would be like me asking you to prove there is no God, I can't prove it's not there. You have to prove it is there, if you are going to believe it.

I learned in High School and College. I also learned by studying the information for myself. I don't listen to old, tired rhetoric from anyone.



Interesting, if not flawed logic. But, by that logic, all the extinct species prove that God does not exist, and God did not create the animals for the environment. That or he screwed up, but the Bible says that God is infallable, which makes it a contradiction.

Nice use of fallacious argument, but it won't work in a debate with armed opponents.



You made the assessment. I'm asking you for proof of your reasonings. So yes, please prove that the fossil record has 'dead ends'. See, in science, other 'evolutionists' ask for this little thing called "proof", and they require LOTS of it. Now, if you wanted me to go back and use the logic that you have shown in this thread, then - because you cannot show proof that the fossil record has dead ends, conversely, it must not have dead ends. That is fallacious logic as well, and certainly not something I believe, I just felt the need to point it out to you. Hopefully you won't simply dismiss it.



But I'm not asking you to prove the existance of God. I'm asking you to kindly back up your statements with something other than air. I don't not believe that is an unreasonable request. Afterall, if you wish people to listen to your case and your argument, it's important that you back it up with some kind of information, provided it's logical, truthful, and not based upon propaganda or supposition.

Please, as a hobbyist scientist, zoologist, and biologist, I am always interested in learning more. If you have more for me to learn, I am very interested in hearing it. But as I said before, I will not submit to rhetoric. I wish to see the information for myself, so I can process it.



So what you're saying is.. ID doens't require proof, but science does.

Interesting.

But Fallacy Ad Ignorantiam.

Boy. Huge issues here.

I have not made a systematic study of epistemology; but I can suggest two ways: because I experience something for myself; or because somebody I trust tells me.

If you argue that neither of these methods are reliable, I will say the same thing about the scientific method. When you design an experiment, you must choose the confidence level you want in the result. Ninety-five percent is a very common choice.

Higher levels are more expensive; so there is no way to avoid a cost benefit analysis. You have to ask, what's the cost of being wrong? And note that being wrong is unavoidable given the volume of scientific research and the fact that dollars are limited (I was taught as a girl that Mercury always kept the same face toward the Sun -- but so far as I know nobody paid a very high price for that mistake).

However, the threshhold between scientific results and casual observation represents a huge step up in cost, so whether to do the experiment in the first placel belongs in the same spectrum of consideration.

Case in point. I use a product which claims to permanently remove hair. Now I know it works, because the hair is gone; but there is no scientific study guaranteeing the it's effectiveness. The company that makes it operates on small enough margins that they cannot afford to do the study. On the other hand, plenty of people buy the product; so cost-benefit argues against science here. There was a huge to-do on the internet claiming that the product was fraudulent because no scientific evidence existed that it worked. I think that is giving too much weight to science.

Similarly, I know Japan exists, because I trust the Travel Channel to that extent. Also, I had a friend who knew somebody that had been there. Okay, just kidding. The point is that I know this without any scientific methodology.

Now I have tremendous faith in the scientific community and its methodologies (at least to the extent that they stick to their proper domain); so I will say that I know, for example, that almost all of the mass of an atom is concentrated in a very teeny spot in the center; but there are a whole host of things that science cannot (e.g. good and evil) or will not (e.g. flying saucers) address. I don't personally believe in flying saucers; but there is absolutely more evidence for them than for your FSM. When you say "reliable" you are arrogating for yourself the right to pre-qualify evidence to suit your world view; and "reproducible" only became a criterion when we stopped talking about macroevolution.

Do you believe that some acts are ethical and others unethical? Doesn't this rise to the level of knowledge in certain cases? Is ethics just a matter of personal preference, or are there some absolutes? If there are absolutes, where do they come from?

If you claim any knowlege in this arena, do you have scientific studies to back it up?

It's been fun. Maybe I'll get a few moments during the week; more likely next weekend.

--Allie

And now you change the subject.
The reason it keeps getting repeated is that it refutes a claim that you keep making. You are unwilling to confront it.

In a nutshell, for the Nth time, macroevolution is testable in the same way that theories about astronomy are testable: by making predictions about what we should see out there, then going and observing what we see.

You have 3 choices:

(i)Concede this point and stop making the claim that macroevolution is untestable.
(ii)Argue against this point.
(iii)Ignore this post like all the others.

This is fair. On a personal level this is how scientists works as well. Well, I have to make sure exactly what you mean by "experience". Are we, perhaps, talking about religious experiences rather than the experience of seeing a Foucault pendulum move around?

Scientists also tend to believe what other's tell them (there simply isn't time to perform every experiment yourself), although if an experiment gives a surprising result, other scientists will try to reproduce it. This is a social endeavour, and ruling out the solipsistic possibilities of massive world wide conspiracies, I think mostly the scientists aren't lying to everyone, and if someone is they get found out. There are lots of checks and balances. Science is really just a formalised and rigorous version of what we all (often) do in our daily lives to try and work out what's going on.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by experiences, if you mean the paranormal in it's various forms, then yes, I'd say the "experiments" are nowhere near rigorous enough to be sure enough that you're not getting false information out. The scientific method is similarly not entirely certain, it never can be, but it is orders of magnitude more convincing than believing (e.g.) what some guy on the TV is telling you about something.

Well, it is something you could certainly test, repeatedly. Nobody feels the need to, but the existence of Japan could be determined in a scientific manner.

Ok, I'll give you that I would be more surprised were I to find that the FSM exists than that flying saucers exist. As for "reproducible", don't tell me you've been ignoring the same posts that Kevn has? Macroevolution is testable, and is repeatedly testable. You go out and observe some previously unobserved collection of closely related species, and see if the DNA information as to (e.g. when the species diverged) matches with fossil evidence, carbon dating and so on.
No. Not in any absolute objective sense. There is no "evil particle" found in large concentrations in the brains of serial killers and child molesters.
Yes, I'll look forward to your reply.

Obviously, you ignored the link that completely blows your link out of the water. I would repeat it all, but it's easier for you to just read it and make your points against the answers to every point. If you don't want to answer that data, what in God's green Earth makes you think I'm going to reinvent the wheel for you. Read the post and shoot it down. Here it is one more time.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp#pred1

Read it and answer it's points. If I feel you make valid points I'll respond, if not, I'll straight out ignore them. And I'll allow you the same right. Also, study debate techniques, and see ignoring points is fine when the point isn't sufficient to need a response.

Oh gee, fancy that, you answer none of the points posed to you, have demonstrated no evidence that you've read a single thing anyone else has pointed to - on the forums, web, or books - and continue to point people at the same link to tripe and say until you have refuted that hodge-podge of pretend arguments they aren't sufficiently enlightened to talk with you.

Wow, I wanna be a rabid dogmatist too! It's so much easier than actually having to think.

God created you, in his image, too. Where do you fit?

Discuss faith is useless.

Lets all let the other think whatever makes him/her happy.

After all... only I have the truth about the universe! LOL

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/WalkingCatfish/WalkingCatfish.html

http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm

And in 200,000,000 years, that hideous sin against my eyeballs might be Frog Ver 2.0.

I started reading it, then wondered if someone had already done the work for me...:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

Now that we have both demonstrated that we can post links to long websites...when I posted my original link, I gave a two or three line version of the relevant part of the argument, which is of a suitable size for us here to try and debate. You have not extended the same courtesy to me with your link, so there is no way for me to continue with a two or three line reply, because I don't have a short version from you to try to rebut. Surely if it "blows it out of the water" you should be able to compose a reply to my summary of the original link? Here, I'll repost it for you so you can use your link to compose a reply:

I don't suppose you could come up with a link about this?

Yes, I most certainly can come up with a link about this.

Here is the answer to your link:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

Very good, now for a follow-up, can you actually compare and contrast one single point from these opposing views and why one might be more credible than the other? No, I didn't think so. Failing that, you are about as compelling as some random guy on a street corner handing out bible tracts.

Please feel free to make ad hominem accusations that you think undermine my implication that you are but an evangelistic troll; I've rather come to enjoy them.

Ok, just had to chime in with my proof of De-volution:

Some of the stuff on that True Origin site that Kevn keeps linking to is hilarious, like this little gem that describes a book review: "reviews Hugh Ross’s latest published effort at placing erroneous “science” above infallible Scripture" Uh, yeah. Quite the objective scientific resource you've found there, Kevn. Gee, these people couldn't possibly have an agenda now could they?

Um. Now I'm almost certain that you're not reading my posts. I asked for a link to support this idea that it's ok in debate to ignore points entirely. You instead gave me a link about the other part of my post.

As for the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal link... I guess it is obvious that one side or the other would have the last word at the moment. I had hoped that you would be able to continue the debate here rather than running it off into long website links, but given that you seem unable or unwilling to read carefully even my 20 line post I guess that hope was unfounded.

That's the only way ID supporters* can even attempt to 'win' any 'debate' when butting heads with people who have higher than a 9th grade education in biology...

That or use completely circular and other forms of fallacious logic.

Or insult others.

Which I've seen a whole lot of in this thread. Go figure.

Also in a debate you need to back up your claims with facts, proof, and evidence. Haven't seen much of that from the ID side either.

*By ID supporters, I mean those that vehemently denounce science and evolution, for pure ID studies, or believe ID is a replacement for certain sciences.

Right, I skimmed the post for the meat, found the linked site. I had seen it before, so I wanted to get the reply to that web posting, that answered every point, before I left. The answers are what we are after, right?

The point about debate tactics isn't on topic, and only serves to sidetrack the main issue, that Macroevolution isn't testable or re-creatable. Pointing to information that isn't making the point doesn't progress the debate. Please don't take it personally if I disregard the data that isn't convincing. I don't mind when you or others ignore my data. It's part of the forum world. People ignore points, scroll back, many of my points are completely disregarded.

We are still missing evidence for macroevolution without the website that we know is false evidence, unless one can refute the answers.


If he fully explains how there is no evidence for macroevolution to your satisfaction, we can move on to another point. If not, let me know what part isn't complete.

I don't think we are talking about the same forum. Which ID supporter insulted another poster? I would suggest your post is the insulting post. You say "That's the only way ID supporters* can even attempt to 'win' any 'debate' when butting heads with people who have higher than a 9th grade education in biology..." which is a major insult, suggesting anyone who disagrees with your point of view is stupid.

I'll not be responding to you in the future. Good bye.

No, it's an observation. If you cared to read the little * note, you'd see my point was not at all insulting. If one is deliberately ignorant to the facts, then there is little hope they can achieve in any debate regarding said facts, thus they must lower themselves to fallacious logic and a very basic, rudamentary, and lackluster understanding of biology. And I never said they were stupid. 9th grade is generally when people take basic biological sciences, and most of what I've seen in the ID debate are from people who either don't know, or are ignorant towards anything beyond basic biological understanding.

You, yourself, have shown a lack of knowledge in the field of biology. That's not calling you stupid, that's an observation.

Anyone that vehemently denounces scientific understanding that gets into a debate about science is going to lose unless they resort to more dubious measure, period.



And that proves my point exactly! Thank you!

Oh and by the by, you neglected this part:



I know that's at least the second or third time I've mentioned it. Funny how that's always ignored as well.

But I guess "not responding" is a great copout for giving something other than hot air in a discussion, neh?