Message boards :
Politics :
ID = circular reasoning NOT= science
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him. It does not go round-and-round. Science is well-defined. It is shown in the very first post how ID is not science. |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
Should I point out an inconsistency? Ok, I'll do it to make a point. If you do then we'd better see a few other threads that arn't science moved there at the same time. Cheers. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Should I point out an inconsistency? Ok, I'll do it to make a point. Shall I point out that you must not have read the original post? Why, yes, I shall. Very very very much all science and nothing else. PURE and REAL science. Undeniable. You must face it. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
For a number of reasons Guy, that I know you are fully aware of, I would support that view. But as Wiggo points out ID has made so many threads, that they will all have to go over. Don't even engage him. He knows full well my original post succinctly and eloquently explains what science is and why ID is not science. If he moves this thread, he will learn of the message board version of "Revelations". |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
PURE and REAL science. Undeniable. You must face it. You might think it was from I.D. You'd be wrong, as I have defended what I have said, and succinctly. Now, if you wish to truly discuss this, then point out, if you can, how I am wrong. I am pretty sure you cannot. Not because of your abilities or beliefs, but because deep down, you know I am correct. Return to topic. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I have yet to find 1 legitimate Science Organization through all my googling on a certain person's subjects that back there is any real science involved at all with intelligent design. From what I can see, IDers do not perform experiments themselves, but "analyze" what researchers have published, looking for something that fits their conclusion. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
ID is a subject that is being riduculed [sic] by many right now.]/quote] The rejection put forward in the very first post is not on the grounds of "that's just so different from what we currently accept that it can't be right!" nor on the grounds of faith, religion or lack thereof. The rejection put forward in the very first post of this thread is "the term irreducible complexity assumes both the hypothesis and only one possible, desired, conclusion". This is circular reasoning. Even if they were doing experiments, the initial setup is flawed. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Well, there are still many people claiming evolution is not science either. Evolution was not mentioned in the very first post of this thread. One "claiming" evolution is not science would have to state the correct definition of what science is and then show how that field of study violates the long accepted tenets of what science is. But if you look at the methods of science, you can see folks doing those steps in both evolution and in ID. They are just beginning to do those steps in ID. Why not allow them? The term "irreducible complexity" assume both the hypothesis and the conclusion. This is circular reasoning. Just beginning? What experiments have they performed, as opposed to analyzing the research of others? Even if they performed experiments, if the base is flawed, they would be building a house of cards. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
The house has already been built but with no solid foundations. It's collapsing fast, but there are those who can't see that. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
"the term irreducible complexity assumes both the hypothesis and only one possible, desired, [sic] conclusion". This is circular reasoning. Even if they were doing experiments, the initial setup is flawed. "Circular reasoning" is well-defined. You are engaging in baiting and sophistry. "Random chance" and "something (or someone)" setting things in motion were not mentioned in the very first post of this thread. The flaw at the very core of I.D., circular reasoning, making it NOT science is the topic of this thread. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
And all I'm doing is pointing out that: You have not pointed out anything. If you had, you could defend it. You cannot. Evolution is not the topic here. Your very last line is a flame. You are trying to suggest I am a radical. |
Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 3387 Credit: 4,182,900 RAC: 10 |
This subject goes round and round and ends up nowhere. I guess it does make a nice space filler. I.D. doesn't want to face up to the fact that science and religion don't mix and the rest of us will never convince him. I was not referring to the science. I am referring to the debate, which is endless and doesn't get anywhere. ID makes a post and then a certain few respond pointing out his flawed logic and then it just goes round and round and round. Nothing new is brought to the table and until the thread is locked the same arguments prevail. Bob DeWoody My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Evolution is not the topic here. I am not going to follow any of your perceived rules. Evolution was not, is not and will not be the topic in here. Neither will faith be the topic here. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
here's my biggest problem iii. Experiment: This statement makes assumptions about biology that are basically flawed and erroneous. If one take a segment out of a functioning biological process you get a non functioning cell or organ or life. IE cancer. defects(partial or full removal or change in a gene) in genetic code are known to occur for a multitude of human diseases. How do we know? The human genome project and actual research. The author states that a particular biological component becomes non functional without giving an example. Would a Factor VIII deficient person qualify under this premise? Hardly, we know very well what genetic marker is missing and how this disease is passed from generation to generation. Though the person has a defective gene does not incapacitate the individual completely and they don't just stop functioning. Clearly, people are born everyday with one genetic disorder or another. I recall reading, a long time ago, that everyone is born with at least 10 changed in their code that will most likely never show. Again, that's a lot of change with very few of us actually not functioning as intended In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
I'm still waiting to see 13 threads (including this 1, 12 otherwise) to be moved to a more appropriate forum category. ;-) Cheers. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.