Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Faith school controversy

1234579

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Why don't you actually read up on science then get back to us eh?
    Why don't you read up on intelligent design and then try and tell everyone that it isn't science.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Why don't you read up on intelligent design and then try and tell everyone that it isn't science.

    I have thanks.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I have thanks.
    You obviously haven't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you read up on intelligent design and then try and tell everyone that it isn't science.

    I already did this, Kentish.

    You can't predict anything with it, there is no observable evidence, there is no

    Characterization (Quantification, observation and measurement)
    Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation of the observations and measurements)
    Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
    Experiment (test of all of the above)

    Are the basics of science.

    ID has no quantifiable parts, nothing has been measured.

    Hypothesis it has, fair enough.

    ID doesn't predict anything, so it's not science on that score.

    ID leads to no experiments, so it's not science on that score either.

    At best it's untestable theory. As science only concerns itself with what can be tested, it's not science.

    >sigh< Let's say, for the sake of argument that in a moment I am going to post and blow all this out of the water by giving a hundred of reasonable reasons that there is intelligent design and no such thing as random, but even when and if I do, ID still isn't science.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    You obviously haven't.

    On what evidence do you base this wild assertion?

    eta

    Oh yeah, you religous fundies don't require evidence :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    On what evidence do you base this wild assertion?
    The fact that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as a scientific theory.

    ETA: I am no "fundie", and resent the implication.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    The fact that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as a scientific theory.

    You're arguing in circles.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as a scientific theory.

    It isn't a scientific theory. I am saying this and I believe in ID. I don't believe in science.

    I have good reasons for thinking that the whole thing is planned out, but i know full well that ID isn't science. Hell, perhaps that's part of the plan. :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    I already did this, Kentish.
    I wasn't addressing you but OK...
    ID has no quantifiable parts, nothing has been measured.
    Everything of ID is as measurable as evolutionary theory is. Show me how this is not so?
    Hypothesis it has, fair enough.

    ID doesn't predict anything, so it's not science on that score.
    Micro-evolution (part of ID theory) can predict changes and adaptations. What does macro-evolution predict?
    ID leads to no experiments, so it's not science on that score either.
    One can examine the changes in species over time. Retrospective, granted, but as evolution is acknowledged to be a slow process, this is similarly limited.
    At best it's untestable theory. As science only concerns itself with what can be tested, it's not science.
    It can be tested insofar as one can look at evidence and conclude a theory. But again the experiments required for testing have not been developed.
    >sigh< Let's say, for the sake of argument that in a moment I am going to post and blow all this out of the water by giving a hundred of reasonable reasons that there is intelligent design and no such thing as random, but even when and if I do, ID still isn't science.
    You're confusing yourself with logic. That is not science, but gut feeling.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :banghead:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem with ID theories is that they start off with the assumption that there is a designer, based on no evidence, then try and find ways to fit evidence to that assumption.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wasn't addressing you but OK...

    :wave:
    Everything of ID is as measurable as evolutionary theory is. Show me how this is not so?

    Read the origins of species. It contains hundreds of elements, compared and contrasted.
    Micro-evolution (part of ID theory) can predict changes and adaptations. What does macro-evolution predict?

    The same. Even your thoughts evolve. Old ones get discarded, new ones arise. Science itself is a kind of mental drawing up of the rules of evolution.
    One can examine the changes in species over time. Retrospective, granted, but as evolution is acknowledged to be a slow process, this is similarly limited.

    Kind of, but you can take a species or set of organisms that live on a much faster timescale and watch them evolve. Fruit flies have been shown to change to their "artificial" environments as an example. To prove ID, you would have to prove that the scientist who had the idea to do this was prompted to do it by some hidden intelligence. Tricky, neh?
    It can be tested insofar as one can look at evidence and conclude a theory. But again the experiments required for testing have not been developed.

    Yes, they have.
    You're confusing yourself with logic. That is not science, but gut feeling.

    Nope, I can logically prove that the whole dog and pony show is run by something, or rather, that it is something running that we are part of.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    The problem with ID theories is that they start off with the assumption that there is a designer, based on no evidence, then try and find ways to fit evidence to that assumption.
    Granted, the basis is in an intelligent designer, but it is simply untrue to say that the evidence is manipulated in some way to fit the initial assumption.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats one of the major reasons its not science - it starts off with an assumption based on no evidence.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Thats one of the major reasons its not science - it starts off with an assumption based on no evidence.
    Proving or disproving it requires science. It may not be pure scientific theory in its simplest form, but it does involve science and its proponents demand scientific rigour.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Proving or disproving it requires science. It may not be pure scientific theory in its simplest form, but it does involve science and its proponents demand scientific rigour.

    How many times - its not science. Can it be falsified?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wot?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can it be falsified?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Please provide one shred of evidence. It is all mere conjecture.
    If about 70 million cubic tons of fossils does not count as evidence, you're right...

    Then again, the fossils could be just plastic fakes buried by an atheo-communist world conspiracy to bring down Christianity and Western values...*



    * more or less already suggested by some fundies, believe it or not...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    evolutionary scientists agree with the creation scientists that no one ...can create life out of non living matter under laboratory conditions.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who said that? Show me. What does it prove anyway?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually I've heard the exact opposite: that given the right conditions, namely light, heat, and water, life will begin. No deity need apply.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I rarely talk bollocks on subjects I know nothing about.
    well ...thats debatable.
    you seem to know very little about the state of affairs regarding the ever changing schools of evolutionary ideas ...your still spouting darwinism when darwinism is largely out of fashion and regarded as very unscientific by todays proponents of evolutionary theory.

    you have offered nothing in support of your beliefs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well I could post a paper by a friend of mine doing a PhD in Brighton in the philosophy of science, looking at the history of Darwin's ideas and reappraising Lamarckian ideas if you like.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Urey/Miller 1956. Put together a cocktail of chemicals that would be around on the early earth and added a little lightning. Got something quite close to what you would need to start life. Obviously they don't have billions of years to pay with.

    Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth is their book -

    have a wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
    The molecules produced were relatively simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them in the first place.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If about 70 million cubic tons of fossils does not count as evidence, you're right...

    t...
    the fossil record would show eventualy ...a history of species changing from one to another ...at least that was what darwin was hoping ...over a hundred years later we have millions of fossils ...not a one that shows any evolutionary traits i'm afraid ...hence why new ideas have had to come about regarding evolutionary theory...darwin is so yesterday!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Urey/Miller 1956. Put together a cocktail of chemicals that would be around on the early earth and added a little lightning. Got something quite close to what you would need to start life. Obviously they don't have billions of years to pay with.

    Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth is their book -

    have a wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
    getting simple protiens is no big deal.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If about 70 million cubic tons of fossils does not count as evidence, you're right...
    What's the evidence for evolution amongst that lot then?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    morrocan roll wrote:
    the fossil record would show eventualy ...a history of species changing from one to another ...at least that was what darwin was hoping ...over a hundred years later we have millions of fossils ...not a one that shows any evolutionary traits i'm afraid ...hence why new ideas have had to come about regarding evolutionary theory...darwin is so yesterday!

    come on then, link to a page about these new theories
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    morrocan roll wrote:
    getting simple protiens is no big deal.

    I'm still waiting for that quote
This discussion has been closed.