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.
Options
Faith school controversy
This discussion has been closed.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I have thanks.
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.
On what evidence do you base this wild assertion?
eta
Oh yeah, you religous fundies don't require evidence :rolleyes:
ETA: I am no "fundie", and resent the implication.
You're arguing in circles.
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.
:wave:
Read the origins of species. It contains hundreds of elements, compared and contrasted.
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.
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?
Yes, they have.
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.
How many times - its not science. Can it be falsified?
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...
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.
Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth is their book -
have a wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
come on then, link to a page about these new theories
I'm still waiting for that quote