Creationism Is Testable

[Agonaces of Susa]

YouTube - Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design


"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

 

[mandyangel]

evolutionists say they are so trusting of science yet they refuse to look at the evidence of creationism or call a baby in the womb a life

evolution cannot be proven. why don't we ever see the carcus of the monkey man?

 

[plindboe]

evolutionists say they are so trusting of science yet they refuse to look at the evidence of creationism or call a baby in the womb a life

evolution cannot be proven. why don't we ever see the carcus of the monkey man?

This post is just perfection.

Peter

 

[Blayz]

evolutionists say they are so trusting of science yet they refuse to look at the evidence of creationism or call a baby in the womb a life

I am an evolutionist, and I call a baby in the womb a life.

You fail.

 

[mandyangel]

im just saying that science is filled with a lot of liberal hypocrites.

evolution itself cannot be tested by the scientific method because there is nothing to compare it to

 

[Flatland]

im just saying that science is filled with a lot of liberal hypocrites.

evolution itself cannot be tested by the scientific method because there is nothing to compare it to

And why does evolution have to be compared to something?

You evidently have no clue what the scientific method is so why are you bringing it up?

 

[mandyangel]

u cant just make up a theory and then call it scientific fact unless you have some evidence. theres a lot of "theory" in evolution but the truth is NONE of it can be tested because no scientist was there to compare a man today with the supposed monkey ape of yesterday

you not only have to have evidence, you have to test your hypothesis and i know people will say "well, theres no evidence of creationism either" but the difference is we aren't going around saying its a scientifically proven fact like evolutionists are

creationism is based on belief, its based on the bible and persuasion... no it cant be tested but in science, you can't claim something true if you cant test it. thats why evolution doesn't stand up to scientific process and therefore is just a theory, not fact.

 

[Blayz]

u cant just make up a theory and then call it scientific fact unless you have some evidence. theres a lot of "theory" in evolution but the truth is NONE of it can be tested because no scientist was there to compare a man today with the supposed monkey ape of yesterday

You wouldn't know science if it bit you. Evolution gets tested all the time, and I can say that as one of the scientists that has done some of the testing...and for the record, monkey apes (what ever they are), fossils and the rest make up about 1% of the evidence for evolution, and that is on a good day. If we didn't have a single fossil it would make no difference to ToE.

The evidence for evolution lies in the genetics of living creatures, and that's the sandpit you have to play in if you want an initial response that doesn't involve eye rolls and laughter.

im just saying that science is filled with a lot of liberal hypocrites.

Meanwhile whatever group it is that you are a member of seems to be filled with conservative liars.

 

[Targ]

u cant just make up a theory and then call it scientific fact unless you have some evidence. theres a lot of "theory" in evolution but the truth is NONE of it can be tested because no scientist was there to compare a man today with the supposed monkey ape of yesterday

There are actually a number of tests that are regularly used. One good one is as follows:

1. Identify transitional fossils that are currently missing, i.e. missing links.
2. Determine the times where the earlier species disappears in the fossil record and where the later species begins.
3. Determine where in the world the strata between these two periods can be found.
4. Go there, dig around in those layers in the hope of finding the transitional fossil / missing link that fill in the gap between the two species.

This method was used to aid in the discovery of a fish/tetrapod transitional species known as tiktaalik. The test worked, thereby verifying the testability of the theory of evolution.

evolutionists say they are so trusting of science yet they refuse to look at the evidence of creationism or call a baby in the womb a life

Pardon? You appear to be conflating abortion with an acceptance of evolution. The two do not equate or necessitate each other and there are many millions of people who will testify to this.

why don't we ever see the carcus of the monkey man?

I presume you are referring to earlier/pre-human hominids. If so, then take a look at Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis and Homo ergaster to name but a few.

 

[mandyangel]

Targ even though I disagree with you, I appreciate a good debate and respect ur opinion. But Blayz, personally attacking me is not going to help your cause at all dear.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I agree that intelligent design is a testable hypothesis, at least in principle. The problem with ID supporters is that they spend 99% of their efforts on politics and PR rather than science. Develop the science first and then try to get it into public school science classes.

 

[rjc34]

Targ even though I disagree with you, I appreciate a good debate and respect ur opinion. But Blayz, personally attacking me is not going to help your cause at all dear.

Good thing your opinion has no effect on reality.

You seem to enjoy spouting lies and falsehoods (or maybe you just don't know any better) about evolution. Bearing false witness is a sin.

Here's an idea for you: put aside your religious convictions for a moment and put yourself in a skeptics shoes. Write a post explaining the evidence for evolution, and why people should believe it. If you do, I'll write one for creationism. Seeing the world from the view point you're fighting against is a great way to bolster your position, as you'll know what you're up against.

Here's a nice friendly video that will explain the basics.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am an evolutionist, and I call a baby in the womb a life.

Do you call a baby in the womb a 'baby'?

 

[mandyangel]

Good thing your opinion has no effect on reality.

You seem to enjoy spouting lies and falsehoods (or maybe you just don't know any better) about evolution. Bearing false witness is a sin.

Here's an idea for you: put aside your religious convictions for a moment and put yourself in a skeptics shoes. Write a post explaining the evidence for evolution, and why people should believe it. If you do, I'll write one for creationism. Seeing the world from the view point you're fighting against is a great way to bolster your position, as you'll know what you're up against.

Here's a nice friendly video that will explain the basics.

U first.

 

[Greg1234]

YouTube - Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design


"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

 

[rjc34]

U first.

Creationism is true because the bible says so. The bible is the word of god and therefore infallible. I have faith in both of these things, therefore creationism is true.

Ok, your turn. No straw men ether.

 

[mandyangel]

Evolution is true because a lot of smart elite scientists are willing to reject their own scientific method, not fully test the theory through all stages (if any), and deem it be correct based on drawings and philosophical logic that is not scientifically based, but it doesn't matter because they say its true, therefore it is.

 

[rjc34]

Evolution is true because a lot of smart elite scientists are willing to reject their own scientific method, not fully test the theory through all stages (if any), and deem it be correct based on drawings and philosophical logic that is not scientifically based, but it doesn't matter because they say its true, therefore it is.

Nice to know your opinion on the matter. I'm still waiting for an actual argument in favour of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice to know your opinion on the matter. I'm still waiting for an actual argument in favour of it.

evolution = ∆alleles/T → error doctrine

 

[mandyangel]

I guess well just have to agree to disagree. You know that there are holes in evolution so large you could drive a truck through. You know that since no scientist has ever taken the theory and put it through the scientific method, it cannot categorically be declared a scientific truth. I could go on and cite some websites for you to look at but I think I'd just be wasting my time. I think you know the holes in the theory as well as anybody and I just ask you to take a second look at them.