'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[Radrook]

There is no assumption that ID is not considered science. Without a scientific definition and without a falsifiable test, it CAN NOT be science.

You can deny this reality all you like, but it wont' make it go away.

It doesn't need to be a science to point out quackery.

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't need to be a science to point out quackery.

LOL

 

[Speedwell]

It doesn't need to be a science to point out quackery.

It's "quackery" to require that ID meet the same epistemological standards as any other scientific theory?

 

[Radrook]

LOL

Things which are patently ridiculous don't need rocket scientists to be pointed out. If indeed that we true, the medical doctors couldn't be sued for malpractice because the ones suing aren't doctors and can't very well know the diff. Your premise is skewered.

 

[bhsmte]

Things which are patently ridiculous don't need rocket scientists to be pointed out. If indeed that we true, the medical doctors couldn't be sued for malpractice because the ones suing aren't doctors and can't very well know the diff. Your premise is skewered.

Well, it would be on you, to demonstrate well evidenced established theory, to be ridiculous.

I understand you simply saying it, gives you comfort, but is proves nothing.

 

[Radrook]

It's "quackery" to require that ID meet the same epistemological standards as any other scientific theory?

Show me how the ID inductive leap is unwarranted.

 

[Speedwell]

Things which are patently ridiculous don't need rocket scientists to be pointed out. If indeed that we true, the medical doctors couldn't be sued for malpractice because the ones suing aren't doctors and can't very well know the diff. Your premise is skewered.

So the scientific method is patently ridiculous and requiring ID to meet the epistemological standards it imposes is quackery.
Where are you going with this?

 

[Radrook]

Well, it would be on you, to demonstrate well evidenced established theory, to be ridiculous.

I understand you simply saying it, gives you comfort, but is proves nothing.

It is patently silly to tout something as veritable fact when it hasn't ever been observed in nature nor has it been forced to happen in a lab. It's also dishonest to deny that it is being put forth as veritable fact in view of the certainty with which your abio proponents speak about it. Silliness and dishonesty don't make for a convincing argument.

 

[Radrook]

So the scientific method is patently ridiculous and requiring ID to meet the epistemological standards it imposes is quackery.
Where are you going with this?

ID meets the epistemological demands with flying colors while your pet idea doesn't, as previously and repeatedly explained.
Better question is not were I'm going. Better question is where are you at with all this.

The scientific method isn't the issue here. So stop creating strawmen.
As I said, ID isn't anti scientific method. You are.

 

[Speedwell]

It is patently silly to tout something as veritable fact when it hasn't ever been observed in nature nor has it been forced to happen in a lab. It's also dishonest to deny that it is being put forth as veritable fact in view of the certainty with which your abio proponents speak about it. Silliness and dishonesty don't make for a convincing argument.

In order to make that point you would have to show that a fully characterized theory of abiogenesis had been put forward as absolute fact in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

[Speedwell]

ID meets the epistemological demands with flying colors while your pet idea doesn't, as previously and repeatedly explained.
Better question is not were I'm going. Better question is where are you at with all this.

As it stands, ID is not a falsifiable proposition. You can believe it if you like and it may even turn out to be true, but it does not at present meet the epistemological standards imposed by the scientific method.

 

[Radrook]

As it stands, ID is not a falsifiable proposition. You can believe it if you like and it may even turn out to be true, but it does not at present meet the epistemological standards imposed by the scientific method.

You can test ideas via logic to determine if they are true or false. In short they are logically falsifiable. Which means that you are not familiar with the basics of the scientific method which requires that a justifiable inductive leap be acknowledged as a justifiable inductive leap and that such an inductive leap provides the basis for a sound premise upon which a conclusion can be based.

Some conclusions need not be tested because they are self evident. Of course you only counter that with ""Ï caint see!"" But that ""I jist Cain't see!! response just doesn't cut it.
"
The reason that it doesn't cut it is because you certainly CAN SEE the difference between the designed and the not designed very clearly in other areas. It is only when the conclusion leads to an ID in nature that you suddenly claim this ridiculous obviously self inflicted bogus inability or blindness. In short, your feigned incomprehension is as transparent as glass.

BTW
Your extremely limited concept of the scientific method would get you a failing grade in all the tests that I was given concerning it and which I passed with flying colors.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you are not familiar with the basics of the scientific method which requires that a justifiable inductive leap be acknowledged as a justifiable inductive leap and that such an inductive leap provides the basis for a sound premise upon which a conclusion can be based.

which still has to be a falsifiable proposition--nothing else will do for science.

 

[bhsmte]

It is patently silly to tout something as veritable fact when it hasn't ever been observed in nature nor has it been forced to happen in a lab. It's also dishonest to deny that it is being put forth as veritable fact in view of the certainty with which your abio proponents speak about it. Silliness and dishonesty don't make for a convincing argument.

Well evidenced science makes for a good argument though, to those who can think rationally. Sort of like Francis Collins, the devout Christian, who as the former head of the human genome project, physician and geneticist, likely knows a bit about the topic. Don't tell us though, he has no clue, right?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.j0WNT5IU.dpuf

 

[Speedwell]

Some conclusions need not be tested because they are self evident.

No such thing in science. All conclusions must be testable.

The reason that it doesn't cut it is because you certainly CAN SEE the difference between the designed and the not designed very clearly in other areas.

That's the second time you have attributed that falsehood to me. The first time I merely pointed out to you that it wasn't true. Now it's a bald-faced lie.

 

[Radrook]

In order to make that point you would have to show that a fully characterized theory of abiogenesis had been put forward as absolute fact in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Then you need to tell your scientists to behave accordingly during documentaries where almost every single statement is made without qualifiers as if your pet idea were irrefutably proven fact.

 

[bhsmte]

No such thing in science. All conclusions must be testable.

That's the second time you have attributed that falsehood to me. The first time I merely pointed out to you that it wasn't true. Now it's a bald-faced lie.

I always get a kick when some say certain things are "self evidence", but can't explain how they are self evident.

 

[bhsmte]

Then you need to tell your scientists to behave accordingly during documentaries where almost every single statement is made without qualifiers as if your pet idea were irrefutably proven fact.

Documentaries are not science.

 

[Radrook]

No such thing in science. All conclusions must be testable.

That's the second time you have attributed that falsehood to me. The first time I merely pointed out to you that it wasn't true. Now it's a bald-faced lie.

Al conclusions are testable. If not testable in a lab via experimentation then they are testable via logic. Um, refutable via logic. um, falsifiable via logic. argumentation showing it to be paradoxical for example. An area which is part and parcel of the scientific method as well. Didn't you know?

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proved false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Radrook]

I always get a kick when some say certain things are "self evidence", but can't explain how they are self evident.

Not a greater kick than I derive from seeing you squirm while saying you caint see.