125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[All Becomes New]

Intelligent Design (ID) effectively passed away in 2005 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case. Its main support, the Discovery Institute, was financially moribund and now appears to have shifted focus to Trumpish 'stop the steal' propaganda and climate change denial. ID has never been anything more than thinly disguised Creationism.

From the court ruling:

The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring ID to be taught as an alternative theory.[3]​

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

​

OB​

I'm already aware of this. ID is still alive.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, you just don't like the implications of your own view. You can't study when your friend tells you to just trust them on something. Since you can't study it, you call that worthless. So it appears, by your own admission, that you think trusting your friend when you have no way to test it is worthless. Now, I know you don't behave that way, and that's exactly the point I am trying to make.

But we're not talking about anything that my friend tells me. We're talking about science here, You're trying to twist and shift what is being said to you, and it's making you look like a troll.

Science can only study the natural world, and the things in it, past and present. That is a fact, indisputable. Anything that is claimed to exist outside of the natural world or natural order, i.e. the supernatural, cannot be studied by the simple fact that said things do not exist in the natural world. So they are not included in the scientific view. Intelligent design is such a thing.

 

[All Becomes New]

But we're not talking about anything that my friend tells me. We're talking about science here, You're trying to twist and shift what is being said to you, and it's making you look like a troll.

Science can only study the natural world, and the things in it, past and present. That is a fact, indisputable. Anything that is claimed to exist outside of the natural world or natural order, i.e. the supernatural, cannot be studied by the simple fact that said things do not exist in the natural world. So they are not included in the scientific view. Intelligent design is such a thing.

The devil is in the details. To what level can the supernatural not be studied? Would you say all the times where a miracle is recorded has to be something we can't study since a miracle is supernatural? You can study the supernatural when it happens. You just can't put it in a test tube.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The devil is in the details. To what level can the supernatural not be studied? Would you say all the times where a miracle is recorded has to be something we can't study since a miracle is supernatural? You can study the supernatural when it happens. You just can't put it in a test tube.

We can study the claims made AFTER a miracle, but no miracle can actually be studied. Because miracles are the supernatural and as such cannot be studied.

Evolution can be studied, readily and easily, and it has been shown to be sound science. Intelligent design has been shown to be a load of crock and is thus discarded as a pseudoscienctific claim.

 

[All Becomes New]

Intelligent design has been shown to be a load of crock and is thus discarded as a pseudoscienctific claim.

Is something inherently wrong with the idea of irreducible complexity?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is something inherently wrong with the idea of irreducible complexity?

Stop moving the goalposts.

 

[Occams Barber]

The devil is in the details. To what level can the supernatural not be studied? Would you say all the times where a miracle is recorded has to be something we can't study since a miracle is supernatural? You can study the supernatural when it happens. You just can't put it in a test tube.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[98] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[74] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[99] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.[100][101]​

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

​

OB​

 

[All Becomes New]

Stop moving the goalposts.

I'm not. We were talking about ID. Why is talking about that all of a sudden moving the goal post?

 

[All Becomes New]

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[98] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[74] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[99] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.[100][101]​

Intelligent design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

​

OB​

At one point people believed that the sun revolved around the earth as well. That was the consensus view.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not. We were talking about ID. Why is talking about that all of a sudden moving the goal post?

Because you're bringing up a new topic out of nowhere. That's moving the goal post.

You can't show that evolution is just an assumption, and you can't show that intelligent design is science. That's the simple facts of it.

 

[All Becomes New]

Because you're bringing up a new topic out of nowhere. That's moving the goal post.

You can't show that evolution is just an assumption, and you can't show that intelligent design is science. That's the simple facts of it.

Now who is twisting things? I have not said either of those things. I never said evolution was an assumption. I pointed to assumptions that evolution makes.

And your absolutely right that I cannot show you that intelligent design is science. That's true because I can't seem to be able to show you anything.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now who is twisting things? I have not said either of those things. I never said evolution was an assumption. I pointed to assumptions that evolution makes.

And your absolutely right that I cannot show you that intelligent design is science. That's true because I can't seem to be able to show you anything.

If you say that evolution makes assumptions, then by simple logic, evolution must be an assumption. It's certainly not a fact if it makes assumptions, nor a hypothesis or a theory. If something makes assumptions, then said thing has to be an assumption itself.

And yes, you can't show me anything because you haven't shown me anything at all. Making claims is not showing me anything except that you can make claims. That's it.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is something inherently wrong with the idea of irreducible complexity?

Yes - irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist.

It was also another casualty of the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial when Michael Behe was shot down in flames.

OB

 

[All Becomes New]

If you say that evolution makes assumptions, then by simple logic, evolution must be an assumption. It's certainly not a fact if it makes assumptions, nor a hypothesis or a theory. If something makes assumptions, then said thing has to be an assumption itself.

And yes, you can't show me anything because you haven't shown me anything at all. Making claims is not showing me anything except that you can make claims. That's it.

You should probably see by now that I can't show you anything because you are stubborn. I pointed out that evolution makes the assumption of naturalism. You seem to agree with me about that but also seem to disagree that I have made any points.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes - irreducible complexity has never been shown to exist.

It was also another casualty of the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial when Michael Behe was shot down in flames.

OB

If you could point out the problem with the theory of irreducible complexity, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You should probably see by now that I can't show you anything because you are stubborn. I pointed out that evolution makes the assumption of naturalism. You seem to agree with me about that but also seem to disagree that I have made any points.

It is not an assumption to say that the only thing that can be studied is the natural world. The only thing that can be studied is nature. That is a fact. Science deals in the natural world because that is the only thing that can be studied.

 

[All Becomes New]

It is not an assumption to say that the only thing that can be studied is the natural world. The only thing that can be studied is nature. That is a fact. Science deals in the natural world because that is the only thing that can be studied.

I'm confused. Are you saying evolution assumes naturalism or not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm confused. Are you saying evolution assumes naturalism or not?

I'm not surprised your confused.
I am 100% disagreeing. The theory of evolution doesn't assume naturalism at all. The theory of evolution describes the facts that the study of biology has shown. It doesn't assume anything and to say it does is the asinine ravings of a person who has a severely inflated sense of intelligence.

If you claim that evolution assumes anything, then the onus is on you to show it. But I'm not holding my breath for you to do so.

 

[All Becomes New]

If you claim that evolution assumes anything, then the onus is on you to show it. But I'm not holding my breath for you to do so.

Sure, so when you say that the theory of evolution only studies the facts of biology, but that science can only study what is natural, then doesn't that mean that the theory of evolution only has to do with the natural processes of biology?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure, so when you say that the theory of evolution only studies the facts of biology, but that science can only study what is natural, then doesn't that mean that the theory of evolution only has to do with the natural processes of biology?

Amazing, you got something right after me repeating it for what felt like the hundredth time.

Yes, the theory of evolution ONLY has to do with the natural processes of biology. In the case of evolution, evolution via natural selection. Being prepared for you to twist that in three... two... one...