Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It doesn't need to be a science to point out quackery.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's "quackery" to require that ID meet the same epistemological standards as any other scientific theory?It doesn't need to be a science to point out quackery.
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.
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.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.
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, 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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
which still has to be a falsifiable proposition--nothing else will do for science.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.
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.
No such thing in science. All conclusions must be testable.Some conclusions need not be tested because they are self evident.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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
Not a greater kick than I derive from seeing you squirm while saying you caint see.I always get a kick when some say certain things are "self evidence", but can't explain how they are self evident.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?