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's a moot point now, after what happened yesterday. Before long, biblical creationism will be the law of the land and discussions like this won't be tolerated.ID = plain old creationism disguised in a lab coat.
Ever heared of cdesign proponentsists? You should google the term.
Riiiiight.
Then maybe you'll see how it feels when Biblical prayers were rendered "intolerable" in our classrooms?Before long, biblical creationism will be the law of the land and discussions like this won't be tolerated.
Are you going to go back to beating Catholic kids who don't want Biblical prayers?Then maybe you'll see how it feels when Biblical prayers were rendered "intolerable" in our classrooms?
Or maybe not.
Like I said, or maybe not.Are you going to go back to beating Catholic kids who don't want Biblical prayers?
SETI is an experimental test for intelligent life. Specified complexity is a reliable 'test' for design.
It's plain to anyone who knows something about information theory that Dembski and Orgel are talking about the same concept. Dembki is just made it 'more precise'.
"it was a miracle" or "Goddidit" can explain anything equally well, which is another way of saying that it cannot explain anything well. If there is no way to disprove it, then it is not science.
Correct.ID is inherently unscientific because it uses "miracles" or "Goddidit" to explain reality -
...
This works against ID just as well as against Creationism.
Yes, I know. And you said that it employed experimental tests for CSI. I asked you for some evidence that it does employ CSI. You keep responding, and keep not providing any evidence that it employs CSI. If they actually use CSI, you should be able to show me where. If they don't, you should say so.SETI is an experimental test for intelligent life.
That's the assertion you're supposed to be supporting, not a given. And it's irrelevant to the question: does SETI employ CSI or not? This isn't a complicated question. Why won't you answer it?Specified complexity is a reliable 'test' for design.
By thinking that the kind of information theory Orgel references -- Kolomogorov complexity -- doesn't deal with probability. Shannon information theory does, but Orgel doesn't use Shannon theory as far as I know. If I'm mistaken, show me where Orgel uses Shannon, or probability more generally, in defining complexity.How can you possibly think information theory has nothing to do with probabilities?
Your statement is plainly wrong, since I know something about information theory and I think Dembski and Orgel are talking about quite different concepts.Orgel:
"These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information."
–The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ) p. 190
It's plain to anyone who knows something about information theory that Dembski and Orgel are talking about the same concept. Dembki is just made it 'more precise'.
Absolutely.So you admit that your claims are unscientific?
I've only been "admitting" that here for almost eleven years now.I don't think "admit" is the right word here.
I believe that, if done as instructed, the analysis of evidence leads to evolution.AV, do you think that a proper and scientific analysis of the evidence would lead someone to agree with modern science, that is, evolution and an old Earth?
No.Mobezom said:Do you think that evolution should be taught in science class,
No.Mobezom said:... and old Earth history in social studies?
Some YECs say that there is a conspiracy to delude or turn people away from God, and that evolution can be scientifically proven false. They are wrong. But if you say that the basic premise of science is inadequate, that repeatable tests and falsifiable theories and models and laws cannot get at the ultimate Truth - I can respect that, and I might even agree somewhat.I believe that, if done as instructed, the analysis of evidence leads to evolution.
But evolution is a house built on sand; and when the proper time comes, that house is coming down.
Sorry, I should have specified - this is public school. I don't mind creationism being taught in private school - you could teach that the moon is made of cheese for all I care.No.
No.
I think creationism should be taught in history class.
Have you seen my Apple Challenge?
I consider that the best challenge I've ever made here.
I think creationism should be taught in history class.
In your opinion, who denies more of reality?Denial is Strong in this one....
I can't say I have a position on any of this. Seems a little out of the blue, don't you think? Let me put it into perspective:In your opinion, who denies more of reality?
1. Christians who deny physical evidence interpreted against miracles?
2. Atheists who deny physical evidence interpreted against the spiritual world?
By way of examples:
In your opinion, who denies more of reality?
1. Christians who deny physical evidence interpreted against a global flood?
2. Atheists who deny Christmas as spiritual evidence of Jesus Christ?
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?