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.
Who was it who wrote "And yes, that also includes the other dating methods which use the same formula's found to violate parity long ago - and was just never revised when the electroweak theory was." Hint: it wasn't me.We were discussing radiocarbon dating. Best go back and reread the posts. Why go off topic?
Also completely irrelevant to carrying out any radiometric dating.Besides that's covered under quantum electrodynamics.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/abs/nature05390.html
Essentially what he is suggesting is that beta decay doesn't happen.Who was it who wrote "And yes, that also includes the other dating methods which use the same formula's found to violate parity long ago - and was just never revised when the electroweak theory was." Hint: it wasn't me.
He sees that life forms appear to be designed for a purpose.Then why do you think he made that statement in the BW?
Confirmation bias lacks physical evidence, or omittance of evidence that shows no confirmation.
Just an opinion unless it can be physically confirmed and verified. What you suggested did not include confirmation nor verification.
Unless one can provide natural causes that can be observed, quantified and confirmed as producing an illusion of the evidence of life forms appearing to be designed for a purpose; the evidence supports and is observed in living forms, have been confirmed by biologists in the study of living forms and systems and quantified as having the appearance that they were designed.Of course not. But by stating that, one cannot conclude that non-natural causes were invoked, unless non-natural causes can be observed, quantified, and confirmed.
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."He sees that life forms appear to be designed for a purpose.
Why did you add the phrase "is an illusion"? There is no physical evidence or confirmation that life appears to be designed for a purpose is a FACT, not an illusion.Exactly. There is no physical evidence or confirmation that life appears to be designed for a purpose is an illusion.
You don't put the sample aside: you detect the decays in it as they occur. At least that's true for decays relevant to dating. Other than that, yup.
Simply...this reader was not impressed."Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."
Once, you seem to be impressed with the appearance of design, why?
You have that backward, there is evidence that life appears to be designed for a purpose. There is no evidence that confirms it is an illusion.Why did you add the phrase "is an illusion"? There is no physical evidence or confirmation that life appears to be designed for a purpose is a FACT, not an illusion.
Seriously... I have taken the transcript you provided and nowhere is what you said there. I've even bolded the areas that confirm he was saying that ID is a theory in Science and that there have been theories that were included in Science in the past that we found to be incorrect. What you said he said is not in the transcript. Place your quote in a post with the quote from Behe that says what you are saying he said.And she tells me I misrepresented what he said, when he said exactly what I said he did.
I guess she banks on nobody looking this stuff up.
Wrong. All physical evidence observed and verified shows all supposed design to be attributed to natural processes and only natural processes. That is conformation that design for a purpose is in fact an illusion until such evidence to the contrary can be shown.You have that backward, there is evidence that life appears to be designed for a purpose. There is no evidence that confirms it is an illusion.
I agree but I think some members might need to look into a mirror to see it.That does seem to be MO for some around here.
I said provide that physical evidence that is observed and verified that show it is an illusion.Wrong. All physical evidence observed and verified shows all supposed design to be attributed to natural processes and only natural processes. That is conformation that design for a purpose is in fact an illusion until such evidence to the contrary can be shown.
Simply...this reader was not impressed.
The work "On the origin of species".
Was Behe scientifically proven incorrect in his premise in your estimation?You know what the difference is between Behe and Galileo? Galileo had produced a real scientific theory not dependent on magic, and the data to back it up.
The comparison is bogus anyways; the modern implementation of the scientific method and peer review are far younger than one might think, and the "scientific" community of the day simply did not have access to the powerful methods of the later centuries. This is another thing you see everywhere in crank circles - trying to wrap "maverick" scientists in the cloak of Galileo. So how do you tell which ones are cranks and which ones aren't? Well, if I may put forward a mildly useful criteria: the fact that Behe took his ideas to court and got his ass handed to him might offer a clue.
That's kind of a red flag, isn't it? That means that someone has an unfalsifiable hypothesis (hint: it's Behe). Of course, if the Bacterial Flagellum were evolved, we would expect that each of the proteins involved were generally already present in some form and performing useful functions (they were) and that some intermediate forms could be found (they were). Behe's ideas about the bacterial flagellum were soundly trounced, insofar as they were falsifiable at all. In fact, in every case of irreducible complexity brought forward, real scientists have found evolutionary pathways. No fingerprints of the designer yet, though.
I stand corrected. Do you have their views on the appearance of design?Beg your pardon? As recently as 2005, the majority of biologists believed in God. The claim that, in the past, the majority of scientists were atheists, is downright untenable. It's like claiming that geology was invented to try to disprove the flood - completely backwards.
None of the above. You're misinterpreting him. Dawkins acknowledges that he thinks life appears to have been designed for a purpose. He does not actually believe that life has been designed for a purpose. What's more, Dawkins's personal beliefs are not the scientific literature. You want to claim it was "proven scientifically"? Let's see it!
What evidence? That is what I am waiting for here. He did a great job speculating but no evidence is given for any of it.]
So, you read 453 pages of Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker," and you're unimpressed by the evidence? But what does impress you is the appearance of design, with zero evidence to support it. So, it would seem, there is an inverse relationship between evidence and credulity, with you.
For clarification and truth to support what I stated about Behe's testimony in bold. The rest is linked, for those who want to look at his entire testimony in the Dover trial.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
I thought you read the book? That's the point, there's no evidence for a designer.What evidence? That is what I am waiting for here. He did a great job speculating but no evidence is given for any of it.
Give me the evidence that Dawkins gave for the evolution for the eye for instance.
For clarification, my original claim in post 1438 is below. It has been claimed I misrepresented what Behe said, lets see if Behe admitted if ID was considered science than astrology would also be considered science.
"Behe admitted that if ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science. This happened under oath and on the witness stand."
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
AYes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Make your own call, seems pretty crystal clear to me.
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?