Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you think? Am I telling the truth when I quote Darwin?

No. You are taking his words out of context in order to intentionally give an inaccurate interpretation of his views. This has already been pointed out to you by other posters, and the quote, in its proper context, shows that he knew the answer to his own question all along. It is nothing but a quote mine, and you are being dishonest by using it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How so? Why a message can’t be a question?

Because they're two different things. A message is a means of imparting information, a question is a means of asking for information. In this case, Darwin was posing a question.

This is what Darwin was saying: “It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record;”

In reference to “"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

What is the “Imperfection of the Geological Record” theory in chapter 9?

At the time, they had a very small and largely incomplete fossil record.

It’s a geological gap that no scientist has ever recorded but only in a theory based on Darwin’s friend, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology. Now, if there is no geological record because the “earth’s surface is constantly in flux” then the argument of finding them in “countless numbers” cannot be refute at all.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that fossilisation is extremely rare, or that we have found many, many more fossils since Darwin's time?

 

[outhouse]

When are you and mestemia gonna start debating?

When will you start an actual debate? and stop proselytizing?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Belief in ghosts is >40% in most polls, and <20% for evolution, so apparently evidence for the latter is even less convincing.

Argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The popularity of ideas do not give them credit. The support for those ideas give them credit. While we are at it it seems more than 80% of Americans believe in some kind of god. Does that make god true? I personally don't think so. Same for ghosts and inversely true of evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sedimentary strata could have come from everywhere and therefore cannot be dated.

You can date whatever strata you want. Are you attempting to say that there can be different ages within the same strata? This still would not disrupt the concept that newer strata will always be atop older strata. Always.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The popularity of ideas do not give them credit. The support for those ideas give them credit. While we are at it it seems more than 80% of Americans believe in some kind of god. Does that make god true? I personally don't think so. Same for ghosts and inversely true of evolution.

But what constitutes support is entirely subjective in speculative fields like these. Levels of belief do not make them true, but they do reflect how 'convincing' the evidence is in practical reality do they not?, which was the topic.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But what constitutes support is entirely subjective in speculative fields like these. Levels of belief do not make them true, but they do reflect how 'convincing' the evidence is in practical reality do they not?, which was the topic.

Not in the world of science. Its fairly objective and it is universally agreed upon for evidence substantiation. In fact it has been systematized to give certain criteria that must be met to be considered evidence. This isn't a bunch of people circle jerking and coming up with random ideas of subjective evidence. Your knowledge of the scientific process also seems to be lacking as much as your general knowledge of evolution. I don't mean that initially as an insult but as something I want to point out. You seem like an intelligent individual but your sources and source materials are so far off base it makes me sad you can't even see that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Not in the world of science. Its fairly objective and it is universally agreed upon for evidence substantiation. In fact it has been systematized to give certain criteria that must be met to be considered evidence. This isn't a bunch of people circle jerking and coming up with random ideas of subjective evidence. Your knowledge of the scientific process also seems to be lacking as much as your general knowledge of evolution. I don't mean that initially as an insult but as something I want to point out. You seem like an intelligent individual but your sources and source materials are so far off base it makes me sad you can't even see that.

When you look at the actual stuff that Konrad Lorenz got a nobel prize for, then you can see all this talk of the scientific method turns out to be nonsense in relation to evolution theory.

How anybody can say they honestly follow evidence, through various systematic and exhaustive processes, and then stonecold reject that freedom is real and relevant...........

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not in the world of science. Its fairly objective and it is universally agreed upon for evidence substantiation. In fact it has been systematized to give certain criteria that must be met to be considered evidence. This isn't a bunch of people circle jerking and coming up with random ideas of subjective evidence. Your knowledge of the scientific process also seems to be lacking as much as your general knowledge of evolution. I don't mean that initially as an insult but as something I want to point out. You seem like an intelligent individual but your sources and source materials are so far off base it makes me sad you can't even see that.

Especially in the world of science, it is speculative by nature, systemizing and institutionalizing those speculations just coalesces them. We could create a field for the study of flying spaghetti monsters and quickly come to a decisive academic consensus.

As with static universes, big crunch, M theory, the systemized criteria for these academic speculations is that they should refute God in some way, certainly nothing to do with empirical evidence. Similarly with evolution, where you have speculation standing in for evidence, implications play a large role.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Especially in the world of science, it is speculative by nature, systemizing and institutionalizing those speculations just coalesces them. We could create a field for the study of flying spaghetti monsters and quickly come to a decisive academic consensus.

As with static universes, big crunch, M theory, the systemized criteria for these academic speculations is that they should refute God in some way, certainly nothing to do with empirical evidence. Similarly with evolution, where you have speculation standing in for evidence, implications play a large role.

You seem to think that all of science is based off of pure conjecture with no solid basis. Until this delusion of yours is broken I don't think you will see the truth.

 

[jonathan180iq]

these academic speculations is that they should refute God in some way

Is this really how you guys view the academic community? Just some big conspiracy against your particular god?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem to think that all of science is based off of pure conjecture with no solid basis. Until this delusion of yours is broken I don't think you will see the truth.

as Mark Twain said, [science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.

All kinds of conjecture can be made from the same solid basis even if there is one.

Somebody here cited Stephen Hawking as the world's greatest living scientist, Dawkins is also extremely influential in what in practice is considered 'science' today , there is no shortage of prizes, book sales, filled auditoriums, yet between them they have contributed less practical discovery to humanity than the inventor of the Chip Clip.

The point being that 'science' as it's popularly known- by it's nature deals in speculative fields, not beholden to objective practice, and is hence often spectacularly wrong. Most practical discovery, technology, things that demonstrably work, make our lives better and increase our understanding of the universe, tend to come from more practical fields- engineering, product development etc

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Somebody here cited Stephen Hawking as the world's greatest living scientist, Dawkins is also extremely influential in what in practice is considered 'science' today , there is no shortage of prizes, book sales, filled auditoriums, yet between them they have contributed less practical discovery to humanity than the inventor of the Chip Clip.

You have GOT to be kidding... Someone please set this man straight, since he has me on ignore.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

as Mark Twain said, [science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.

All kinds of conjecture can be made from the same solid basis even if there is one.

Somebody here cited Stephen Hawking as the world's greatest living scientist, Dawkins is also extremely influential in what in practice is considered 'science' today , there is no shortage of prizes, book sales, filled auditoriums, yet between them they have contributed less practical discovery to humanity than the inventor of the Chip Clip.

The point being that 'science' as it's popularly known- by it's nature deals in speculative fields, not beholden to objective practice, and is hence often spectacularly wrong. Most practical discovery, technology, things that demonstrably work, make our lives better and increase our understanding of the universe, tend to come from more practical fields- engineering, product development etc

One can make the argument that engineering isn't a science field. It isn't a field of study and engineers aren't "scientist" or academics for the sake of scholarship. The expansion of our knowledge comes from research scientists. And there are different levels of evidence with theories and no theory is above reproach. However those that keep claiming evolution is on the side of conjecture rather than the side of fact usually are ignorant or misled.

I can cite several reasons why I believe you to be mislead. The major reason is that your two major arguments against evolution are 1) based on fallacy and 2) simply wrong and has been pointed out to you as wrong. If you have some evidence against evolution other than "it could be false just because for reasons and stuff" then please state it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You have GOT to be kidding... Someone please set this man straight, since he has me on ignore.

I have long since given up chasing his little side arguments as they simply aren't worth it. Just like most proponents of ID when his misinformation is corrected he simply continues to regurgitate it as if it wasn't.

 

[metis]

It's sort of a shame that some people completely discount the vast amount of evidence that clearly shows there's been an evolutionary process, and yet they blindly believe in what's found in books thousands of years old, written by people they do not know, and at a time when superstition ran rampant. To me, any approach that turns a blind eye to science, fabricates stories to discount what's quite obvious through objectively-derived evidence, is simply a bogus "religious" approach-- sort of a Dark Age mentality.

 

[jonathan180iq]

sort of a Dark Age mentality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One can make the argument that engineering isn't a science field. It isn't a field of study and engineers aren't "scientist" or academics for the sake of scholarship. The expansion of our knowledge comes from research scientists. And there are different levels of evidence with theories and no theory is above reproach. However those that keep claiming evolution is on the side of conjecture rather than the side of fact usually are ignorant or misled.

I can cite several reasons why I believe you to be mislead. The major reason is that your two major arguments against evolution are 1) based on fallacy and 2) simply wrong and has been pointed out to you as wrong. If you have some evidence against evolution other than "it could be false just because for reasons and stuff" then please state it.

I agree semantic debates are fruitless, but the word 'science' can range from applying to a research scientist at 3M who formulates a demonstrably stickier roll of tape,

to the way it is more often used in pop science, a label slapped on sensational speculations on Godless universe creating mechanisms, anthropomorphic climate processes, earthlike exoplanets and missing links which are often baseless and thoroughly debunked after the headline.

There is a reason we stock juries with a representative cross section of the public and not lawyers, even though the latter would be the 'qualified experts', which is impartiality- it's the lawyers job to make the case, present the evidence, not hand down sentences based on their personal opinions of their own evidence- which we already know.

Similarly it's the scientists job to present objective evidence, if it is self evident enough it will be accepted, and this just can't be done for evolution to the extent that it is persuasive to the general public.

When the 'experts' claimed a static universe, the jury of the 'uneducated masses' were not convinced, nor were they that classical physics adequately accounted for the entire universe, nor are they convinced of evolution, and I think the same rationale applies to all 3- entropy, the universe and life would collapse left to simple laws and random chance, without specific guiding instructions towards specific goals.

 

[outhouse]

this just can't be done for evolution to the extent that it is persuasive to the general public.

Not true.

It has been taught s fact in grade school. Less the fanatical teachers in the bible belt that still poison children's minds in science classes

Evolution is fact because it has factual evidence, that blows your fanaticism out of the water.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Similarly it's the scientists job to present objective evidence, if it is self evident enough it will be accepted, and this just can't be done for evolution to the extent that it is persuasive to the general public.

You would have an argument here, if the religious side of this coin didn't continuously criticizes and lambast the scientific community, its research methods, or the evidence presented by talking them down every Sunday morning from the pulpit, or by using words like "godless" to describe their motivations... What you're doing is indoctrinating devout members of a congregation (and their children) with a predisposition towards bias away from scientific knowledge and proper observation and understanding. If you continually tell your congregation that Science is a conspiracy against god, then how likely do you think it is that those same people will come to view the evidence presented in an unbiased fashion?