YAY! To Judge Ruling Against ID Being Taught In Science Class

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

"Irreducible complexity" //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

The world is flat all over again.

Unless you have testable and repeatable evidence that the Creator exists, ID has no credible scientific value. It's passing the buck to something that can't be proved. Very convienent.

Like I said, I have no problem with religious beliefs, but please...don't confuse it with respectable science. It's no better than the people who laughed at Copernicus because the thought of the day was that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

for the first paragraph, ur right. but again u need science and the scientific method to make a case for ID. evelotion theory isn't concrete it can change. ID theory isn't concrete, it can change. so how can a theory give a guaranteed outcome?? technically, that's impossible. the way we live, it's absolutely true.
ID can be scientifically valid. why? because of a thing called irreducible complexity.

look at this. i copied an pasted this from a website:

There’s a little motor in the back of some bacteria. It’s called a bacterial flagellum and it’s 1/100,000 of an inch long. It can spin at 10,000 rpms, stop at a quarter turn, and spin the other direction at 10,000 rpms. This is the most efficient motor in the universe, way beyond anything our technology can build. Well, all of the parts of this little motor must be present in the right spatial relationship in order for it to function. There is no scientist who would claim that all those parts happen to come together by mere chance and form this motor. The odds against that are too astronomical.

evevn though this paragraph has nothng to do with irreducible complexity, u need science and the scientific method to know that this exists. no religious book can tell you this exists and how it works.

Thats like saying because we cannot currently create fusion energy that works like the sun (even though we know it exists,) intelligent design must be responsible for it.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

for the first paragraph, ur right. but again u need science and the scientific method to make a case for ID. evelotion theory isn't concrete it can change. ID theory isn't concrete, it can change. so how can a theory give a guaranteed outcome?? technically, that's impossible.

No it's not. Hypothesis X predicts outcome Y. If the hypothesis is correct, Y will happen every time. If it's not correct, then we need to reevaluate hypothesis X till we predicted outcome is repeatable.

This is one of the things science does; predict the outcome of future events.

ID can be scientifically valid. why? because of a thing called irreducible complexity. look at this. i copied an pasted this from a website:
There’s a little motor in the back of some bacteria. It’s called a bacterial flagellum and it’s 1/100,000 of an inch long. It can spin at 10,000 rpms, stop at a quarter turn, and spin the other direction at 10,000 rpms. This is the most efficient motor in the universe, way beyond anything our technology can build. Well, all of the parts of this little motor must be present in the right spatial relationship in order for it to function. There is no scientist who would claim that all those parts happen to come together by mere chance and form this motor. The odds against that are too astronomical.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Here's my quote:

'Irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community."

That's the major flaw with creationist and ID fanatics. They think that just because 100% of our physical universe isn't explained yet, that proves there is an intelligent being. That's just assinnine. 100% of the universe isn't explained yet because science, as a dynamic study, is always and constantly advancing. To try to show an intelligent being exists by default is a flawed argument from the start. And that still doesn't get around the fact that ID and creationism will NEVER, and can NEVER, be scientifically valid due to it's reliance upon an intelligent being. And "irreducible complexity" is hardly evidence of such.

evevn though this paragraph has nothng to do with irreducible complexity, u need science and the scientific method to know that this exists. no religious book can tell you this exists and how it works.

That's fine that you need science for ID. I really don't care, as it has no bearing on the discussion. IT DOESN'T PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE BECAUSE OF IT'S RELIANCE ON SCIENCE. It simply is not, will not nor ever will be science due to the simple fact that ID relies upon an intelligent being.

 

[twoohfour 10+ year member]

Yes.


Wrong. Evolution can provide us a hypthosesis that is testable and repeatable, and can be used to predict the future outcome of events.

ID & Creationism can not, and hence ARE NOT science, but a belief.

Science doesn't attempt to "prove" anything. It attempts to accurately model the universe around us. It provides us theories that are testable and repeatable via the scientific method and can be used to predict the outcome of future events. Evolution can be tested under the scientific method and can be used to predict the outcome of future experiments, and hence IS science.

There's so many things wrong with what you just said though...

I know you're one of the overly-cynical pseudo-intellectual types; that being said, anyone who's put enough time into researching the facts knows outright that there is so much fallacy in evolutionary theory that it may as well be said that it takes as much faith to believe in primordial soup as it does to believe in intelligent design.

While i agree with the ruling to a degree - religion should not be taught in schools - what you're saying just isn't correct.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

This is one of the things science does; predict the outcome of future events.

Although the work of Heisenberg and others showed that there's a limit to how accurately you can predict the future; you can't quite know where a particle is going to be. You can put it in the ballpark, but not quite there //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

****, I brought up the uncertainity principle on a car audio board. If that doesn't make me a geek...

 

[bdawson72 5,000+ posts]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 13 (10 members and 3 guests)

bdawson72 , adio , bigwheel15 , fb4076 , Hundreth , Jack Frost , Jmac , skmfkr , squeak9798 , twoohfour

^there was no point in me posting that

Who knew a car audio board could be so deep and intellectual!

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

There's so many things wrong with what you just said though...
I know you're one of the overly-cynical pseudo-intellectual types; that being said, anyone who's put enough time into researching the facts knows outright that there is so much fallacy in evolutionary theory that it may as well be said that it takes as much faith to believe in primordial soup as it does to believe in intelligent design.

While i agree with the ruling to a degree - religion should not be taught in schools - what you're saying just isn't correct.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[twoohfour 10+ year member]

And while it's nice to say something like "respectable science", science is hardly respectable. Evolutionists through the theory's existance have falsified facts to the extent of some even creating their own missing link that the entire scientific community believed until it was brought to light as false.

By the same token, "creationist scientists" have, i'm sure done the same along the line.

Science admits we know almost nothing about the human brain, yet we perscribe pills to offset the shakes, and then pills to offset the pills. By the same token, evolutionists are shoving ridiculous amounts of "fact" down the general public while not REALLY being able to prove most of it. Observing patterns, then calling it "fact" is simply stupid. The way we understand "science" is preposterous to me.

All I would say is, don't write off "faith" simply because religions, and zealots, ill-spoken people like Adio, buffoons like James Dobson, and the other right-wing morons around the world are purported as the heads --> Your science is as truly factual as faith itself.

 

[adio 5,000+ posts]

"Irreducible complexity" //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
The world is flat all over again.

Unless you have testable and repeatable evidence that the Creator exists, ID has no credible scientific value. It's passing the buck to something that can't be proved. Very convienent.

Like I said, I have no problem with religious beliefs, but please...don't confuse it with respectable science. It's no better than the people who laughed at Copernicus because the thought of the day was that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

sure, go head laugh dr. j. but that's one of the themes of ID.

irreducible complexity is a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

in other words, it's something that doesn't work at all or like it's supposed to unless all the parts are there.

and what is respectable science?? is it just microscopes, computers, test tubes, lab coats and formulas on a dry erase board?? of course not, it's much more than that. if a scientist stumbles upon something and it leads out of the realm of naturalistic possiblities and then they chuck it away, well isn't that biased? of course. respectable science is something that scientist do wherever the evidence leads them. no matter where it leads them, they perform scientific experiments to test things out.

 

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

keepa this goin, even tho it hurts my head

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

I'll agree that "science", especially medical science, has a history of basically guessing and being rather barbaric //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

But to give up and say we'll never be able to understand it isn't a good way to go either. I'm sure a thousand years ago, if people knew of what we know now, they'd consider it totally beyond what they could ever comprehend. Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future. And yeah, there are some things we may never know the answers to...but that doesn't automatically mean someone else was responsible for it.

 

[twoohfour 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

That's fine, there really isn't a place for cranial moderation with most people and i can see the same of you. You're either an idiot and know it, or an idiot and you pretend as hard as you can that you're not.

I could retort:
It seems to me that people who do not believe in creationism are consumed by an inherant conceit. They are completely full of themselselves, narrow minded, and shallow. Or; that they have never stepped outside their class room to look around themselves in the real world.

It works both ways.

...is a good point. To say that you know without doubt that there is absolutely no intelligent design in the universe means you become the worst idiot of all --> The one that believes he can exclude a sensible idea without doubt.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

sure, go head laugh dr. j. but that's one of the themes of ID.
irreducible complexity is a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

in other words, it's something that doesn't work at all or like it's supposed to unless all the parts are there.

and what is respectable science?? is it just microscopes, computers, test tubes, lab coats and formulas on a dry erase board?? of course not, it's much more than that. if a scientist stumbles upon something and it leads out of the realm of naturalistic possiblities and then they chuck it away, well isn't that biased? of course. respectable science is something that scientist do wherever the evidence leads them. no matter where it leads them, they perform scientific experiments to test things out.

That sounds a lot like...oh...what was that word...hmm...

I agree entirely with your second paragraph. I don't think that issue was brought up here, though...

 

[twoohfour 10+ year member]

I'll agree that "science", especially medical science, has a history of basically guessing and being rather barbaric //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
But to give up and say we'll never be able to understand it isn't a good way to go either. I'm sure a thousand years ago, if people knew of what we know now, they'd consider it totally beyond what they could ever comprehend. Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future. And yeah, there are some things we may never know the answers to...but that doesn't automatically mean someone else was responsible for it.

Research and study should never end, the development of the mind should never cease, but you're being simply retarded to place the ENTIRETY of your beliefs in modern "science" alone.

 

[adio 5,000+ posts]

And while it's nice to say something like "respectable science", science is hardly respectable. Evolutionists through the theory's existance have falsified facts to the extent of some even creating their own missing link that the entire scientific community believed until it was brought to light as false.
By the same token, "creationist scientists" have, i'm sure done the same along the line.

Science admits we know almost nothing about the human brain, yet we perscribe pills to offset the shakes, and then pills to offset the pills. By the same token, evolutionists are shoving ridiculous amounts of "fact" down the general public while not REALLY being able to prove most of it. Observing patterns, then calling it "fact" is simply stupid. The way we understand "science" is preposterous to me.

All I would say is, don't write off "faith" simply because religions, and zealots, ill-spoken people like Adio, buffoons like James Dobson, and the other right-wing morons around the world are purported as the heads --> Your science is as truly factual as faith itself.

yeah, WTF does adio know!??! he's such an ASSass!!