Search results

Refuting YEC rules out a particular theory of design proposed by a particular group of design theorists. As previously stated, no scientific experiment can absolutely rule out anything -- design included. So, your request is silly. Within limits of scientific knowledge, there is no...

Arguing with you is pointless, because you don't actually respond to any point that I make. You just keep repeating the same thing, as if I have said nothing at all. Nothing productive can come of this, so, I'll try to discuss the issue with some of the others here who actually attempt to...

Interesting article. Fortunately, the entire text is online: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/182/11/2993.pdf The article reports that environmental stresses may create faster and more predictable changes than those which would be produced by purely random conditions. It supports the...

I didn't say you were a YEC. You asked for a scientific test that rules out design. YEC is a theory of design which has been ruled out by scientific tests, therefore I have satisfied your request. The statement that "design is in evidence, requires no proof" is just your unsupported opinion...

Infinity is definitionally limitless, so stating that it is measured when we reach a limit, is no different than stating that an apple is measured when we reach an orange, because an apple is not an orange. Silly comparison.

The "young earth creationist" theories have been substantially ruled out via scientific tests. Now, can you propose a test to prove design?

Ahem, yes. You've mentioned your opinion on this point, without interruption. Nevertheless, your opinion is not scientific. Science measures as much randomness as can be measured. You declare that it's not science unless the measurement can be made to infinity. This cannot be done. But...

A symbol of infinity is not a measurement. It's just a symbol. There is no scientific means of measuring infinity.

The simple explanation is that the cause of past events mirrors present causes. If Lenski can evolve new traits in his bacteria by subjecting them to environmental stress, then it's reasonable to conclude that past environmental stress caused past evolutionary changes. It is not reasonable to...

You're right. Science does break down around concepts of infinite, eternal and unlimited... Science requires measurability, and Infinity is not measurable. However, the scientific method routinely uses Calculus as a means of hypothesizing and then measures as far as reasonably possible, even...

I don't care what Dembski's equations posit. I care whether they are testable. If they're not, then they are the mathematical equivalent of a game of solitaire -- irrelevant to all but the author. Your post from Krauze/Ruse is an attempt to suggest that because someone thinks that Darwin's...

The statement that "Calling evolution 'reasonable' is not science," is true, but meaningless, at least, it's meaningless to me. Evolution is simply a hypothesis that can be confirmed by verifiable testing. That is the entire scientific method, and nothing more is required. Therefore evolution...

This is another "argument from authority." If Mr. Dembski can prove that ID is the source of evolution, let him do so. This requires more than mere mathematical reasoning. He must conduct an experiment with real organic matter which behaves substantially according to his mathematical model...

Argument from authority works for the law/public policy, because the authority "is" the law. Argument from authority fails for science, because the authority is not the science. The idea that the universe was designed is at least 10,000 years old. It predates Darwin by millennia. I'm...

Most of your post is hyperbole, intended to try to generate an emotional reaction. I have no dog in the ring here, so to speak, so this sort of behavior is wasted on me -- although it may inflame others -- and you do appear to genuinely enjoy inflaming others, by repeating the same thing over...

Darwin's theory was tested by Darwin, sir. His observations confirmed his theory. Organic life is definitely shaped by its environment. Whether that environment is designed is irrelevant. Clearly, modern environments "are" designed. An urban area that contains flocks of birds, may channel...

I used gold simply because it is an efficient symbol of value. the contents of the scale is irrelevant. What matters is the relative weight of the evidence in favor of, or against a particular hypothesis. There is no weight in favor of ID, and there is plenty favoring Evolution. So...

Things "can" be designed to evolve. Indeed they may "be" so designed. Now, conduct an experiment that proves up the hypothesis, and publish your findings. Until you do, ID is not scientific.

No, sir, you are mischaracterizing what I am saying. I am saying that if you have a scale and one side contains 99.999999 oz of gold and the other side contains 0.000001 oz of gold, that it is completely reasonable to conclude that the side with the least amount of gold is empty for all...

Everything is ultimately taken on faith. My point is that the real world functions because reasonable people conclude reasonably, based on reasonable evidence. Evolution is a reasonable conclusion drawn from a large amount of reasonable evidence -- whereas Design is not. Design may be...