Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

Quote from Nihilanth:

...

I am talking about biology, not human built tools. I am talking about the change of life over time - the transitional series in the fossil record indicating that life has changed over time.



It isn't simply speculation, there are millions of data points to compare any theory that explains the diversity of life against. Evolution puts forward a mechanisms that could easily be falsified if it didn't fit those millions of data points. That the data points, including new ones added all the time generally agree with evolution is nothing short of amazing. For example what stops us finding an elephant fossil in cambrian strata tommorow? Evolution puts its ass on the line here, as noone can be sure such a thing won't be found.
More...

It is speculation.
Knowledge derived from so called "fitting of millions of data points" is only speculative knowledge. Not SCIENTIFIC knowledge.

Also in biology, you only establish the truth of knowledge held to be scientific by predicting the outcome of a biological experiment.
Not by pasting together what you call "data points" about supposed events that supposedly took place zillions of years ago. That's no science, even if a court of law may think differently about this.

Scientific knowledge is NOT established by majority opinion, court opinion or pasting together parts of a belief-puzzle.
Scientific truth is established by predicting the outcome of experiments.

nononsense
 
Appears you are still sounding off with your story....

I'll stick with my response then too, that not answering a stupid question is not a practice of evasion, but rather the exercise of common sense, objecting to a stupid question....

p.s. Oh, and in a court of law, when an attorney objects to a question so that his client need not answer the unnecessary and/or irrelevant/illegal question, it is not an act of evasion, it is an act of maintaining jurisprudence.....

Quote from Ricter:

You're still evading. LOL....
More...
 
Quote from nononsense:

It is speculation.
Knowledge derived from so called "fitting of millions of data points" is only speculative knowledge. Not SCIENTIFIC knowledge.
More...


It's more likely that you don't understand what I mean by "data point". A data point is any qualative or quantative observation of the natural world. So for example a fossil contains a whole load of data points - sizes and shapes of various bones.

The vast majority of knowledge about the dinosaurs (including their existance) is based on such data points.

This is no more speculative than atomic theory, which is also based on explaining data points - but ones collected regarding matter.

Scientific knowledge is NOT established by majority opinion, court opinion or pasting together parts of a belief-puzzle.
Scientific truth is established by predicting the outcome of experiments.
More...

And one such example are the predictions from the theory of evolution which have been tested again and again.
 
I would argue that the predictions of scientists are not from the theory of evolution, but from the results of observation that organisms have a programming to adapt in order to survive.

Excluding evolutionary theory and Darwinism does not preclude prediction that species will attempt to adapt to their environment in order to survive.

Evolutionary theory rests not on prediction of the present as we move into the future, but a designated guess at what happened in the past.

Evolutionists argue from speculative conclusion, which is most unscientific, and explains why they are dogmatic and fearful of teaching alternative non Darwinism theories.

It is shaping the relationship of data points to support a conclusion, not
to reach one.

Scientists are trying so hard to prove evolution and Darwinism, and this preconceived bias is what continues to make their efforts and conclusions automatically unscientific.

Reminds me of people who look at the stars above and draw the shapes that suit them by connecting the dots, or look at clouds and see only the patterns they are looking for.


Quote from Nihilanth:

It's more likely that you don't understand what I mean by "data point". A data point is any qualative or quantative observation of the natural world. So for example a fossil contains a whole load of data points - sizes and shapes of various bones.

The vast majority of knowledge about the dinosaurs (including their existance) is based on such data points.

This is no more speculative than atomic theory, which is also based on explaining data points - but ones collected regarding matter.



And one such example are the predictions from the theory of evolution which have been tested again and again.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I would argue that the predictions of scientists are not from the theory of evolution, but from the results of observation that organisms have a programming to adapt in order to survive.
More...

Well one prediction from the theory of evolution which I have mentioned before is that we shouldn't find mammal fossils in the cambrian. Such a find would not be compatible with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
 
I was only pointing out what constitutes scientific knowledge. Few grasp this.

Prediction of the outcome of scientific experiments is all that is required. If you can't do this, you are dealing with a different kind of knowledge, i.e. belief or speculation, NOT SCIENCE.

Biology is a science. Of course, surprsingly many quacks run around in any field, also in biology.

Evolution is belief or speculation, not biology.

nononsense
 
Quote from nononsense:

I was only pointing out what constitutes scientific knowledge. Few grasp this.

Prediction of the outcome of scientific experiments is all that is required. If you can't do this, you are dealing with a different kind of knowledge, i.e. belief or speculation, NOT SCIENCE.
More...


So what is the experiment which shows the dinosaurs used to exist? Or is this not scientific knowledge?

Evolution is belief or speculation, not biology.
More...

Evolution is a scientific theory, like any other theory in natural scienes. It is a general explaination for some natural phenomenon. It is testable (any test is an experiment) and therefore falsifiable. The tests are repeatable. It is also used to make predictions to further research in the field of biology.
 
And how would you rule out, or prove that the absence of mammal fossils in the Cambrian period was not by design?

Compatibility with a theory is not the proof of a theory, it could well be a spurious conclusion.

Quote from Nihilanth:

Well one prediction from the theory of evolution which I have mentioned before is that we shouldn't find mammal fossils in the cambrian. Such a find would not be compatible with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

...Reminds me of people who look at the stars above and draw the shapes that suit them by connecting the dots, or look at clouds and see only the patterns they are looking for...
More...

Which is akin to what you're doing when you refuse to answer my question, or the dozen or so earlier ones posted by others here, which you refused to answer for the simple reason that the answer would tend to weaken your preconceived notions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top