Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[Nihilanth]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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.

It isn't a proof - its a criteria for falsification.

Scientific theories cannot be proven full stop. Atomic theory will always be a theory, the germ theory of disease will always be a theory, even heliocentric theory will always be a theory. The same is true of evolution.

The scientific method demands that explainations must be testable to be science. Every fossil found tests evolution, as potentially a fossil can do a lot of damage to the theory.

An explaination which can never be disproven no matter what is found cannot be tested. Intelligent Design is one such explaination. As you point out it would not be falsified by finding mammals in the cambrian, and neither would it be falsified by the lack or the presence of anything else. In fact nothing in the fossil record tests ID. That is why it isn't science. It is more of a philosophy.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from Nihilanth:

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

Do we know dinosaurs did exist and live on this earth?

Or do we believe it?

Is it a logical possibility that they bones were placed on this earth from an alternate location?

Have we seen living dinosaurs? Have we seen anyone clone dinosaurs from DNA?

I am not saying dinosaurs did not exist, I am saying that the forensic work done is without anything but old bones and speculations.

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.

Darwinism is a theory of scientists, not a scientific theory. There are sufficient holes in it to reduce it to speculation of scientists.

I showed this image before:

<img src=http://www.dispuuttau.nl/content/staut/pictures/ape-to-man.png>

How many people look at that image and don't immediately think of Darwin's theory? How many just see 4 different and distinct characters who may or may not have any relationship to each other?

No, the programming and indoctrination of Darwin is taught that such the image immediately generates a Darwinist theory response....while there is no proof that man did in fact evolve from apes.

The same is true, that if most people look to the sky, they see the Big Dipper rather than just a bunch of stars.

It is this projection of belief onto observation that is unscientific.

Darwinists and evolutionists project their beliefs onto their biology, and this is the reason why it is so far from a true science of biology.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Oh, I do very much object to your question, on the grounds of stupidity.....

When you get an ET judge to compel me to answer under threat of contempt of ET court....

Until then, you have your speculative story of conclusion as to my motives, I have mine....

You are of course free to speculate all you like, no one will likely stop you....

Quote from Ricter:

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.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh, I do very much object to your question, on the grounds of stupidity.....

When you get an ET judge to compel me to answer under threat of contempt of ET court....

Until then, you have your story, I have mine....

You have no story, you're merely evading. Call it stupid, be lame and bring up a phoney scenario about mods intervening, be dismissive, whatever. You're still evading.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

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

Do we know dinosaurs did exist and live on this earth?

Or do we believe it?

Is it a logical possibility that they bones were placed on this earth from an alternate location?

Have we seen living dinosaurs? Have we seen anyone clone dinosaurs from DNA?

I am not saying dinosaurs did not exist, I am saying that the forensic work done is without anything but old bones and speculations.

.

the greatest danger of religion is what it does to the mind of the believer. case in point.

here is a little proof that dinosaur once roamed the earth.
dinosaur dung
http://www.houseofonyx.com/index.php?method=Detail&ItemsId=5515

fossilized dinosaur tracks
http://www.learningfamily.net/reiser/9809-nathisttour/2_clayton.htm

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You are of course free to accuse, but wholly lacking the ability to prove your case...

You have your story, a stupid one in my opinion, and I have mine....

Quote from Ricter:

You have no story, you're merely evading. Call it stupid, be lame and bring up a phoney scenario about mods intervening, be dismissive, whatever. You're still evading.

 

[Nihilanth]

I am not saying dinosaurs did not exist, I am saying that the forensic work done is without anything but old bones and speculations.

Fine if you are going to define speculation as something with such high certainty then I agree - all theories in science - from atomic theory, to evolution, to heliocentric theory are speculation.

Darwinism is a theory of scientists, not a scientific theory. There are sufficient holes in it to reduce it to speculation of scientists.

It is a scientific theory. Name a hole.

How many people look at that image and don't immediately think of Darwin's theory?

So what?

How many just see 4 different and distinct characters who may or may not have any relationship to each other?

Of course actual scientists analyse DNA and fossils, not outline drawings.

No, the programming and indoctrination of Darwin is taught that such the image immediately generates a Darwinist theory response....while there is no proof that man did in fact evolve from apes.

There is no proof that dinosaurs used to exist either, as you have admitted. There is equally no proof of existance of electrons, or proof that the earth does orbit the sun. Scientific theories can never be proved. It's all about weight of evidence, not proof.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So if you could actually prove that "dinosaurs" roamed the earth, how could you prove that the "dinosaur dung" was not planted, or that the dinosaurs were not just visiting from another planet? There is no proof that they evolved into dinosarus from lower species, or were not here by design.

I am not suggesting that these other logical possibilities are true, but they illustrate that the speculations of scientists are not necessarily true, especially when they cannot be falsified....

It is the atheists who have a mind that is closed, closed to religion.

I can easily have an intellectual discussion on these subjects, and view the different points of view, but knowing the actual truth of the point of view is a different matter.

You have your faith and belief system, I have mine....

Quote from vhehn:

the greatest danger of religion is what it does to the mind of the believer. case in point.

here is a little proof that dinosaur once roamed the earth.
dinosaur dung
http://www.houseofonyx.com/index.php?method=Detail&ItemsId=5515

fossilized dinosaur tracks
http://www.learningfamily.net/reiser/9809-nathisttour/2_clayton.htm

 

[Ricter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You are of course free to accuse, but wholly lacking the ability to prove your case...

You have your story, a stupid one in my opinion, and I have mine....

Of course I lack that ability, to prove it to you, since all you're responding with is basically "la la la la la, I can't hear you". Answer the question.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Oh, I hear you, I just don't agree with you.

You can fathom that can't you, that someone might not agree with your speculations?

Or do you still envision yourself as the "King of Sound Thinking" and everyone else just a subject of your kingdom?

Quote from Ricter:

Of course I lack that ability, to prove it to you, since all you're responding with is basically "la la la la la, I can't hear you". Answer the question.