Jump to content


Photo

Wikipedia's "intelligent Design" Page


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 11:45 AM

I didn't say you physically threatened Ken, Schera. But it is a threat if you reason like this in order to manipulate people; "if you don't answer my post in the way I think you should then I will do P".

 

By definition that is a threat, you threaten to do P, whatever P is.



#22 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 12:03 PM

Please note, that I will continue to boycott your posts if you don't have an acceptable reply to the rephrased question. The reason is stated quite clearly in my second sentence in this post, specifically, "When you visit... ."


Schera Do, you are hereby granted full and unabridged permission to boycott my posts.

#23 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 12:38 PM

Let me be clear: A member who mis-characterizes my post as a threat and that post is perceived as a threat, that member has through that mis-characterization successfully started a chain of events that could end in my banishment from the forum.

That is a direct threat to me.
.

Please note, that I will continue to boycott your posts if you don't have an acceptable reply to the rephrased question. The reason is stated quite clearly in my second sentence in this post, specifically, "When you visit... ."


Schera Do, you are hereby granted full and unabridged permission to boycott my posts.

.
Are you serious? In this forum, such a question has to be asked for one reason: there is little chance that there will be an indication that the reader has comprehended what is written.

When I inform someone that their content is leading to my avoidance of their contributions, I am doing two things:

1. I am doing the person a favor in giving that person a chance to reconsider.
2. I am instructing "the peanut gallery"--defined loosely, as anyone reading the posts--that I most certainly have better things to do than field gratuitous questions and read repetitions of ground covered.

Do you understand this explanation?

#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:15 PM

I have no desire to see anyone banned, Schera, during our exchange with the moderators, I actually told Dave that in my opinion there was no need to ban you. I didn't mean by a "threat" that you had breached rules, I just meant as a style of argumentation it's fallacious.

 

(not that I am a moderator, but my own personal position on banning is that I myself would only do it for 30 days for proper members, for fly by trolls who really are only here to mess about full banning but I would never be happy of you being permanently banned and if the mods read this I was not implying Schera had done anything to warrant a ban.) My advice would be to perhaps stop contacting the moderators for trivial reasons or that might start to irritate them.



#25 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 01:34 PM

I have no desire to see anyone banned, Schera, during our exchange with the moderators, I actually told Dave that in my opinion there was no need to ban you. I didn't mean by a "threat" that you had breached rules, I just meant as a style of argumentation it's fallacious.

(not that I am a moderator, but my own personal position on banning is that I myself would only do it for 30 days for proper members, for fly by trolls who really are only here to mess about full banning but I would never be happy of you being permanently banned and if the mods read this I was not implying Schera had done anything to warrant a ban.) My advice would be to perhaps stop contacting the moderators for trivial reasons or that might start to irritate them.

.
I hope that you enjoy your time on the ignore list.

I've employed the "block" feature on the DISCUS comments-section to great effect and great result. It's all public acceess worldwide, while a registered name gives desireable features.

#26 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 02:39 PM

I thought Wiki was more concerned about accuracy than neutrality.   You complained the page is inaccurate.  I have pointed out the comment that "ID has been found to be pseudoscience" is correct and accurate.   This is true in both the scientific and legal context.


Since they state it, it should be true according to their own definition of pseudoscience, but it's not. From the Wikipedia pseudoscience page:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories.


To claim ID is pseudoscience, one must think that ID scientists are going out and gathering their own evidence. Or worse, that they're not referencing any evidence at all but just philosophizing. This represents a gross misrepresentation of the efforts in ID.

I went back and looked through the lengthy reference sections of some ID books and found many published works, including articles in these journals. There were more, but I got bored. And there were many books referenced including those by Darwin and Dawkins.
Journals: "Scientific American", "Journal of Theoretical Biology", "BioSystems", "Annual Review of Biochemistry", "Immunology Today", "Critical Reviews in Immunology", "Nature", "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "Journal of Molecular Evolution", "Journal of Biological Chemistry", "Technology Review", "Science", "Molecular and Cellular Biology", "PLoS Computational Biology", "Philosophy of Science", "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London", "Journal of Experimental Medicine", "Journal of Atmospheric Science", "New Scientist", "Annals of the New York Academy of Science", "Journal of Geophysical Research", "Protoplasma", "Current Opinion in Cell Biology", "Chromosoma", "Annual Review of Biophysics", and more.

"contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims":
I don't know of contradictory claims. The main claim is that evolution is impossible, but this is WELL SUPPORTED by the accepted facts drawn from published journals and books in several science disciplines.

Evolution is a collection of "unfalsifiable claims". How can you prove false the claim that evolution takes billions of years and can't be reproduced in the lab? That's the very definition of an unfalsifiable claim.

By contrast, Dr. Douglas Axe wrote in his book Undeniable how he himself, back when he believed in evolution, would "beat up" (modify) some enzymes and then try to coax them to evolve back to their working form. He failed miserably. He explored many avenues in his attempt to demonstrate evolution.

He spent a lot of that book calculating probabilities of non-biological events to demonstrate equivalents in evolution. One illustration was to drop a pin from a location randomized over the whole surface of the earth and hit one tiny feature on a monument in the US. And probabilities went down, down, down from that when considering the chances of something evolving.

These probabilities are sensational, but I haven't heard anyone claim they're "exaggerated". But then even if he's off by a factor of a trillion squared, the probabilities are still too low to have happened in trillions of years.

"reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation":
ID is a rigorous refutation of evolution. ID is rejected because Darwinists rely on logic that says animals exist, therefore they evolved.

"lack of openness to evaluation by other experts":
That's true of evolution, not ID. ID is an evaluation of evolution by experts, but Darwinists are definitely not open to it.

"absence of systematic practices when developing theories":
ID theories are laid out there to be read and evaluated. They're rejected because they kill the sacred cow, not because of a lack of systematic practices.

#27 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 02:50 PM

When I inform someone that their content is leading to my avoidance of their contributions, I am doing two things:

1. I am doing the person a favor in giving that person a chance to reconsider.
2. I am instructing "the peanut gallery"--defined loosely, as anyone reading the posts--that I most certainly have better things to do than field gratuitous questions and read repetitions of ground covered.

Do you understand this explanation?


Yes, I understand.
I hope others don't boycott me, but I'm doing a special favor just for you.
You have my permission to boycott my posts.

#28 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:46 PM

When I inform someone that their content is leading to my avoidance of their contributions, I am doing two things:

1. I am doing the person a favor in giving that person a chance to reconsider.
2. I am instructing "the peanut gallery"--defined loosely, as anyone reading the posts--that I most certainly have better things to do than field gratuitous questions and read repetitions of ground covered.

Do you understand this explanation?


Yes, I understand.
I hope others don't boycott me, but I'm doing a special favor just for you.
You have my permission to boycott my posts.

.
I don't understand the special treatment.

#29 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 06:53 PM

I didn't say you physically threatened Ken, Schera. ....

.
Unbelievable.

I have been reinforced in my decision to add him to ignore.

#30 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 23 August 2017 - 05:41 PM

 

 

Then there is the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.  This was referenced by multiple footnotes in the Wikipedia article you cited.
....

 
Here you have the power of government being the arbitrator on scientific truth. Do you think they are a good institution for doing that.

 

 Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear.....
 
The validity of scientific theories should be determined by scientists.  Not legislators.  Not state board of education members.  Not local school boards.  Not judges.

 

 Well, your POV is now much clearer. 
 

But you realize that there is a problem. There is no such thing like "Scientist", there are just individual scientists that on their own may be part of organisations and professional bodies, which then again may issue statements. Different scientists may hold different views on what is valid scientific truth and what's not. 

So how do you arbitrate anything in that kind of situation. Democratic vote? Consensus? Shouting Contest?

 

Judges only get involved AFTER creationists have attempted using legislators, state board of education members, or local school boards as the arbitrators of scientific truth.
 
Specifically, with reference to ID, the process is FIRST become accepted science THEN be taught in the schools.
 
Even the leading ID organization, the Discovery Institute, recognizes that ID is not (yet) ready for the classroom.

 

That's untrue. The judiciary arm got involved, after people were complaining that creationists, ID or other POV's became part of school curricula or were in mentioned in textbooks. As for the Dover case, wasn't that just about the requirement that teachers should tell pupils: "We teach this in the class room", but "there is some book in the library that got a different POV"?!

 

"Ready for the classroom" is a different question from "valid scientific truth". Readiness for the classroom would mean that there are trained teachers and complete textbooks on the subject, which isn't yet the case with ID. But there should be nothing wrong with pointing out that there are alternative POV's from Neodarwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis on the Origins of Life and variety in Life forms. Also nothing wrong to point out the epistemological, empirical and logical problems of Darwinian Evolution.

 

And yes, nothing wrong with inferring a creative intelligence from observed complex designs in nature:
https://archive.org/...sBookUndeniable



#31 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 23 August 2017 - 06:41 PM

But there should be nothing wrong with pointing out that there are alternative POV's from Neodarwinian Evolution and Abiogenesis on the Origins of Life and variety in Life forms. Also nothing wrong to point out the epistemological, empirical and logical problems of Darwinian Evolution.
 
And yes, nothing wrong with inferring a creative intelligence from observed complex designs in nature:


But I guess the result of the Dover case is that it's illegal to teach the truth. I don't know any high school teachers that teach biology, but they're in kind of a predicament! If some bright student notices the absurdity of accidental complexity and challenges the teacher, maybe he'll have to say he can't answer because it's against the law. Or maybe he'll say the government believes in evolution so we can't acknowledge any doubts. But if he says it that way it might sound like a coded message against evolution.

It's dangerous when the government dictates science. We used to read about this kind of thing in the Soviet Union.

#32 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 August 2017 - 08:10 PM

I hope others don't boycott me....

FYI, I don't put anyone on ignore.  It makes no sense to join a debate forum then refuse to debate.


  • KenJackson likes this

#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 August 2017 - 09:50 PM

... I am an intelligent-designist and I don't argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. If you claim ID is science, then it may arguably count as pseudoscience, if you don't, it doesn't. To say that a percentage do argue it is science therefore it is pseudoscience, is like saying that because a percentage of theists say evolution is religion that therefore evolution is pseudo-religion rather than a science theory. (Laughably silly reasoning from wiki, and an absence of intelligent thought completely.)

The specific problem, is that ID claims to be science.  Like I said, it's good philosophy and good theology.... but that doesn't make it a scientific theory.

 

Modern ID is the brainchild of YEC lawyer Philip Johnson.  He saw ID as a "wedge" to ultimately get YEC into the classroom.  Hence the "wedge strategy."  This has much to do with ID being considered a creationist argument.  The fact that the leading ID organization is much more about political action than scientific research doesn't help much either.

 

After all, we all know Who the Designer is, don't we?



#34 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 August 2017 - 12:48 AM

I hope others don't boycott me....

FYI, I don't put anyone on ignore.  It makes no sense to join a debate forum then refuse to debate.

.
If you don't believe that we teach people how to treat us, then you haven't understood anything I've been doing and you haven't learned the most basic fact of human interaction.

#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 August 2017 - 02:27 AM

 

Piasan: The specific problem, is that ID claims to be science.  Like I said, it's good philosophy and good theology.... but that doesn't make it a scientific theory.

 

Modern ID is the brainchild of YEC lawyer Philip Johnson.  He saw ID as a "wedge" to ultimately get YEC into the classroom.  Hence the "wedge strategy."  This has much to do with ID being considered a creationist argument.  The fact that the leading ID organization is much more about political action than scientific research doesn't help much either.

 

After all, we all know Who the Designer is, don't we?

 

I understand what you're saying but the point is "ID" isn't just this "movement", and limiting the definition isn't a valid argument. Even if someone did originally have a motive to get YEC into the classroom, we have to look at modern motives otherwise it's the genetic fallacy. There may be a small percentage that want YEC in the class room, but the real issue is whether the ID argument is YEC. It isn't.

 

This is because the studies of William Paley, are still scientifically sound descriptions of the anatomy. The correct design of the various anatomies he explains of which some I have read, show that the particularly correct, perhaps even uniquely correct contingencies are in the body. The cleverest solutions are present, and the features of design over-qualified.

 

For example when you say "we all know who the designer is don't we?" But agnostics are also IDists. That is the point, whatever design we find in the body is factual, the claims about Who or what put the design there, aren't the intelligent design argument. We obviously as Christians, proclaim it to be God, but that proclamation is one of faith, not science. But the ID argument itself, just argues that ID is present in life.

 

Who designed is a matter of faith or even debate. Some say life itself is somehow smart, some say aliens, obviously we as Christians believe our answer that God is the designer, is the best answer by far.

 

That's the real reason they reject the intelligent design in the anatomy, because they know that if they acknowledge it that this will give theists too much debate-power for God, and they don't want that, for that would go against what they see as a progression towards a totally scientific explanation of the universe including life, matter and everything else, without God in the picture.

 

Do you think they care if intelligent design is actually in life? Of course they don't. But by every qualification it not only is present, but is over-qualified. The field of biomimetics alone proves the design in life if more intelligent than ours for if it wasn't we wouldn't plagiarise those designs when we are left head-scratching, proving not only design but superior design-ability to our own.

 

Now if you as a TE say, "somehow done by God through evolution", yes - in a way that works in the sense it at least fits given God could have mysteriously led evolution towards those best designs but for those who say it is just, "E", more difficult for just, "E" given it has no intelligence. (a contradiction).

 

An honest acceptance of the fact of intelligent design in nature, is required by scientists at this stage. Unfortunately a hunt for truth isn't their prime motive.


  • KenJackson likes this

#36 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 August 2017 - 07:10 AM

"contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims":
I don't know of contradictory claims. The main claim is that evolution is impossible, but this is WELL SUPPORTED by the accepted facts drawn from published journals and books in several science disciplines.

i haven't read anything in a peer reviewed paper or science journal that says evolution is impossible.
i've read plenty that says the mainstream theory of the modern synthesis is outright false, but nothing that says evolution is impossible.
there is a definite difference between "extremely small odds" and "impossible".

i would like to see the peer reviewed source that states evolution is impossible.
 

Evolution is a collection of "unfalsifiable claims". How can you prove false the claim that evolution takes billions of years and can't be reproduced in the lab? That's the very definition of an unfalsifiable claim.

this relates to one of the fallacies of the modern synthesis, namely gradualism.
there is nothing anywhere that says evolution requires millions of years.
as a matter of fact, all of the major transitions of evolution have "ready made" results, there is no "gradual buildup". the most striking and well known example is the arrival of animal phyla.

These probabilities are sensational, but I haven't heard anyone claim they're "exaggerated". But then even if he's off by a factor of a trillion squared, the probabilities are still too low to have happened in trillions of years.

the probabilities are no doubt real.
the question i have is, are these analogies being applied properly.
there is one very important point you need to remember, and that is the cell works and it isn't working by magic.
also, the picture you have in your mind about how evolution works is probably wrong.

"lack of openness to evaluation by other experts":
That's true of evolution, not ID. ID is an evaluation of evolution by experts, but Darwinists are definitely not open to it.

not true.
i have plenty of peer reviewed sources that literally destroys the modern synthesis.

"absence of systematic practices when developing theories":
ID theories are laid out there to be read and evaluated. They're rejected because they kill the sacred cow, not because of a lack of systematic practices.

i've asked this question before but never got an answer, what standards apply both to god/ID and science?
you are going to need common ground between these 2 if you are to compare them.
as far as i can tell, there simply isn't any.

#37 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 August 2017 - 07:21 AM

you haven't learned the most basic fact of human interaction.

and what would that be?
that people don't always agree with one another?
it seems it's you that hasn't quite realized that.

so, go pout in your corner.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 August 2017 - 07:52 AM

 

 

What If: there is a definite difference between "extremely small odds" and "impossible".

 

I don't know if there is a meaningful difference sometimes. People can't always fathom the difference between those two so sometimes they mistake something that is impossible for something extremely improbable.

 

That we don't know technically speaking, that macro evolution is impossible, doesn't mean we can infer therefore that it is possible. That is called an argument-from-ignorance. (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

Also if nobody officially claims macro evolution impossible, this doesn't mean it is possible.

 

I see no rational reason to ever suppose it would be possible because it simply wouldn't follow that it would create what we have. Instead they look at the facts of life now, and with hindsight claim that "therefore evolution must have done it", as circular reasoning.

 

But a true prediction for macro wouldn't be for it to create what we see (the miraculous), a true prediction of a Creator would be a miraculous creation of millions of viable organisms. Evolution wouldn't produce more than five for all you know. (and that might be overly generous if in fact it cannot create any).


  • Mike Summers likes this

#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:18 AM

Piasan said:

Piasan: The specific problem, is that ID claims to be science.  Like I said, it's good philosophy and good theology.... but that doesn't make it a scientific theory.


When did evo become observable, testable an d repeatable? Evo is an hypotethis that some folks insist is a theory (like gravity). Trouble is no one disputes the theory of gravity.

I have asked in vain for one living transitioonal and have heard of none. There was a chance for eyes to develop on the rear of a gun slinger but...

If a mind comes up with it, it's philosophical!
Any theory an intelligent being formulates is scientific (reasonable). Obviously, someone intelligent had to think up (reason out) any theory. Theories don't formulate themselves! Intelligent beings create them. To try and discredit a theory because we don't like it is un-scientific! LOL

I can understand now more than ever why God hates idolotry (claiming things have power they don't have). Science is nothing more or less than our reasoning process glorified. We don't do ourselves a favor when we try to give science (reasoning) god status!

Nor, is "it's scientific" the great holy seal of approval! We all reason--some better than others. Our reasoning process allows us to answer the question what caused the effect we see before us?

Science can not hold opinions, nor validate concepts without an intelligent being using it to reason (practice science). Science is not alive and can not act without an inteligent agent!

I think there is a lot to be said about some of us not wanting to acknowledge reality. Reality is the result of all the causes that have precedd the current effect. There is presedence for ID because we use it to create things that did not and couldn't evolve. In fact, we use ID all the time. We teach ID in engineering schools that dot the land!

Why ss it ID is not acknowledged? It is used to accomplish materialistic complexity--for the things we acknowledge the things that can't evolve--things we created? What bias an bgotry. It's postively anti-intelligence!

Yes, folks once again anti-intelligence rears its ugly head! But then what a paradox. We use reasoning (intelligence) to think reasoning is not reasonable. Stupidity is more intelligent! Evos believe stupidity designed the human body with all its complexities!

Did evo design the computer? Evos don't want answer that question so, they just ignore it and hope it will go away! It represents to them an inconcient truth! Creativity is a viable way to bring things that couldn't evolve into existence. That's reasonmable (scientific). Go fogure!

Intelligence rules! 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#40 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 August 2017 - 10:54 AM

When did evo become observable, testable an d repeatable? Evo is an hypotethis that some folks insist is a theory (like gravity). Trouble is no one disputes the theory of gravity.

http://evolutionfair...ng-1000-mph-ok/

Any theory an intelligent being formulates is scientific (reasonable).

Science and reason aren't the same thing. A conclusion can be reasonable without being scientifically valid.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users