Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 For the proponents of intelligent design (Creationism) I would like you to: 1. State you hypothesis 2. Make predictions 3. Name some methods of testing the predictions 4. Show some studies/experiments done that support the hypothesis through empirical testing simple enough right? Do not mention evolution, just state your scientific theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Search "portisizzle" and "infinity". Then post the two threads over the past year that come up. Why a new thread on this?? Bored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Did someone just finish their science fair project?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Search "portisizzle" and "infinity".Then post the two threads over the past year that come up. Why a new thread on this?? Bored? No, post it here I don't feel like searching through your posts. It isn't very hard to post it again. Now, why did I post this? Because EVERY SINGLE ID thread is a theological/philosophical debate, not an emprical one. There is a difference, I suspect your idea is much the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 No, post it here I don't feel like searching through your posts. It isn't very hard to post it again. Now, why did I post this? Because EVERY SINGLE ID thread is a theological/philosophical debate, not an emprical one. There is a difference, I suspect your idea is much the same. You are wrong and I am not going to spend four hours of my life going around the mulberry bush with you. Why not just make your point instead of rehashing old business? If you have something worth responding to, that is..... If you are indeed interested in this topic, go do a search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Did someone just finish their science fair project?? What? On intelligent design? Hardly, you mean my biotechnology thesis? That won't be finished for another 2-3 years. I am simply, reminding people what SCIENCE is. It is making testable hypothesis. Some people forget that, and in all the ID threads it was overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Please do the same for Goo to You via the Zoo evolution. It is a completely untestable, unrepeatable idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 You are wrong and I am not going to spend four hours of my life going around the mulberry bush with you.Why not just make your point instead of rehashing old business? If you have something worth responding to, that is..... If you are indeed interested in this topic, go do a search. Why should I spend half an hour looking for it, if you won't spend 2 minutes writing your idea? If you don't want to that's fine I doubt it would have contributed much anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I am simply, reminding people what SCIENCE is. It is making testable hypothesis. Some people forget that, and in all the ID threads it was overlooked. Science is in the business of revelation, no? So when Science is done "revealing" what will they be left with? That which has been created. Something can not come from nothing. ****!!! I just ran around the bush. Damn. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 pan cakes > primordial stew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Please do the same for Goo to You via the Zoo evolution.It is a completely untestable, unrepeatable idea. No it is testable, we can test whether organic compounds can spontaneosly form under the environment of the Earth at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why should I spend half an hour looking for it, if you won't spend 2 minutes writing your idea? If you don't want to that's fine I doubt it would have contributed much anyway. Because the ideas take longer than two minutes to write and this this has all been done before. To the tune of 30+ pages. Don't be lazy, you asked the question. Go seek the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 No it is testable, we can test whether organic compounds can spontaneosly form under the environment of the Earth at that time. Woopty doo What does that have to do with a fig tree being my cousin? How can you prove what the environment on Earth was at that time anyway? You can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Woopty dooWhat does that have to do with a fig tree being my cousin? The fig tree being your "cousin" is a lot easier to support than the beginning of organic substances on the earth. From simple organic substances more complicated organic substances could form. the simplified way of saying that is: Simple chemicals--->building blocks (ie amino acids)----->macromolecules (ie proteins) or nucleotids---> nucleic acids for example life is hypothesized to have formed when one of the macromolecules could start replicating itself and nucleic acids can do that ( ie DNA or RNA) Once DNA started to replicate itself then we could say "life" started. All these ideas are testable, are they true? I don't know but they are testable, and test have been done under simulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The fig tree being your "cousin" is a lot easier to support than the beginning of organic substances on the earth. From simple organic substances more complicated organic substances could form.the simplified way of saying that is: Simple chemicals--->building blocks (ie amino acids)----->macromolecules (ie proteins) or nucleotids---> nucleic acids for example life is hypothesized to have formed when one of the macromolecules could start replicating itself and nucleic acids can do that ( ie DNA or RNA) Once DNA started to replicate itself then we could say "life" started. All these ideas are testable, are they true? I don't know but they are testable, and test have been done under simulations. Let's look at one of these tests objectively. Miller-Urey. It was done over 50 years ago. It's in all of our science textbooks. They put everything in order and got some amino acids. Weeeeeeeeee! Now, if this proves anything why hasn't it been repeated over and over again to improve upon what we "learned" from this experiment. An intelligent source puts a whole bunch of "just so scenarios" together and I am supposed to believe they could happen in the premordial soup. I'm sorry but I am simply not that gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Let's look at one of these tests objectively.Miller-Urey. It was done over 50 years ago. It's in all of our science textbooks. They put everything in order and got some amino acids. Weeeeeeeeee! Now, if this proves anything why hasn't it been repeated over and over again to improve upon what we "learned" from this experiment. An intelligent source puts a whole bunch of "just so scenarios" together and I am supposed to believe they could happen in the premordial soup. I'm sorry but I am simply not that gullible. First of all, other test have been done. Secondly the "just so scenarios" are what the conditions of what the earth might have been like. Here is an excerpt from Wiki Miller-Urey experimentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Miller-Urey experiment attempts to recreate the chemical conditions of the primitive Earth in the laboratory, and synthesized some of the building blocks of life. Enlarge The Miller-Urey experiment attempts to recreate the chemical conditions of the primitive Earth in the laboratory, and synthesized some of the building blocks of life. The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution (the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors; the Miller-Urey tested this hypothesis). The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago. Contents [hide] * 1 Experiment and interpretation * 2 Other experiments * 3 Earth's early atmosphere * 4 Recent related studies * 5 See also * 6 References [edit] Experiment and interpretation The experiment Enlarge The experiment The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired through the atmosphere and water vapor to simulate lightning, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle. At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. However, there are two forms of amino acids. They are referred to as a left-handed or a right-handed amino acids. Only left handed amino acids are found in living organisms, and the ones created in the Miller-Urey experiment, and all subsequent experiments, succeed in creating right- and left-handed amino acids in roughly a 50/50 ratio. The molecules produced were simple organic molecules. Far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first. [edit] Other experiments This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere. I'm sorry but I am simply not that gullible You are a biblical literalist are you not? It is a completely untestable, unrepeatable idea. looks like you have gotten away from this idea. I am glad this thread has taught you something. (Chemical evolution to biological evolution CAN be tested, while ID CAN NEVER be tested.) Now if it can't be tested it isn't science, if it isn't science we can once and for all agree that it does not belong in science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I am glad this thread has taught you something. (Chemical evolution to biological evolution CAN be tested, while ID CAN NEVER be tested.) Now if it can't be tested it isn't science, if it isn't science we can once and for all agree that it does not belong in science class. Never is such a big word to use in the world of Science, no? And so it seems that you finally get to your point. You want to talk about ID in the classroom? Is this what you want me to agree upon? That ID does not belong in the classroom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "looks like you have gotten away from this idea. I am glad this thread has taught you something. (Chemical evolution to biological evolution CAN be tested, while ID CAN NEVER be tested.) Now if it can't be tested it isn't science, if it isn't science we can once and for all agree that it does not belong in science class." Just another end around attempt at debating teaching ID in Classroom. Post it in one of the existing threads that have beat this subject to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "looks like you have gotten away from this idea. I am glad this thread has taught you something. (Chemical evolution to biological evolution CAN be tested, while ID CAN NEVER be tested.) Now if it can't be tested it isn't science, if it isn't science we can once and for all agree that it does not belong in science class."Just another end around attempt at debating teaching ID in Classroom. Post it in one of the existing threads that have beat this subject to death. Indeed. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Liberty, look a little harder. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143923&highlight=design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Never is such a big word to use in the world of Science, no?And so it seems that you finally get to your point. You want to talk about ID in the classroom? Is this what you want me to agree upon? That ID does not belong in the classroom? classrom OR any discussion of science OR any comparison to the theory of evolution unless it is in a philosophical debate. That includes here on extremeskins. Now is this thread a repeat of some other post in another thread? Yeah but this is the tailgate there aren't many truly original threads. Secondly they may both be discussing ID, BUT this thread is an attempt to NARROW down the topic just to whether it is testable. Nothing else. Just like any thread about politics is a narrower part of the giant left v. right red v. blue debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Liberty, look a little harder.http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143923&highlight=design ok i will look through that thread, but the first page atleast had not much relevance to this topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 classrom OR any discussion of science OR any comparison to the theory of evolution unless it is in a philosophical debate. That includes here on extremeskins Teaching ID does not have a place in the classroom. However to say that ID does not have a place in the discussion of science is quite arrogant. Please tell me if you think Science is in the business of revealing that which has been created. If it is not in the revelation business in you opinion, then tell me what are Scientists doing with their lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 ****!!! I just ran around the bush. Damn. :doh: You just can't help yourself can you. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Teaching ID does not have a place in the classroom.However to say that ID does not have a place in the discussion of science is quite arrogant. Please tell me if you think Science is in the business of revealing that which has been created. If it is not in the revelation business in you opinion, then tell me what are Scientists doing with their lives? science is in the business of revealing by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Philosophy is also in the business of revealing. ID has absolutely NO PLACE in science what so ever. ID is nothing but the cosmological argument for God in new skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.