portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 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. What are Scientists revealing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 You just can't help yourself can you. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: I am home sick with my youngest child. why not....... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 What are Scientists revealing? What are philosophers revealing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 What are philosophers revealing? Themselves. Answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Themselves.Answer my question. no not just themselves, ever heard of the first mover argument? Aristotle made it way back. It is not testable, it is not science, YET it reveals or attempts to reveal knowledge about existence. Both groups reveal knowledge about what exists. Scientists do it through testing (EMPIRICISM) Philosophers do it through logical arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Answer my question, can you be a scientist and not follow the scientific method? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 no not just themselves, ever heard of the first mover argument? Aristotle made it way back. It is not testable, it is not science, YET it reveals or attempts to reveal knowledge about existence. Both groups reveal knowledge about what exists. So are you saying that Science is revealing aspects of our existence? Or are you saying Science is revealing how we came into existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 So are you saying that Science is revealing aspects of our existence? Or are you saying Science is revealing how we came into existence? answer my question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 answer my question Liberty I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. But here goes.... Scientists follow the Scientific Method, yes. So what is your point and are going to answer my question in a straightforward manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 :doh: Honestly Liberty...why? Liberty question for ya. Do you throw rocks at Hornet's nests? Because you just did. Why are you starting a new thread about an old tired debate. You are never going to get the religious side to agree to the scientific theories. Personally I don't know why people can't just agree that both sides have merit. Why couldn't life form in the "primordial soup", but the catalyst was created by some outside higher power? :doh: why...why did I bother to post in here? "Everytime I get out...they keep bringing me back in" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Personally I don't know why people can't just agree that both sides have merit. Why couldn't life form in the "primordial soup", but the catalyst was created by some outside higher power? Well said and thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 no not just themselves, ever heard of the first mover argument? Aristotle made it way back. It is not testable, it is not science, YET it reveals or attempts to reveal knowledge about existence. Both groups reveal knowledge about what exists.Scientists do it through testing (EMPIRICISM) Philosophers do it through logical arguments you are only half right. Scientists also do it with logical arguments...it's how they decide to go about their testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Scientists do it through testing (EMPIRICISM)Philosophers do it through logical arguments Are you saying logic has no place in the realm of Science? Oh my I am sick AND dizzy already..... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Are you saying logic has no place in the realm of Science?Oh my I am sick AND dizzy already..... :doh: It's obvious as a scientist Liberty has ALOT to learn. But cut him some slack...sometimes it takes time to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I think I kinda understand where Liberty is coming from, but the way he went about it, he ended up debating someone he could probably in the end agree with. Its kind of irksome when ID proponents try to sell it as "science". If you believe thats what happened cool. I have no argument with you, but don't try to make it come off that scientificly you have evidence of what happened. ID is an attempt to give creationism a scientific underpinning, and its just not there logically or experimentaly. Does that mean there wasn't creation? Nobody can say right now with any absolute knowledge. I believe based on science and logic there wasn't. Some people believe based through faith that there was. If everyone could agree they don't know, and that the other persons point of view is valid to themselves we could get along soooo much better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I think I kinda understand where Liberty is coming from, but the way he went about it, he ended up debating someone he could probably in the end agree with. Its kind of irksome when ID proponents try to sell it as "science". If you believe thats what happened cool. I have no argument with you, but don't try to make it come off that scientificly you have evidence of what happened. ID is an attempt to give creationism a scientific underpinning, and its just not there logically or experimentaly. Does that mean there wasn't creation? Nobody can say right now with any absolute knowledge. I believe based on science and logic there wasn't. Some people believe based through faith that there was. If everyone could agree they don't know, and that the other persons point of view is valid to themselves we could get along soooo much better I agree with this as you know. I would only add that people who are truly scientific should also hold out the possibility that Science might just give Creationism its underpinnings when it is all said and done. The fact that many would refuse this as a legitimate possibility yet hold fast to the Big Bang theory as the answer to the beginning shows a bias in the community that supports scientific endeavors. A true scientist would not say ID will "never" be proven as did Liberty a page or two ago. Of course Liberty says Creationism can not be proven as it is not a testable hypothesis. I say Creationism is proven most every day. And we could go 30 pages from here with arguments from either side, each having weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I think I kinda understand where Liberty is coming from, but the way he went about it, he ended up debating someone he could probably in the end agree with. Its kind of irksome when ID proponents try to sell it as "science". If you believe thats what happened cool. I have no argument with you, but don't try to make it come off that scientificly you have evidence of what happened. ID is an attempt to give creationism a scientific underpinning, and its just not there logically or experimentaly. Does that mean there wasn't creation? Nobody can say right now with any absolute knowledge. I believe based on science and logic there wasn't. Some people believe based through faith that there was. If everyone could agree they don't know, and that the other persons point of view is valid to themselves we could get along soooo much better That's what I was trying to say. Either side can't see the logic in the others. It's frustrating. Liberty does go about things the wrong way sometimes. But, he's a young scientist. We all start out that way. But you then learn that science is NEVER exact. There is ALWAYS someone who will try and prove your theory wrong. And that person will have just as much data to back it up. People just need to understand that for the most part, religion is there to explain the unexplanable. Then science came and tried to explain, and did. But, then it came full circle, religion comes back to fill in the holes that science left behind by. It's a symbiotic relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Equating Science and Religion on any level is pointless unless you are attempting to reduce the debate to he said/she said. This bodes well for ID because is creates the illusion of legitimacy by elevating it to same status as science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Equating Science and Religion on any level is pointless unless you are attempting to reduce the debate to he said/she said. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."Albert Einstein Yup. People tend to forget this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."Albert Einstein Albert should have stuck to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."Albert Einstein I don't think he's attempting to equate the two, rather he's saying they are like yin and yang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Intelligent Design is so controversial because of the implications of its results, very similar to evolution. (oops I mentioned it!):shhh: From the ID Network page: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS 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 Not a proponent but I'll try: 1. God guided Evolution by his loving hand, therefore designing and creating all the wonderful creatures of the world. 2. He will continue to do so according to his will. 3. Cannot test (just like Evolution). 4. Cannot test (just like Evolution). The best defense of ID is to accept Evolution and say God did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I don't think he's attempting to equate the two, rather he's saying they are like yin and yang. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.