The definition offered was yours, quoted from one of your own posts (complete with a link). Draw your own conclusions.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And once again, ID has been improperly described...yeah to silly people
Search found 48 matches
- Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:52 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
- Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:30 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Relativity. Cult or Science?
- Replies: 9
- Views: 2723
Re: Relativity. Cult or Science?
I thought I could prove the validity of the scientific method... What does that mean? (I would think you would need an epistemological argument, but that wouldn't constitute proof , just rationale.) By "validity", did you mean "utility". If that's the case, I think your readers ...
- Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:38 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Re: RE:
This same kind of argument has already been discussed almost a hundred times, do we really need to go into it again? I think we can simplify the argument by saying this: There is alot of power and truth in the bible alone. The philosophy and teaching of Christianity has had such a profound effect o...
- Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:16 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
- Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:44 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Testing evolutionary theory is hard, because evolution occurs over many many generations. Therefore, in order to test evolutionary theories, we need to use animals that reproduce quickly. The hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit a species (i.e., result in greater reproductive suc...
- Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:08 am
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Rather, all elements of the Universe were compacted into a single location that became unstable. At that density, elements change, such that we can't radio-carbon date beyond that. It's like a reconstruction of the elements. We make inferences about how elements would behave at that density (largel...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:22 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:09 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Proponents of many other theories (e.g., the Big Bang theory, ...), would say that the Universe is infinitely old, ... I realize that you are a philosopher and not a scientist, but what proponents of the Big Bang theory would say the universe is infinitely old ? Since you referenced Cal before, her...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:39 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design? This is the fundamental pre-requisite of a scientific theory. Could you give us non-philosophers an example ? What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in evolu...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:26 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
All I'm doing is comparing the ID theory to alternate theories. ... I am consulting with the ID experts and advocates to explain their case. ... You didn't just believe in it because someone else told you you should, did you? This is sort of a tangential chicken-and-egg question but we don't get ma...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:16 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
I'm sorry, but I cannot see how the argument I quoted does not fit the template of denial of the antecedent, which is a logically unsound form of argument, also called a logical fallacy. I wrote it out as plainly as I could, so please explain how the argument is different from: If A, then B. Not A,...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:58 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Ncooty I won't argue with you about this. With all honesty I can't. You would not beleive what I have to say. Creation is still going on, there are pictures on the net to prove it. One picture is of a new universe forming. You might not need a creator explaination but your asking those like me to d...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:50 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Then, it doesn't matter how small the odds are that complex systems would form, if time is infinite, it becomes a logical, mathematical necessity that complex systems would form. [I'm not so sure that this statement is true but don't want to get sidetracked.] Let us assume that it is, for the sake ...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:44 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
Even the Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that something came from nothing. The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe (again, I'll include energy and mass in that broad term) were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is. [You might ...
- Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:32 pm
- Forum: God and Science
- Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
- Replies: 104
- Views: 21011
If something like the universe is infinite, then how and why is it infinite, what caused it to be infinite? Did non-existent nature create nature? How does material of any kind form from nothing? The problem you seem to be having is that God had to be created, but we are told He wasn't in the Bible...