View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #121
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That quote is talking about something completely different, and ignores the "givens" which change the probability. For example, what's the probability of rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die? 1/6. What's the probability of rolling on a 6 on a 6-sided die GIVEN that you roll an even number? 1/3. The additional information changes the probability.
    And please show me, where it ignores the givens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's the same thing for the universe and life. What's the probability that self-replicating entities form in the universe? Arguably very low.
    But not 1?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What's the probability that self-replicating entities form in the universe, GIVEN that the universe is home to conscious forms of life who observe it? 100%. The additional information changes the probability.
    Changing the question to fit your problem, doesn't equate your pre-made result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    News flash: I'm a lot smarter than you. And since you cannot seem to grasp basic principles of logic and statistics (whether because you intentionally want to remain ignorant or because you simply don't have the brainpower for it), I see no reason to continue this discussion.
    Of course, your the king mutha****ing genius... yet you're now discussing MY question instead of me discussing your irrelevant question.

    Yeah, much smarter.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #122
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    And please show me, where it ignores the givens.
    Sigh. Your OWN LINK refutes Hoyle's numbers. Did you even bother to read any of it before you posted it? Because it pretty much makes exactly the opposite point that you think it does.

    Changing the question to fit your problem, doesn't equate your pre-made result.
    In order to make the best estimation of probability, you should include all known information. So for example, if you knew for a fact that I rolled an even number on a 6-sided die, then the probability that I rolled a 6 is 1/3, not 1/6. Similarly, if you know for a fact that there are observers in our universe, then the probability that life forms in such a universe is 100%, not some astronomically small number.

    Of course, your the king mutha****ing genius... yet you're now discussing MY question instead of me discussing your irrelevant question.

    Yeah, much smarter.
    Ya. You don't understand probability (I think they teach it in 6th grade?), logic (usually in high school or freshman semester of college?), or even your own source (reading comprehension is something they start teaching you in 1st grade). As such, I am forced to reach the conclusion that you are an ignoramus.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #123
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You do know Hoyle and Wickramsinghe are panspermists, not creationists, right?
    Are you saying that because their views are life came from space, their math is biased?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #124
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Sigh. Your OWN LINK refutes Hoyle's numbers. Did you even bother to read any of it before you posted it? Because it pretty much makes exactly the opposite point that you think it does.
    It refutes the process and assumptions, but not the math. Surely someone so much more intelligent than I could discern the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    In order to make the best estimation of probability, you should include all known information.
    Show me where all known information WASN'T used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Ya. You don't understand probability (I think they teach it in 6th grade?), logic (usually in high school or freshman semester of college?), or even your own source (reading comprehension is something they start teaching you in 1st grade). As such, I am forced to reach the conclusion that you are an ignoramus.
    Ya, you're overwhelming sense of superiority is based in a magazine article you read once and a college course you skimmed through, possibly by cheating or maybe hiring someone to write your paper for you. It's nice to know such a snobbish opinion based on nothing and refuting nothing can be so sincere and yet so arrogantly insipid. When you get an education smart guy, let me know.

    BTW... you made it SOOO easy. It was very sweet ... thank you Mr. News Flash I'm so much smarter than you.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  5. #125
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,470

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    No is winning... 45 to 0... didn't expect result

    I don't see how anybody could define Intelligent Design as part of science, it just spiritual explanation as why evolution occurs or exists. Science and religion doesn't conflict, so I don't have a problem with people merging it as long as they aren't dismissing actual science or making themselves ignorant about science.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    It is, or ought to be, totally clear. If an hypothesis is just a group of related propositions, and those statements are untested, just what separates a scientific hypothesis from a non-scientific one?

    You said, in response to my entire post #83 (apparently), that it's (what? I'm not sure what "it" refers to) not a matter of being right all the time, but it is instead the questioning, the testing, the revising.

    I replied that artists and philosophers question, test, and revise all the time. But surely you aren't saying that artists and philosophers are scientists, are you? That seems overly broad.

    Just to increase the clarity and make sure everyone's on the same page, here: my thesis is that it's not clear what science is. It's not clear what separates science from other disciplines. The borders are fuzzy, if not entirely nonexistant in spots. You seem to disagree with that assessment. So when you say that science is about testing, revising, and questioning, you had better say specifically what's different about the way a scientist tests, revises, and questions if you want to have a point.



    You include mathematicians in what? In the category of accountants? I can think of a few dozen mathematicians off the top of my head that would probably take issue with that.



    No, I don't like it because I think it's wrong. People working in a field neither completely define what that scope of that field is, nor should they be allowed to. That was the purpose of the accountant example. If accountants were allowed to just decide the scope of their work, with no other force to contradict or shape their decision, then clearly accountants would be free to proclaim that everything is accounting. This would leave accountants in a position to dictate to artists, writers, scientists, politicians, businesspeople, actors, philosophers, historians, and even athletes the principles of those disciplines. Clearly, the decision as to the scope of a particular area of endeavor should not be left up to those working in the field.

    Nor is it, as a matter of practical necessity. To use accountants, again, it turns out that politicians have a heck of a lot to say about what accountants do and do not do. So do business managers. So do mathematicians, and to a lesser extent, economists. This is not to say that accountants don't have some say in determining the scope of accounting. But it is to say that they are far from the only one who determine that scope. A similar rule applies to the sciences.



    If that were all I had said, you'd have a good point. But that isn't all I said, now is it? In the section you quoted, I said:



    Tracing back just a little, you introduced the phrase "factually incorrect" by saying:

    Emphasis added.

    This occurred at the end of your post 85, and the bolded part led me to believe that the entirety of post 85 was meant to show me factually incorrect. I rebutted post 85, short as it was, point by point, and then said I was not factually incorrect because, first, being motivated to read up on the topic (it being one of my favorite topics to read up on and ponder), I have in fact read up on the topic, and am fairly familiar with the issues at hand. Second, for the reasons stated in my rebuttal, I am not factually incorrect contra your rebutted claim. You are, of course, free to rebutt further...
    See Redress above. You are largely in error factually. You are, as noted, making the same mistakes in reasoning (using misinformation to help) that those who favor the non-scientific intelligent design uses. And yes, I begin and end with the factual statement that you are in fact incorrect in the facts you present.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Are you saying that because their views are life came from space, their math is biased?
    No, I'm saying they do not support any kind of creation idea, they have no problem with evolution, they just don't think it happened here. They 100% agree with an entirely naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. Creationists, unfortunately, often try to use them as "proof" that scientists support creationist ideas, but they purposely misrepresent what Hoyle and Wickramsinghe actually believe.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #128
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm saying they do not support any kind of creation idea, they have no problem with evolution, they just don't think it happened here. They 100% agree with an entirely naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. Creationists, unfortunately, often try to use them as "proof" that scientists support creationist ideas, but they purposely misrepresent what Hoyle and Wickramsinghe actually believe.
    But that's a plus isn't it? If they don't support creationism in any way, and the math from multiple sources identifies that life happening by chance out of a primordial soup is impossible, it must be something else. I don't condemn their non-creationism view.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #129
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,992

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    But that's a plus isn't it? If they don't support creationism in any way, and the math from multiple sources identifies that life happening by chance out of a primordial soup is impossible, it must be something else. I don't condemn their non-creationism view.
    High odds against something do not mean that is impossible in fact it means the opposite it means it is possible just unlikely.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  10. #130
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,855

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley
    See Redress above. You are largely in error factually. You are, as noted, making the same mistakes in reasoning (using misinformation to help) that those who favor the non-scientific intelligent design uses. And yes, I begin and end with the factual statement that you are in fact incorrect in the facts you present.
    I did see Redress, above, and replied. I await a response. You're clearly not engaging my posts, which leads me to believe you really don't have an argument. If I'm really incorrect, it would be, or should be, quite easy for you to say why. That you don't is a good indication that you have no real argument.

    In any case, I don't see any resemblance to what I've said and anything an IDer has said. Intelligent Design is a critique of adduced mechanisms of evolution. I'm making some remarks about how science itself is to be defined. The two are obviously different theses, related only insofar as my remarks relate to all of human endeavor. Moreover, I don't support ID, so why my remarks would have any resemblance is rather unclear.
    Last edited by ashurbanipal; 04-28-12 at 10:18 AM.

Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •