Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay Mott... Pay attention here... this is what you do when you want to discuss a different topic from the thread you posted in. You simply start a new thread and go from there. Here is your quotes from the other thread, to kick this topic off....
Not true. I fully understand the scientific method, and those who dismiss ID have abandoned it completely. This prohibits you from being objective scientists. You see, the scientific method dictates that we continue to ask questions and not dismiss possibility.
This is because you have prejudiced your mind against the possibility. It has everything to do with religion and politics, that is why your mind remains closed to possibility. ID is not an opposition to ET, it doesn't negate Darwin's theories, it actually helps to explain some of the shortfalls. I personally believe in the possibility of both theories, and note the word "possibility" here, I don't believe absolutely in any theory as fact. Science doesn't "prove" things, so it's absolutely against scientific principles to draw conclusions of fact based on a theory.
ID has nothing to do with supernatural or natural. Neither does ET. If we regularly saw evolution happening among the species, in a predictable manner, we could perhaps conclude ET was "natural" and your point would be relevant, but that is not the case. We have never 'observed' a cross-species evolution of any kind. The best example of how ET fails the test of "nature" is the Cambrian period. Literally ten's of thousands of species emerged during this relatively short period of time. ET, if it is true, would not result in such an "unnatural" occurrence. Evolution would be linear, never-changing, and we would see as much evidence of evolution now (and before) as we saw in the Cambrian period, but again, that is not the case.
Nothing in cross-species evolution can be tested or predicted. ET can possibly explain how living things changed and adapted to their environment or circumstances, but it can not explain the diversity of life forms found on the planet. Not to mention, 95% of the species no longer exist.
Neither can cross-species evolution, does that mean we can dismiss the possibility of it completely? You keep using these unfounded terms like "independently verified" and "tested predictions" but as I said, there has never been one shred of evidence to support evolution across two different species. The whole idea of marine life 'evolving' into reptilian life and then into mammals and primates, is unfounded in science, and has no supporting evidence. It can't be predicted, verified, or tested. Yet, this is what some anti-ID people would have us believe. In a very un-scientific attempt to use ET to explain origin of life, and dispel ID, they abandon the very tenants of science and the scientific method and make conclusions and assumptions that are wholly invalid.
You also can't demonstrate cross-species evolution. Let's be clear on something here, science can not "demonstrate" or "prove" anything, it merely makes predictions based on observations. Nothing we've observed has indicated any cross-species evolution, therefore this can't be predicted. In other words, just like ID, you can't demonstrate it happened or didn't happen.
Well there have been numerous research studies published by scholarly people, and concurred with by other scholarly people, regarding ID. There is as much "evidence" for ID as there is for cross-species evolution. And I continue to delineate between ET and "cross-species evolution" because I believe ET could very well be a part of ID. It seems that so many people who believe in ET, will view it as a direct opposition to ID, and I don't think one theory negates the other.
It only stops science in its tracks because you close your mind and accept something to be fact that is a theory. It also presumes you think science proves things, when this is clearly NOT what science does. Again, it is common for many ET proponents to do exactly that, offer an explanation they consider to be fact, rather than to explore other possibilities. It stops furthering knowledge in its tracks to proclaim ID invalid and cling to a theory of evolution to explain origin of all life on the planet.
And what practical use does ET have? To justify your anti-religious beliefs? You lost your "objectivity" when you dismissed the possibility of something you just may not understand or comprehend in your infantile human wisdom.
No, you are hostile toward ID because you've made your mind up and closed it to any outside possibility. You detest religion and those who practice it, and you see ID as some extension of those beliefs.
It has everything to do with your views on religion, that's precisely why you felt compelled to add this sentence. You want to build an irrefutable argument based on a theory that can't be proven, while denying any consideration of another possibility. So you throw out a bunch of scientific terms, make a few shallow assumptions about ID, throw a little cold water on those who support ID, and then top it off with a statement of denial about it having to do with your personal religious beliefs. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself with this rant.
Now.... If you are truly ready to open your scientific mind to possibility, I will attempt to explain some things regarding ID from my perspective, which have a legitimate basis in science and biology. If you are not ready to open your mind to possibility, there aren't enough words in the world for me to convince you, and it isn't worth the effort.
Not true. I fully understand the scientific method, and those who dismiss ID have abandoned it completely. This prohibits you from being objective scientists. You see, the scientific method dictates that we continue to ask questions and not dismiss possibility.
This is because you have prejudiced your mind against the possibility. It has everything to do with religion and politics, that is why your mind remains closed to possibility. ID is not an opposition to ET, it doesn't negate Darwin's theories, it actually helps to explain some of the shortfalls. I personally believe in the possibility of both theories, and note the word "possibility" here, I don't believe absolutely in any theory as fact. Science doesn't "prove" things, so it's absolutely against scientific principles to draw conclusions of fact based on a theory.
ID has nothing to do with supernatural or natural. Neither does ET. If we regularly saw evolution happening among the species, in a predictable manner, we could perhaps conclude ET was "natural" and your point would be relevant, but that is not the case. We have never 'observed' a cross-species evolution of any kind. The best example of how ET fails the test of "nature" is the Cambrian period. Literally ten's of thousands of species emerged during this relatively short period of time. ET, if it is true, would not result in such an "unnatural" occurrence. Evolution would be linear, never-changing, and we would see as much evidence of evolution now (and before) as we saw in the Cambrian period, but again, that is not the case.
Nothing in cross-species evolution can be tested or predicted. ET can possibly explain how living things changed and adapted to their environment or circumstances, but it can not explain the diversity of life forms found on the planet. Not to mention, 95% of the species no longer exist.
Neither can cross-species evolution, does that mean we can dismiss the possibility of it completely? You keep using these unfounded terms like "independently verified" and "tested predictions" but as I said, there has never been one shred of evidence to support evolution across two different species. The whole idea of marine life 'evolving' into reptilian life and then into mammals and primates, is unfounded in science, and has no supporting evidence. It can't be predicted, verified, or tested. Yet, this is what some anti-ID people would have us believe. In a very un-scientific attempt to use ET to explain origin of life, and dispel ID, they abandon the very tenants of science and the scientific method and make conclusions and assumptions that are wholly invalid.
You also can't demonstrate cross-species evolution. Let's be clear on something here, science can not "demonstrate" or "prove" anything, it merely makes predictions based on observations. Nothing we've observed has indicated any cross-species evolution, therefore this can't be predicted. In other words, just like ID, you can't demonstrate it happened or didn't happen.
Well there have been numerous research studies published by scholarly people, and concurred with by other scholarly people, regarding ID. There is as much "evidence" for ID as there is for cross-species evolution. And I continue to delineate between ET and "cross-species evolution" because I believe ET could very well be a part of ID. It seems that so many people who believe in ET, will view it as a direct opposition to ID, and I don't think one theory negates the other.
It only stops science in its tracks because you close your mind and accept something to be fact that is a theory. It also presumes you think science proves things, when this is clearly NOT what science does. Again, it is common for many ET proponents to do exactly that, offer an explanation they consider to be fact, rather than to explore other possibilities. It stops furthering knowledge in its tracks to proclaim ID invalid and cling to a theory of evolution to explain origin of all life on the planet.
And what practical use does ET have? To justify your anti-religious beliefs? You lost your "objectivity" when you dismissed the possibility of something you just may not understand or comprehend in your infantile human wisdom.
No, you are hostile toward ID because you've made your mind up and closed it to any outside possibility. You detest religion and those who practice it, and you see ID as some extension of those beliefs.
It has everything to do with your views on religion, that's precisely why you felt compelled to add this sentence. You want to build an irrefutable argument based on a theory that can't be proven, while denying any consideration of another possibility. So you throw out a bunch of scientific terms, make a few shallow assumptions about ID, throw a little cold water on those who support ID, and then top it off with a statement of denial about it having to do with your personal religious beliefs. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself with this rant.
Now.... If you are truly ready to open your scientific mind to possibility, I will attempt to explain some things regarding ID from my perspective, which have a legitimate basis in science and biology. If you are not ready to open your mind to possibility, there aren't enough words in the world for me to convince you, and it isn't worth the effort.
