How do you "teach" ID?

Dixie said:
A Hypothesis:
hy·poth·e·sis [hahy-poth-uh-sis,]
–noun, plural -ses

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

You obviously don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. So I have posted this definition for you, I apologize to the rest of the intelligent people here who already knew what a hypothesis was.

As I have said, in about a dozen or so threads on the topic now... and it won't change... Intelligent Design has scientific support, you just don't have personal faith in the science, and have made conclusions based on your own personal faiths. You are not qualified to question my scientific credentials because you have stopped being a scientist, and have become an ideologue. You are openly refuting consideration of any further possibility or questions, and thus, knowledge. Therefore, you will remain in ignorance, as mankind has often done through history.
Click to expand...

Dixie teaching you about science is like beating ones head against the wall. The definition you posted is the common definition of a hypothesis and not the scientific one. The above definition becomes the scientific definition when the definition includes that the hypothesis must (emphasis added) be observable and testable. ID is not a scientific hypothesis because it is neither empirically observable nor can it be tested.
 
Dixie said:
I'll call it a mental roadblock, but it's on your side... you have apparently not read the pages and pages of biological, psychological, and scientific evidence I have presented. I think you can do a search and find them, if you would like to try again. I don't feel the need to keep repeating them over and over, especially for someone who can't comprehend what they read anyway.
Click to expand...

What pages and pages of scientific evidence? I've asked you to just provide me with one, just one measely peer reviewed paper published by a credentialed scientist that either presents evidence supporting ID or provides a workable theory. So far I've seen, zilch, nada, nothing.

Asshat, go ahead and do the google search that Dixie requested. It won't take long. You'll come up with NO peer reviewed papers on ID.
 
I thought the defination of intelligence was to "arranging means to a achieve a desireable end or objective." For example--Picking Palin to rejuvinate the consertative base. If life were designed by intelligence, what is the desired ending or result? Is it a big Chia pet kind of thing?

This is the one thing I don't like about Christians (besides the threat of buring in hell for eternity if I don't believe their beliefs), and I was baptized Catholic-----They are really pushy with their religion. I am getting tired of going to a sporting event, that I pay for, to hear a prayer before the national anthem. I don't agree with Palin that ID should be taught beside real science. I don't agree that any particular religion should be taught in a public school (or really anything the department of education teaches in social science today), because they would have a captive audiance that can not leave---without voting for a modern day commie liberial later in life (drop outs). I do wish, however, that I would have had a good theology course back in HS. There is no reason why we can't use intelligence to pick our own religion. I may have a need later in life--who knows? I just can't get my arms around a religion (or any organazation) that uses fear to get you to join. If one can be manulipitated in that mannor (using fear)---one can be manulipulated in any mannor.


IMO--ID is a pushy way to get christian teachings back in the public school system.--and I saw the movie. It was recomended by Glenn Beck (and I dig Beck), but I saw what it was in 2 min--and fell asleep after having a smoke in the theater---nobody there.

Booo to Palin with that one issue for me, but she captures 30% of the population----she is not alone. My children (if I have any, or marry some liberial who has some that she can't take care of--lol) will not be attending any religious courses in their public school. I wish them to have the freedom of choice.

The proper way to start and teach a religion--is to build tax free buidings called "churches". Freedom of religion is cool---but that does not mean one has a right to shove theirs down your throat in a captive environment. My 2 bits
 
Last edited:
Wiseguy, I have not "run away" from a damn thing, except for your spewing idiocy. I see no point in trying to have a civil debate with you on this topic, because you have closed your mind to any possibility other than your own conclusions. Same to Mott, same to Solitary, and same to uscitizen.

I'm not a religious fanatic, I never said Neanderthal became extinct because of Religion, and I am intelligent enough to know Science doesn't have it's own special dictionary for words. I correctly stated how ID could be taught as a possibility with Abiogenesis, to explain origin of life. It should not ever be discussed in conjunction with the theory of evolution, because it doesn't deal with evolution of species. Also, even if there is validity in theories of Abiogenesis, it doesn't negate the possibility of Intelligence, which could have been responsible for the process of Abiogenesis.

You keep wanting a "test" to "prove" Intelligent Design, yet you've offered no tests to prove Abiogenesis, or Evolution for that matter. The best you can do is offer tests which seem to support the idea. For the record, I have not attempted to refute these tests or theories, they are entirely possible, I am open minded. It is you guys who are doing the refuting and closing your mind to possibility.

In light of the fact you have closed your minds and concluded an answer to this question of origin, there is nothing more left for me to say, I have no desire to argue with a brick wall of ignorance. If you are not willing to accept the science of psychology, and observe the history of our species, I can't show you any 'test' to support ID. And it wouldn't matter if I could, if you have the perception that something must be published in a science journal to be valid. In short, you've all constructed a nice cozy little spider hole with science, where you can hide in ignorant denial of possibility.
 
Dixie said:
Wiseguy, I have not "run away" from a damn thing, except for your spewing idiocy. I see no point in trying to have a civil debate with you on this topic, because you have closed your mind to any possibility other than your own conclusions. Same to Mott, same to Solitary, and same to uscitizen.

I'm not a religious fanatic, I never said Neanderthal became extinct because of Religion, and I am intelligent enough to know Science doesn't have it's own special dictionary for words.
Click to expand...
There may be no separate dictionary, but words have specific meanings in the context of science. You don't know them.
I correctly stated how ID could be taught as a possibility with Abiogenesis, to explain origin of life. It should not ever be discussed in conjunction with the theory of evolution, because it doesn't deal with evolution of species. Also, even if there is validity in theories of Abiogenesis, it doesn't negate the possibility of Intelligence, which could have been responsible for the process of Abiogenesis.

You keep wanting a "test" to "prove" Intelligent Design, yet you've offered no tests to prove Abiogenesis, or Evolution for that matter. The best you can do is offer tests which seem to support the idea. For the record, I have not attempted to refute these tests or theories, they are entirely possible, I am open minded. It is you guys who are doing the refuting and closing your mind to possibility.

In light of the fact you have closed your minds and concluded an answer to this question of origin, there is nothing more left for me to say, I have no desire to argue with a brick wall of ignorance. If you are not willing to accept the science of psychology, and observe the history of our species, I can't show you any 'test' to support ID. And it wouldn't matter if I could, if you have the perception that something must be published in a science journal to be valid. In short, you've all constructed a nice cozy little spider hole with science, where you can hide in ignorant denial of possibility.
Click to expand...

We don't have to prove evolution to say there is no proof for ID.
 
AssHatZombie said:
There may be no separate dictionary, but words have specific meanings in the context of science. You don't know them.
Click to expand...

The dictionary is pretty good at giving any 'special' scientific meaning, if a word has one. Nowhere does the dictionary say a 'theory' is a 'fact' or a 'hypothesis' must be testable...or a 'suggestion' is conclusive. These are only definitions found in Mott's Special Science Dictionary, which isn't real, and I don't have.


We don't have to prove evolution to say there is no proof for ID.
Click to expand...

I never said you did, and it wouldn't refute ID if you could. You keep asking me to 'prove' ID, as if that will disprove ET, and it wouldn't, even if ID dealt with evolution. Let's get this straight, you and I do not have "The Answer" to how life originated. That is a fact! We both have ideas of how it may have happened, science has speculations and suggested scenarios, but there is no definitive answer, if there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My approach to this question has been simple, nothing is impossible and everything is possible. It is those of you who have closed your minds, who continue to try to argue something is impossible and theories are concluded fact. The moment you drew these conclusions, you stopped being a Scientist and started being an Ideologue.
 
I showed you several tests that support abiogenesis. Several. You have given me nothing to indicate that intelligent design is science. In fact, it is by definition a supernatural explanation and therefore cannot be tested - which means it isn't science by default.

It aint science dude. This isn't really that complex.
 
Dixie said:
The dictionary is pretty good at giving any 'special' scientific meaning, if a word has one. Nowhere does the dictionary say a 'theory' is a 'fact' or a 'hypothesis' must be testable...or a 'suggestion' is conclusive. These are only definitions found in Mott's Special Science Dictionary, which isn't real, and I don't have.
Click to expand...
The realm of science does have a fairly precise vocab. You don't know it.
I never said you did, and it wouldn't refute ID if you could. You keep asking me to 'prove' ID, as if that will disprove ET, and it wouldn't, even if ID dealt with evolution. Let's get this straight, you and I do not have "The Answer" to how life originated.

That is a fact! We both have ideas of how it may have happened, science has speculations and suggested scenarios, but there is no definitive answer, if there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
Yet some ideas are more feasible than others.
My approach to this question has been simple, nothing is impossible and everything is possible. It is those of you who have closed your minds, who continue to try to argue something is impossible and theories are concluded fact. The moment you drew these conclusions, you stopped being a Scientist and started being an Ideologue.
Click to expand...


But in science we need evidence first. We don't assume every assinine statement is true and then look for evidence to refudiate it.
 
By the way, drawing conclusions against a ludicrous idea is REQUIRED by science. Free speech and science are not one in the same. You can say the sun is pulled by fiery horses across the sky, and my dismissal of that stupid notion does not make me "ignorant and no longer a scientist." Scientists don't give equal time to stupidity. If you can't test a hypothesis then its not science.
 
We used to be certain that heaven was up in the clouds. After all god smote down the tower of babel (sp?) for man building a tower to heaven. It could not have fallen for engineeirng problems now could it ?
 
Probably never existed. Even if it did, a tower of stone built to heaven would certainly collapse due to its own weight and poor choice of building material. Hardly evidence of God - more just evidence of poor engineering.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Probably never existed. Even if it did, a tower of stone built to heaven would certainly collapse due to its own weight and poor choice of building material. Hardly evidence of God - more just evidence of poor engineering.
Click to expand...

Umm well yes since we have pretty much hit our solar system and no heaven yet. that would be one tall tower.
But for a long time heaven was just above the clouds to most people that believed in heaven. Images of angels in clouds still abound.

My point is that every generation thinks they have it figured out. ie illness caused by evil spirits, etc.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Man is innately spiritual, except for the atheists, but they deserve to die, so don't count as people.
Click to expand...

And there are THOUSANDS of studies to prove that atheists don't fare as well as others, though he will not produce a single one for our scrutiny. Google searches turn up a bunch of new-agey religious websites and nothing of any substance.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I showed you several tests that support abiogenesis. Several. You have given me nothing to indicate that intelligent design is science. In fact, it is by definition a supernatural explanation and therefore cannot be tested - which means it isn't science by default.

It aint science dude. This isn't really that complex.
Click to expand...

Give it up. I've gone over and over this ground with Dixie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top