Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonest@r
Something along the lines of Benjamin Frankling and the principles of electricity, or the Wright Bros and the principles of lift.
|
Could you please expand on this. What, exactly, do you believe Franklin proved about electricity? What, exactly, do you believe the Wright Bros proved about lift?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lonest@r
I suppose that is the big beef with ID, is that it cannot be disproved, that regardless the amount of evidence supporting Evolution, ID'ers will cling to ID for the unknowns? Is this a problem?
Any many ways Evolution is the same, as many cling to Evolution in belief the evidence is 'out there' yet to be discovered/learned.
|
O.K., what part of the Modern Evolutionary Theory (MET) do you believe has insufficent eveidence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lonest@r
What about beleived theories that remain untested due to lack of ability, such as theories involving the speed of light? Yet they remain theory.
|
Please provide examples of which theories you refer to, and what exactly about them remains untested.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lonest@r
Unfortuantetly, I do not agrre the Dover trial is the evolutionary history of intelligent design, but rather the teachers failure and/or ignorance to properly teach ID. They seem to painting with a wide brush. It would be the same as ID'ers focusing in on one Evolutionist mishap (bogus scientific data or assumption) and making a mockery of all evolutionary discoveries.
|
But it wasn't the teachers who made such a mockery of ID. It was the ID experts like Micheal Behe who said things like (quoteing wikipedia, please note sources)
"...he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",
((Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1))
"and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well." ((Source:
The New Scientist))
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lonesta@r
ID simply states intelligence required and due to the nature of the subject it is not scientiic and will no longer be discussed as being so, the reminder of the class will focus on learning/understanding evolution to the best of our ability....
|
Do we also need to mention Scientology is not scientific, the Last Thursday-ism is not scientific,
ad infinium ad nausium? If we have to mention all of the things that
arn't scentific, when will we have time to teach the things that are scientific? And if we only mention ID, why does it get a privillaged mention?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lonest@r
Then what is BBT,
|
I've done my best to explain (I'm rather limited in my own ability). I will let someone else answer.
Quote:
|
and when did 'explosion' occur? Why 10-43?
|
When: About 13.8 billion years ago ((Source:
NASA.com by way of wikipedia))
Why 10^-43 seconds? Because before 10^-43 seconds, physics didn't work the way we understand them to now. Since we don't yet understand exactly how physics worked, we cannot make any predictions on what happened before that point. And yes, that means literally anything could have caused the Big Bang (including the Divine), but since there is no way to test any supposition it is not science.
Please be sure to expand on my eairlier questions about which theories you feel have been sufficently "proven" (such as electricity and lift), which parts of MET have insufficent evidence, and what untested questions about physics at a high fraction of the Speed of Light (C) are believed dispite any evidence.