Re: Ben Stein's Movie EXPELLED - Could we have been "designed"

Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' ) wrote:
> 
> "Brian E. Clark" wrote:
>> In article <481B1670.C91458AD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill Bonde
>> ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal
>> attack' ) said...
>>
>>> Creationism "jibes" with known facts.
>> Alas for you, no. The creationist notion of a kind, to
>> mention just one problem, is at odds with biological
>> reality. Likewise the contention made by creationists
>> that microevolution and macroevolution describe two
>> very different phenomena is incorrect on both
>> evidentiary and conceptual grounds.
>>
> Really? If it can be shown that polar bears and grizzly bears are
> types of brown bear, does that proof that bears are related to
> fish? No, it doesn't. The idea that all the creates that exist
> today must be "kinds" is absurd. If "microevolution" were to exist,
> the various "kinds" could ****ft to accommodate their environs, but
> still be "kinds".

Now "micro" evolution is doubted? Besides the thing that "micro" and 
"macro" only differ in timescale.

And still.... STILL.... no explanation what a "kind" is.

> 
> The fact that life generally uses DNA doesn't prove a common
> evolutionary ancestry any more than the fact that IBM and Apple
> both use solder proves that their computers are made by the same
> company. If space aliens (or God) put Life on earth based on
> "kinds", why not use the same underlying technology?

WTF is a kind?
Can you or can you not answer that question?

If you can, why don't you do it?
If you can't, why use that word?

[snip]

> 
>>> In fact, Creationism has no problem explaining
>>> everything that we see today.
>> Creationism explains nothing. "God did it" is not a
>> scientific explanation.
>>
> This is because it isn't falsifiable. But there is no doubt that it
> is an explanation and it can be ****fted to conform with any
> observation or experiment.

Yep. Which - if you come down to it - doesn't explain anything.

  You might find the ****fts unbelievable,
> but that doesn't stop string theorists either.

Because string theory is MATHS.

> 
>> More elaborate descriptions
>> amount to the same thing. "God gave squirrels the fur,
>> fluffy tails and large incisors they need to fill
>> the niche he created for them" is meaningless from a
>> scientific point of view.
>>
> Keep in mind, you are replying to the following: " Creationism has
> no problem explaining everything that we see today." Creationism,
> as you describe it, isn't a scientific theory. But it is an
> explanation.

Yes. And an equally satisfactory explanation would be "the great 
buggaboo did it".

It IS an explanation. But it is USELESS.


>>>> String theory differs from Creationism in another way:
>>>> When technology has advanced such that the predictions
>>>> of string theory can be tested, string theory will
>>>> stand or fall by the results of the tests.
>>>>
>>> Or they'll just change to a new string theory.
>> So what? That's how science progresses. The new
>> theory will, like the others, be vulnerable to the
>> blade of disproof.
>>
> If the theory is infinitely malleable, the theory will not submit
> to falsification.

String theory is falsifiable in theory. We just don't have the means yet 
to actually test it.

Scientific theories (and btw, string theory is not a scientific theory. 
It is a mathematical concept) are ALWAYS vulnerable to evidence. Forever 
and ever, RAMEN.


>> All the while, though, creationists will be insisting
>> that their own long-disproved ideas be treated as
>> viable alternative theories.
>>
> What makes "God did it" worse than "Let's add in a few more
> dimensions to fix up this observation or experiment"?

It's not "to fix up" observation. The observation is there. And if it 
doesn't add up with the theory, the theory needs modification. That's 
the way it is. Observations, you can't change. So, if the observation is 
not in accordance with the theory, the theory is false. Simple as that.

M-theory didn't work with ten dimensions. Keep in mind that it is maths. 
So, they added another dimension to the concept. Mathematically it works.

That IS the way science works. Also, M-theory is not a scientific 
theroy. It is a mathematical concept.


>> This is where you get very confused about the
>> difference between scientific inquiry and creationism,
>> Bill. Making wrong guesses is not unscientific.
>> Clinging to wrong guesses is.
>>
> There is no scientific evidence against the existence of "God".


Because it is not falsifiable. Not even in theory. We've covered that 
ENDLESSLY. There can be no "evidence against the existence of god" 
because the question doesn't ALLOW for it.

Falsify "There are black swans". It is the same sort of question. It 
CAN'T be falsified.

(That's the reason science doesn't USE such questions)



Tokay


-- 

The harder you fall,
the higher you bounce.

   Anonymous