DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Huh? How would it be a wild guess? (And what would be the
antecedant guess making this 'another' one?). The hypothesis
follows straight from the observation that Jewish males have been
circumcized in infancy for thousands of years, surely hundreds
of generations.

...by human hands.

Something a bit sharper I should hope. Regardless, forskins should
have grown smaller and disappeared the same way that giraffe necks
got longer, as each generation stretched its further, right?

I don't know where you are going with foreskins but giraffes
with longer necks were better able to survive in the ever
changing environment.

We know that gravity
exists and we know some of it's properties well enough to call them
laws but we don't know all there is to know about it, even though
it is testable and observable. I don't see how anyone can presume
any laws about an Intelligent Designer since he would beyond our
scope of observation.

Ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! We have a winner!

????

You made it clear that you understood the difference between
scientific theory and religious doctrine.

I don't know why you assumed that I didn't.

Fine. Unless you can state a testable hypothesis your "possiblity
of a designer" is irrelevant to the scientific porcess.

I don't agree.

Well than what DOES separate one scientific theory from another
if not testable hypotheses?

That isn't what I disagreed with. You frequently misrepresent my views.
Science does include hypotheses and theories that aren't testable,
i.e. parallel universes, cycling universes, steady state universes, etc.

Neither did Albert Einstein, who after all
scientific observations concluded that there was a designer.

Splorf!

Nonsense. Einstein NEVER denied that hypothesis testing was
the proper way to distinguish between scientific theories.

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

Most of the people promoting ID want it taught in a classroom
or published in scientific journals. Einstein NEVER advocated
either for his religious views.

Another diversion. No one claimed that he even discussed it.

What do you suppose to be the reason for that difference?

I don't think you even know what ID supporters want.

Not only
can one do science with or without considering the possibility,
indeed, the scince one does, in either case, will be the same.

It should be that way. I didn't suggest otherwise.

Why have a component of a scientific theory, when that component
has no affect on that theory?

ID has no effect on how we view the universe?????

That doesn't even make sense. First of all, I showed you examples
of predictions that follow from evolutionary theories. Indeed,
you left the examples in your reply and I will too. They
follow a couple of paragraphs below.

I answered the assertion.

With a repetition of statement I showed to be false.

No, you asserted it to be false.

No, you asserted that "you can't predict anything with evolution".

That's true and you seemed to agree.

Perhaps incorrectly, I interpretted that to mean "You can't
use any evolutionary theory to make any prediction" and then
went on to point out how one could use specific evolutionary
theories to make predictions, like the vanishg foreskin
prediction

Which I still don't get. How does a false assumption or prediction
prove anything?

of some tranmutational theories, or predictions
as to what may be found in the fossil record.

An individual can predict (guess) about anything. Evolution
doesn't make the prediction. You use the term like a religion.

If that is NOT what you meant, WTF did you mean by "you can't
predict anything with evolution".

See above.

You lost me.

You brought it up. What does a multitude of theories have to do with
anything?

I never wrote "multitude of theories". I never said that having
theories proves anything. Now you are just trolling.

Now you are obfuscating.

Of course not all evolutionary theories truly compete.
Macromutation (e.g. "hopeful monster") theory, is not incompatible
with micromutation theory and in bacteria there are even
observations consistant with tranmutation theory.

Sure, how about the Cambrian Explosion? Lots of theories, no answers.

Al theories are answers.

Only to the faithful.

No, all theories are answers. The faithful choose among them wihout
concern for hypothesis testing.

A theory isn't an answer unless you accept it as an answer.
That's a personal choice, not a law of science.

Take for example, the question, "Why
the Cambrian Explosion?" There are lots of answers, maybe
some are correct.

Such as 'anything but a designer will do' ?

What theory is that?

Seems to be the answer that many prefer. We can discuss bubble
universes giving birth to this one, or life slithering from the mud,
pretty much anything but a creator, no matter how intricate the
design is. That's fine in your personal life but when we use that
method to teach children we are brainwashing them to accept
only a secular answer.

No, I did not say that.

Many
are not testable, i.e. parallel universes, bubble universes, etc. yet
are part of the scientific discussion.

No, you confuse speculation with science.

No, you confuse science with secular dogma. Science discusses
many things, not all are proven or even provable as far as we know.

I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
unless there are other motives.

If religious doctrines are excluded from the Biology Classroom
the students free to ascribe the authorship of natural law
to whatever higher power they choose or do not choose to believe
in. Including ID, as a possibility, in a Biology Class would
promote a particular religious doctrine.

Which one?

Intelligent Design.

That's a religion? Isn't a religion more specific?

It is a particular religious doctrine.

Well, please enlighten us to the doctrine. ID makes no
claims other than the design has a designer. If you say
that is the doctrine, then explain why "the design has no
designer" isn't a religion.

Schools aren't silent on the subject of the creation of life.

The public schools I went to were, dunno about yours.

The ones that I went to taught that life started after many
millions of years of pooling around, crawled up on land, etc. etc.
It seems now that life started as soon as the earth could
contain it, leaving the earlier theory dubious. That's why
there's such a keen interest in finding signs of life on Mars and
comets.

Since
life is testable and its' beginnings are unproven, then according
to you they are teaching a religion.

I said nothing of the sort. It is clear that you misunderstand
or malinterpret much of what I wrote.

I understood what you said and interpreted it correctly. I
don't think that you thought through your own beliefs very well.