What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

[Truth Warrior]

Wikipedia does?
My understanding is that just about any yahoo can post just about anything there that they want to. I've seen plenty of ground axes there. Haven't you?
How about those chromosomes?
Interesting conjecture and hypothesis. If true, how did it happen?
P.S 911 was an outside job.
Ask me again AFTER the thorough unbiased independent investigation report results are released.

My coherence filter indicates that you are better at asking questions than you are at answering them.

Why is that?

Isn't the burden of proof on the affirmative case in science as well as in debate?

 

[sophocles07]

I'll go with the dictionary here. It doesn't have an axe to grind.

Arguing about such a 3rd grade subject (what a ‘theory’ is in a scientific context) makes you look good.

 

[DrAmy31415]

Well kids, my old general chemistry textbook does not have an axe to grind, nor is it in any way promoting evolution, creationism or anything other than the basics of the central science (that would be chemistry for those who don't know.)

General Chemistry, 5th Edition, Ebbings, published by Houghton Mifflin. Copywrite 1996. This is a book used to teach high school chemistry.

Law: a concise statement or mathematical equation about a fundamental relationship or regularity of nature. An example is the law of conservation of mass, which says that mass, or quantity of matter, remains constant during any physical change.

Hypothesis: a tentative explanation of some regularity of nature. Having seen that bacteria cease to divide when an electric current from platinum electrodes passed through the culture, Rosenberg was eventually able to propose the hypothesis that certain platinum compounds were responsible.

Theory: a tested explanation of basic natural phenomena. An example is the molecular theory of gases--the theory that all gases are composed of very small particles calle molecules. This theory has withstood many tests and has been fruitful in suggesting many experiments.

Hopefully that helps, but I doubt it will.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Arguing about such a 3rd grade subject (what a ‘theory’ is in a scientific context) makes you look good.

First ad hominem loses.

Bye!

 

[sophocles07]

First ad hominem loses.

Bye!

You stink butt

 

[LibertyOfOne]

My coherence filter indicates that you are better at asking questions than you are at answering them.

Why is that?

Isn't the burden of proof on the affirmative case in science as well as in debate?

I already more than fulfilled my end of the bargain. There is plenty of evidence already provided showing that human chromosome number 2 is the result of the fusion of two simian chromosome pairs. You said before that macro evolution is not science without backing up the claim. I just backed up the claim that it is indeed science. I can't be blamed for your choice of ignoring the evidence or reality for that matter.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Well kids, my old general chemistry textbook does not have an axe to grind, nor is it in any way promoting evolution, creationism or anything other than the basics of the central science (that would be chemistry for those who don't know.)

General Chemistry, 5th Edition, Ebbings, published by Houghton Mifflin. Copywrite 1996. This is a book used to teach high school chemistry.

Law: a concise statement or mathematical equation about a fundamental relationship or regularity of nature. An example is the law of conservation of mass, which says that mass, or quantity of matter, remains constant during any physical change.

Hypothesis: a tentative explanation of some regularity of nature. Having seen that bacteria cease to divide when an electric current from platinum electrodes passed through the culture, Rosenberg was eventually able to propose the hypothesis that certain platinum compounds were responsible.

Theory: a tested explanation of basic natural phenomena. An example is the molecular theory of gases--the theory that all gases are composed of very small particles calle molecules. This theory has withstood many tests and has been fruitful in suggesting many experiments.

Hopefully that helps, but I doubt it will.

Does it mention "inductive" vs. "deductive" science.

Perhaps not since it's chemistry.

 

[Truth Warrior]

You stink butt

Bye, bye!

 

[LibertyOfOne]

First ad hominem loses.

Bye!

Not an ad hominem.

It would have been an ad hominem if he said something like, "You argue like a 3rd grader; therefor, you are wrong".

The core of the ad hominem fallacy.

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[sophocles07]

Not an ad hominem.

It would have been an ad hominem if he said something like, "You argue like a 3rd grader; therefor, you are wrong".

The core of the ad hominem fallacy.

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Take 'at boy!

 

[Truth Warrior]

I already more than fulfilled my end of the bargain. There is plenty of evidence already provided showing that human chromosome number 2 is the result of the fusion of two simian chromosome pairs. You said before that macro evolution is not science without backing up the claim. I just backed up the claim that it is indeed science. I can't be blamed for your choice of ignoring the evidence or reality for that matter.

Starting the question count over:

Question 1: How did you come to that erroneous conclusion?

Question 2: Did we have a bargain?

Question 3: In science, does evidence, constitute proof?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Not an ad hominem.

It would have been an ad hominem if he said something like, "You argue like a 3rd grader; therefor, you are wrong".

The core of the ad hominem fallacy.

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Does the second one today qualify?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

No, a theory is a hypothesis. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific law, just like gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, etc. Evolutionists, in a similar manner of their theory, want to evolve the meanings of these scientific terms from their historical meanings. That's the problem.

W. T. F. ?

Your done. I cant take this anymore. How can you engage in this debate if you dont even understand the fundamental language being used?

Go take some type of introductory science class, then come back and play with the big boys.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Does the second one today qualify?

No that might be an objective observation. As to how much you stink that could technically be quantified.

 

[Truth Warrior]

W. T. F. ?

Your done. I cant take this anymore. How can you engage in this debate if you dont even understand the fundamental language being used?

Go take some type of introductory science class, then come back and play with the big boys.

I believe you're addressed and covered on thread page #33 also.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Starting the question count over:

Question 1: How did you come to that erroneous conclusion?

Question 2: Did we have a bargain?

Question 3: In science, does evidence, constitute proof?

1. See two pages or so ago
2. Maybe I had a lot to drink last night so I can't remember.
3. No, but it's better than no evidence. I.E god did it.

 

[Truth Warrior]

No that might be an objective observation. As to how much you stink that could technically be quantified.

Well since we're on a web forum, I think it's meant as a statement. But we digress.

Any answers for my questions?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

In science, does evidence, constitute proof?

No. Evidence only suggests something is likely true.

However, without evidence, there is no rational reason to believe something to be true. (God)

 

[DrAmy31415]

Does it mention "inductive" vs. "deductive" science.

Perhaps not since it's chemistry.

Not a high school chemistry book, of course not. It's all inductive. Here's a little something I found for you, it appears to be approximately high school level:

Is Science Entirely Inductive?

On the previous page, you learned that although mathematics is deductive in nature - that is, logical proof is the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of mathematics is not entirely deductive. It is also true that although science is inductive by nature - observations are the only acceptable evidence of truth - the process of science can be deductive!

In particular, physicists make extensive use of mathematics as a powerful theoretical tool. Theoretical physicists often construct theories as "mathematical models" deductively, starting with assumptions about the inner workings of stars or atoms, for instance, and then working out the mathematical consequences of their assumptions. An essential difference between a mathematician and a theoretical physicist is that the physicist uses mathematics as a reasoning tool. The success of the mathematical model depends on how well its results agree with observations of nature - if they do not agree the physicist knows that this means that her assumptions - not the observations - need to be adjusted.

Perhaps that will clear a few things up for you, but I doubt it.

link: http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Any answers for my questions?

Why do you demand answers from us, but never have any answers of your own?

Where is your evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer?