Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (152402)	12/23/2005 6:27:40 AM
From: frankw1900	of 793866

In science there are theories to explain what we observe. There are theories and replicable experiments which together give contingent explanations for what we observe. Contingent because more satisfactory theory and replicable experiment may subsume or replace them. Just because one theory seems false to you does not prove that the subject of the theory is false. One test proves nothing. See above. ID is a theory and has many flavors. I called it an argument instead of a theory for good reason. It says: The world appears to us so beautifully wrought in, say, the harmoniousness of the Newtonian universe or the peculiar symmetry of DNA, that it could -must- have come to be, only through the manipulation of a creator or designer. What we call harmony and symmetry, and indeed the twentieth and twenty first century equivalent, complexity, are the result of constraints: Things can only occupy space and time in certain ways, (because space and time are the way they are and not some other way), and not in any fashion at all. What scientists do is make the constraints clear through theory and confirming or falsifying (replicable) experiment which lead to new theory and experiment. So far there is no confirming or falsifying experiment for ID. ID certainly is not necessary for doing any kind of science. Darwinism fails to really explain the origin of the species. It only explains the evolution of living things Huh?! If it explains evolution it certainly gives a good handle on speciation insofar as the latter is a local example of evolution. It also does not prove the origin of the species homo-sapien Every year paleontologists and geneticists gather more and more evidence of the origin of our species. As far as I know none of it contradicts anything Darwin did. The worst we can say of it is that the work isn't complete. Laws of themodynamics are contradicted by the origin of living things. That living things arose on Earth in no way contradicts these laws and I think you have to demonstrate this huge claim in some way. Living things are mechanisms very much subject to the laws of thermodynamics. If chance is with them they reproduce themselves before they die, but this in no way contradicts those laws. Based upon the above contradictions, clearly Dawinism is proffered into a non scientific theory. What Darwin and those that followed after him have done is produce a huge amount of evidence leading them to believe Darwin's basic theory is correct. What is the evidence -scientific evidence- as in falsifying experiment and observation which makes his work unscientific or even in error?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next