Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 16:10, April 8, 2008
, 16:10, April 8, 2008Shoot's tranquilizer darts at Darwin's rottweiler
::[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html AND the eye.] --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html AND the eye.] --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't at the moment think of anyone going to jail, but otherwise see [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Your claim about predictions and experiments is disputed, not self-evident truth, and your claim about the reason for its existence is rhetoric. The Talk.Origins explanations of the flagellum and the eye are just-so stories, not scientific descriptions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I can't at the moment think of anyone going to jail, but otherwise see [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Your claim about predictions and experiments is disputed, not self-evident truth, and your claim about the reason for its existence is rhetoric. The Talk.Origins explanations of the flagellum and the eye are just-so stories, not scientific descriptions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Gulik, are you trying to change the subject? ID says that evolution can't explain design, and you veer off into a quibble about whether my generalization about atheists and materialists applies to '''all cases''' of dispute about ID. That is specious reasoning, and it has no place on an article discussion page. Save it for the our [[Debate Topics]], if you plan to stay around.
More to the point, you may already be aware of American scholars who have been fired from their jobs for - as you put it - "blaspheming against the Gospel of Darwin". Perhaps I should assign you to google this up and add it to [[Expelled]].
Is the standard for a scientific theory that it must make predictions? Then how about [[plate tectonics]]? What predictions does it make? More to the point, name 3 predictions that the [[theory of evolution]] makes. Then explain what tests were conducted to see if those predictions came true.
If you are well verse in these matters, you may want to collaborate with me on such articles as [[Philosophy of science]] and [[Scientific method]]. Or at least [[Falsifiability]]. For example, name a kind of experiment or observation or discovery that could possibly "falsify" evolution. If you can't - indeed, if no one can - than we'd have to classify [[evolution]] as [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)