Q#3 Why I think ID is not a scientific theory

[followerofjesus]

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom

[Joshua-777]

The only observations could be made To falsify or verify ID would be having a personal relationship with God, and how Gods word relates to us as Human beings, God said he created man and woman, and man and set the foundation of reproduction between a man and his wife, so there for this is verified that man and woman are complex, yet fit together in unity and also union, or sexual relations are our reproduction.

Also, God said he created us in his image, well we are in his image, he is a creator, who holds a perfect moral standard, we are creators, we invent, and we make things, build things, and we have a moral standard, that grows deeper as we grow in Christ.

Spiritual gifts are verified by believers, and have been known in believers lifes by a relationship with God, but in order to falsify or verify this, you would have to Know the power of the Holy Spirit personaly. There has been research that is unexplainable, for the gift of toungues, It apears that they cannot find where the words are comming from in the human brain.

The book of Gen. refers to a great flood, the dinosaurs extinction was the resalt of a catostrophic event, so therefore relates to a flood, leaving the flood open to observe evidence and verify or falsify.

biblical prophecies that have come true, can be observed through historical evidence, such as Alexander conquering med-persia mentioned in danial, before his reign in Danial chap 8. Prophecies can be observed, by historical evidence and can be verified or falsified.

Jesus dying on the cross, also playing with biblical prophecies, Can be verified by roman documents, and other evidences that he existed.

A personal relationship with the creator can be verified or falsified, By One who has a personal relationship with Jesus, and should be concidered an eye witness to the things unseen, by those who have never felt this, Though it can be observed only by those who know Jesus,

The complexity of life, suigests design, though we cannot test a creator, we can observe and falsify or verify that life is very complex and observe many structures that would be impossible to occure during Chance,

[Questioner]

Don't worry Runner's High, I don't know when exactly you started to talk about evo but I have a strong gut feeling that you took some troll's bait Anyway, I wasn't demanding apologies or anything, I just commented on the situation, even if the comment was harsh nobody should feel obliged to do anything in particular or apologizing or whatever. I'm just saying, people's actions reflect on people's credibility and in this thread there's a lot reflecting on ID proponents' credibility. As for the evo supporters, who cares what they say? We're working under the assumption that evo is false to restrict the discussion to something manageable, if someone wants to defend it he's wasting his time So there you are, I just bashed everyone and don't even feel bad about it

[Questioner]

runner

As I've said twice before, if you want to put abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution on trial start a thread about it.

I don

Edited January 26, 2007 by Questioner

[Observer of dreams]

Abiogenesis or spontaneous generation came about before it's time. The hypothesis isn't really well thought out, but that isn't the fault of the scientists so much as it is the technology. We didn't have microscopes in the day of aristotle which is how old this hypothesis is. Aristotle made the observation that aphids come out of the morning dew. Right now it is a hypothesis and only based on assumption rather than fact.

To get back on subject I had made an argument a few posts back that seemed to be overlooked. Questioner in the post before this I stated that your argument was very clean and well stated, I made a few observations of my own and posted a refute based on specific complexity.

[Questioner]

To get back on subject I had made an argument a few posts back that seemed to be overlooked. Questioner in the post before this I stated that your argument was very clean and well stated, I made a few observations of my own and posted a refute based on specific complexity.

That's great, I haven't noticed it. Let me go back and find it, I'll answer as soon as I can (before tomorrow for sure).

[Questioner]

Please allow me to point out what is fact and what is non-fact about your statement. Contrary to what you post, biological evolution is science and Darwin understood this, i.e.,

[Observer of dreams]

Abiogenesis is not fit to be a falsifying argument for ID, for one thing it is a hypothesis, ID has moved past this and into a theory, second when the hypothesis of spontaneous generation came about it was before the invention of microscopes. Things don't simply "pop up" out of nowhere.

Abiogenesis being a hypothesis makes it unable to stand ground against a theory because the hypothesis has no credibility. The hypothesis of spontaneous generation has been around since Aristotle, yet even with the invention of the microscope there is nothing observable that has yet moved Abiogenesis from a hypothesis into a theory. That is quite a thing to say considering that we have had 2,391 years to make it a theory, or even fact.

[SaturnV]

Abiogenesis is not fit to be a falsifying argument for ID, for one thing it is a hypothesis, ID has moved past this and into a theory, second when the hypothesis of spontaneous generation came about it was before the invention of microscopes. Things don't simply "pop up" out of nowhere.

Nothing is fit to falsify ID, as we seem to have established previously. Therefore, ID does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. As for the origins of life, expeirments have shown current hypotheses to be plausible, but we are still far from having a scientific consensus on the matter. When better evidence, one way or the other, is presented, the current model will be revised.

Abiogenesis being a hypothesis makes it unable to stand ground against a theory because the hypothesis has no credibility.

As noted before, ID is not a theory.

The hypothesis of spontaneous generation has been around since Aristotle, yet even with the invention of the microscope there is nothing observable that has yet moved Abiogenesis from a hypothesis into a theory. That is quite a thing to say considering that we have had 2,391 years to make it a theory, or even fact.

Indeed, the best we've been able to do is abiotically synthesize self-replicating protobionts or observe the autocatalysis of RNA polymers. I might also add that we've had about as long to work on the mechanisms behind every other scientific theory, yet our understanding of them is still very much incomplete.

Since this thread seems to have gone somewhat off topic, I'll add that ID's status as a scientific theory was on trial, and it seems to have lost.

[Admiral-Bell]

SV

Since this thread seems to have gone somewhat off topic, I'll add that ID's status as a scientific theory was on trial, and it seems to have lost.

Does