Archaeologica.org

archaeologist wrote:[...] because no one has any verifiable proof that it actually took place, it is also 110% conjecture or assumption, nothing else. [...]

Since we don't have any verifiable proof that you exist, you are also 110% conjecture or assumption, nothing else.

snip

archaeologist wrote:[...] so putting your hope in the dating process just adds to the folly.

"So putting your hope in the [bible] just adds to the folly."

snip

i am back to this topic for a bit as i have found some more things i would like to say concerning the scientific validity of inteligent design and evolution.

"according to Francis Bacon science is the assembling of a substantial collection of empirical data, gained both from ordinary observation and from experimentation"

from this definition we see that evolution could not possibly make the grade, for what has been theorized about past events in the 'life' of evolution has never been observed or successfully experimented. we cannot count the present day experiments for without the foundation of the past, there really is no process of evolution in which to confirm.

today's experiments would, at best, would be discoverying viruses or mutations in the animal world that would be on par with the defective births that produce mongloid and other non-healthy babies in humans.

no one in their right mind would grant that the defective births of humans the staus of part of the evolutionaty process for that would be too cruel to the parents nor can we assume that mutations or defects in the animal world would also qualify for such declaration as their own offspring produce their own kind and not another species; whether new or old.

now we turn to the hypothetical-deductivism definition of science..

"According to this view, a theory did not gain its legitimacy from its origin as a logical implication of emperical data but rather from accuracy of its empirical, logical consequences. the way it worked was roughly as follows. A scientisttrying to explain some collectionof data could propose any old theory he or she might wish, for any reason or no reason."

thus intelligent design under this definition is as valid as a scientific theory as any other one that the scientists wish to conjure up. non-believing scientists cannot change the rules to exclude intelligent design because that wuld reveal their bias, close-mindedness, their rejection of their own rules in which they operate by and make them more hypocritical thanthe believers they accuse.

the key words of course are "any" which means there is no limitation on what kind of theory can be proposed and studied under the scientific umbrella. which must incude intelligent design as it would use scientific methods to test its mettle.

so any argument that opposes intelligent design as scientific only voids those works which garner acceptance under this definition. thus most theories must be trashed and eliminated from the science classroom as they do not qualify as scientific.

--Quotes are from the book, The Battle of Beginnings (why neither side is winning the creation-evolution debate) by Del Ratzsch, Phd (from the university of Mass.) pages 106 & 108.

archaeologist wrote:i am back to this topic for a bit as i have found some more things i would like to say concerning the scientific validity of inteligent design and evolution.

"according to Francis Bacon science is the assembling of a substantial collection of empirical data, gained both from ordinary observation and from experimentation"

from this definition we see that evolution could not possibly make the grade, for what has been theorized about past events in the 'life' of evolution has never been observed or successfully experimented. we cannot count the present day experiments for without the foundation of the past, there really is no process of evolution in which to confirm.

today's experiments would, at best, would be discoverying viruses or mutations in the animal world that would be on par with the defective births that produce mongloid and other non-healthy babies in humans.

no one in their right mind would grant that the defective births of humans the staus of part of the evolutionaty process for that would be too cruel to the parents nor can we assume that mutations or defects in the animal world would also qualify for such declaration as their own offspring produce their own kind and not another species; whether new or old.

now we turn to the hypothetical-deductivism definition of science..

"According to this view, a theory did not gain its legitimacy from its origin as a logical implication of emperical data but rather from accuracy of its empirical, logical consequences. the way it worked was roughly as follows. A scientisttrying to explain some collectionof data could propose any old theory he or she might wish, for any reason or no reason."

thus intelligent design under this definition is as valid as a scientific theory as any other one that the scientists wish to conjure up. non-believing scientists cannot change the rules to exclude intelligent design because that wuld reveal their bias, close-mindedness, their rejection of their own rules in which they operate by and make them more hypocritical thanthe believers they accuse.

the key words of course are "any" which means there is no limitation on what kind of theory can be proposed and studied under the scientific umbrella. which must incude intelligent design as it would use scientific methods to test its mettle.

so any argument that opposes intelligent design as scientific only voids those works which garner acceptance under this definition. thus most theories must be trashed and eliminated from the science classroom as they do not qualify as scientific.

--Quotes are from the book, The Battle of Beginnings (why neither side is winning the creation-evolution debate) by Del Ratzsch, Phd (from the university of Mass.) pages 106 & 108.

Really?

Really?

YES

I see.

I see

i think that i have successfully established the right for intelligent design to be placed in the science classroom.

No.
Science belongs in the science classroom.
Religion belongs in the religion classroom: church.

No.
Science belongs in the science classroom.
Religion belongs in the religion classroom: church

well under the guidelines of that scientific process, intelligent design is allowed to enter the science classroom. especially since science allows other non-scientific theories to be introdued. as was pointed out in those quotes i published.

under the baconian definition of science, then evolution must be withdrawn as a scientific theory and all study of it must cease. so you cannot have it both ways. besides, intelligent design is scientific as we can use science to examine the claims and evidences of that process.

FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)

1561 - 1626?

Before any understanding of electricity, micro-organisms, genetics, and of course evolution.

Odd that you should pick that. I'd say that accurately reflects your level of scientific knowledge.

PS....man was not made out of dirt. That's bible bullshit for people who don't want to invest the time thinking about complex subjects.

man was not made out of dirt. That's bible bullshit for people who don't want to invest the time thinking about complex subjects

must have struck a nerve when i proved his god of science to be nothing more than a field subject to human frailities, unable to be worthy of its ivory pedestal.

more quotes to come soon

No...what struck a nerve was when you went back to the goddamn dark ages in your desperate search for proof?

What's next? Thomas Aquinas? Or the Book of Revelations???

actually it is the baconian definition that most evolutionist require christians to abide by whenthey present their material. all i am doing is exposing the hypocrisy and the corruptness the world of science and showing how it is not worthy of the vaunted status you give it.

also i am proving the allegations i made and demonstrating that the worldof science doesn't even follow its own rules. they are every bit as hypocritcal, close-minded, afraid of new ideas as anyone you charge in the religious world.

so it would be hard for me to accept dever and finkelstein's (and others) perspective due to the question of their motives and contributing influences upon their work.