1. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    09 Oct '08 21:14
    Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.

    Question:

    Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we expect living things in the world to appear, or behave, or be designed, etc..., if they were designed by God?

    The answer to this question should be a prediction of what we should find, not a description of what we do find. That part comes later, after we've established what our model predicts. Note that in real science, you get to revise your hypothesis to explain all the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.

    Get cracking, Creationists!
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    09 Oct '08 21:32
    Do you think you know God's intentions? Without understanding intentions, it is impossible to make predictions.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Oct '08 21:411 edit
    Please - no religion in Science Forum!
    There is a Spiritual Forum for religios topics.
  4. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    09 Oct '08 21:43
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Do you think you know God's intentions? Without understanding intentions, it is impossible to make predictions.
    Shut your pie hole, El Radar.
  5. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    09 Oct '08 21:471 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Please - no religion in Science Forum!
    There is a Spiritual Forum for religios topics.
    No, we're actually going to do some science here. We're going to see if we can raise the status of the Creationist claim to a hypothesis, with some testable predictions. If we can't, then we can't consider Creationism to be a reasonable alternative to evolution because it will be unverifiable.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    10 Oct '08 00:50
    Originally posted by PBE6
    No, we're actually going to do some science here. We're going to see if we can raise the status of the Creationist claim to a hypothesis, with some testable predictions. If we can't, then we can't consider Creationism to be a reasonable alternative to evolution because it will be unverifiable.
    We can even pretend the creators are us, say 1000 years from now assuming continued scientific development.
    So we found a nice clean slate planet and we want to start life anew, what would we do?
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    10 Oct '08 00:55
    Originally posted by PBE6
    Shut your pie hole, El Radar.
    Kind of what I thought. No discussion, just a circle jerk.
  8. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    10 Oct '08 01:27
    Originally posted by PBE6
    Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.

    Question:

    Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we e ...[text shortened]... the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.

    Get cracking, Creationists!
    We cannot know what it is that 'God', or whatever you're referring to as a creative source, has at its disposal. What tools or methods are being employed? What is not being used? How would we know?

    We can't know, so as much as you might want to not engage in describing what we find, I don't see how that's logically feasible. I think you're setting up impossible constraints on the unknowable.
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    10 Oct '08 02:14
    Originally posted by PBE6
    Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we expect living things in the world to appear, or behave, or be designed, etc..., if they were designed by God?

    The answer to th ...[text shortened]... l the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.

    Get cracking, Creationists!
    Sorry, PBE6. I don't understand the question.
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Oct '08 04:33
    Originally posted by PBE6
    No, we're actually going to do some science here. We're going to see if we can raise the status of the Creationist claim to a hypothesis, with some testable predictions. If we can't, then we can't consider Creationism to be a reasonable alternative to evolution because it will be unverifiable.
    In the first two postings your hypothesis is that god exists. Then it's no science. You cannot ever use scientific methods to prove god's existance. You cannot bring science into religion. Therefore this thread is about religion.

    Bring this to Spiritual Forum, dear moderators! Please...
  11. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    10 Oct '08 06:23
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Kind of what I thought. No discussion, just a circle jerk.
    I don't take requests, numbnutz.
  12. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    10 Oct '08 06:24
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We can even pretend the creators are us, say 1000 years from now assuming continued scientific development.
    So we found a nice clean slate planet and we want to start life anew, what would we do?
    We could, but it would be equally improbable. Besides, I'm running this show!
  13. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    10 Oct '08 06:271 edit
    Originally posted by Badwater
    We cannot know what it is that 'God', or whatever you're referring to as a creative source, has at its disposal. What tools or methods are being employed? What is not being used? How would we know?

    We can't know, so as much as you might want to not engage in describing what we find, I don't see how that's logically feasible. I think you're setting up impossible constraints on the unknowable.
    Well then, it seems that Intelligent Design can never be brought to the level of a hypothesis, because we can't know what God thinks! Exactly the point I was trying to make.

    Intelligent Design is not science. Case closed.
  14. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    10 Oct '08 06:32
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Sorry, PBE6. I don't understand the question.
    My question was intended to follow the form of a Socratic dialogue, but Badwater short-circuited the process as a happy accident.

    But the main thrust of the question is that any hypothesis must make predictions about the world we see. Proponents of Intelligent Design miss this point every time. Their claim that God created all the creatures we know and love, including ourselves, can never be proven or disproven because Intelligent Design says nothing! I wanted to try and make the Creationists develop their model into something that makes predictions, and only after having done that compare it to what we observe in the real world. I also wanted to make sure we permitted changes to the hypothesis, because without doing so the only thing we would be discussing is a "gotcha!!" question, something I find patently unfair and infuriating more than illuminating.
  15. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    10 Oct '08 06:33
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    In the first two postings your hypothesis is that god exists. Then it's no science. You cannot ever use scientific methods to prove god's existance. You cannot bring science into religion. Therefore this thread is about religion.

    Bring this to Spiritual Forum, dear moderators! Please...
    Sometimes you miss the mark by a country mile, Fabian. The entire point of this thread is to show why Intelligent Design isn't science, and the best way to do that is to apply the scientific method and see where Intelligent Design comes up short.
Back to Top