• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

Delvo said:
It was never any kind of hypothesis because there were never observations which led anybody to it. That simply isn't a process which ever happened.
Click to expand...

No, it was a hypothesis. It just wasn't a scientific hypothesis.

Delvo said:
What they had all along were not observations but a starting point, Creationism, which they wanted to pretend was a conclusion. So they started coming up with excuses for it, to pretend were observations.

Before they figured out to try to sneak away from the word "Creationism", the "argument for/from design" was circulated for years among explicitly Creationist outlets and in Creationist debates, because it was just Creationism.

Then all they did was avoid the word "Creationism" and start pretending that any part of Creationism as it had always been known had ever had anything to do with coming up with hypotheses to explain observations. You are simply repeating a Creationist lie for them. That's all there is to this.
Click to expand...
Exactly!:thumbsup:
 
"God did it with magic" isn't an answer, conclusion, hypothesis, guess, JAQing off, or anything but mental masturbation. Hell it's mental edging, you don't even mentally have an orgasm.

It doesn't answer or explain anything.
 
GDon said:
No, by all means please enlighten me! What are the scientific definitions of theory and hypothesis, such as they differ from the ones I gave (which admittedly I found on the Internet)?
Click to expand...

You apparently did not use the internet correctly...

I typed in Google Search this
scientific hypothesis vs scientific theory​

And the very first link I was given is this one

And here is what was automatically highlighted for me within that site (bolding mine)
An opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is unsupported by evidence. A hypothesis is usually a prediction based on some observation or evidence. Hypotheses must be testable, and once tested, they can be supported by evidence. If a statement is made that cannot be tested and disproved, then it is not a hypothesis. Sometimes it is possible to restate an opinion so that it can become a hypothesis.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, evaluated by the scientific community, and is strongly supported. Theories often describe a large set of observations, and provide a cohesive explanation for those observations. An individual cannot come up with a theory. Theories require extensive testing and agreement within the scientific community. Theories are not described as true or right, but as the best-supported explanation of the world based on evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
No, it was a hypothesis. It just wasn't a scientific hypothesis.
Click to expand...
ID seems to have fitted the definition of "scientific hypothesis". From here: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation.​

ID was a tentative explanation about a phenomenon (IC) that was refuted through observation.
 
Last edited:
No because "God did it with magic we'll never understand" doesn't actually tell us anything that "I don't know" does.

Answers have to provide us with MORE information, not just reword the question.
 
GDon said:
ID seems to have fitted the definition of "scientific hypothesis". From here: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation.​

ID was a tentative explanation about a phenomenon (IC) that was refuted through observation.
Click to expand...

Did you read the definition you just provided?

ID is not testable or falsifiable. And for something to be scientific it may not appeal to the supernatural as science only deals with the natural.

ID may be a tentative explanation, but it is not scientific.
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
ID seems to have fitted the definition of "scientific hypothesis". From here: https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation.​

ID was a tentative explanation about a phenomenon (IC) that was refuted through observation.
Click to expand...


God did it is not a scientific explanation whether tentative or not... and IC is not a phenomenon and never was... it was a hypothesis that was disproven by phenomena.

Get that???

IC = hypothesis about the lack of understanding of how some phenomena could be...

IC was disproven by demonstrated explanations and experimentations and research to show how the phenomena can be

ID = wishful thinking by people who do not understand how things can be and refuse to accept the research and proofs for how things can be and instead prefer to believe that their GOD DID IT... not a hypothesis... not scientific anything.


Repeating you error incessantly and persistently will not ever make your error not an error.

"God did it" i.e. Imbecilic Design (ID) is not a hypothesis let alone a scientific one because it does not meet

GDon said:
... The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation.​
Click to expand...


How did the ID hawkers test for whether GOD DID IT or not??? And how are they now sure that GOD did not do it???
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
No because "God did it with magic we'll never understand" doesn't actually tell us anything that "I don't know" does.

Answers have to provide us with MORE information, not just reword the question.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's relevant. If by some chance one could find evidence something is happening which only the agency of God could effect, we would not need to understand it.

Just as the meaning of a thing is not just what we can do and perceive, but what we can conceivably do, even if reality forbids it, so I think a hypothesis can be stupid, bad, its clash with reality foreseen, its failure inevitable, but still belong to the category.
 
GDon said:
Delvo said:
It was never any kind of hypothesis because there were never observations which led anybody to it.
Click to expand...

Yes there was: the flagellum. Ultimately it didn't pan out of course.
Click to expand...


No there was not... Behe's befuddlement at how the flagellum could have evolved and thus concluding "God Did It" is the same as the caveman quivering with awe under a volcano erupting and concluding the Volcano God did it... not any less imbecilic than concluding that Zeus' Scepter is the source of lightning.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
ID is not testable or falsifiable.
Click to expand...
Observation: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally (IC)
Hypothesis: ID
Test: can the evolutionary path for the flagellum be shown? Yes
Conclusion: the hypothesis fails.

Do you agree that this is what happened? If so, then how can you say that the ID hypothesis is not falsifable?
 
bruto said:
I'm not sure that's relevant. If by some chance one could find evidence something is happening which only the agency of God could effect, we would not need to understand it.
Click to expand...

And how did we conclude that "only the agency of God could effect" it if we lack understanding of it.

If you lack understanding of it then how did you exclude that The Dragon In My Garage did it instead of God?
 
arthwollipot said:
The flagellum was never anything other than an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how this evolved, therefore God".
Click to expand...
More like: "Observation: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally. Therefore ID"

Let's not start making strawmen.
 
GDon said:
Observation Wishful Thinking and refusal to do research or accept other's research: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally (IC)
Hypothesis Magical Thinking for one's god: ID
Test: can the evolutionary path for the flagellum be shown? Yes
Conclusion: the hypothesis Wishful thinking and refusal to understand other's research until sued in courts of law and laughed at and ridiculed... fails.

Do you agree that this is what happened? If so, then how can you say that the ID hypothesis is not falsifable?
Click to expand...


ID = GOD DID IT.... just because now Behe has been sued and ridiculed for his inability to look at actual science and now has to begrudgingly and writhingly accept the flagellum evolved... does not mean GOD DID NOT DO IT... ergo unfalsifiable claptrap not a hypothesis let alone a scientific one.
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
More like: "Observationignorance: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally. Therefore ID"

Let's not start making strawmen.
Click to expand...


Saying the flagellum could not have evolved naturally IS NOT A ******* OBSERVATION!!!

Wow... do you really think repeating incessantly and interminably your errors will even just magically make them not errors???


And "therefore god did it" is not a ******* hypothesis either.

Amazing tenacity to error.
 
Last edited:
Meyer, Behe etc may get some of their arguments published in scientific journals, but that doesn’t mean they are practicing science. Unfortunately, probably 60 percent of published work is false. Even in prestigious scientific journals.

Whereas publishing is an important aspect in science, it isn't the end all, be all. The goal shouldn't just be getting published, but to perform excellent science. ID and IC were easily seen to be fraudulent.
 
arthwollipot said:
In which case it's a simple unevidenced assumption. Definitely not any kind of observation.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: It was certainly based on observation of what they claimed was 'irreducible complexity' within the flagellum. But in the end the observation was shown to be unsupported.
 
GDon said:
Yes there was: the flagellum.
Click to expand...
No. Nobody looked at a flagellum and thought "How did this happen? I think it might have been designed.". What actually happened is that Creationists, who already thought everything's designed anyway, picked out the flagellum (among others) as something they hoped they could point out to others as designed.

You keep presenting the time & causality exactly backward from the way it actually is. That's straining pretty hard in defense of Creationism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom