Okw hob, here we go again...
First of all, you still do not seem to grasp the concept that there is no such thing as absolute proof. This is a given in all things scientific and if you do not understand it, you still do not understand science. Again.
So:
"Can a physician determine whether or not an individual is dead?"
Scientifically? No. We have no idea what the scientific point of death is. We have some theories but nothing even remotely approaching an absolute idea.
"Will you die someday? "
Probably, but you cannot absolutely prove that.
"Does force = mass * acceleration? Does momentum = mass * velocity? "
According to classical phgysics, yes. That is a theory, however, that is continually under attack and our understanding of such physics is not complete. This is not absolute; all concepts of mass and acceleration are part of a theory that well explains observed phenomenon but NONE of it is absolute proof. You MUST wrap your head round this concept if you want to adhere to science.
"Is 2+2=4 "
As I said when I first made these points:
"The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts"
That question is Maths, and hence irrelevant. Maths IS about fact, in contrary to the scientific method.
Hence, once more, for the hard of thinking... there is no faith in my views. It is based only on evidence, not belief.
"Of course a theory can be contradicted. A theory doesn't necessarily equate to being "truth" That's what has been pointed out about your "faith" the entire time within this thread. All a theory is essentially is an "explanation"..anyone can make up an explanation of something to support what they believe in. That's really common sense stuff Ush. You make things way too complex. "
No- absolutely not, Something has to be far more than just an explanation to be a theory. It has to be evidnece and to withstand assault, as I have already described. Again, you are not grasping what a theory is. Try again.
"My disbelief in "Darwinian" Theory..ie life evolved from protoplasmic goo..doesn't mean that I disregard valid scientific concepts. The typical strategy of many who oppose Neo-Darwinist's like yourself..is the "Divide and Conquer" method. You automatically paint anyone who disagrees with your foolish pseudo scientific ramblings..as being an opponent of "science." This is simply not the case my friend. I'm not opposed to anyone teaching evolutionary theory...rather, I like many others just wish to have their "philosophical" viewpoints regarded with as much credo as Darwinian ones. "
The problem is that it is not pseudo-scientific. It is perfectly valid science. Yes. it is up to deabte and new interpretation, but not for simple dismissal. Because it is part of a scientific process and has the best explanation we can currently give, this is why such things belong in science class, whereas your ideas do not.
I am willing to accept that you accept scientific rationality. This is the point the stary of this thread makes- you follow along with that, because it is only logical and common sense to do so, but them dump it as soon as your faith is contradicted; that's what makes the issue so poor from your side.
"The nature of the scientific method is not science?...LMFAO
Please enlighten me Ush..if the SCIENTIFIC Method's nature is not based on SCIENTIFIC rationale..what is it based on? Thrill me Ush..I could use a couple more laughs..."
How can you be so dumb as to not understand this?
There is a fact as to what is and is not the scientific method. The scientific method is not a scientific pehneomenon, it is something that has been defined BY HUMANS. You don't use science to somehow 'discover' the scientific method. We just simply created it, hence we have absolutel control over what it is, hence it is a fact.
Your argument there is STAGGERING? How could you possibly think such retarded nonsense as to believe that you need to use science to uncover the meaning of what 'scientific method' means?
The argument is ID vs Science..it is ID vs Darwinism. Both are philosophical concepts. How many times must this be repeated to you?!!
And stop using the silly "They're attacking science!!" speel. It's getting old. It's just as easy for me to post.."Darwinism is a Religion..not science!!!" to counter."
Well, by your words and actiond, you ARE attacking science, so you only have yourself to blame.
Darwinism... althougy that's a misleading term, because Evolution has moved way beyond its poriginal postulation... is NOTHING to do with religion or faith or any such thing; it is only an attempt to provide a scientific explanation to the observable evidence. You just have this self-imposed block that doesn't let you see that and makes you think that it is a philisophical belief when, unlike ID, it has nothing to do with philosophy at all.
"1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems."
All four of those? Beliefs ONLY. Not theories. No evidence for those being the explanation. I accept they are beliefs. I do not even unequivocably state them as wrong.
But until they can be evidenced, they have no place in the science
"I agree with whob..but these assumed "truths" also apply to things other than science..
So to nail the hammer on the head. You agree that there are some things assumed to be "absolute truths" within science. Rationality, Intelligibility, Orderliness, and Uniformity..are all assumed to true, before administering any test. (**note this makes them absolutely 100% fact!!!) We can't test these things Ush..so we just assume that they are facts. This argument on absolutes is over, seeing as how you've just aided me in shooting down your own argument."
More gibberish. I absolutely did not say that at all. I said that they are simply assumptions that everyone, not just scientists, make as part of being human. As I also said, philisophical scepticism is a useless path.
But let's say we just moved to crazy world and what you say is true, that science is nothing but a vast naturalistic conspiracy...
... then tough. The science classroom is a place where things are taught according to those four ideas. hence, in any case, Evolution belongs there and ID does not.
So either way, you are still boned.
"Blind watchmaker..haven't read it..but it sounds like a stupid book..with an oxymoronic title..only a dummy would allude system as complex as the universe being formed..by "blind chance"
Much of Einsteins "Theory of Relativity" and "Clockmaker" ideas, allude to something of intelligence creating the Universe. "Relativity" was really only meant to represent how the "Intelligent Designer" viewed the universe, not how we as human beings view it.
Think about it..if you had the ability to create time/space/reality etc..what the hell do those things mean to you? Answer: Nothing seeing as how you can take them away or do anything you want with them on a whim.
Case in point..What Einstein was trying to imply..is that we live in a world that is full of absolutes..but these absolutes are merely "relative" to the one who created the Universe..seeing as what he/she has created all things which embody it. "
Simple opinion. You can read that into Einstein if you want; I might read something entirely different. But what there most certainly is not there at any point is any evidence for your views- so again, this is just down to belief, not fact.
"True satire...lol..give it up bud..a satire is not true statement, story, etc...by its very definition..it is not true...
It would be like if your were attempting to state he told a true fabricated story?..Does that make sense?..I don't think so my friend..Are you really that arrogant and foolish..to the point where you even begin to challenge the definition of words given in a dictionary? Please don't answer that question..its rhetorical. We already know the answer to that one.
Ok, this really is still the most stupid part of your entire post. I cannot understand how any grown person can be quite so stupid.
LOOK AGAIN AT WHAT I SAID.
I explained it very clearly, step by step. I said that it was a valid use of satire. Look up what valid means. Look what the phrase 'valid use of' means. Then look at what I said again, and stop engaging with this totally mornic bilge about 'truth; that you seem to feel the need to indulge in.
You cannot understand a simple word phrase. Y have learners with severe mental difficulties who graps simple things like that in no time at all, yet you cannot. It simply defies sense that you could continue to try and see things like that. Are you SO blinded by your crappy argument that you cannot see how incredibly stupid you look here?
"LMFAO!!
Meriam Webster is not a Descent dictionary?!!! Well it's only been around for the past 100 years or so..no further comment is necessary here."
A crappy definition is a crappy definition. Let;s see what Roget's says:
"cre·a·tion·ism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible"
Belief only. The OED has a similar definition.
Creationism is NOT theory, it does not meet any of the cirteria of being a theory, and not even many Creationists think it is one.
Sorry, but your source there is talking shit. It;s not a theory.
"Ush your challenging definitions given by the dictionary..
Stating that science has no facts to support it...
Stating that everything in the Universe must be proven to make sure that a scientific concept...
Among countless other foolish things...
Maybe you're right my friend you don't sound all that religious...now you simply are just coming across as stupid. "
I am challenging crappy definitions that defy sense with better ones that do not.
I am stathing the simple fact that in science there is no such thing as absolute proof- I didn't actually say that science has no facts to support it, I said that the idea of absolute proof is BS.
I said that for there to be absolute proof, NOT a scientific concept, those are YOUR words that you are trying to clumsily give to me, you would have to prove that something worked in all places in all ways at all times... this, again, is a nother basic tent of science which is part of why there is no such thing as absolute proof.
But most of all, I am demonstrating once more that you are the one who is sounding stupid, as is simply self-evident for all to see.
You are the one who twists words and changes what people say to try and fit your own ends, and the absurd knots you have tied yourself in over the 'satire' thing is the most pitiable thing I have seen this year.
Keep on going, if you want. Your claim to be 'finished' in this thread seems to be dead as ever...