PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Astrology a scientific theory?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is according to Michael Behe.

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:00 PM on October 20, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyone that needs a trial to prove that his study is scientific is most definately not a scientist.

if he really wanted to be credible he'd go and find evidence to back up his theory instead of trying to win a popularity contest.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:51 PM on October 20, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please, astrology is a joke.  Let's see, does the astrologist count Chiron as a planet?  Does he count Pluto as a planet (there is some argument there as well)?  If he does not include them (or just one of them) and is wrong about their status, does this not make all horoscopes inheritantly wrong?  If astrology is correct, would not identical twins delivered by c-section during the exact same minute have the exact same fate?  Does anyone ACTUALLY believe this non-sense?  (hyphen?)  And I thought the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was a stupid reason for a trial :P


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:03 PM on October 22, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, EMyers, but at any rate, you should be aware that Michael Behe is considered the founder of Intelligent Design. Read the article.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.


...and...

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”


I've seen this exact same article posted on CreationTalk.com too, and the website where it's published appears to be "scientifically-biased" if there is such a thing.The article has a certain snideness to it.

Anyway, Behe did make a laughing-stock of himself. As "Nemoralis" hinted on CreationTalk, the tide seems to have significantly changed against Intelligent Design in the last year or so. There's very little media left that bother publicizing anything ID proponents do anymore, and the initial "breakthrough" of proposing that life is so irreducibly complex that it had to have been created has definetely lost the majority of its flare. Behe himself even acknowledged during the trial that there's hardly any significance to his ideas within the scientific community. He needed to completely refurbish the definition of a scientific theory in the first place. Coming from one of the two people who invented this idea, that's a lot to say.

What's terribly ironic about the whole thing is that ID--so far--has refused to go looking for evidence, and builds its image over daring attacks on the rivaling "theory", Evolution. ...and yet, with very few exceptions--all of which are consistently chortled to death outside Kansas--the more publicity ID earns, the worse its image becomes as more people realize exactly how stupid the whole cherade is. It's still depressing how a vast amount of people in the United States are gullible enough to ingest the ID malarkey, but overall, I believe the circumstances are looking up.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/22/2005 at 10:06 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:01 PM on October 22, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:03 PM on October 22, 2005 :
Please, astrology is a joke.


And the leading ID proponent admits under oath that based on his definition it is scientifically equivalent to "Intelligent Design".




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:39 AM on October 24, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just because someone is a proponent of something doesn't mean they are not a moron.  Dahmer could be an evolutionist, but that doesn't mean you should quote him to prove your point.  :P  Being an idiot doesn't mean your beliefs aren't true.  Just means your not the best person to convince others.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:17 AM on October 25, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The difference between Dahmer and Behe being of course that Dahmer didn't conjure the "evolution doctrine," if there is such a thing, while Behe essentially did invent the doctrine for Intelligent Design. I'm sure you've at least heard of Darwin's Black Box. Well, the confession that the man who wrote it is an idiot is something I've been long in waiting.

Okay, so score a successful burning. You're right, EMyers: it doesn't really matter what any one person/a handful of people have to say on a scientific subject, especially when it's such a subjective opinion.

Be that as it may, my initial point of this thread still stands unchallenged: Intelligent Design is loosing its flare. The more publicity ID earns, the more credability ID loses. And, as I also pointed out earlier, publicity is really the only strategy that ID advocates have chosen to take on their quest to dethrone evolution. The only conclusion I see is an eventual--that's not to say it will be terribly gradual, fortunately--crumbling of the idea that Intelligent Design can scientifically explain anything.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:08 PM on October 25, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) I really have no idea what "loosing its flare" means.

2) Behe invented the doctrine of ID?  I thought that the Jews have been claiming an intelligent designer for millennia...  My history is so off.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:05 PM on October 25, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) I really have no idea what "loosing its flare" means.


"Running out of energy" would be a good synonymous figure of speech.

2) Behe invented the doctrine of ID?  I thought that the Jews have been claiming an intelligent designer for millennia...  My history is so off.


We're talking about the pseudo scientific idea of Intelligent Design. I have nothing against religious beliefs... so long as they aren't dressed up in clothes meant to impersonate that of a scientist.

[Edit]: I'm going to go off on a tangent, but...

When people start to deliberately blur the line between Science and Faith, we've got a problem, and it isn't just about what people believe--it's a problem in our society. The United States is ailing in the scientific field, and our future as an influential nation depends on our willingness to advance our own civilization. What's a good first step in the order of ruining ourselves? Changing the definition of what science is, and that's exactly what Intelligent Design and proponents of it like Michael Behe are doing. You called Astrology a joke, EMyers. Labeling Astrology--or for that matter, Alchemy, Phrenology, Magic, or Intelligent Design--as science would be preposterous and very damaging to both our nation's youth and our advancement as a civilization. A favorite example of mine is how pharmacists interact with Evolution every day of their lives, creating anti-bodies to bacterial and viral diseases like the Avian Flu. These pathogens are evolving--yes, they are evolving--so quickly that we have to gamble over exactly what vaccine we should produce, as there aren't enough resources nor time to develop all the options on a large enough quantity. Hypothetically speaking: Decades from now, our abilities within science have advanced only slightly, due to our resistence to working with facts that contradict the faiths we grew up with. We fail to acknowledge things because we simply don't want to, and...

That is precisely why Intelligent Design cannot be put in our schools--which, by the way, I am aware you don't support anyway, EMyers--but it's also why it cannot even be labeled as science outside of our schools. Perhaps the fact that over a third of our adult population believes the Earth orbits the sun is directly proportional to our nation's sad inability as well as our refusal to grow up and accept things for what they are. People don't have to stop practicing Hinduism just because we've found a cow's mental capacity is comparative to that of a roof shingle, nor does anyone else have to stop practicing Christianity, Judaism or Islam in spite of the known fact that this earth is several billions of years old.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/25/2005 at 6:03 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:33 PM on October 25, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, losing it's flare.  "Loosing" means setting free.  I was all confused.  And I agree.  Intelligent Design is not a science.  Evolution, per se, is not a science.  Scientific evidence may be submitted for either theory, but the the theories themselves are not science.  One can use the sciences of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, etc... to study them, but they themselves are not science.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:47 AM on October 26, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 03:47 AM on October 26, 2005 :
Oh, losing it's flare.  "Loosing" means setting free.  I was all confused.  And I agree.  Intelligent Design is not a science.  Evolution, per se, is not a science.  Scientific evidence may be submitted for either theory, but the the theories themselves are not science.  One can use the sciences of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, etc... to study them, but they themselves are not science.



you're seperating theories of science from scientific method, thats like trying to seperate music theory from mozart.  and you cannot compare evolution and ID the way you just did.  the theory of evolution was developed through use of the scientific method.  ID was developed because a lot of people had [unsubstantiated] beliefs in god.  i agree, the theories are not science, but some theories are based on science (evolution) and some are not (Intelligent Design).  you may think i am being biased, but thats just how it is.  evolution as a theory would never have developed in a strictly theistic society.  observations were made using the scientific method that later could be concluded to describe a natural selection which is called evolution.  Intelligent Design, as a theory, developed because so large a population of the world believes in a sole creator of the world and the universe.  it is based mainly on faith and ignorance to how the universe really works (i am not calling theists ignorant because of this, scientists do not know how the universe really works either).  by you're statements, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics would not be science either, but just theory.  in fact, i would agree with that, they are all theories of science and many of them are supported by factual evidence, but science is a method, not a statement.  science is a way of perceiving the universe and taking nothing for granted.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:23 PM on October 26, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I agree.  Intelligent Design is not a science.  Evolution, per se, is not a science.  Scientific evidence may be submitted for either theory, but the the theories themselves are not science.  One can use the sciences of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, etc... to study them, but they themselves are not science.


It's this simple:

Evolution is scientifically testable and can be falsified; Intelligent Design cannot.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:11 AM on October 27, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that people want to say that anything which is unfalsifiable is false.  Let's look at something for a moment.  Science claims (ok, some scientists claim) that the universe is expanding.  This statement in and of itself assumes that there is a limit (a boundary if you will) to the universe.  What is outside of the universe?  Can you prove, scientifically, what exists beyond the "borders" of our universe?  Does the fact that you cannot prove that there is nothing outside of our universe mean that there is nothing outside of our universe?  Do we have any valid scientific evidence pointing to any particular theory of what exists outside of our universe?  On the other hand, do we have any scientific evidence that points to the possibility of an intelligent designer?  While unfalsifiable, intelligent design at least can be reached by logical inference.  Many theories that are used to replace intelligent design can not.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:29 AM on October 27, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 06:29 AM on October 27, 2005 :
The problem is that people want to say that anything which is unfalsifiable is false.  Let's look at something for a moment.  Science claims (ok, some scientists claim) that the universe is expanding.  This statement in and of itself assumes that there is a limit (a boundary if you will) to the universe.  What is outside of the universe?  Can you prove, scientifically, what exists beyond the "borders" of our universe?  Does the fact that you cannot prove that there is nothing outside of our universe mean that there is nothing outside of our universe?  Do we have any valid scientific evidence pointing to any particular theory of what exists outside of our universe?  On the other hand, do we have any scientific evidence that points to the possibility of an intelligent designer?  While unfalsifiable, intelligent design at least can be reached by logical inference.  Many theories that are used to replace intelligent design can not.



you're going past the actual theory there.  the theory that the universe expands does not deal with what is outside the universe.  it just states that observations have been made that show that the universe is expanding.  just like evolution doesn't show the origin of life, it just shows how it diversified.

if ID had actual evidence and actual scientific studies that were making progress, then maybe people would take them more seriously.  i agree, there are a lot of biased scientists who discredit IDer's just because they don't believe in a god.  and thats not how science should be.  but on the other hand, science should not be a bunch of christians who 'know' that ID is true and try to skew evidence in their favor (which many do).  i have yet to see any kind of evidence or progressive testing of the ID theory.

ID can be reached by logican inference just like the flat earth theory could be reached by logical inference half a millenia ago.  i don't mean to completely discredit it, but there are varying degrees of logical inference, and most of the time inference is incorrect.

another thing.  scientific theories are not devloped to replace ID.  they are developed soley on observations of the universe.  science is not trying to discredit ID or theistic beliefs.  science is merely an accurate observation of the universe.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:40 PM on October 27, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just for the record: Given enough time, could it theoretically be proven that there's something outside the universe? Yes. It's as simple as making a spaceship and flying there. Of course, we can't do that now, and perhaps never may attain such technology... but it's within the materialistic constraints of science. No matter what, on the other hand, you cannot disprove Intelligent Design. It doesn't matter how much technology we ever get. If a deity that transcends our natural laws built everything and created evidence that indicates the converse of what actually happened, then scientifically, the Intelligent Designer didn't play any role at all. A deity could have most easily created our world three seconds ago, along with all the implications that our world is in fact limitless in age, and scientifically, it would be impossible to disprove. Never would we be able to argue against it, unless we were to infer that an absence of evidence is inherently proof... which most definetely is not science either.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:09 PM on October 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that people want to say that anything which is unfalsifiable is false.

Not necessarily false, but unscientific and therefore, useless to science.

Science claims (ok, some scientists claim) that the universe is expanding.

An expanding universe is the accepted model, it best explains the observable evidence and nothing falsifies it.

This statement in and of itself assumes that there is a limit (a boundary if you will) to the universe

Does it?  Our current understanding of the universe is that it is finite but unbounded, so that statement does NOT assume a boundry.

What is outside of the universe?  Can you prove, scientifically, what exists beyond the "borders" of our universe?

We don't know if there is anything "outside" our universe but Brane-world theory suggests there are a multitude of other universes that exist along side of our own.  And while we can't prove they exist yet, theoretical physicists are conducting experiments to do just that.  Just because we don't understand all of reality yet doesn't mean Goddidit.

Does the fact that you cannot prove that there is nothing outside of our universe mean that there is nothing outside of our
universe?


Scientists are investigating as we speak, and there is some evidence, not a lot but some,  that multiple universes exist.  

Do we have any valid scientific evidence pointing to any particular theory of what exists outside of our universe?

Yes, as I said not a lot of evidence, but our universe existing in a larger reality could be an explaination for why gravity appears  weaker than the other 3 fundamental forces.  This is incredibly complex stuff, look up String theory of Brane-world theory.

On the other hand, do we have any scientific evidence that points to the possibility of an intelligent designer?

Absolutely none.

While unfalsifiable, intelligent design at least can be reached by logical inference.

Quantum physics has shown itself to be incredibly counter intuitive.  Logical inference still can't replace the scientific method for accuracy.

Many theories that are used to replace intelligent design can not.

I'd like you to name some of these theories and explain them to us...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:01 PM on October 31, 2005 | IP
Huxley

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"intelligent design at least can be reached by logical inference"

No it can't.  

Astrology is obviously bollocks and does not stand up to any proper examination.  It strikes me that the constellations; these things that are 'recognised' by the ancient astrologers/ astromomers (the early distinction is virtually negligable) are in no way connected.  Since the stars that make up, say, Virgo, bear no relationship too one another.  They are light years, galaxies perhaps, apart.  Only our ability to recognise patterns has declared them to be part of a celestial picture.

In bearing no relationship to one another, they can have no relationship that exerts any influence over us. No design there either.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 10:13 AM on November 2, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.