Quote
Quote
I thought that the scientific method required someone to test their hypothesis rigorously, that other scientists need to be able to replicate the results, and that the results should be subject to peer review.
Quote
Apply this to your Öort cloud.
You keep mentioning this as if it's some sort of death-blow to evolutionary theory. What we see is that some comets appear to be coming from an area outside of the Kuiper belt which we know almost nothing about. We do, however, know a fair amount about how our solar system is likely to have formed, and the Oort cloud is not exactly a great imaginative leap. At any rate, if the outside of the solar system ended up being populated by fire-breathing dragons, what's that got to do with the fossil record?
The Kuiper belt isn't an object. It's a designated region in space. So what if an object strays into or out of the region? Big deal. It's not like there's a barrier.

I wouldn't know how much imagination is required to make the leap of faith & believe in the Öort cloud. I'll take your word that you have plenty to spare.

Quote
Quote
Quote
According to you, scientists just make things up.
Some do. 4D space wasn't observed or implied. It was imagined.

Einstien was just making stuff up, was he? Gosh, that pretty much invalidates all of relativity and quantum physics. Your derision toward scientists seems to know no bounds. His theories have been put to the test for decades and they have been validated by these tests, the first and one of the more famous ones being his predictions about the orbit of Mercury. But if you'd like to explain to us why Einstein was wrong, go right ahead, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Made up or not? That was the issue. And what do I care about biased interpretations of indirect tests when anyone can directly test for 4D space in the manner I described? It's very easy, and to the best of my knowledge all tests have come up false. What should one do with such hypotheses?

Quote
Fortunately, not everyone speaks from ignorance.

Quote
You believe that the Bible is literally true and I don't suppose anyone is going to convince you otherwise. People with a more objective view might accept it as their holy book and accept its deeper truths while accepting that it is not a scientific book and that the inconsistencies and outdated cultural practices and beliefs therein don't threaten the very foundation on which their faith is based.
What's more objective about assuming the Bible is anything other than true? Many creation scientists have rigourously tested the Bible and established that it is indeed true. Should the results of these investigations be discarded on the say-so of people too lazy to do the same?

Quote
Not many people are going to agree with the notion that any holy book -- the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc -- is scientific and accurately describes how the world works. That isn't even their purpose. Besides, how can you actually prove, as LinearAQ was asking, that God, your god and no one else's, created the world in 6 days? This is not science, it is belief.
I'm not convinced you're qualified to define either term. You may parrot definitions, but you don't apply them properly.

Quote
Regarding Einstein again, why does it seem to be necessary for the legitimacy of someone's ideas, that they come from a blinding flash of insight without being based on the existing ideas of others?
Who said it is?

Quote
If you Google you can see for yourself the ways in which relativity has been tested.
Thanks. Been there, done that.

Quote
You will whip a dead horse won't you. You don't think that the quote from Henry Morris gives a little hint that ID's agenda is to "wedge" open the way for people to spread creationist beliefs?
You brought it up & you're still yammering. You never explained how Dr. Morris' remarks had any bearing on the matter. I know he doesn't speak for ID, and he don't see a single word about their science. Or did you intend to discuss something other than science?


Quote
You don't think the fact that Of Pandas and People is a creationist book with the words "creationist" and "religion" removed, is evidence that ID is religion?
You haven't convinced me that it's anything other than what I said it was. You'll need to do better than circular reasoning.

Quote
If any are actively performing experiments in creationism then yes, I'd like to hear about it. I'd really like to know how you would validate creationism as a science by doing empirical tests.
Last I knew, the Creation Evidence Museum was conducting experiments involving a hypothetical pre-flood environment.

http://creationwiki.org/Creation_Evidence_Museum
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index....;task=view&id=1&Itemid=3
Results:<img src="http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/f/fa/Venom.jpg">
The museum also conducts digs every summer late June / early July. I missed out by a matter of just days:(, but they've been extending the schedule since then.

Quote
Quote
I linked to a report of scientific tests of the Creator. Isn't that what you asked for?

I've lost you here. Your link led to a passage from the Bible.
Lost? Did you read it? It's right there plain as day.

Quote
Quote
In fact, it can't be done. If one is credulous about any thesis, one must be incredulous about its antithesis.

OK, I think the main issue here is that someone who says they are incredulous of something, and therefore that's an end to it, is not being scientific. What's more, a good scientist is not going to subscribe to being credulous/incredulous about anything, because science is about what the evidence shows, not what people do or don't believe.
Don't even try to play philosophical games. People believe what they think the evidence shows them. Phd's don't grant immunity. Did you catch Dicky-D or do you need a link?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson