Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!

[RoadRunner79]

I don't understand where this comes from.   I agree that Science is about method; it is not an entity.  I don't think that I said anything to be construed as being against science; if I did, then please point it out, perhaps I can clarify a misunderstanding. I just posted some articles which gave more information.

I think that this is based  more on an unjustified and incorrect assumption.

You posted ID garbage.  It is not an unjustified and incorrect assumption to say that is not, nor will it ever be, science.  If you think it is, you fail to grasp what actually science requires.

In fact, as Tonus pointed out, AIG openly admits that they are not being scientific.  They declare with pride that if observation ever contradicts the bible, they will believe that the bible says.  That is not using the proper scientific process.

So maybe you're not being hypocritical and cherry-picking what science you'll accept and what you won't.  Maybe you just don't understand what constitutes science.  Either way you're being foolish.

Thanks,   I think you confirmed quite a bit with the bolded section above.  It explains the shifting the goal posts, and question begging.

And I'm not making any arguments for or concerning AIG.    As to not understanding what constitutes science, I normally ask what you are basing that conclusion on? (and rarely get an answer).  I don't feel that I cherry pick science, but look to what is the best logical explanation given the evidence and the reasons given for the claims being made.   I don't feel that I am the one dismissing the evidence, and appealing to the source of the arguments, rather than the reasons given for the arguement.  If you feel otherwise, please feel free to point it out.

---

The scientific method begins with observations.  "That appears to be the result of an applied intellect" could come from an observation, I suppose.  The next step is to determine ways to confirm and falsify that hypothesis.  This means testing and experimenting and researching so as to find a positive explanation for or against.  Claiming "irreducible complexity," for example, is not how you do that.  That's an attempt to shut the door on further research and learning.

I don't think that anyone denies the claims that intelligent design are capable of producing the results such that are seen. To do so, would be rather self defeating, to science, engineering, and much of what is produced by humans. However we can test, experiment, and research to try to falsify the theory that random and undirected forces can produce the same results. I.D. doesn't stop anyone from researching or learning anything. I don't see how your statement follows

If your hypothesis is that something is designed by a conscious intellect, then you confirm the hypothesis by finding that conscious intellect.  If you do not find him, you should keep looking even if some smartass tells you that perhaps it's an example of "irreducible simplicity."  What you cannot do is claim that it exists until such time as you confirm that.  Or, in creationist terms, it's "just a theory."

I would disagree, if you are making an implication, that a cause must me confirmed, before you can make a scientific inference (or profile) of that cause. In fact it appears to be against logical inferences in science (as you are no longer making an inference). For example, if the evidence suggest that a force greater than what we know to be possible, is the cause of an event, then I think that it is reasonable to believe that something capable of that type of force, does exist; even if we cannot find it, or do not have other clues to identify the source. A lot of science works this way. There may be other explanations, that we do not know, or further evidence may be found which changes this conclusion.

I would also be curious as to what definition you are using of confirmed. It seems there are a number of claims of evolution, which would not meet your standards put forth here (modern synthesis and even common descent).

I would also ask you to look at who between us, is saying that we should not question or accept evidence, that may alter the theory's in this conversation? Who is seeking to quiet any opposition, and only have cherry picked facts taught along with the theory? You can insult me, and attack the sources of information, appeal to motives and emotion (I actually expect it and think it is helpful to the I.D. position). However in the end, what really matters, is the reasons behind the claim. If you are willing to contribute and look at the reasons, then we are not going to have an honest and productive conversation.