How do you explain science to an evolutionist or economics to a socailist?

@VeronicaPrincess ID supporters use the word Science to dress nonsense with undeserved prestige.
Of course, I recognize, they can spell it.

@VeronicaPrincess How ..... do ..... we ..... do ..... it .... again? Is that slow enough and are the word small enough for you to understand?

@hippyjoe1955 No.
She can differentiate your words, small or big, from their antonym: Science.

@CharlieZ Evolutionist don't understand science. Theirs is a faith based understanding that denies the basics of science. Too bad you went to school to be turned into a fool.

@CharlieZ ID and evolution are both theories, neither of which have convinced me. There are bigger issues in today's world. Like figuring out how to live together peacefully, as one humanity.

@hippyjoe1955 Your insults are weak.

Whant to refute me?
Simple.

Show us where is developed and published, as a systematic corpus of knowledge, a theory alternative to Evolution.
And, of course, the meassures and data that should support it as evidence.

Else, is mere cheap talking.

You were asked for the same by me and by others.
You always refuse not because any other reason: there is not such a thing.
And, at least something, you know and we know it.

@VeronicaPrincess Verónica.
Individual believes are not relevant to science.
So, being convinced (hippy, you and me) is irrelevant.
Yes, Evolution is a theory, a scientific one.
That is, it is suceptible of being refuted. Whay not?
But, if it happens, it will be replaced by another also scientific theory.

ID is another kind of fish.
Have no serious merits for being called a scientific theory.
Is not the result of systematic scientific reasearch, based on factual evidence.
Haves not the structure and coherence (besides rethorical "logic") that should have to be one.

@hippyjoe1955 In brieff sumary, hipy.

Scientific theories MAY be refuted.
Evolution, MAY, perhaps, be refuted some day.
Want to do it?
Is not enough to point at it´s weak points.
Do your homework, kiddos, and RESEARCH.
As scientists do and been doing for some (few) centuries.
GET an alternatinative SCIENTIFIC theory.
At the present, you don´t have one because there is not one.
ID, as it´s published documents make evident, is not even a serious candidate.
NOT because a conspirative obstacle.
As a small example, the most complete intent of giving it a mathematical support (the Works of Dembski) were not rejected cos his faith.
Was because the math was massively wrong as such.

As the opposite, a well known religious man but also scientist, Christian de Duve, obtained a Nobel because of his serious reserch on chemistry related to Biology.
His writings in the role of causation and randomness are also a must for Philosophy of Science.
But, of course, his works are based on facts and not only in pompous words.

@CharlieZ What do you call clinging to a theory whose processes have never been observed, can not be duplicated, for which there is no evidence and whose premise is mathematically impossible. Not science. FAITH! Such is evolution. Like socialism it is great in theory until you actually try to put it into effect. Then it is a disaster.

@hippyjoe1955 Good evening 'Ned'

@Harriet03 Oh look the numpty is on again and doesn't realize it is morning where I live. Too funny. Proof again that she is a flat earther and has no idea about time zones.

@hippyjoe1955 Its evening here Ned, thats all that counts!

@Harriet03 I don't doubt it. I believe in a round earth with different time zones. Something that seems beyond your ken.

@hippyjoe1955 What's your 'sermon' today Ned??

@Harriet03 you ....... missed ..... it. Slow enough for you to grasp? Trying to use small words too.

@hippyjoe1955 I can guess your evidence based argument![image deleted]

@VeronicaPrincess ID is not a scientific theory. Evolution is, which is as far as things get in science (heliocentrism is also “only” a theory).

@QuixoticSoul Science includes replication, observation, and determination. Which of these has evolution provided?

@hippyjoe1955 Replication and observation, sure. I’m pretty sure you’re using determination incorrectly, but whatever you mean by that - sure.

@QuixoticSoul For Hippy, "determination", instead of causal relationships, is the "why" that only what was once called "First Philosphy" (armchair speculative one, later Theology) can provide.
For him and others, that is the core conflict with Science (as long as he don´t redefine it).
This haves a looooong story.
Church allowed secular researchers to formulate hypothesis as long they were restricted to describe "the appearances", with NO intent of explanation.
The WHYS were exclusive task of "First Philosophy", forbidden for others than them.

But scientists dared to develope "Second Philosophy", "Natural Philosophy" by their own.
Not based in speculative thinking, rethoric "logic" nor authority. But in facts.
And neither bussy with ill formulated "absolutes", but approximate, step by step increasing, provissional and always potentially refutable knowledge.

Their result? They gave born to Science.

The result of "First Philosophy"? It is where it was then, previous to Galileo and Bacon.

Besides other merits that it may have, their business is not Science.

@CharlieZ Nice dodge. Too bad you are so wrong on so many things. I guess you wasted all the time and money being educated and winding up a fool. You posting is simply wrong. You fail completely to realize that natural causes is a religion and not science at all. Simply precluding a cause because you don't think such a cause exists says more about you than it says about the cause whose existence you deny. IOW you are a fundamentalist flat earth denier of science. Too bad you have fooled yourself into thinking yourself educated. You were brainwashed not educated at all.

@hippyjoe1955 Silly man, nothing is precluded. If we find empirical evidence of divine/alien/etc interference - that will be “natural causes” as well.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, I will not debate about politics
If you need to tie scientific positions to political ones, you betray science.
Is not an issue for scientist, that differ about politics while converge in doing science.

About "whose processes have never been observed, can not be duplicated, for which there is no evidence and whose premise is mathematically imposible", part by part.

- "processes have never been observed".
That is fair about processes that take relative short "human" time to develope.
What about b.e., the changes along Glaciar Ages? No modern human had been there observing. But there is more enough material evidence about how did it happen.
What about the Hertzsprung–Russell
Diagram that correlate the variety of stars with it´s changes along thousands of millions of years? The observation of stellar events (the observations are actual, the events are not) had partially confirmed what was previously inferred. But no one had witnessed the whole process. That makes Cosmic Physics a fake?
And so on.

- "can not be duplicated". Most of big scale true phenomens can´t.
Who can "duplicate" in lab the nature of Spacetime as described by Relativity (or, like said, Glaciar Ages or Star evolution)?
So Albert Einstein faked his theory just to piss you and your fellows?

- "there is no evidence". Oh boy!
What about geologic stratigraphy, Carbon 14 meassures related with the location and sequence of fossils? That amongst a lot of others.

- "whose premise is mathematically imposible". That may said only from a naive common sense view of Probability. The only fully developed objection known was Demmbski´s one and was proven wrong.

But, again is you who cling on something.
Evolution MAY, some day, be refuted, all in Science MAY be.
But you cling on the critics to Evolution.
Even if you were right...

Where is, hipy, the SCIENTIFIC theory, alternative and different to Evolution that you may offer?

There is not one.

Why not prove scientists wrong and show where is it seriously formulated?

Because you and fellows can´t say were is what never was there.

@hippyjoe1955 "You fail completely to realize that natural causes is a religion and not science at all"

Natural causes inference is the core of Science bussiness.
What is not Science is First speculative Philosophy.
Nor Plato nor St. Agustine did Science.
Galileo did.

Descartes was a brilliant mathematician for his times. But his Meditations and Discourse on Method are not Science nor Math nor Logic.

Scholastic pseudo Aristotelian "reasoning" on the First Cause are philosophy. They are not Science

Science become to be Science when throw First Philosophy as an obstacle to knowledge.

That´s, hippy, what divide us.

I support Science as scientists did and do.

What you call Science is, not for me but neither for scientists, Science. Just pseudo science.

@hippyjoe1955 "Too bad you have fooled yourself into thinking yourself educated. You were brainwashed not educated at all."

If an insult like this (and others previously said) had origin in a science related thinker, I would (perhaps) care.

But being insulted by an ignorant should be an honor, and it is.