|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This is a strawman and misrepresentation of the TOE. TOE has nothing to do with origins. I think this has been pointed out numerous times. And design has nothing to do with ORIGINS. It is a simple observation from known evidence, that which has already been stated to many times to mention, that allows a tenative conclusion, about the possible explanations of life on earth. It is evidenced by the same laws, rules and test applied to evolution, both of which are not provable All one needs to do to demonstrate that the design principle does not follow the same basic tenets of observation and fact gathering, is to, demonstrate that we do not follow the same rules of evidential proceedure and processess None of the conclusions of even the TOE can be proved, just demonstrated using the same methods. we all use the same rules of evidence toarrive at our conclusions, you simply like tothink yours are better, they ARE NOT Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The Theory of Evolution has turned out to be exceedingly useful both to biologists and to natural historians. By contrast, ID has turned out to be useless. If you can actually come up with a detailed theory of intelligent design, such that the theory is just as useful as a guide to scientists and natural historians as the ToE is, then people will begin to take ID seriously as possibly having scientific merit. You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things. That is what reality and the evidence suggests. that is what you need to deal with in this connection Why does a demonstratable theoryneed to bedetailed and complicated to be valid Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The Theory of Evolution has turned out to be exceedingly useful both to biologists and to natural historians. By contrast, ID has turned out to be useless. If you can actually come up with a detailed theory of intelligent design, such that the theory is just as useful as a guide to scientists and natural historians as the ToE is, then people will begin to take ID seriously as possibly having scientific merit. You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things. That is what reality and the evidence suggests. that is what you need to deal with in this connection Why does a demonstratable theory need to be detailed and complicated to be valid? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
They won't tell me how to drive a car, or how to tie my shoelaces either. As Theodoric pointed out, this is a complete strawman. And you still have not indicated what are these "rules of evidence" that you have been referring As I suspected you no little or nothing about debating, what you actually need to do to demostrate that you understand evidence and debating is go back to post 443 and respond to that for which you asked me in the first place. I set out these simple rules of evidence, instead of answering what you asked for, you make jokes if you cant answer the questions or you dont know how to respond simply say so. I will take it as your inability to respond to what youasked me for in the first place
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I'm going to guess that you are again referring to those mythical rules of evidence. You asked for simple rules of evidence I gave examples in 443. I would suggest you go there and deal with them, istead of complaining. If you cannot or will not, I will accepte that as defeat Any rule of evidence can be any demonstratable fact. I have done that there, have at it
Yet somehow, you have managed to post 107 messages in this thread. But you have provided not one iota of evidence or persuasive argument that your design principle is useful for anything. Did you expect me to believe you would agree with me. Your wasting your time complaining when you could actually be responding to those simple rules of observation. Hop to it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You provide no evidence. You provide no rules. You do frequently assert that you are using a rule, but no recognizable rule is presented. All I see are repetitions of your worthless strawman argument (about origins). Lets start with something simple for you, you asked for examples of rules of evidence I provided itI am starting to assume all you can do is talk about why something is invalid, I suggest actually going and quoting them then showing why. My guess is that you dont have a clueof how to do this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The reason that the TOE is accepted and Design is not is that there is evidence supporting the TOE whereas there is none to support design. One needs data to evaluate data, no data no evaluation. Take it slow and I will break it down for you. Again you are assuming I am talking about design, DIRECTLY, I am not. Observing the designer is not possible, but this does not mean that from an evidential standpoint by observation of the obeyed laws in nature that it is not possible, it most certainly is Observing the entirity and totality of evolution as it is described and hypothsized is not possible, but this does not mean from an observable and evidental standpoint that is DID NOT happen as described, you simply dont have all the information you need to prove it absolutley Observing the entirity and totality of the design principle is not possible absolutley, but this does not mean from an observable and evidential standpoint one cannot see the harmonious, orderly and coherent set of laws set in motion somehow, operating neither theory, even the TOE is provable absolutley but both are clearly demonstratable try and think of another theory that will allow such conclusions from both reality, reason and physical data, there ARE NO OTHERS You draw your conclusions of change, natural selcection and mutation from observable data I draw my conclusions from the same source, by simple observation of these same materials Both of these conclusions are provable, but the source is not. Since both change and laws ore provable and there is no other choices, both should be taught inthe science classroom Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
LEt's remedy this here and now. Fill in this list and we can all discuss them, instead of you saying time and time again that you have provided them, and everybody else saying you haven't. Just complete the list and everything will be clear: The rules of evidence are Rule 1. the concept of order and laws in nature is obtainable the exact same way the concept of change and natural selection are obtained Rule 2 Neither the TOE or design can be proved absolutley from these observations, but the same rules are used to obtain that information Rule 3 the information, the rules, the evidence and the conclusions of each, while not provable is demonstrable from, the method of extraction, the observable evidence and (Now watch), the only two logical, physical and possible explanations as to the HOW of things, are here in the first place Rule 4. Since all of the above are demonstratable rules of evidence concerning these matters and both use the same method, both should be taught in the science classroom "lets remedy this here and now", thats funny Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The fact that nature is orderly and obeys the laws of nature is taught in the science classroom. Because this is, as you admit, demonstrable in just the same way that evolution is. Finally some daylight, for you at the end of your narrow tunnel. If it does teach this then it teaches design, by indirect implication. Now pay close attention. Designs conclusion or the idea of design is not derived from a conjecture of anything at all. It is not derived by even the idea of design. It is derived from the observable order that is demonstratable, hence design is established not by conjecture, but by evidence which you now admit.. I dont need to speculate about anything for that to be nearly direct evidence as evidence goes
The conjecture that a supernatural being can and did break those laws and violate the natural order is not demonstrable and contravenes what is, as you admit, demonstrable, and so is not taught in the science classroom. No conjecture is required to establish what is demonstratable as evidential. I dont need to conjecture design, when reality does it for me. Your mixing up design with a supernatural being. You have just proved my point. Thank you Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn, why do you keep whining about "proof?" It just exposes your lack of knowledge about science. Science does not deal in proof! Science deals with evidence. In the case of evolution, scientific evidence has reached the level of a theory (as defined by scientists). Theism or creationism have failed to provide evidence, and have consequently failed to reach the level of a scientific theory. All your complaining and whining won't change that. Since this is not even close to what I am saying, it follows that I am not whining or complaining about anything Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Why is it that any and all theories in science must account for the beginning of the universe, according to you? You simply dont understand the road of reason and evidence, direct and indirect implication and the such like. If you did you would not ask sucha silly question Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Evolution makes testable predictions, which makes it science. Design does not make testable predictions, which is why it isn't science. Until you show us how Design makes testable predictions you can not claim that we are on the same playing field. Your statement is a testament to the fact that you are wearing blinders, which were given to you by people as limited in understanding of evidence as yourself As funny as it sounds, design (as a concept) doesnt make anything, from an evidential standpoint. However, nature, matter and the rules it follows makes testable predictions, and you can test those predictions, which is evidence of design as simply design as evidence, not a supernatural being All that is needed to establish design as evidential, is the obdervable, testable and predictable order Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So I have observations of the actual mechanism. You do not. You do realize the way we establish evidence is that we use the same mechanism, correct
If you can't observe the mechanism in action then you can not claim that it can produce anything. I can observe the mechanism in action and what it produces COMPLEX ORDER
Let's cut to the meat of the argument. You claim that because none of us were there at the beginning that any explanation, no matter how unevidenced or absurd, is on equal ground with testable explanations backed by mountains of evidence. Am I right on this? Why would you imply that my positon is unevidenced and absurd, seeing that I have gone to such great lenghts to demonstrate it is not So No to the first one and Yes to the second question
So, in the end, a trick playing leprechaun is on equal ground as an explanation as to why the defendant's DNA and bloody fingerprints are found all over the murder victim. Right? A simple question here to remove the inaplicabilty of your whole illustration and show how it is not valid as an analogy. Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes. The magic leprechaun. What? Why couldn't it? The observations made are consistent with a magic leprechaun doing it. Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential reality His illustration in the story over shoots what is actually available to us in our reality, concerning reality and matter. All that is KNOWN is that there is change and order, both are observable evidence of only two logical possibilites But both are observable Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn Bertot, please enter a topic proposal for your ideas over at Proposed New Topics and I will work with you to promote it as quickly as possible. Understood
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024