|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Since people do in fact do all these things, may we conclude that the creator was a failure? Succinct, to the point, and humorous, all at once. The Doctor rules. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
A rant is all that is required to respond to a rant, correct? And what you were replying to was not a rant. It made a point. It was a request for a methodology. This point is strengthened by the passage in your rant where you rave that: "you understand only a contrived method of evaluation called the scientific method, which closes its eyes to reason and its own limitations concerning evidence.". OK. You think that the scientific method is bad. You say this in reply to Dwise1's reply that you should supply some methodology of your own. But you do not supply a methodology of your own. You just shout at other people that they're "silly" and "understand nothing". I too would like to see your methodology. Let us see some single coherent method that would allow us to find out all the facts about the world that you do not object to, and yet would allow you to be a creationist. It can't be the scientific method, because we've heard your opinions of that. It must be something new. And I for one should like to hear it.
Possibly you could offer something of value Actually, the purpose of this thread is for you to do that. It's called "The evidence for design and a designer", remember? And you made the OP, remember? All I have to do here is to assess whether you have offered anything of value. You have not. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: i believe those are the same people that are still here getting free things from the government correct. i think the economy will go extinct before they do. I have nothing against indians, I just dont think people should get things free because thier ancestors were involved in this or that By that reasoning I should be in jail because of Musalini, if that is how you spell his name. enough is enough, get over it and move on While those indians back then suffered great indignities, those today are just riding the gravy train If you include having you land stolen, your sacred sites desecrated, your people confined to reservations and constant discrimination riding the gravy train then you might have a point. But so far you are simply showing that you know as little about history or the US today as you do about science, reason, logic or honesty. And you still have not explained the two questions asked. "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?" "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any effect, relevance or influence in life we see?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: The eye is ordered, its puropse is to allow sight to manuver. its intent by its creator was so that its creation would not bump into things or fall off clifts, step on snakes, or grab the wrong wife did I miss your point Well, yes, you do seem to be missing the point, but more worrying is that you say this as if it hasn't been rebutted many times in this thread. You haven't offered any evidence. All you've done is made an unsupported assertion. One could plug anything into your assertion: "Sand is ordered, its purpose is to provide beaches for vacations. Its intent by its creator was so that his beloved creation could enjoy his day of rest." The eye has function, not purpose. You said you had evidence that its function has a purpose that reflects the intent of its creator. What is that evidence? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Since people do in fact do all these things, may we conclude that the creator was a failure? As i suspected you really have nothing to offer in respose to the ppoint being made. Do these people have the same ability to not do these things because of that purposeful item? Come on Dr In adequate something useful please Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Succinct, to the point, and humorous, all at once. The Doctor rules. You should have said pointless, it would have made more sense Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you include having you land stolen, your sacred sites desecrated, your people confined to reservations and constant discrimination riding the gravy train then you might have a point. But so far you are simply showing that you know as little about history or the US today as you do about science, reason, logic or honesty. None of those people today were a part of those events. Where does it stop, when does unnecessary compensation end. We are just Americans now , not black, not white, not indian, just Americans, grow up and move on, act intelligent about it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
And you should have answered the good Dr's question.
Instead, as usual, you run away. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well, yes, you do seem to be missing the point, but more worrying is that you say this as if it hasn't been rebutted many times in this thread. You haven't offered any evidence. All you've done is made an unsupported assertion. One could plug anything into your assertion: "Sand is ordered, its purpose is to provide beaches for vacations. Its intent by its creator was so that his beloved creation could enjoy his day of rest." The eye has function, not purpose. You said you had evidence that its function has a purpose that reflects the intent of its creator. What is that evidence? percy, stating that the eye does not have purpose is not the same as showing it does not have purpose. Since reality clearly demonstrates it does, where does that leave your assertion? Hmmmmmm? If I am missing a point please present it. Sand is ordered in its substructure, where the design is the same, as in nearly all living things Or did you already forget that point from a previous post You can only plug in eternality of matter and design into my deductions and that is the point, both of which are logical , scientific approaches to the question and both have the same limitations and rely on the self same evidence and information Both should be advocated and taught in the classroom, because both arrive at thier conclusion in the same manner and both are testable aginst reality Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
And you should have answered the good Dr's question. Instead, as usual, you run away. Which question, in what post. I run from nothing because the position is solid as any position could be Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And once again, not only did you not address the point I made about your attempt to misdirect the discussion, you refused to answer the two questions that are on topic.
"What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?" "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any effect, relevance or influence in life we see?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Not particularly. But this topic is about design, if you want to persuade me design has more going for it than evolution you're going to need to do more than you've done. If you want to discuss the support for evolution we can do that in another thread. You fellas really cant go any deeper that your own methodology can you. Neither design or evolution have any more going for it, than the other, THAT IS THE POINT. Both are allowable in the available evidence, both use the same methodology for its conclusions, neither of which is provable, yet both are demonstratable There are no other alternatives besides these two, but both follow the same principle in thier application and conclusions Both should be taught, there is simply no way around that point, OTHER THAN the SIMPLE, "I DONT LIKE IT", approach Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
"What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?" "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any effect, relevance or influence in life we see?" You trip me out to the max, Jar. neither of these two questions have physical realities that we can observe, they are therfore irrelevant to THIS discussion They have no application to or desrtoy my position on design Ask something related or useful Dawn bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And you once again simply refuse to address the issue.
You said:
Dawn Bertot writes: not necessarily what is, "in my mind", but what logic and physical properties will allow You said there were physical properties related to the designer. So the questions remain. "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?" "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any effect, relevance or influence in life we see?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You fellas really cant go any deeper that your own methodology can you. Not until you show us another one that works better. Once we have established that Bertotism leaves science far behind, then we'll all become Bertotists.
Both are allowable in the available evidence both use the same methodology for its conclusions ... And yet you disparage the scientific method and decry our methodology, which suggests that this is not the case. Would you and you like to fight this one out between the two of you, while we just watch? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024