Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 603 of 648 (588592)
10-26-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 5:32 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:12 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 604 of 648 (588593)
10-26-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 5:11 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 605 of 648 (588596)
10-26-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 4:46 PM


Dawn was not sunrise but simply the glow of ignorance.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 4:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:15 PM jar has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 606 of 648 (588602)
10-26-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 5:29 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 5:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 607 of 648 (588622)
10-26-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 5:32 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 5:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 2:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 608 of 648 (588623)
10-26-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by Parasomnium
10-26-2010 5:41 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by Parasomnium, posted 10-26-2010 5:41 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 610 by Omnivorous, posted 10-26-2010 11:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 609 of 648 (588624)
10-26-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 605 by jar
10-26-2010 6:05 PM


Re: Dawn was not sunrise but simply the glow of ignorance.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 6:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 11:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 610 of 648 (588625)
10-26-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 11:12 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:24 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 611 of 648 (588626)
10-26-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by Percy
10-26-2010 6:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by Percy, posted 10-26-2010 6:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 612 of 648 (588628)
10-26-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Omnivorous
10-26-2010 11:17 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Omnivorous, posted 10-26-2010 11:17 PM Omnivorous has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 613 of 648 (588630)
10-26-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 11:15 PM


Re: Dawn was not sunrise but simply the glow of ignorance.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:40 PM jar has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 614 of 648 (588631)
10-26-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Modulous
10-26-2010 12:56 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2010 12:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 1:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 624 by Modulous, posted 10-27-2010 9:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 627 by Coyote, posted 10-27-2010 9:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 615 of 648 (588632)
10-26-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by jar
10-26-2010 11:34 PM


Re: Dawn was not sunrise but simply the glow of ignorance.
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 11:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 11:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 623 by Larni, posted 10-27-2010 8:52 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 616 of 648 (588634)
10-26-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 11:40 PM


Re: Dawn was not sunrise but simply the glow of ignorance.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2010 9:20 AM jar has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 617 of 648 (588649)
10-27-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2010 11:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2010 11:34 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024