|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
I have done so. Possibly you have, but it could only be from a from a misconception and misunderstanding of what Creo and ID actually are. Now lets see you do it with an accurate explanation of the two items Creationism and ID cannot fail because they only involve the powers of obsrvation, explanation and conclusions, pitted against reality. Therefore you must possess some special power outside of these simple tenets. My guess is that it is your misunderstanding of reason and reality that misleads you into thinking you have accomplished such a feat
You guess that I am "to afraid" to do what I have in fact been doing? Well, I guess that that's consistent with what we know of your powers of reasoning. Wow, he repeated one assertion and made another one, without explaining his first assertion. while I await the explanation of why creationism has failed, Ill add to it, for you to demonstrate why my powers of reasoning are some how in question Better hurry DA, you will fall behind quickly as the assertions start to mount up and ill keep reminding you of each and every detail of each and every one, that has little or no response Now i know your simply a mathmatician, so this valid philosophical reasoning thing may be out of your reach. Feel free to include or substitute yourself with a pinch hitter if you desire Hurry DA Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
Wait, you're Robert Byers? Are there rules about posting under multiple ID's? I think it is very dishonest whne people change there ID's willy nilly without informing people. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Theodoric writes: Dr. Adequate writes: Wait, you're Robert Byers? Are there rules about posting under multiple ID's? I think it is very dishonest whne people change there ID's willy nilly without informing people. Dr. A was just having a little fun. I see no reason to believe that Robert and Dawn are the same person. They seem to be wrong in very distinct ways. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
Yeah I realized that after I posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world. Well creationist claims fail allot when you compare them to realityhere you have a list of creationist claims and their rebuttals id copy paste the list but its way to long. An Index to Creationist Claims ona quick look my favorite Creationism is explanatory. It can accommodate all the results of evolution and more. In particular, it can also explain the results of a designer. rebuttal
Accommodation is very different from explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way and not another. A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities. Accommodating all possibilities also makes a theory exactly useless. Since creationism accommodates all possibilities, it is not explanatory. AND
Intelligent design theory is science. rebuttals
1. The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.
A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense. Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design. 2. Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.). 3. Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition. 4. The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Dr. A was just having a little fun. I see no reason to believe that Robert and Dawn are the same person. They seem to be wrong in very distinct ways. Have at it if you are so inclined. assertions dont amount to arguments. Lets see what frakos got Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It has already been explained to you --- several times, and by myself amongst others --- why your particular brand of illiterate gibberish is worthless.
I dare say you didn't understand it, but then I'm not a miracle worker: I cannot make the lame walk, the blind see, or the stupid think. If you still wish to understand this explanation (and I see no evidence that you have ever wished to understand anything) then I suggest that you re-read the threads in which your stupid blunders were pointed out to you, rather than spamming this thread with the same old crap. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Well creationist claims fail allot when you compare them to reality here you have a list of creationist claims and their rebuttals id copy paste the list but its way to long. Creationist's claims are not reality, creationism as design is reality
An Index to Creationist Claims ona quick look my favorite Creationism is explanatory. It can accommodate all the results of evolution and more. In particular, it can also explain the results of a designer. i agree this is nothing more than a statement, its not an argument
1. The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Wrong, design is not defined in terms of an agent doing anything. design is defined by the reality of order and law. This is what it is at its core. BTVN of the case it couild be nothing more the distinction this fella requires is contrived and imaginary it is not necessary, for the argument to be valid, AS IS
A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense. The reason no one includes agent or purpose, is because logically and rationally it is not necessary. your kidding, these are the best ones you chose to present One fails to see why the bones of the design ideology, ie, order and law are not sufficient to predicate the existence of a designer, by themself. that is, it works in reality and logical form One fails to see why any of its PROCESS is not a scientific approach What specifics about the designer would need to be present or presented to invalidate the argument and conclusions, as is Why is this necessary. Imagining that a problem exists and it parameters, is not the same as demonstrating why that is necessary to begin with Unless I am missing something I dont see anything in the above comment that invalidates the reality of design, via the principle of order and law to a purpose, whether we agree with the purpose or not. Or whether we think it could have happened or been designed better
Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.). Ones opinion about design being subjective, does not remove the reality of order and law. happily design does not rely on opinon or subjectivity. I fail to see how this statement has any validity
Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Reality in the nature of order and law are reality, they cannot be contrary to common sense. To ignore thier reality and obvious function would be contrary to common sense
One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition. This statement has no validity or rational in removeing the basic tenets of an argument set out for design. order law and purpose are present irregardless of our perspective of its function the above comment is jargon designed to convalute a very simple principle. BTW, it does not work If however, you think I have missed something by all means present it Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
If you still wish to understand this explanation (and I see no evidence that you have ever wished to understand anything) then I suggest that you re-read the threads in which your stupid blunders were pointed out to you, rather than spamming this thread with the same old crap. How can a member spam a thread that is on topic? So let me get this straight, if i disagree with you and dont see your conclusions, you must be right about this matter, correct? I tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides. In the meantime DA, remember your not the only person with an opinion or argument You are an arrogant one, I sware Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1573 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world. Define "order," "law," and "purpose" as you use them. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 158 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And the method and model the designer uses.
Dawn has NEVER answered those questions. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How can a member spam a thread that is on topic? The topic is actually "Creationism is science classrooms" not "The same old dreary nonsense Dawn's spewed out to no purpose on innumerable threads already".
I tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides. No you won't. You won't understand it.
You are an arrogant one, I sware Thinking that I know better than you is not arrogance, it's basic self-respect, on a par with thinking that I'm more moral than Hitler and better looking than the Elephant Man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Dawn Bertot writes: Creationism has nothing to do with the specifics of any religion. For the purposes of this discussion, Creationism means creation of life, the universe and everything per religious teachings. If you don't believe that, I recommend reading the opening post before further participating in this thread.
Dawn Bertot writes: Now I can only know this by applying scientific methods and rules to that reality, hence ID or creationism is as much a scientific method as anyother and it serves a definate SECULAR purpose Unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise That isn't necessary for the purposes of this discussion. Regardless of the merits of your own theory of origins, unless your theory has a religious basis, it isn't what the rest of us are discussing or what this thread is about. Besides, haven't you abandoned every thread where ID is on topic? Why would anyone want to join you in yet another such thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
For the purposes of this discussion, Creationism means creation of life, the universe and everything per religious teachings. If you don't believe that, I recommend reading the opening post before further participating in this thread. Part of the division and misunderstanding is due to the fact that many believe creationism or ID is religiously based, it is not. One needs simply to evaluate the method of approach for these diciplines to know they have nothing to do with religion, atleast initially If it could be demonstrated that i was wrong, an argument would have been presented in that connection No such division exists in the first place for someone to theorize whether creation and ID should or should not be taught in the science classroom. Its all science up to a certain point, especially IDs tenets. One would wonder how any thinking person could concieve of it
Besides, haven't you abandoned every thread where ID is on topic? Why would anyone want to join you in yet another such thread? It amazes me how you think you can make a baseless assertion, without the slightest evidence to accompany such a statement. you have some 200 posts only been here a while and can assert such nonesense. Provide the thread or post I have abandoned, if you are so inclined. Otherwise, check you facts before making silly comments Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The topic is actually "Creationism is science classrooms" not "The same old dreary nonsense Dawn's spewed out to no purpose on innumerable threads already". DA, as per my request you havent demonstrated that you know what creationism is at its core, or how it is theorized. Ill try again. ill put it in question form so you can take it nice and slow. Is it possible to contemplate and theroize, by observation and evaluation, the physical world and its order, to conclude that design is a very real explanation of the existence of things. Yes or No? Even if your answer is no, what does any of that evalustion have to do with religion? And why would it not qualify as some sort of scientific evaluation? Bertot writesI tell you what, when I see the argument that is so convincing that it cannot be denied, Ill quit or switch sides. DA writesNo you won't. You won't understand it. How can I know if you wont present one or answer simple questions
Thinking that I know better than you is not arrogance, it's basic self-respect, on a par with thinking that I'm more moral than Hitler and better looking than the Elephant Man. You see thats your problem, while i dont know that you are more attractive the the E man, I do know that you are not more moral than Hitler, because you cant even reason correctly concerning such matters If God does not exist as you suggest, then only a fool would believe that his morals are Better or Worse than someone elses. If god does exist then you are as contemptable and detestable as Hitler because of your heresy and blasphemy. "If one does not provide for his own he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel" Your still pretty low on the scale, no matter whos standard you use. If no God, then you are illogical and stupid. If God then you are as detestable as Hitler It does not surprise me that you cannot reason correctly concerning creationism and ID, when you, who does not believe in God, actually thinks his morals are better than someone elses. Its just matter in motion, just doing abstract subjective stuff Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025