Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,417 Year: 6,674/9,624 Month: 14/238 Week: 14/22 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 559 of 609 (612187)
04-13-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: New header (finally)
I see a lot of words, but no hypothesis, null hypothesis, nor an experiment that would test them.
Your problem is that you have failed to answer why the observation of and experimentation of say the human eye or the intricacy of the human brain functioning, in order to a clear purpose is a test or experiment. Why the breakdown of its parts by scientists to witness how those parts work together to a purpose, in an orderly fashion, is not an experiment
Is the above i have just described an experiment (hypthesis)? or do they need to do it with more than one brain for it to be a valid scientific test.
As I demonstrated already you refuse to go by your own rules, you know its an experiment, but wont admit it. You know its science and wont admit it
you wont even answer the question on the null hypthesis I posed because its a silly rule to apply to the question under consideration.
Evos will continually try to avoid the fact that thier position involves conclusions as well. insisting that I must provide absolute evidence in the nature of a designer, is as silly as you maintaining that these functions are a product of SOLEY natural proceses
Where is you Null h for this conclusion
Why don't you tell us, since you have concluded that life is designed. What experiments did you run to differentiate between these?
My friend order will be order whether I apply a contived rule to it, such as Null H or not. your requirement is silly to begin with and you have demonstrated by your refusal to go by your insistent hard fast rule
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:39 PM Taq has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 560 of 609 (612188)
04-13-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:50 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
If you are so much smarter than me then outline how this is done. In fact, do so with my avatar to the left. Please measure the purpose and function. Make sure to list the units for purpose and function.
Sure no problem. Does this organism serve a function and to what purpose does it involve itself.
DB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:50 PM Taq has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(3)
Message 561 of 609 (612190)
04-13-2011 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:54 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Why don't you tell us? Since ID/Creationism is science, according to you, why don't you reference the peer reviewed scientific papers that outline the experiments which demonstrate the designed nature of evolution.
I believe it was Einstien that said God was the laws of the universe correct? Is that peer enough for you? Would you say that there were enough peer reviewed papers to indicate that there is order and lawin the universe? Desgn is a conclusion of the available evidence, like "soley natural causes" is a result of, science and evo, correct?
order and law carry as much weight as change and evo, for any conclusions in the science classroom, as science and to any conclusions concerning the existence of things Yet you teach it in the classroom, why not the other, when they are both scientifically derived
taq reqesting something from me that I dont think is necessary to begin with, is just silly. Science, real science was around long before any peer reviewed papers were required. it was called observation, experimentation and conclusions, correct?
DB
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Son, posted 04-14-2011 8:54 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 572 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 562 of 609 (612193)
04-13-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:50 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
bertot writes
yeah I believe this is called examination and experimentation of physical properties already in existence, big deal. Did this give you an answer as to its ultimatel origination source, well no
Taq writes
Yes, it did. It shows that the DNA shared by humans and chimps ultimately originated in a common ancestor. It also showed selective pressures for specific DNA stretches compared to neutral drift for other DNA stretches.
You know that is not the origination source of which i speak. so "your science", brings you to the same tenative answers, as does mine. After all your bantering and bluster it ends up that order and law are to design what, change and NS are to soley natural causes, scientific approaches that should both be taught
Then show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design. If the methods are the same, then this shouldn't be a problem.
Come on taq give me something hard. All any creations or IDst 9scientist, biologist)would need to do in this instance is show the biological orderliness of these primates that produces order and purpose in the form of a monkey, to demonstrate design
Do the mechanisms you describe above operate in an orderly and consistent fashion, when you are conducting your experiments? Or or they chaotic and eratic? Which one?
Come on taq give me something hard
DB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:50 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 563 of 609 (612195)
04-13-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by fearandloathing
04-13-2011 5:29 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Hi dawn,
I have read all your post in this topic and can find no proof of anything. You cry foul alot, you challenge what others say but provide no proof to support what you say??
If I am wrong then please put your proof together into one statement, cite your sources. At least tell me what msgs you have posted you consider as providing proof that ID is real science.
Thanks
Im happy to do this in a seperate thread, it would take to much time to repeat. the fellas know what I am getting at, but will never admit it. others watching may benifit from it
the've complicated what science actually is, so as to exclude anything but thier conclusions in the classroom. they know science is nothing more than observation and experimentation, to tenative conclusions, especially when dealing with questions of origins
if it were presented correctly in the courtroom, in an emperical and rationalistic way, perhaps, the results would be different
they dont go by thier own rules, as i have illustrated on Null hypothesis When they cant answer it they ignore it and result to inslult
DB
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by fearandloathing, posted 04-13-2011 5:29 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 7:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 574 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 565 of 609 (612202)
04-13-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by Coyote
04-13-2011 7:01 PM


Re: New header (finally)
ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge.
And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.
what are your emperical rules for distinguishing, evo as a result of soley natural causes, verses being designed to evolve. Still waiting
i answered your question, now answer mine
DB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 7:01 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 7:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 567 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 573 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 575 of 609 (612305)
04-14-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 8:02 PM


Re: New header (finally)
michael behe didn't present ID accurately?
okay.
how would you have presented it? as creationism? that would have ended that trial a whole lot faster.
It will take some time to get to posts 567 thru 574, thats alot of info and i really dont want to miss anything. I thank Percy or whoever for thier indulgence in this connection
A one on one would really help, but this is good as well.
Now to answer your question
Behe is not an apologist, he is a scientist. He presented a case for the detail in the biological world in that connection and did a very good job.
However, that setting and those participants were not condusive to represent a formal type debate. Lawyers hardly qualify as apologists. the right questions were not asked, probed and sustained, like they would have been by a true apologist,
as is indicated by your misunderstanding here that ID is something different than Creationism, they are not.
That simple clarification would have cleared up much But one needs to cut through all the evolutionists smokescreens and misrepresentations to get to the real truth
As in this present discussion, ID takes on a whole different perspective, because the right questioned are asked an answered
Over involved specification and complicated explanations, (on both sides) in my view blocked the understanding of the judge. Were it presented simply, as it is simple, results could have been different.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:02 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2011 5:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 580 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 5:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 576 of 609 (612306)
04-14-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by frako
04-14-2011 7:29 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
If one would see a fully "designed" animal pop in to existence from nothing or mud or whatever other impossible substance. that would cast serius doubt on evolution.
true but you are looking at ID and creationism from a relifious perspective. it first must be established that creo and ID are religious and not science. This is why the trial was a failure. It cannot be established that ID is nothing less than a scientific investigation to begin with.
it is a simple matter of empericism and rationalisn, a look at the nature world with the natural mind. Sorry thats science
What would negate design or creation???
The samething that would negate what you explained about evo above. You would need to demonstrate that in the laws of nature complex order is not present. You could not do this anymore than Icould demonstrate change has not taken place
But initially you would need to demomstrate that my process was not science, how in the world could you do this, when I am following the same investgative process any human would. Starting to see why the trial was failure?
No they dont
Scientist:" i wonder how all this life came heare and how it got so diverse?"
Creo/ider:" I wonder how i can prove god with life, or at least get the bible back in to schools"
Scientist" well let me take a closer look at life"
Creo/ider:" well let me take a closer look at the bible"
Scientist" hmm all animals look like they are related, some have small diferences, some have larger ones but you still can see the resemblance
Creo/idist: the bible says god made all the animals well thats that let me put this in to the schools
Scientist: well lets try to form a hypothesis gradual change over time produced the variety of life we see today
creo/idist:" well lets brodcast our findings allover the country call it science and make people believe"
Scientist: Well lets test the hypothesis lets dig for fossils, do experiments on speciation, compare genomes of animals, look at how mutations acure, look if the time line allows for this process, construct a " tree of life" to see if all animals actualy are related, compare that tree of life to others constructed on dna, bone, and other observations ................ ......... ......... ...... ...... ....
Creationist/ider: lets invent some numbers and ideas out of the blue to give our claim credibility and debunk everything else
Scientist:" well all the testing i have done and all the observations fit perfectly, doing my best i could not disprove my hypothesis now its time for other scientists to look at my idea and try to poke holes in it and see if i am wrong"
Creo/ider:" i know i am right i dont need no stinking godless scientists to challenge my idea"
Scientist: well that went well none of them could disprove my theory they tried as hard as they could did the experiments themselves desighned new experiments and none of the experiments disproved evolution only granted it more suport in time this theory should be widely excepted as a model that best represents reality with the data availible
Creo/idist:" scientist have to except my idea because i KNOW i am right, il broadcast it on every channel and the people will decide il sue them in court because it is only fair to teach my "theory" (word used by none scientist to describe a wild guess) besides their theory (word used by scientists for a model that accurately describes reality given the data available). Il scream evolution is only a theory millions of times, il have experts who do not know shit about evolution talk to the people of how improbable it is, il make up stuff how evolution leads to killing people, make it synonym with communism and Nazism, tell believers that if they believe in evolution they will go to HELL ...............
None of this is true its not even my position, nor is it logical
The trial started and ended with a misguided view of creationism and ID. No thinking person, epecially a judge would make a conclusion, that ID is not science, unless he started with the idea it was religious to begin with
Change is to evolution and soley natural causes, what law and complex order is to ID, there both simple investigative process to provide possible explanations of the natural world.
The outcome would have been different had it been argued accurately from an apologists position
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 7:29 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 4:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 598 of 609 (612480)
04-16-2011 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by frako
04-14-2011 4:49 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
We have established that ID is not science on NUMEROUS occasions,[
I have established, with no rebuttal at all, that any investigation of the human mind against properties in the world is a scientific invwtigation. Can anyone demonstrate that that point is not reality. Why will no one touch that point. Point to the line that is counter factual to that simple point, if indeed it has been shown as you suggest
I have demonstrated that an examination of the physical properties in this connection and its complexity, is not only an investigation, but that it will demonstrate an unwavering complexiity of order to definate detail and purpose. point to the line or argument that can demonstrate these points and items are not science
I have demonstrated that these investigations lead inevitably to the conclusion of design, in the same way one comes to the conclusion, that the process of evolution would and might lead to lead to the conclusion of soley natural causes.
both are just conclusions and both use the natural world for thier conclusions. Only sheer idiocy would assume as to most evos that the origination source is not a part of the argument
Most evos try and cleverly exclude conclusion of evo (SNCs) as unnecessary, when in fact every position or argument concerning the natural world ofcourse would include one
No the outcome would have been different if ID actually was science. It is not even close to what science is.
Again for the very simple reasons , as i have stated them, ID can be nothing but Science.
just as there is no such thing as reverse prejudice, there is no such thing as religious creationism, only creationism by an intelligent designer. each of the respective positions reach thier conclusions, via, reason, experimentation, applied to the natural world, conclusions being the natural result
Only a tyro would come to another conclusion as to how such conclusions are reached. as I stated before, if the judge did not have a preconcieved idea of what Id and creo were before hand, and was not led by the nose by a bunch of simplistic lawyers, it may have seen it in its simplicty
and if you realy think lots of scientists reject evolution
I never even suggested as much. Evolution does not affect nor is it in contrast to ID, since one could not demonstrate that things were not designed to evolve
Id has very little to do with religious perspectives. Id is a scientific, physical approach to reality
BTW, tell instructor, "miss the point entirely", in your video, we are happy to meet in him in public debate at the time and place of his choosing on this issue
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 4:49 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by frako, posted 04-16-2011 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 604 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2011 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 599 of 609 (612481)
04-16-2011 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by dwise1
04-14-2011 5:19 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Thank you for confirming what we already know and have been saying all along: ID is not something different from creationism; they are the same thing.
And that is exactly what Judge Jones found in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (emphasis added):
Dont mean to be rude dewise, but as usual i find little or nothing in an argument form in your post wherewith to respond. As usual its a collection of verbose, albeit educational info in the form of you hearing yourself speak. However this is a debate forum fo rthe most part
Ofcourse ID is not something different, how could it be when those are just terms. reality is a human using his brain against reality about the natural world to form conclusions, Duhhh, science
They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation
idiocy and blindness beyond belief. Its starts in the same arena as any investigation observation of the natural world, where both change and order exists, not causation as its premise. like evos conclusions, it is preceeded by examination of natural proceeses
You need to demonstrate that ID begins with causation, you cant just assert in a declaration. Let the person that thinks he can do this step forward and ill demonstrate he is an idiot
Is this the same judge that wears a cowboy hat and speaks much of bovine feces? Geeez
the rest of the quote is a waste of my and any other intelligent persons time. perhaps someone should be reconsidered for reelection
"a formal type debate"? As in one of your snake-oil travesties? At least the courtroom would not allow the gross dishonesty practiced by creationists and IDists in their "formal debates", thus giving the truth a chance to be heard.
If this quote is an example of the truth you speak of, you are as informed as it is. Lawyers are notorious for complication and misdirection. if it is presented in its simplicity and accuracy it would not be missed. Oh that Dr Thomas B Warren were still with us. Ahhhhh the good ole days
Ruebel Shelly will you please come out of your shell.
And "apologist"? Apologetics is a religious endeavor, is it not? If ID and creationism are truly science as you claim them to be, why not simply produce the evidence that they are? The body of IDist and creationist research and extensive peer-reviewed literature produced therefrom would immediately demonstrate . . . oh yeah, that's right, there is none.
You like quotes, correct dewise? Lincoln said, "it is better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
Dewise, an apologist is anyone trained in a field, to defend that position, religion or otherwise.
dewise, reality does not need peer reviewed literature. Id is a simple investigation of natural processes, like any other. all anyone needs to do to immediately halt ID, is to demonstrate that such an investigation is not an initial and sustained investigation. How would anyone accomplish such a feat. Observation, evaluation, expermintation and conclusions are science no matter who is doing it. ID is the conclusion, not the processes, which is a scientific investigation
No one can or should question evos procees as not being science, anymore than ID processes, because both follow the same brain methodology
this initial and sustained process (whoever, whenever and for whatever reason, ID or evos) is independant of your conclusions. you simpletons get conclusions mixed up with processes.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2011 5:19 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by frako, posted 04-16-2011 5:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 600 of 609 (612482)
04-16-2011 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 579 by Taq
04-14-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Law and complex order are not processes. They are not investigations. They are undefined words you use to describe reality without any way to measure them or test them.
Just when i think you cannot make a sillier comment than, evo follows empericism and IDst follow rationalism, you do it
Taq anything happening in reality is a process, it doesnt need my approaval to be such
Who said they were investigations, i said we investigate thier patterns
We measure them by thier abilty to accomplish, carryout and produce identifiable purposes. This order and obvious order and functionality does not need your approval to as such. its detectable and measurable, by anyone paying attention
The conclusions of ID or soley natural causes are independent of our scientific investigations on either position. You fellas mix up the conclusions of ID with the clearly scientific approach and call it a failure.
Why are your simple minds unable to make such a clear distinction? Or are you doing it on purpose with full knowledge of your misrepresentation. Im going for the latter
Change in genomes is measurable. On top of that, changes in genomes can prove or disprove evolution. If the changes do not fall into a nested hierarchy then evolution is disproved.
This is like leading children around the fair. Taq, order in organisms is measurable
Taq, ID and evo are not opposites, AS YOU ARE SUPPOSING and erroneously confusing. Evo (change) is an identifiable phemonenon. ID is a conclusion of the process and mechanism, of the same type you use, scientifc investigation, but not the process, that is carried out by investigation
Consistent and persistent complex behaviour can prove identifiable order in numerous organism, like change can prove complex change. Both of these are scientific investigation processes, neither are conclusions
So what observations of law and complex order would disprove design?
Ill take you through just be patient, son Your still comparing oranges with apples. its not consistent change that you describe that would disprove evolution, it would be these processes that would need to disprove, these things as being a result of soley natural causes. Thats what you need to disprove using your own process
Your asking me to provide an example of the process that would disprove my conclusion, while using an example of your process to disprove your process, when you needed an example of it to disprove your conclusion, which, is soley natural causes.
your asking me to disprove my CONCLUSION, when your conclusion is not a part of the equation
In fact there is no example of your process or mine that we could provide to disprove either conclusion, not the process, which your are confusing with your conclusion
For this reason both positions of ORDER and evo (CHANGE)are valid processes, scientifically based, they could be nothing else. Conclusions to the processes are independant as to whether thier approach is scientifc
are you starting to see where you making your fundamental mistake?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 5:20 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Son, posted 04-16-2011 4:13 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 605 of 609 (612577)
04-17-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by Son
04-16-2011 4:13 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Actually, you could disprove evolution by finding either an animal or fossil that doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy for example.
Actually at this juncture I am not interested in disproving evolution and ID does not find its validy in that approach. ID and evolution are not opposites. Could I find evolution invalid or accurate, ID would stand on its own merits of scientific investigation by means of studying, evaluating and experimenting with the natural world and its intricate order and laws.
Its is science, because it is a valid observable and testable investigation. No thinking person would consider it otherwise, unless they are hell bent on keeping out some religious perspective out of the classroom, of which ID has nothing to with initially and at its base
What Taq is asking is a similiar thing for ID
Because they havent thought it through to its logical conclusion, they confuse ID, which is a conclusion, with evo or change, which is the process for the answer to the conclusion, "soley natural causes". Lets see him do his test on his conclusion, which is "soley natural causes". Lets see him run some tests that will come to the umistakeable, provable conclusion that things are the reseult of soley natural causes.
He's trying to demonstrate ID as non-scientific by attacking its conclusion. Now if he wishes that I run test on the natural world to test for order, law and purpose, it would leave, chnage and natural selection standing holding its jock strap, back at the starting line
Actually and in fact, these positions are and cannot logically be in opposition to eachother. But they are both investigations and a valid approach to the natural world, if we are looking for solid answers. Of course both should be taught in the classroom
To make it short, why are you not setting up your own version of a scientific community, ID has lots of funds and believers so it shouldn't be that hard. Since you believe your method to be superior, it should bring in lots of money and show the current scientific community their errors rather easily.
Im not sure what this means, but if I am reading you correctly, my intentions or my personal beliefs have nothing to do with what is logically sound. Peer reviewed nonsense and status have little or nothing to with the reality of the fact that these facts as they are have been around since the dawn (no pun intended) of time, they are testable, measurable and completley accurate
its not my method, its just the reality of the situation. Always has been, always will be. Afew "scinetists", try and distract these facts by shouting, such an investigation is not science, but what they cant demonstrate is that the approach or the conclusions they reach are any different than mine. If they could have they would have already done it here
Remember when a scientist as Taq, if he is, is running tests of change and Hierarchy and the such like on the natural world, he is testing what is measurable, (his process) not his conclusion. He then, mistakenly turns right around and says, now Bertot I want you to test your conclusion (ID)the same way I tested my PROCESS and lets see if your accurate.
Its a simple mistake they make, but it is the one that has mislead judges and others to the wrong judgments and the such like. In courtrooms they test the Conclusions of ID, when they should be testing the method and process. I the courtroom they DONT test the process and method of the conclusion, soley natural causes, for evos, when in fact if they are going to be accurate they should be testing what they require of creationist in the same setting, OUR CONCLUSION
They dont, so the whole court experience is an exercise false presuppositions.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Son, posted 04-16-2011 4:13 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Son, posted 04-17-2011 11:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 608 by frako, posted 04-17-2011 11:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 606 of 609 (612581)
04-17-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by Coyote
04-16-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Is it science?
This is patently false.
You are only doing science when you follow the scientific method.
And how in the world is my approach, remembering that ID is a conclusion, like soley natural causes is a conclusion, diiferent that the approach you use to study change and natural selection.
I study and experiment with the natural world via its biological structures and make-up and see order and law that culiminates in obvious purpose. how is this different than studying change and selection, both our CONCLUSIONS ASIDE. Please explain if you think you can
Change and order are there or they are not, correct.? When did obvious order need your approval for it to be order
The subject of the study does not determine whether you are doing science, it is the method one uses that determines that.
Really, Coyote, oh geez thanks I dont know where Id be without you
ID starts with a conclusion and cherry-picks what data it can find that might support that conclusion, while ignoring the masses of data that contradict that conclusion. It takes its case to the public rather than supporting it in the scientific journals. And given the statements in the leaked Wedge Document it is a fraud from start to finish.
And of course this an emotional statement, inaccurate in all its parts. demonstrate that I start with the CONCLUSION without asserting it. demonstrate my methodology and not my conclusion is at fault
And you fell for it.
No the judge and many others were smokescreened by not seeing what you were attempting to accomplish in the courtroom. You had us trying to prove our conclusion, while you guys were left with discussing only your process and not required to demostrate your conclusion.
youve got it all backwards, as usual
Oh BTW, please explain the masses of data that contradict the conclusion of ID
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2011 10:45 AM Coyote 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