Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(2)
Message 106 of 358 (645864)
12-30-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 8:43 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
well thanks for the response even if it is a cop-out.
Your free to address any argument I have set out. Until then I cannot take you comments as serious
LOL. feel free to stop talking about ID, until then 99% of this message board cannot take your comments as serious.
Jaywill also has I believe a 2 something rating, that should tell you something about thier rating system
I like the rating system. It allows the lurkers to participate.
I should stop responding to you because I got more cheers the last time than all my other 790+ posts combined.
Vaya con Dios.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 8:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 107 of 358 (645920)
12-31-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Drosophilla
12-30-2011 4:48 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Droph writes
How exactly does the real world data point to an intelligent guiding hand?
DB writes
Pay close attention to the next statment D. How does TOE point to the conclusion of Soley natural causes. It is interesting that you ignored any of my points and continued to lecture on evolution. Here they are again, then I will answer your direct question.
Why does the TOE get to qualify as science, in the form of an investigation, when it openly acknowledges that it does not investigate the question of Why? Who in thier right mind would think that after an examination and explanation of the present natural world, then getting to the question of its origins, exclaim, we are not concern with that aspect.
Why would anyone taking on the task of a valid investigation into the source and nature of the natural world, suggest or adminttedly say, "We do not concern ourselves with why?
This position makes the TOE, incomplete and invalid as a scientific. If not why not?
It also makes the TOE unfalsifiable. If not why not?
Repeating that evolution is just a study of the natural world, does not explain why any thinking person would consider it an actual, complete rational explanation of anything, except how for example, a tree works
Now to your direct question. ID or the process of ID points to the conclusion of a Designer, because it tenets are just like those practiced by the SM, its a detailed investigation, like the SM, into the natural world.
If its not you should be able to point to something that the the SM discovers and that we cannot see in our same approach. In the same way. If my method of investgation, from a biological standpoint is not science, then you should be able to point out why I do not see order, law or pupose
Think about it rationally and practically. We live on the same planet, we are both have the same finite limitations. Any serious investigation will be able to see two simple things on both sides harmony and order, change, adaptation and Natural Selection. One points to the conclusion that possibly these things accomplished that by itself. The other is equally valid because it points to and has the tenets of design, even without your approaval
Now pay close attention. While neither answer the question absolutely, both qualify as scientific approaches, in the discovery of order and law on the one hand and change and selection on the other.
Both point to possible solutions to the question of why, atleast from a logical standpoint. That is both the ID approach and the SM, offer scientific approaches to the only two existing possibilites
Unless you are prepared to demonstrate why say for example, any valid, biological examination, should make me, not see the results of order, the same way you discover change, in the natural world
I think you will have a very difficult time demonstrating why my approach is not science or that it does not diwscover that which I have described. But you knock yourself out
If you are putting yourself forward as ID's 'flagship' then it is in even more trouble than I thought !!
No, you are just confusing processes with conclusions. While you require me to provide the strictest proof of why the ID method points to a designer (and I am happy to do this, as I just did), you have the gaul to claim that you dont need to do this, because the SM, does not involve itself with that aspect.
Your mixing oranges with apples. Stick to the methodS first, then we can discuss conclusions later
Would you like to put forward any other 'scientist' as ID's flagship? We are talking about science here are we not?
My simple friend. ID like the SM, is an approach to the natural world. Its flagship is reason, order, consistency, harmony, law and purpose. If I need someone like you do to back up my every word, then I dont have a leg to stand on do I
Falsifiability - as I've already stated. There are millions of fossils in hundreds of strata. The ToE makes a very precise prediction - if even one fossil is found in a strata not predicated by the ToE then the theory is utterly destroyed. For example (to quote the famous biologist J B S Haldane) fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, or trilobites in the Pilocene.
Or you could pick on adaptive features. The ToE makes another very precise prediction. No new features will suddenly spring up in a line where ancestors have no such precursers. A good example is the squid/octopus's correctly wired eyes (optic nerves entering from the back of the retina and not obscurring the photocells unlike all the vertebrate lines). If a lion or human was suddenly found to have an 'octopus' wired eye this would be shattering for the ToE.
Saddly for the creationists despite millions of real world animals and fossils, not a single falsification has ever been achieved....the theory passes with flying colours.
My simple friend you are still representing creationism as an opposition to evolution. They are not directly related. Your confusing, IDs process with its conclusions. Your comparing your process with my conclusion.
What you need to do, my nice, but simple friend is compare your SM, with IDs scientific approach initially, then the conclusions of each can be discussed at another point
You are comparing your method with my conclusion. Your conclusion of the TOE (Why),is the same as my conclusion in ID, we dont know absolutely. So if ID is not falsifiable, then neither is the TOE, because it must include why, to be a valid investigation. If it does not then it is neither falsifiable or science. Which horn of the delimma do you want
Both of our methods, which are scientific in approach, support our respective conclusions, even if they are not provable. Therefore ID and creationism have nothing to do with religion and both should be taught in the science classroom as plausible explanations of the Hown and Why
Man Im good
Care now to tell me how I can falsify your ID? You glibly passed over that request in your reply.....I wonder why?
As you can now see I did not pass over it. The conclusions of ID are not the same as its process, anymore than the direct or indirect conlcusions of the TOE are the same as its processes. If you can falsify the TOEs process or immediate conclusions, then it would follow you can falsify the immediate conclusions of the ID approach, not is unatanable conclusions.
Confirming the immediate tenets of the TOE, is not the same as falsifyiing its far reaching and ultimate conclusions, which must be a part of the scientific investigation to make it valid as science to begin with. You would need to falsify all of the TOEs tenets, not just some of them, for the TOE to pass the falsification test, correct?
[qs]If you can't give me real world falsification (that I can go out and do today in the real world) then please have the grace to admit you are not doing science and ID should be kept where it belongs....in a religious class.
I can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are exactly the same, can you?
Human perceptions are not worth a damn - google 'gorilla and basketball' and get your friends to count the number of passes done by the white team. More than 90% will not even see the gorilla walk across the screen. Humans have a limited perception of the world they inhabit - that's why we used to think the world was flat and the sun went round the earth - that's what human perception and innate logic indicates....but as we know it is wrong.....and that is why we have..........drum roll please.......SCIENCE.
Unfortunately its not as simple as that for your position, as I have now with stinging accuracy demonstrated. Care to take a stab at any of the above questions and arguments?
Glossing over order, law and purpose in the natural world and describing it as perceptions, will not make thier valdity pass.
Here is a simple question. Does it appear that law and order exist in the universe and our world. Upon even closer scientific experimental examination in a biological approach it becomes even clearer doesnt it that those properties exist
Remember now, dont confuse or COMPARE your process with my conclusion. Lets compare your process with my process and see what is or is not science, what is or is not falsifiable
Remember now, it doesnt work to just falsify part of the TOE, you need to do it with all its tenets, all its conclusions, which must be a part of the investigation to make it valid, which would include any of its far reaching conclusions.
Anyone can see change, natural selection and adaptation, who cares, I can do the samething with my scientific approach coming to your same conclusions. I also can do the samething using my scientific approach, to dis cover law order and purpose. What we need is the real results of the TOE,not only How but Why
Your problems are immediatate and simple
Your comparing your procees with my conclusions
You are comparing creationism/ID with the TOE, there not related
Your failing to realize that while they are not related, they both have an obligation in investigation of how and why
Your requiring me to produce answers, where you cannot
Your claiming your process reveals something different or better it does not
Your claiming you conclusions are not necessary, they are
Etc, Etc, Etc
Drumroll please........................Silence, dismisal and denial from the SM camp
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Drosophilla, posted 12-30-2011 4:48 AM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 126 by Drosophilla, posted 12-31-2011 8:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 108 of 358 (645922)
12-31-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
12-30-2011 11:17 AM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
No, I would not agree, because no scientific theories explain why, they only investigate how things work. That is how science works.
Explaining why is the role of philosophy and religion, with the more accurate explanations being ones not in conflict with objective evidence of how things work. Such concepts, however, are not tested hypothesis (if not untestable) at best.
Wrong ZD, you of all people should know that you cannot just throw out words like philosophy and religion and make a valid conclusion disappear
Any investigation by anybody anywhere concerning the natural world must include and explanation of Why. If it does not it makes no logical sense
Imagine a young person sitting in the back of the classroom, have heard the TOE, then he holds up his hand and says, OK thats a great explanation teacher, but where did all of this come from
And the teacher exclaims, we dont really concern ourselves with that
No ZD, not from any logical standpoint can you extricate the Why from the How. Claimining one and not the other is stupidity at best
It does not help your position or free the TOE from its obligations and responsibilites in the area of WHY, especially when we dont know exacally why.
Think about it logically ZD. What is the purpose of the scientific investigation into the universe and world in the first place. To find how, when, where and Why
Throwing terms at an excluding the TOE from its obligations will not help your cause
You disappoint me ZD, your a logician and can t figure that out. Come on
The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain how the diversity of life developed on this planet.
Note that Introduction to Evolution also briefly discusses how the ToE is tested.
For any investigation into the natural world to include How but not Why, is not a complete objective investigation. Its tenative at best. And who cares about tenative
Notice how ID and creation make logical sense in combining the two, (how and Why),its the only logical approach
Once it is demonstrated that not only how, but why are both necessary in the same investigation, then one can proceed to see if they are tenable as logical and rational explanations for existence
If you include one and exclude the other in the same investigation you are unobjectivce at best
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2011 11:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2012 12:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 109 of 358 (645923)
12-31-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Dawn writes:
Pay close attention to the next statment D. How does TOE point to the conclusion of Soley natural causes. It is interesting that you ignored any of my points and continued to lecture on evolution. Here they are again, then I will answer your direct question.
There is evidence of natural causes and there has never been any evidence of anything BUT natural causes.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 4:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:16 PM jar has replied

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


Message 110 of 358 (645925)
12-31-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
12-31-2011 5:12 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
There is evidence of natural causes and there has never been any evidence of anything BUT natural causes.
As I have demonstrated in logical form, your are directly lying in your terms, OR you do not understand your implications from the terms and expressions and how you use them
Until you make a serious response to my argument in that connection from that exact post, you cannot be taken seriously
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 111 of 358 (645926)
12-31-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Do you have any evidence other than natural causes?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:32 PM jar has replied

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


Message 112 of 358 (645927)
12-31-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
12-31-2011 5:29 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Do you have any evidence other than natural causes?
When you respond to my previous post that concerns this issue Im more than happy to answer this one. You first
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 113 of 358 (645928)
12-31-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 5:32 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
I strike a match it lights.
Your turn.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:53 PM jar has replied

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


Message 114 of 358 (645929)
12-31-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
12-31-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
I strike a match it lights.
Your turn.
Did the match create or strike itself? Who struck the Match, Duh
Your turn
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:59 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 115 of 358 (645930)
12-31-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
It doesn't matter who struck the match, it is still a totally natural cause.
Can you provide an example of a non-natural cause?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:19 PM jar has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 116 of 358 (645933)
12-31-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 5:08 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
Oh for the love of Pete.....
1. How did man end up with the body he has?
2. Why does man have the body he has?
What's the difference in the two questions? You're so hung up on this false dichotomy of how and why. It might make sense if you're talking about a crime - the how and the why are two different things, but that's because the how describes the mechanism and the why would describe motive.
Natural mechaisms don't have a motive, whereas ID may do. You can't ascribe a motive to death by natural causes any more than you can ascribe a motive to natural mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 5:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:22 PM Trixie has replied

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


Message 117 of 358 (645934)
12-31-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
12-31-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
It doesn't matter who struck the match, it is still a totally natural cause.
You like your example until it controverts your argument?
Show me a match striking itself
While you can show me a dog scratching itself, Ill bet you cant show me a match striking itself
Have fun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 5:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 6:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 118 of 358 (645935)
12-31-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Trixie
12-31-2011 6:16 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
1. How did man end up with the body he has?
2. Why does man have the body he has?
What's the difference in the two questions? You're so hung up on this false dichotomy of how and why. It might make sense if you're talking about a crime - the how and the why are two different things, but that's because the how describes the mechanism and the why would describe motive.
Natural mechaisms don't have a motive, whereas ID may do. You can't ascribe a motive to death by natural causes any more than you can ascribe a motive to natural mechanisms.
It clear you didnt read anything I actually said or argued. Please go back and do that
But people do have motives in thier investigations and thier approaches, right
whereas ID may do.
I dont know what that means
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:16 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 119 of 358 (645936)
12-31-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 6:19 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
It is irrelevant that the match in my example did not strike itself (although the fact that matches can strike themselves was the reason that safety matches were developed), the cause is still a natural cause.
Now please present an example of an unnatural cause.
Until you can provide evidence of some supernatural cause you have nothing.
It really is that simple.
Now present an example of a non-natural cause.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:47 PM jar has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 120 of 358 (645937)
12-31-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 6:22 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
But people do have motives in thier investigations and thier approaches, right
You weren't talking about people you were telling us that the ToE doesn't tell us why, just the how. You were telling us that people were only asking the how, but not the why.
The ToE isn't people. It has no motive. I, and the scientists I know, have a single motive - to find answers to questions and we have a vested interest in finding the right answers because future work may depend them.
Jar's match isn't people, it has no motive, the how and the why end up being the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:51 PM Trixie has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024