Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 121 of 358 (645938)
12-31-2011 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
12-31-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
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.
Jar I have already done this in your initial post to me in this thread. Please go back and answer that response
The we can start from there
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 6:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 12-31-2011 7:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 122 of 358 (645939)
12-31-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Trixie
12-31-2011 6:34 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
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.
Both are involved, so yes I meant people as well. How could it be otherwise. Even if people werent here to investigate it, the how still would have happened. So it matters
Jar's match isn't people, it has no motive, the how and the why end up being the same.
Trixie, think about it. Evenif we reduce it to how, the problem is still the same. The TOE only resolves answers here on this small world, it does not answer the question of how overall
But to be valid as an explanation it has to do that, it cant just dismiss it as irrelevant then proceed as if that doesnt matter
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:34 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 123 of 358 (645940)
12-31-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 6:47 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Here is the content of your first reply to me in this thread.
quote:
There is evidence of natural causes.
Until you can present comparable evidence of the "Designer" you have nothing.
It really is that simple.
Jar likes to play with words. He likes to leave the very mistaken impression that there is 'evidence' of the cause for the things in existence
The actual fact is, that there are things in existence, thats all we actually know outside and disregarding the scripture and other texts explaining existences causes
For Jars intimation to be taken seriously as evidence, of the ultimate causes, he would actually have to provide the actual source of these properties, like quarks and other particles, that seem come into existence from nowhere or from another source as yet unknown
So no Jar, there is not "Evidence" of the causes of things, as you are trying to imply, there is only evidence that things are in existence. There is big difference between what the facts actually are and what you are intimating
Outside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of things
That being the case, causation falls to a simple logical proposition of possiblities, of which Id and creation are very much a part of those considerations
Both should be taught in the science classroom
We have been over all of this to many times to mention
Dawn Bertot
I have read that carefully and find no evidence of non-natural causes.
I have presented an example of a natural cause.
Now it is up to you to 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 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(3)
Message 124 of 358 (645944)
12-31-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 6:51 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
TOE only resolves answers here on this small world, it does not answer the question of how overall
That's all it's intended to do. The ToE answers the question of how life is as it is on this small world. It doesn't claim to answer other questions. Neither does the fact that it doesn't answer other questions mean that it's wrong.
The question "What does 2+2 equal" gets an answer of 4. I can dismiss as irrelevant the fact that the answer to "how did Saturn's rings form" is not 4 because the two questions are unrelated and 2+2 will still equal 4.
If this is not addressing what you meant, can you clarify what "The TOE only resolves answers here on this small world, it does not answer the question of how overall" is intended to mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-31-2011 6:51 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 125 of 358 (645946)
12-31-2011 8:30 PM


Dawn, try to concentrate on what you've been told over and over - the ToE does not have anything to say about how life started nor anything about why it started or why we are here.
There really is no point arguing against a position that no-one here holds.
I can only speak for myself but it's a widely held belief amongst atheists that there is no 'why'. Why? is just not relevant because there is no purpose.
So when you ask us to prove a why?, we have no idea what you're talking about. If you think that there is an answer to why? that you have actual evidence for, then we're all ears - go ahead, prove it.
Btw - Happy New Year all.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(8)
Message 126 of 358 (645947)
12-31-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 4:56 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Pay close attention to the next statment D. How does TOE point to the conclusion of Soley natural causes.
Suggest you try to pay even closer attention DB. The Universe is full of 'events' taking place. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to 'need' either a creator or intelligence. As Jar has frequently tried to drum through your thick skull - "There is evidence of natural events taking place - there is no evidence of a guiding hand behind them." To postulate that there is needs evidence for which there is none (except in the fairytale world known as "The World According To Dawn henceforth referred to as TWAT'D).
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.
No science deals with that 'why' question you halfwit. By your reckoning gravity doesn't exist (as we don't know the why of gravity), quantum mechanics doesn't exist (there's so much 'why' missing in QM it doesn't even make sense except to cosmological mathematicians) and electromagnetism doesn't exist as the why of an electromagnetic field is another puzzler. So my friend if you dismiss the ToE on a 'why' basis then you need to dismiss virtually all science. TWAT'D must be a land of cave-dwelling morons!
It also makes the TOE unfalsifiable. If not why not?
Are you a complete moron or do you just work very hard at it - congrats if you do - you pull it off to great effect!!
You can falsify any premise that makes specific predications - which the ToE does - I've even graciously told you how - have you started chipping away at geological strata yet for those Precambrian rabbits?
What you can't falsify are vague nonsense dribbles about nothing specific....like ....ID.
You are aware that the ToE says nothing about the origins of the universe (that's cosmology) and nothing about the start of life on this planet (try organic chemistry). So you can't start burbling about the ToE until you look at progressive change in organisms that have lived on this planet - for that is what the ToE is about (and NOTHING else).
Forget your burbling rambling nonsense about 'the why of things'; you are going into the realm of philosophy not science with that. And remember - the subject here is why the ToE should be taught in a science classroom and ID thrown into a religious classes where it belongs.
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
If you think that evolution explains how a tree works no wonder you are having trouble understanding the ToE. How a tree works is covered in the subject of plant physiology - a subject I studied for 3 years at Uni. Would you like to try again? In fact I'd like you to take a stab at providing some wording for what you think the ToE actually is about. - I'd love to know what the ToE has been morphed into in TWAT'D.
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
Oh that is so easy Dawn. The ToE predicts the Linnaean tree of life - the taxonomic ordering that we see: Kingdom--->Phylum--->Class--->Order--->Genus--->Species. Across the whole plant, animal and bacterial gamut of species the arrangement is both predicted and born out by observation according to the ToE. But it's not predicted by ID - if fact the opposite should be true.
When General Motors first made airbags for cars in the 1970's, in a very short while all makes had them. When Toyota first designed steering locks - soon all cars had them. When antilock braking systems were developed in 1929 for aircraft - they didn't stay just on aircraft. An intelligent designer doesn't limit good inventions to limited lines - only a fool would do that (or maybe an engineer in TWAT'D).
However evolution can't do that. It can only adapt what goes before and cannot use great ideas from other lines (the octopus eye, remember?!). And that is what the Linnaean tree (from the real world not the TWAT'D one) shows. In other words - real evidence from the real world that you can really study....shows the ToE is correct and ID is.....shit !
Any serious investigation will be able to see two simple things on both sides harmony and order, change, adaptation and Natural Selection.
You really shouldn't use phrases like Natural Selection when it's obvious you have no working knowledge about it. Or what does NS mean in the TWAT'D?
Any serious investigation will be able to see two simple things on both sides harmony and order, change, adaptation and Natural Selection.
No it doesn't. I've already told you that science doesn't involve itself in the 'why' of things. That's philosophy....and we are doing science remember. It's a bit rich you asking people to pay close attention when you patently have no attention whatsoever.
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
It's not about seeing order. Order is easy to achieve. Look at any snowflake for example. What is the bigger question is "Is there evidence of a guiding hand behind this?" And it keeps coming back to "No - there isn't". All natural phenomena can be explained by purely natural processes requiring no input from anything 'intelligent'. Just because you like the idea of a God, doesn't mean there's evidence for it ....my very simple friend.
Your mixing oranges with apples. Stick to the methodS first, then we can discuss conclusions later
Like you mixing philosophy with science you mean?
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
If ID is like SM it will make specific predictions. What are they please? And as for not having a leg to stand on - finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. If all your thoughts are just from Dawn then we really do live in TWAT'D don't we?
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
Long-winded way of saying "I haven't got a clue about how to give you something to falsify in ID therefore I'll do a bit of word salad (the usual DB default condition).
Man Im good
Only in TWAT'D.
If you can falsify the TOEs process or immediate conclusions, then it would follow you can falsify the immediate conclusions of the ID approach
You haven't given us any SPECIFIC predictions to falsify, remember. I've given you very specific ToE predictions....you can't even give me one....loser!
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
For the umpteenth time....the question is not whether there are 'laws' or 'order' - but whether there is evidence of a guiding hand. Surely you are not so dumb as to think that just because scientists use the word 'laws' it must mean an intelligence because human 'laws' are obviously made by intelligent beings? The label 'laws' are used to describe processes following regimented processes that can be empirically assessed. It does not mean they must be 'under control of intelligence'. Please tell me you are not that dumb.
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.
I would LOVE you to lay down the tenets of the ToE for me please. I'd love to know what mishmash lies in that head of yours regarding the ToE.
Anyone can see change, natural selection and adaptation, who cares, I can do the samething with my scientific approach coming to your same conclusions
Scientists care - they care about the 'how' questions remember. That is science - that is what goes on in the science classrooms. ID doesn't care 'how' God did it.....it just happened....not science so ID can just fuck off and find some RE class to infest instead. If you want ID in science it has to answer the 'how' questions. Got any idea how it can do that?
What we need is the real results of the TOE,not only How but Why
Sorry - you are fucking about with philosophy with the 'why' question. Get to the philosophy class for that.
Your problems are immediatate and simple
Actually your problem is acute and critical. Jar said it perfectly - "There is evidence of naturally occurring phenomena. There is no evidence of a supernatural one."
And in addition I'm adding "And you can provide no SPECIFIC predictions for ID or any way of real world FALSIFIABILITY. In a nutshell you're TWAT'D.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

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 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:46 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 127 of 358 (645989)
01-01-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dawn Bertot
12-31-2011 5:08 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
HI Dawn Bertot,
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
So maybe you should stop doing it?
Just having a conclusion does not make it scientific, but it does make it logic, a part of philosophy.
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
Except that what the teacher should say is that we don't know, and that philosophy and religion make attempts to answer this question, not science.
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.
Why is the sky blue.
I know HOW it is blue, but why is it that color?
Science explains the how: absorption, radiation of specific light-waves by atoms in the atmosphere.
Science does not explain why that specific color happens to be the one we see.
It does not help your position or free the TOE from its obligations and responsibilites in the area of WHY, ....
Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not have any obligation or responsibility to answer why.
The obligation and responsibility of science in general, and the Toe in specific, is to answer HOW things work, so that we can predict how they will continue to work, predict what will happen in response to certain inputs.
... especially when we dont know exacally why.
If we don't know why the sky is blue, does that mean that science is invalid, because it only explains how the sky is blue?
If we don't know why anything happens, does that mean that science is invalid because it only addresses how things work?
If what you are saying is that science is incomplete because it doesn't explain everything, then big whap - that is not a big earth shattering revelation.
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
Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not attempt to answer why. The purpose of scientific investigation is to see how things work so that predictions can be made (and tested to refine our knowledge of how things work).
Throwing terms at an excluding the TOE from its obligations will not help your cause
Throwing terms at science that don't apply does not change the purpose of science in general, and ToE in specific, to explain how things work.
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
And, curiously, science does not claim to be anything but tentative. Science KNOWS that it is tentative.
This means that if you want to find a more complete explanation, that then you must go beyond science, to religion and philosophy, to conclusions that cannot be tested, and then embrace them with faith that they answer the rest of the questions.
In my very humble, yet sometimes arrogant, opinion, that is nothing short of delusion.
... especially when we dont know exacally why.
... Its tenative at best. And who cares about tenative
Because we don't know everything, then what we know is necessarily tentative.
And if our knowledge is necessarily tentative, then why encumber it with assumptions that we cannot know for sure, nor test for veracity?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 10:29 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 128 of 358 (646010)
01-01-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Drosophilla
12-31-2011 8:41 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Suggest you try to pay even closer attention DB. The Universe is full of 'events' taking place. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to 'need' either a creator or intelligence. As Jar has frequently tried to drum through your thick skull - "There is evidence of natural events taking place - there is no evidence of a guiding hand behind them." To postulate that there is needs evidence for which there is none (except in the fairytale world known as "The World According To Dawn henceforth referred to as TWAT'D).
Same Song, second verse, alittle louder alittle worse. Or should I say alot louder. I am amuzed at you fellas, that scream loud, name call, insult and use sarcasm, to hide the fact that you havent actully addressed the issue.
Jar, like yourself understands very little about reasoning. Jar likes to play with words to indicate he has evidence that he does not. Let me demonstrate. If there is actual "evidence" of soley natural causes, then he would be able to not only explain but demonstrate the things which you describe below.
Since he cannot for example explain why sub-atomic particles come into existence, seemingly from nowhere, it follows logically that he does not understand how this process takes place. If he assumes/it they come from nowhere verses somewhere, then he needs to demostrate that to know its soley natural causes. Since he cannot, it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, like you and Jar, he does not have and there are actually no evidences of natural causes. Is the light bulb, starting to come on?
If Jar had actual "evidence" of natural causes, he would be able to show us the actual process, when it started and exacally what happened at that time. Since he cannot, it follows he does not have actual evidence of soley natural cuses
No science deals with that 'why' question you halfwit. By your reckoning gravity doesn't exist (as we don't know the why of gravity), quantum mechanics doesn't exist (there's so much 'why' missing in QM it doesn't even make sense except to cosmological mathematicians) and electromagnetism doesn't exist as the why of an electromagnetic field is another puzzler. So my friend if you dismiss the ToE on a 'why' basis then you need to dismiss virtually all science.
Really, thanks, I didnt know that. Your a swift one arent you son, cant slip anything by you can we? Ironically its you that is suggesting that science is not really science. If you suggest that science follows certain rules, then that same process cannot adhere to its own principles, it either has a faulty definition of science or it is not science. You might recognize this, its called simple reasoning, if you missed it
Its first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processes
Dismissing it outright is called 'wave of the hand debating'. So immediately two possibiltes present themself. Either the SM excludes requirments for themself they require for someomne else or they dont understand why exluding this process in any valid investigation is not logical
Where did I ever say the SM was not science? What I said and to this point you still have not given it anything but Lipservice. Is that you cannot dismiss the obligation from the SM, that suggests that when conducting an investigation that it has no obligation to understand why after, you discover How.
Ascribing, assigning or relegating it to the area of Philosophy does not help you. Until you can in some logical way demonstrate why any investigation into the real world should not include its origins.
You can falsify any premise that makes specific predications - which the ToE does - I've even graciously told you how - have you started chipping away at geological strata yet for those Precambrian rabbits?
What you can't falsify are vague nonsense dribbles about nothing specific....like ....ID.
You are aware that the ToE says nothing about the origins of the universe (that's cosmology) and nothing about the start of life on this planet (try organic chemistry). So you can't start burbling about the ToE until you look at progressive change in organisms that have lived on this planet - for that is what the ToE is about (and NOTHING else).
And without even trying you demonstrate not only what I am saying, but with all the gaul you can muster Mr, you ignorantly claim that the TOE, which is an investigation and involes the SM, does not involve logical conclusions of its consequences, in the form of origins. Nobody in thier right mind would assume any investigation, the TOE or other wise would not include this property of investigation. One would think your reasoning couldnt get any worse, but bam, it does. If I thought the above comment by yourself was commical, the next one demonstrates your massive lack of reasoning abilties
Forget your burbling rambling nonsense about 'the why of things'; you are going into the realm of philosophy not science with that. And remember - the subject here is why the ToE should be taught in a science classroom and ID thrown into a religious classes where it belongs.
My simple friend. All ideologies, science or philosophy, whatever, are or should be based in proper reasoning. Science and philosophy are just terms we have used to describe them. They are either valid or they are not. They either correspond to existence or relaity or they do not. Relegating and disregarding your responsibility in an investigation of the natural world, in the area of origins, to philosophy, is not only poor reasoning, but it shows you understand nothing about philosophy.
Philosophy in reality cannot be disassociated from any valid investigation of the natural world. No rational investigationof the natural world could exclude questions of origins and be coonsistent. So logically by your own admissions its either not science or its bad investigation.
In fact I'd like you to take a stab at providing some wording for what you think the ToE actually is about. - I'd love to know what the ToE has been morphed into in TWAT'D.
Its an investigation into the natural world, which if it is to be considered a complete and rational one, needs to include the origins. Or at best it needs to adress that issue if it includes falsification in its process Id say I described pretty accurately right?
Oh that is so easy Dawn. The ToE predicts the Linnaean tree of life - the taxonomic ordering that we see: Kingdom--->Phylum--->Class--->Order--->Genus--->Species. Across the whole plant, animal and bacterial gamut of species the arrangement is both predicted and born out by observation according to the ToE.
I believe this is called an investigation, correct? Its also an investigation thats stops short of all it should include. Did the earth and universe appear suddenly by themself, leaving just those things to investigate? Term and designation, shouldnt qualify how an investigation proceeds, should it assist the process. But at the end of the day its just an investigation, right
If this is all that it does then it solves nothing an investigation should, it answers no real questions, that matter
At best its a dishonest investigation that stops short of anything
But it's not predicted by ID - if fact the opposite should be true.
This is only true if the TOE and the SM answers any real questions, it does not. It is only true if your compare your process with my conclusion, which you just did. That is a mistake. If however you compare my process with your process, it will be demonstrated that it is an investigation that can predict, detailed order, detailed and intricate harmony and purpose
When General Motors first made airbags for cars in the 1970's, in a very short while all makes had them. When Toyota first designed steering locks - soon all cars had them. When antilock braking systems were developed in 1929 for aircraft - they didn't stay just on aircraft. An intelligent designer doesn't limit good inventions to limited lines - only a fool would do that (or maybe an engineer in TWAT'D).
If your implication here is that God should act in a certain way, design things in a certain way, to prove that evolution somehow supports the idea of soley natural causes, it wont work. As I stated before, regardless of your findings or speculations, it has nothing to do with what is logically demonstratable, FROM ALL THE PHYSICAL evidence. While you observe one, you disregard the other, order law and purpose. YOu exclude this observation and prediction out of your investigation, to get your desired result
Its you that stops short of searching for answers. He has given you the very real observalble evidence of detailed and intricate order, law and purpose. Its you that has stopped short and disregarded this part of the investigative process and claim it doesnt matter. You relegate it to philosophy, not understnading that reason and philosophy are the foundation of any science or investigation. You have mistakenly replaced terms and phrases with what is simple reasoning
However evolution can't do that. It can only adapt what goes before and cannot use great ideas from other lines (the octopus eye, remember?!). And that is what the Linnaean tree (from the real world not the TWAT'D one) shows. In other words - real evidence from the real world that you can really study....shows the ToE is correct and ID is.....shit !
It shows that evolution is "correct" about what? Does it show real evidence from the real world that, it is a product of soley natural causes? No If my conclusion must always matter, then it should follow that yours does to. Does the SMor evo show that its a product of soley natural causes?
When the TOE is bold and accurate enough to include all the aspects of an investigation, at bare minimum, it will begin to be logical and rational
No it doesn't. I've already told you that science doesn't involve itself in the 'why' of things. That's philosophy....and we are doing science remember. It's a bit rich you asking people to pay close attention when you patently have no attention whatsoever.
See what I mean. D, there both just investigations, rationalor irrational. The idfference between the two is in your mind only
It's not about seeing order. Order is easy to achieve. Look at any snowflake for example. What is the bigger question is "Is there evidence of a guiding hand behind this?" And it keeps coming back to "No - there isn't". All natural phenomena can be explained by purely natural processes requiring no input from anything 'intelligent'. Just because you like the idea of a God, doesn't mean there's evidence for it ....my very simple friend.
We will call this the Jar syndrome from now on ok? Its not a matter of what I like or dont like, its a matter of what is logical and demonstratable. I appreciate your admission of law and order.
Incredible as the claim by yourself may seem, it is not true that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural process, as I have demonstrated up above, concerning Jars contention. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the ID Process, is science and its properties are falsifiable, even its conclusions are not
its the snowflakes substructure that shows the exact order. That order is consistent across the natural world
Its difficult debating a creationist that knows what he is talking about, isnt it?
If ID is like SM it will make specific predictions. What are they please? And as for not having a leg to stand on - finally a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. If all your thoughts are just from Dawn then we really do live in TWAT'D don't we?
Well I dont know how many times I need to do this, but OK. A close examination of some, if not most or all of the natural processes, will show and predict the very real property of , order, consistency, harmony and purpose
Since however, you have already agreed that Order is real in the words, "Order is easy", it follows that I have no need to establish this any further
Again, this is not the point though is it? It does not matter what the TOE or the SM predict if they only describe and predict, things that can be discovered by any simple investigation. But the SM, falls short of its obligations doesnt it?
IDs process does essentially the samething, unless you can demonstrate otherwise
For the umpteenth time....the question is not whether there are 'laws' or 'order' - but whether there is evidence of a guiding hand. Surely you are not so dumb as to think that just because scientists use the word 'laws' it must mean an intelligence because human 'laws' are obviously made by intelligent beings? The label 'laws' are used to describe processes following regimented processes that can be empirically assessed. It does not mean they must be 'under control of intelligence'. Please tell me you are not that dumb.
This statement is the icing on the cake that you dont undertand the difference between a process and a conclusion. It removes all doubt that you dont understand that you are comparing your process with my conclusion. It removes all doubt that you dont see you are requiring of me, what you do not require of yourself
Of course it is a matters whether there is law and order. That is what IDs process discovers, that is what it predicts over and over again
I would LOVE you to lay down the tenets of the ToE for me please. I'd love to know what mishmash lies in that head of yours regarding the ToE.
Thats easy. Please describe the TOE in other words that do not mean Investigation
Scientists care - they care about the 'how' questions remember. That is science - that is what goes on in the science classrooms.
No its not. As a matter of fact you are lying to your students by convincing them that the TOE is an honest investigation into the real world, Its not because it deliberatley misplaces and dsregards actual, order law and purpose. The TOE implies and indirectly teaches, processes by Soley natural cuases, Without including the only other scientifically demonstatable approach, that has nothing to do with religion
Doing science would include all vaild scientific approaches to the Natural world correct?
ID doesn't care 'how' God did it.....it just happened....not science so ID can just fuck off and find some RE class to infest instead. If you want ID in science it has to answer the 'how' questions. Got any idea how it can do that?
Yes, by you not comparing my conclusion with your process. When you examine my process like you do yours, you will see its results, that point to a conclusion. When you examine your process, you will see its results that point to the conclusion of Soley Natural causes. How is that for objectivity. But I bet objectivity is not in your dictionary, is it
Sorry - you are fucking about with philosophy with the 'why' question. Get to the philosophy class for that.
Your mimicking and parroting ideas you have been fed and heard. Your not thinking for yourself and in any rational way. Any tyro in logic would know both these fields are just examinations and investigations, valid or invalid
Both investigations and any investigation to the natural world cannot exclude the origins. Only a tyro would assume otherwise. Are you a tyro
Any Tyro would know that philosophy is the foundation for any science or any rational argument. Are you a Tyro?
Your problems are immediatate and simple
Actually your problem is acute and critical. Jar said it perfectly - "There is evidence of naturally occurring phenomena. There is no evidence of a supernatural one."
As I have already demonstrated, he is not even rational on that point. We will call it the Jar syndrome, that is obth illogical and irrational, as I have demonstrated with stinging accuracy
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 126 by Drosophilla, posted 12-31-2011 8:41 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Drosophilla, posted 01-02-2012 6:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 133 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2012 6:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 129 of 358 (646011)
01-01-2012 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
01-01-2012 12:00 PM


Re: The theory of evolution, once again ...
If what you are saying is that science is incomplete because it doesn't explain everything, then big whap - that is not a big earth shattering revelation.
It is all, anywhere, an investigation, thats all. Its either complete or incomplete in its approach
Throwing terms at reality does not change the reality of a complete, rational and logical investigation
Ive covered most of your points in my last post to Dorso. If you feel Ive missed something, Ill be happy to answer it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2012 12:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 130 of 358 (646014)
01-01-2012 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
01-01-2012 12:00 PM


A rose by anyother name
Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not have any obligation or responsibility to answer why.
The obligation and responsibility of science in general, and the Toe in specific, is to answer HOW things work, so that we can predict how they will continue to work, predict what will happen in response to certain inputs.
These are assertions that need to be demonstrated in a rational way, not just boldly stated as if they were fact.
Investigations are just investigations, complete or incomplete. Especially when examining the natural world
Using terms like philosophy or science to redesribe what is simply a valid or invalid discussion, does not change the reality of an examination. Because that is what it is, just an examination
If you want to call an investigation or examination a grocery cart, it will not change what it is or whether it is complete or valid in its approach
It could even be Silicon Aftar, the crystline entity or the Immortal Dowd, but that would not change its properties
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 127 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2012 12:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2012 1:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 1:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(6)
Message 131 of 358 (646024)
01-02-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 10:29 PM


Re: Nonsense by anyother name
Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not have any obligation or responsibility to answer why.
The obligation and responsibility of science in general, and the Toe in specific, is to answer HOW things work, so that we can predict how they will continue to work, predict what will happen in response to certain inputs.
These are assertions that need to be demonstrated in a rational way, not just boldly stated as if they were fact.
The post passed on to you some information about how science works. If you disagree, show why his post was incorrect.
At this point it seems to be just you against all of science. (Hint: the odds are not good.)
Investigations are just investigations, complete or incomplete. Especially when examining the natural world
So? You have a point in there somewhere?
Using terms like philosophy or science to redesribe what is simply a valid or invalid discussion, does not change the reality of an examination. Because that is what it is, just an examination
If you want to call an investigation or examination a grocery cart, it will not change what it is or whether it is complete or valid in its approach
It could even be Silicon Aftar, the crystline entity or the Immortal Dowd, but that would not change its properties
These last paragraphs are simply nonsense.
From observing your posts over the past few months it has become clear that you know little about science, but are sure it is all wrong anyway.
That doesn't impress me in the least.
If you want to make any headway you need to actually learn something about how science works. This will make your posts a lot more substantial, and maybe even worth reading.
(And see signature.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 10:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 132 of 358 (646030)
01-02-2012 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Jar, like yourself understands very little about reasoning. Jar likes to play with words to indicate he has evidence that he does not. Let me demonstrate. If there is actual "evidence" of soley natural causes, then he would be able to not only explain but demonstrate the things which you describe below.
Since he cannot for example explain why sub-atomic particles come into existence, seemingly from nowhere, it follows logically that he does not understand how this process takes place. If he assumes/it they come from nowhere verses somewhere, then he needs to demostrate that to know its soley natural causes. Since he cannot, it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, like you and Jar, he does not have and there are actually no evidences of natural causes. Is the light bulb, starting to come on?
It's obvious to anyone of intelligence that you don't even have a light bulb to 'come on' in the first place.
When we say there is no evidence of anything happening by supernatural means we mean exactly that. Only a halfwit would consider including a term for which there is no evidence (Laplace (mathematician) said this long ago to Napoleon.
It's like you saying to me "I've been on holiday to Africa. Look here is the evidence - my stamped passport, my holiday safari snaps, my African carved wooden animals". Then I say to you "Well I don't believe that you only went to Africa because you could have gone to the North Pole instead - but are hiding the evidence of that visit to me".
You would rightly think me an idiot - just like all on here think to your stance. There really is no need to make reference to that for which there is no evidence.
Really, thanks, I didnt know that. Your a swift one arent you son, cant slip anything by you can we? Ironically its you that is suggesting that science is not really science. If you suggest that science follows certain rules, then that same process cannot adhere to its own principles, it either has a faulty definition of science or it is not science. You might recognize this, its called simple reasoning, if you missed it
I know you didn't know that - which is why I kindly helped you out. Seems it is just a case of casting pearls before swine though.
Really - science does just deal with the 'why'. That is the essence of what science is about and if you'd taken even a simple low-brow intro to any science discipline it would have been one of the first things you learnt.
Hint: You don't get to make up shit about things just because it suits life in TWAT'D.
Its first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processes
It's first mistake? ROTFLAMAO! Would you like to compare human knowledge and technical advancement two thousand years ago compared to now? Those ignorant bronze age shepherds would cower in terror at our jumbo jets, skyscrapers, computers and space shuttles. How the fuck do you think that came about? Try the powerful discipline of the scientific method.
I repeat...to live in TWAT'D would mean we'd still be fucking about in animal skins and herding goats for a living.
Either the SM excludes requirments for themself they require for someomne else or they dont understand why exluding this process in any valid investigation is not logical
For the umpteenth time....science ONLY deals with that which can be evidenced. By the way you are a fluent liar. I have never asked you to provide a type of evidence which science cannot. I have asked you to provide REAL WORLD evidence of your intelligent being - something that can be properly and PHYSICALLY investigated (you know....like geological strata and fossil distribution, or genetic markers). You repeatedly give me nothing but words.
Not a single piece of real world evidence. Like that imaginary visit to the north pole above....it doesn't exist except in that marvellous world of TWAT'D.
Where did I ever say the SM was not science? What I said and to this point you still have not given it anything but Lipservice. Is that you cannot dismiss the obligation from the SM, that suggests that when conducting an investigation that it has no obligation to understand why after, you discover How.
You do realise that your wish to rewrite the definition of the scientific method doesn't mean it should happen do you? The SM has done fine so far sunshine. I've still to see your stupid God put men on the moon. The issue here is what should be taught in science classes so that the next generation of youngsters continue to advance the condition of the human species. And ID would rapidly corrode science - it would teach that 'actually the great designer did all and science doesn't count for jack shit', when in fact science has made us dominant on our planet - and who knows where else in future. The SM doesn't need your stupid God hypothesis - it does just fine without it - and always has.
Ascribing, assigning or relegating it to the area of Philosophy does not help you
What do you think the discipline of philosophy is about? Its preserve is exactly that for which the answers to questions cannot be evidenced in the way that the SM uses evidence. The big 'why' of things is classic philosophy - seems you never took a philosophy class to add to the fact you clearly never took a science class.....one wonders what you did do at school!
And without even trying you demonstrate not only what I am saying, but with all the gaul you can muster Mr, you ignorantly claim that the TOE, which is an investigation and involes the SM, does not involve logical conclusions of its consequences, in the form of origins
This is like saying "I'm going to investigate how the latest Airbus has been developed, and you saying "Ah but you must first investigate hot air balloons because they flew first. And then you have to investigate birds because they flew before them....and then...."
Utterly irrelevant! The ToE is a theory ABOUT change in species. It is NOT about how life originated (abiogenesis - or the study of organic chemistry). Please please go read up about evolution before you try debating something for which you obviously know fuck all. A good into text for you would be Dawkings’ "The Greatest Show on Earth".
Philosophy in reality cannot be disassociated from any valid investigation of the natural world.
Oh yes it can my ignorant friend. The SM has successfully been 'disassociated' from philosophy for the past 2000 plus years - and look where we are now! Again, your assertions from the land of TWAT'D have absolutely no validity in the real world.
Here's a little test for you. How many books are out there describing the SM as it really is compared with how many describing it as DB thinks it is. (clue: the first way numbers books in the millions - the second? Cough, cough - care to submit the first draft of the first book describing your take on the SM - lets see how long it takes to publish - ah yes.....it's the great scientific conspiracy...Dawn's book wouldn't get published because they are all frightened of the work of this obvious maverick genius!!!
I believe this is called an investigation, correct? Its also an investigation thats stops short of all it should include
Only in your uniformed opinion. Does it not worry you that millions of scientists throughout the world completely disagree with TWAT'D? There are a couple of words applicable to people who think their view is correct when the vast bulk of the world think otherwise....paranoid delusionists.
Thats easy. Please describe the TOE in other words that do not mean Investigation
Areshole! I asked YOU to describe YOUR understanding of the ToE not for YOU to ask ME to do it (and asking me to do it to YOUR specifications for fuck's sake!).
I'll take this as another task you can't do.
As I have already demonstrated, he is not even rational on that point. We will call it the Jar syndrome, that is obth illogical and irrational, as I have demonstrated with stinging accuracy
Well the 'Jar syndrome' as you put it happens to be in accord with the SM - you DON'T invent terms for which there is NO evidence. The God term has NO evidence therefore completely not needed by the SM.
And despite protestations from those who inhabit TWAT'D, science has made us the species we now are..... only those paranoid delusionists like you think otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2012 1:53 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 133 of 358 (646031)
01-02-2012 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Dawn Bertot writes:
Its first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processes
Of course science investigates "origins". It's actually creationism that doesn't do so. If you look at creation mythologies, they make up a whole variety of origins "answers" that do not describe the real cosmos at all, and are very clearly human fabrications. Making stuff up and believing it is certainly not investigating.
When scientists don't know the origins of something, they make all the relevant observations they can, hypothesise, and methodically investigate. Whether or not future generations will ever have a complete understanding of the universe in this way is something impossible to say, but it's the only way to proceed. There are no shortcuts, and making up myths may please some people, but it certainly isn't investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 9:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 134 of 358 (646037)
01-02-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by agent_509
12-23-2011 9:10 PM


In my Evolution course last semester we had to review a YEC book. I did mine on Jonathon Sarfati's Refuting Evolution . One of my main criticisms of this book and the entire YEC movement (apart from the technical errors and misrepresentations) was that it was written to an audience with no scientific knowledge, no concept of what evolution really means and no understanding of the evidence that is accepted as confirmation of the theory. Those readers then think that Sarfati has made a brilliant case against evolution and set out to enlighten the "evil evolutionists". Those people would certainly be humiliated and embarrassed in a debate with anyone with even a general knowledge of evolution.
The YECs have created an unnecessary and completely false dichotomy - they teach that understanding Genesis in a literal way is foundational to understanding the Bible as a whole. If Genesis is wrong or rejected, the whole Bible falls. They have created this idea that you are either a YEC or an atheistic evolutionist. I believe this to be completely untrue - it does not have to be an either / or debate.
Another major problem is that the YEC use so many false arguments, misrepresentations and deceptive tactics that it appears that is the way all Christians are. Another huge disservice of the YEC movement.
I encourage you to continue to question everything. But I would also encourage you to not make this an either / or debate and not be committed to one extreme or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by agent_509, posted 12-23-2011 9:10 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by agent_509, posted 01-02-2012 9:20 PM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 135 of 358 (646038)
01-02-2012 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
12-24-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Welcome back!
How about Hugh Ross? although not a YEC (he is a progressive creationist), he became an astrophysicist before he became a Christian and he claims it was his discoveries in astrophysics and subsequent study of several different religions that drove him to that choice.
His story here (annoying audio can be disabled at the bottom of page)
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 12-24-2011 5:43 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by subbie, posted 01-02-2012 5:04 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2012 5:37 PM herebedragons 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