Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 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 337 of 358 (648466)
01-15-2012 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Coyote
01-13-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Summary
I would consider "soley [sic] natural causes" a working assumption.
And you are wrong once again; that assumption can be falsified by evidence to the contrary.
Isnt that interesting. He claims that, that hypothesis can be falsified, then leaves off, actually explaing how that is done or fails to provide the needed evidence
Unfortunately for you and your side of the issue, no such evidence has been found.
There you go again mixing up conclusions with processes. Of course our side of the issue has evidence in its process. Now unless you are talking about conclusions, in which case it is necessary for you to provide such evidence as well, or falsifiability is of not use correct?
No Coyote you cant falsify the end hypothesis of the ToE. Which means it is either not science or that you need to rethink the strict standard you have attached to falsifiabilty
So lets see the evidence that falsifies the end hypothesis of Soley Natural causes
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 11:19 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 338 of 358 (648467)
01-15-2012 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Butterflytyrant
01-13-2012 10:51 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Thats quite strange. It appears that everyone who disagrees with what you are saying is wrong and/or unable to comprehend what you are selling.
Lets look at a wee bit. In this thread and others were you have put this same idea on the table for consideration, people from a dozen different nations, aged from quite young to in the seventies, ranged in education from high school to doctorates, from many different disciplines have all objected to what you are selling.
Dawn. Note to self.
If several people from many different countries disagree with you, yet can not refute your propositions, then go ahead and change your thinking to suit thiers, becuase they must be right, because they are the opposition and have vehemently argued thier position. Not accurately but vehemently, with vulgarity, insult and rudeness, but no evidence t the contrary
Ignore the fact Dawn that, you could actually be right about anything, because several people have disagreed, but we know, you could never be right, no matter how valid your position
Ignore the fact Dawn, that they have not even begun to address in any logical fashion, the basic tenets of your position. ie, what an investigation actually involves, what an investigation includes. The actual difference between conclusions and processes.
Ignore Dawn that they continue to confuse thier process with your conclusion, your conclusion with your process, your conclusion with thier process, yet they seem to, or pretend to, not know the difference, between the two
Ignore the fact Dawn, that they continue use terms like falsifiabilty, yet understand neither its actual application to an actual investigation or how they require something of others out of it, verses what they require of themselves
Ignore the fact Dawn, that while they claim there is actual Evidence of Soley Natural causes, they provide no Actual evidence of such a calim
Ignore the fact Dawn, that while they claim that the hypothosis of Soley Natural causes is falsifiable, they dont actually demonstrate in a rational and logical way the evidence that supports scu a claim
Ignore the fact Dawn, that they play word games with the words Evidence and Science, to eliminate any investigation and conlcusions except thier own
Ignore the fact Dawn, that they throw words like Philosophy, abiogenesis and falsifiabiltiy to alleviate themselves of any rational investigation concerning the natural world
Ignore the fact Dawn, that reality and reason say that an investigation is just an investigation. It does not need to be regulated and controlled by a certain few, thinking they have figured everything out
Ignore the fact dawn that they have failed to show why when using such words as philosophy and science or the SM, why this absolves them from demonstrating an actual difference in the investigation that the ToE intiates, verses what the other words involve
Ignore the fact Dawn, that they have failed to demonstrate why the very clear presence of Law, Order and Purpose should be ignored, because they have decided they dont like it or suggest that it is actually, not Law, Order and Purpose
Ignore the fact Dawn that the ToLO&P, is equal to any evidence or data gathered by the process of the ToE
Ignore the fact Dawn that some of these so-called experts claim that law and order exist, then others claim it does not. yet neither will demonstrate why it does not exist
Please ignore the fact dawn, that the theory of Law, order and purpose and the conclusionof a designer, fall squarely within and support oneof only two logical conclusions as to the eixstence of eixstence itself
Ignore the fact Dawn that no evidence To the Contrary has been provided as to why the investigation conducted by ID scientist does not constitute a scientific investigation into the natural world
And Finally, as if this were not enough, ignore the fact Dawn, that no evidence has been offered as to why the investigative procees used by IDst, the data gathered, the conclusions established and the process, does not involve all the tenets of the Scientific Method and why it should not be tuaght in the science classroom as science, involving answers to the question of existence n the first place
Yes, stupid me, I cant for the life of me see why I hold to and maintain the positions that I do
Thank you.
If I stretch my arse cheeks really wide, you can kiss me right on the hole.
I say that with the greatest respect.
And BTW, Dawn
Note to self
Avoid Butterflytyrant, as he may be a Perv, as per his words. At bare minimum we know he is perverse, so avoid him at all costs
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 10:51 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-16-2012 11:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 341 of 358 (648471)
01-15-2012 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Coyote
01-15-2012 10:58 PM


Re: Summary
post is so confused and erroneous that it is not worth responding to.
As i supposed you are not able to provide evidence that the hypothesis that Soley Natrual causes is falsifiable, is actually that, falsifiable
Well, thats one way to avoid your obligation in debate
So you dont mind looking foolish in front of your peers and viewers, correct
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 10:58 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 342 of 358 (648473)
01-15-2012 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Omnivorous
01-15-2012 11:04 PM


Re: Summary
Are you implying that there could never be any evidence for I.D./creationism?
*crickets*
In this instance there is no DIRECT evidence of which position is correct, outside of the scriptures.
In this instance you have use and teach what the available evidence allows, from the data gathered
Whether that is Order, Change, Design, or Soley narual causes.
I believe both and only both are demonstratabe, correct?
But it is true that while neither can be demonstrated absolutely, neither should be avoided or left off. Wouldnt you agree?
That is unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Omnivorous, posted 01-15-2012 11:04 PM Omnivorous has not replied

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


Message 345 of 358 (648512)
01-16-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Tangle
01-16-2012 5:11 AM


Re: Summary
1. The ToE does not have an end hypothesis. Its hypotheses are start points and can necessarily be falsified.
2. How life started is as yet not known. You are able to claim this as a point on your side of the argument. Make the most of it.
Ill try and make this as simple as I can, so you can understand. There is, NOT ACTUALLY, your side and my side. That doesnt actually exist
There is just an investigation into the natural world. There is just an investigation. There is not actually, YOUR investigation and MINE. there is just an investgation
Becuase that which Ihave just stated is actually the CASE and true, it follows that that investigation has to have an end hypo.
That end hypo is, how did life start
This is because the ToE deals with how life developed AFTER life began and because we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that life evolved and was not created as we see it today.
My friend, this is what you need to prove, not just assert. You cant just asser this proposition, then assume it is true
5. Nothing in the ToE talks about 'solely natural causes' but it is an underlying assumption. It can't examine 'unnatural causes' because it never finds any. If there were things in genetics or the fossil record that where 'unnatural' we'd be scratching our heads and puzzling over them. I am not aware of any. If you are, please let us know.
Right, so we are left with the available evidence and the conclusions (end hypos) of what that evidence allows
In this instance its only the possibilites of Soley Natural or design
It cannot be whether you like it or not, because I dont like Soley Natural causes, but I have to allow it
This is secondary as to whether ID is a science approach, of course it is. This is secondary as to whether design should be taught as scienctific explanations, of curse it should be,
as i have just demonstrated
people have to remove thier fears and prejudices and let the facts speak for themselves
When that happens and only when it happens will ID be given the serious and logical consideration that it desreves
It seems to not affect anyone objectively that these two scientifically approaches have been around since the Dawn of time
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2012 5:11 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Trixie, posted 01-16-2012 9:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 348 by Larni, posted 01-16-2012 9:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 349 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2012 10:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 357 of 358 (648615)
01-17-2012 12:40 AM


The summation, as if one was needed
Jar writes
Yet more misrepresentation from Dawn Bertot as expected.
First, the Theory of Evolution does have an end hypotheses.
If it did, it would not be "solely by natural causes" as you assert.
If it did include that assumption, then you could falsify it by presenting what folk have been asking you to produce for years, namely one single example of a non-natural cause.
What can be said and said as a conclusion is that no evidence of even a single non-natural cause has ever been found.
Again, no evidence of natrual causes exists either If there actually was evidence of natural causes, you would be able to do two things. You would be able to explain and given answers to the questions, for which there is no answer. Since you cant do this it follows that there is no actual evidence of natural causes
Secondly you would be able to demonstrate that the ToLO&P and design are untenable. Since you cannot do this, it follows that both conclusions are tenable.. You are dishonest as to what evidence is and how to establish a valid conclusion, concerning matters of an investigative nature
Lastly, you have still failed to present any evidence (actual evidence) that things are here by Soley Natural causes. You are playing with words to make an attempt, to justify an assertion you cannot demonstrate
If it did include that assumption, then you could falsify it by presenting what folk have been asking you to produce for years, namely one single example of a non-natural cause.
No Jar a lack of evidence to demonstrate the conclusion of soley natrual causes is not evidence. It is saying you have no idea on the how and why
Since you have no idea or evidence of Soley natural causes actually (just your assetion), it should be clear that that is not falsifying your hypothesis
Larni writes
Dawn, you fool: there is no such thing as an 'end hypo'. You are confusing a hypothesis with a conclusion; cementing many people's thoughts that you do not know of what you speak.
Ill try this one more time. Where there is no definte answer for a conclusion, its ok to call it an end hypothesis. If you want to call it a conclusion, that does not matter either, because, there is no definte answer. There is no definte answer of Soley Natrual causes, so one may consider it still in hypothesis mode. Does it really matter?
Since it is still an unfounded hypothesis, it cannot have direct evidence. Therefore any other hypothesis that maintains the same type of evidence, with no definte answer, it follows that that evidence should be included
Yourself and Jar are not smart enough, I suppose, to see that maintaining that there is only evidence of Soley Natrual causes, indicates that you believe there is actually an end hypothesis, even tothe ToE That is, you have given it that determination,then turn around and suggest there is no end hypothesis. Surely you two can see the simple mistake you are making
Tangle writes
Neither you nor I are carrying out an investigation. We're both spectating what science is doing.
Then how did you or others decide that there is only evidence of Soley Natrual causes?
Either your conclusion of SN causes, is invaild because you are speculating or you are conducting a scientific investigation to come to that conclusion. You simply dont understand that there is only an investigation, valid or invalid. There are no sides and throwing terms at an investigation that explores the natural world by the same humans, that live on the same planet, wont make it any more than an investigation, valid or invalid
Only a Nitwit would suggest that an investgation into the natural world,would cease, at the point the TOE suggests. Any further investigation processes, whether described as philosophy or abiogenesis, are just Terms of the same investigation. To suggest otherwise is at best nonsesne and at worst blatant stupidity
Other than just saying it is this or that, no one has provided any evidence as to why it is not actually the same investigation. Again, you cant just say, "Well, we have examined everything and as to how and why it is here in the first place, Well will just leave that to someone else" When they ask us why we are leaving that to someone else, we will just say, "because we just dont care and it doesnt matter"
How many children do you think that will by that brilliant insight?
Tangle writes
I am reporting the scientific outcomes as I understand them, you are making stuff up in your head and claiming that it is science.
Every scientific outcome has to have a summation or conclusion, even if that summation cannot be evidenced directly. Did you not pay attention to Larni and Jar, Insisting that all investigations or science can produce, is that there is only evidence of Soley natural causes. This my simple friend is a end hypo or conclusion. What you desigante or call it is not important. What the investigation, all of it, does, and how it is approached does matter
Whether in debate or in person, I have failed yet to have a person, not understand that simple point and without hesitation they say, well that makes perfect sense.
Did you not pay attention to the fact that only two logically scientific approaches to the existence of things, are the only two included, that can be considered as science. The conclusion of Soley Natural causes must be included in reporting the outcomes of science (and it must be), for your science to make any sense.
You cant just stop where you choose and call it Good
It's wrong because a scientific theory STARTS with a bloody hypothesis - it doesn't end with one.
This demonstrates two things. You dont even understand what the word science means and you dont have the ability to comprehend simple reality. The investigation does not stop with a simple examination of data and matter. It must have a hypothesis as to its origination. If it decides one is not available or that it is by SN causes, then that is still an end hypo and a conlcusion
Call it philosophy, call it abogenesis, its just an extention of the same investigation, which to this point as I can surmize, from you fellas, is that it is here by Soley Natrual causes. If the ToE does not have conclusions what is that.
The ToE IS the proof. If you wish to have a discussion about science you need to start from there - inconvenient though that may be for you.
The ToE is proof that change has taken place. It is proof of nothing else. When you quit both in court and here in person confusing my conclusion of ID with the process of the ToE, you will see clearly to understand that the SM and the ToE, have and provide nothing, that can be considered different than IDs process
Butterflytyrant writes
2. Dawn believes that there are only two possibilities. 1 : the creation story as outlined in the Bible. 2 : soley [sic] natural causes. This logical fallacy is a false dichotomy. Other options include : all of the other creation stories, unintelligent design, accidental creation, intelligent being (not supernatural) creation, scientific ideas not yet conceived etc
This statement alone bares out two things, from your post. You dont even understand what is being discussed and because of that point, you continue to misrepresent anything I am saying. Please show in some other thread, as this one is done, where I ever referenced the creation story, in this thread
You dont even understand whats being discussed
As i staed earlier, if Percy permits, I will be happy to engage you on any of the questions and concerns you have raised. But one thing is certain, those things you alledge and attempt to refute, are not what is being discussed here. So you continue to miss the point and continue to misrepresent me presently
You fellas are so glaringly inconsistent. With one breath you say the SM and the ToE dont answer or involve itself with the questions of origins, then turn right around and claim to know that things, the way they are were not created or designed to proceed and operate the way you claim they have
You have and i suspect will continue to make the mistake that if evo were true, it would not or could not involve creation or design.
You fail to realize that one doesnt preclude the other. But i also suspect you will keep this glaring lie up, so as to exclude any religion in any context or involvement in the classroom
I wonder if you even bother to expalin the fact to children that even if Evo were true, that it has nothing to do with design? Or do you keep up the idea (lie) that it is in direct conflict with evolution
Well thats one way to keep your employment
Happy summation to all and to all a good night. See you on another thread concerning these related issues, I hope, there Mallethead
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024