|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Topic Description:
Dawn Bertot writes: This thread is about the evidence for design and a designer, and discussion will focus on these areas:
For this discussion the definition of evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly. Edited by Admin, : Reduce to topic description only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread copied here from the The evidence for design and a designer thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Yet in the scientific method no requirement is made for the initiation source of the physical realities, or present physical evidence that leads one to the conclusion of the TOE. Even if itis implied or suggested that things have always existed, one would need to provide evidence of the same nature that is required of the theory of design to produce a designer. ... Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place. You're arguing that the theory of evolution is missing the evidence for how the universe originated, and that because it is missing this evidence that it is not being held to the same standards ID is being held to. But the origin of the universe is a topic of cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution, except to the extent that it's the source of all the matter and energy that are fundamental to every field of science, from geology to chemistry to anthropology. We spent much effort getting clear on the topic of this thread. If this is what you wanted to talk about then you should have said so. Since you didn't include this as part of the topic, that means that it is off-topic in this thread. If you would like to discuss how the various fields of science outside of cosmological investigations of origins are incomplete if they don't include how the universe originated then you'll have to propose a new thread. Please, no replies to this message. Take problems with discussion to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Barack,
I just replied to your complaint in Hyena Attacks, please see Message 40. This thread is in the science forums, which are usually paid more attention by moderators than Coffee House. If you truly wish to set a higher tone in discussion then I suggest you avoid openings like this:
BarackZero writes: dwise1 - truly a humble name, writes: Also, please do not attempt to play the role of moderator yourself, as you do here:
This is a clear violation of Rule #10, not that any "moderator" gives a damn, or will do anything about it. If you are having problems with discussion then please post a message to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread describing the problem and providing links to any relevant messages or threads. But since this is your first post in this thread, it isn't possible that you could already be experiencing a problem.
I merely point out the pervasive hypocrisy of Darwinists, and of course the left in general. "Understanding through Discussion" is a joke, and all of you have made it so through your "bullshit" posts. Q.E.D. Hyenas proceed with your attack. You are unable to do otherwise. Please keep your discussion focused on the topic. Barack, you joined just this past Friday, and it's only Sunday. You've been here less than three full days. You seem to have come in with some preconceptions and a chip on your shoulder. All you've done so far is prove the dictum, "Treat people with disrespect and they will treat you back with disrespect." As AdminModulous told you, if you improve your tone a notch or two you'll get better results, and the support of moderators as well. Please, no replies to this message in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
I'm unable to reach any firm conclusions concerning why we're having so much difficulty obtaining a clear statement of your ideas, but I've suspected for a while now that it might be due to your unfamiliarity with the English language, and this clinches it for me:
Dawn Bertot writes: You should know very well (since you are such a seasoned public debater in the evo-creo arena) that evolution has fuck all to do with origins. If you knew so much about evolution, you would know that it could occur whether there was a magic sky daddy farting atoms into existence, abiogenesis occurring, transpermia etc. So you say it does have to do with origins, Percy and others say it does not. Hooah was stating in the strongest terms possible that evolution has nothing to do with origins, yet you concluded he was stating the opposite. This continual language confusion convinces me that Free For All is the best place for this thread. If at some point some clarity emerges I will move the thread back here. Those who decide to continue participation in this thread should be aware that there is no moderation over at Free For All. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread copied here from the The evidence for design and a designer thread in the Is It Science? forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
The Free For All forum is for the most part unmoderated, but we do ask that participants address the topic. Anyone who would like to discuss the evidence for design and a designer can stay.
Those who would like to discuss the impossibility of evolution due to sheer unlikelihood should propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Dawn,
Free For All is mostly unmoderated, so feel free to ignore this if you choose, but you've just given another example of why your thread has ended up over here in Free For All, so I thought I'd explain the problem in case it proves helpful to you.
Dawn Bertot writes: Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design. In English, as in most languages, there are many, many ways to say the same thing. Whether you say conclude design or prove design will make no difference, people are going to think you're saying the same thing. The problem before you is to make clear why you think there's a difference between the two. Perhaps in your native language there's a word that translates as conclude in English and another word that translates as prove in English, which in this context are pretty much the same, but in your language those words have completely different meanings. You're the only one who knows both your native language and English, so you're the one who's going to have to figure it out. And when you do then you'll be able to explain what you actually mean so that native speakers of English can understand you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes: You just playing the dumb card, right? No, Dawn, I'm not playing the dumb card. Given that English is not your native language I'm frankly puzzled at your rejection of all the feedback from native speakers of English that you're not making any sense. In the current context there is no significant difference in meaning between concluding design and proving design. If you think there's a clear distinction then you need to explain what you think it is. A better understanding of how native speakers of the English language interpret these and other words and phrases would be very good for you. Making an effort in this area would pay off for you in all threads in which you participate and not leave you relegated to Free For All. Added by Edit:
...operating in and of thierself... We spent a great deal of time and effort defining the topic of this thread, and this was very specifically off topic. Edited by Admin, : Add AbE about topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
If to you proving design means you were an eyewitness to design in the making then you have to say that is what you mean. And if to you concluding design means relying on evidence gathered after the event then you have to say that is what you mean. But what you are saying you mean is not inherent in the terms proving design and concluding design. You have to explain what you mean. To most people in this context the two terms mean relying upon evidence of any type. This advice is meant to help you have a better experience here at EvC Forum. You can continue doing things your own way, but only for so long.
...the nature of things is that they operate by themselves with no outside influence... As I said before, this is off topic. You were either unwilling or unable to describe what this means when we were defining the topic, and so I ruled it off topic before I ever promoted this thread. Edited by Admin, : Grammar and clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Why is this off topic in a Free for All area? If you click on the Forums link at the top of the page and scroll down to the Free For All forum you'll see this description:
Interested in free and wild debate unencumbered by most moderation? Then this is the forum for you. Just stay on topic. You don't seem to be getting the point, so let me be as clear as I can. At this board the moderators run the show, not the rank and file. I'm telling you how I see things, and the way I see it is that discussions in which you take part tend to consist of you making statements no one understands followed by extended fruitless attempts to get you to explain what you mean. EvC Forum's goal is constructive discussions that actually get somewhere. If you're unable to participate constructively in discussions then your participation here will eventually come to an end. In other words, start making it clear what you mean or you won't be here much longer. Hopefully that is clear. About things that "operate in and of themselves," that is off-topic in this thread. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I've let this thread go on for more than double the 300 post limit, and given the rate of progress it is time to think about bringing things to a close. Please post your summations, you have until Friday morning Eastern Time US. Please do not reply to individual messages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Since some participants are already on their second summation I guess it's time to shut this one down. Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion. If there's any interest in continuing the discussion then please propose a follow-on thread over at Proposed New Topics, but please understand that given the course this thread has taken I'll be placing a strong emphasis on clarity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024