|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
tesla writes:
Correct. And that’s just the BBT, our most accepted theory. You can imagine what kind of holes are in 'other' theories.You can imagine what kind of holes are in other theories involving god/s. tesla writes:
This seems as poorly argued as "If I prove evolution wrong, then I will have proved Creationism true". How much do you trust science? If you truly trust it: then trust them when they say 'we don’t know'.Could you explain how scientists 'not knowing what happened at T=0' is in anyway connected to there being a god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Well, I will await the results of your calculations.
On a side note: you have said (in a couple of different posts):
quote:Try as I might, I can make neither head nor tail of this sentence. Could you re-phrase it for me please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: I looked up 'order' in the dictionary. You observe change and I observe order, both are scienceThere were over 21 different definitions. Could you please clarify what you mean by order, so that we aren't all talking across each other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purpose
working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to producethis whole phrase means: produce "a clearly visible, demonstratable" "or even an appaernt"this means: detectable So, in summary:Order is: properties producing a detectable purpose. Please describe how it is possible for a property (i.e. weight) to produce a purpose (e.g. cure a headache).Maybe some examples would help clarify things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You have completely ignored the effects that pre-design have. True, because while crystals or snowflakes may always have the same certain amount of points, the shape is always different or relative, with no one standard, such as the order the molecules demonstrate, to consitently produce a crystal or its numerical denomination, which is always the same The order is primarily in its consistent substructure. Some design will be obvious on the outside, but it will also exhibit RELATIVE design with no consistent standard, as in the shape of snowflakesWhile your arguments appears to have 'outward' logical beliefs, it still lacks any 'inward' ones Your search for the first occurance is consistantly balanced on your ability to look forwards and backwards (and even sideways) at the physical area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You make a post with various statements and then vaguely point at it and say "Somewhere in there is my rule." BTW, theres my rule, since you asked Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see an answer. Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see some logic, not verbage.What is your rule? And this time: be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well kiddo, your position is what you are advocating - that is why I am 'attacking' it. Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faultyIf your position is untenable, then I suggest you correct it. Dawn Bertot writes:
I already gave a reasonable precise description of where you went wrong. Show me where my logic is faulty Show me specifically what I have 'ignored',Rather than me repeating it, I suggest you read it. Dawn Bertot writes:
Don't worry, I've read your posts: I know you have nothing. Careful, you could be in for quite a ride Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I was testing for this: {bolding is mine}
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 I posted the following message as a kind of Poeism.It was knowingly gibberish and I based it on the way Dawn Bertot writes. Panda writes:
DB could have pointed out that I was posting rubbish, or even try to critique it (at face value). You have completely ignored the effects that pre-design have.While your arguments appears to have 'outward' logical beliefs, it still lacks any 'inward' ones Your search for the first occurance is consistantly balanced on your ability to look forwards and backwards (and even sideways) at the physical area But instead DB pretended to understand.Then DB complained about my discussion method; patronised me and added a threat. Dawn Bertot writes:
I think this was meant to distract me from the fact that DB didn't understand and didn't want to admit it. Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faultyShow me specifically what I have 'ignored', Careful, you could be in for quite a ride Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
And as further proof of DB's complete lack of comprehension, I present this:
Dawn Bertot writes: The above comment is idiocy, not worthy of attention. Hold on and let me find, someone with rational comments It is a bit sad, really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you had any understanding about what I have been saying, then you wouldn't be waiting for a rebuttal. Im still waiting for a rebutall in a rational form of my position to begin with TBH: It looks like you are just stumbling around in the dark - hoping that you will eventually bump into the correct answer.You have tried 3 different 'answers' and so far you have not 'guessed' correctly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I think that CrazyDiamond7 and Dawn Bertot should have a one-on-one discussion...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Dawn: your 'Bertot to English' translator is not working.
laws and order are a test because they are testable. The can be observed, evaluated studied and predictions can be applied to see if they follow a pattern
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
It has been proven many times: laws originates past scripture. But evidence copes around an infrastructure. "Anything is not possible", when there are no other possibilites. those limited possibilites however, are limited to the only available information, which is based in emperical evidence, that how we know the are the only possibilites. Think in terms of evidence alone, not the conclusion of the evidence, whjich is not now availlable, if one does not accept the scriptures as an answer However, since the available evidence certainly allows both from a scientific approach, both should be taught. order needs to be demonstrated as not being order before any theory of design can be dismissed. Until then it is more than enough logical evidence How does the physicist credit Evolution? The cell receives Design and Evolution chooses before Design.Evolution pictures every union outside a concept. Yours furthers the bible and design. Why do you elaborate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Nij writes:
You are implying that multiple people might not have said that same thing. Dawn Bertot writes: Your arrogance is matched only by your inability to think rationally. IOWs you are full of yourself Funny, most everybody else would have said the same thing about you.I defy you to find more than one!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024