Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   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: 10-04-2010


Message 72 of 648 (585992)
10-10-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by tesla
10-10-2010 6:50 PM


Re: What experiments?
tesla writes:
And that’s just the BBT, our most accepted theory. You can imagine what kind of holes are in 'other' theories.
Correct.
You can imagine what kind of holes are in other theories involving god/s.
tesla writes:
How much do you trust science? If you truly trust it: then trust them when they say 'we don’t know'.
This seems as poorly argued as "If I prove evolution wrong, then I will have proved Creationism true".
Could you explain how scientists 'not knowing what happened at T=0' is in anyway connected to there being a god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 6:50 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 8:00 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 86 of 648 (586031)
10-10-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by tesla
10-10-2010 8:00 PM


Re: What experiments?
Well, I will await the results of your calculations.
On a side note: you have said (in a couple of different posts):
quote:
That in an evolved existence, as long as two things are, before that is a relevant question.
Try as I might, I can make neither head nor tail of this sentence.
Could you re-phrase it for me please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 8:00 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by tesla, posted 10-10-2010 11:14 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 109 of 648 (587095)
10-16-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
You observe change and I observe order, both are science
I looked up 'order' in the dictionary.
There were over 21 different definitions.
Could you please clarify what you mean by order, so that we aren't all talking across each other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 2:53 AM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 124 of 648 (587136)
10-17-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 2:53 AM


Re: Evidence
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 produce
this 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 2:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 140 of 648 (587265)
10-18-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 11:31 PM


Re: qRe: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
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 snowflakes
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 11:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:25 AM Panda has replied
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 4:17 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 142 of 648 (587269)
10-18-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 8:22 AM


Re: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
BTW, theres my rule, since you asked
You make a post with various statements and then vaguely point at it and say "Somewhere in there is my rule."
Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:26 AM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 150 of 648 (587295)
10-18-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 8:26 AM


Re: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see some logic, not verbage.
Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see an answer.
What is your rule?
And this time: be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 151 of 648 (587298)
10-18-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 8:25 AM


Re: qRe: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faulty
Well kiddo, your position is what you are advocating - that is why I am 'attacking' it.
If your position is untenable, then I suggest you correct it.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Show me where my logic is faulty
Show me specifically what I have 'ignored',
I already gave a reasonable precise description of where you went wrong.
Rather than me repeating it, I suggest you read it.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Careful, you could be in for quite a ride
Don't worry, I've read your posts: I know you have nothing.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 154 of 648 (587311)
10-18-2010 11:01 AM


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:
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
DB could have pointed out that I was posting rubbish, or even try to critique it (at face value).
But instead DB pretended to understand.
Then DB complained about my discussion method; patronised me and added a threat.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faulty
Show me specifically what I have 'ignored', Careful, you could be in for quite a ride
I think this was meant to distract me from the fact that DB didn't understand and didn't want to admit it.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by subbie, posted 10-18-2010 1:07 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 4:55 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 159 of 648 (587379)
10-18-2010 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 4:17 PM


Re: qRe: Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 4:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 165 of 648 (587388)
10-18-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 4:55 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Im still waiting for a rebutall in a rational form of my position to begin with
If you had any understanding about what I have been saying, then you wouldn't be waiting for a rebuttal.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 4:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 172 of 648 (587401)
10-18-2010 5:46 PM


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: 10-04-2010


Message 178 of 648 (587414)
10-18-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 6:13 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
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
Dawn: your 'Bertot to English' translator is not working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 6:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 181 of 648 (587418)
10-18-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 6:39 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
"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
It has been proven many times: laws originates past scripture. But evidence copes around an infrastructure.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 6:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 206 of 648 (587502)
10-19-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Nij
10-19-2010 6:18 AM


Re: This thread is terminal
Nij writes:
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.
You are implying that multiple people might not have said that same thing.
I defy you to find more than one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Nij, posted 10-19-2010 6:18 AM Nij has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024