Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 54 of 358 (645289)
12-25-2011 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by agent_509
12-24-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Welcome back!
ROFL, are you thinking of the same definition of creationism everyone else is?
No-one really knows what Dawn is thinking, as the superficial incoherence of his language tends to obscure the more fundamental incoherence of his thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by agent_509, posted 12-24-2011 7:57 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by agent_509, posted 12-25-2011 11:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 358 (645453)
12-27-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
12-27-2011 1:32 AM


Re: Welcome back!
No Agent, creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the only two logical possibilites, of the existence of things and that existence allows us. Both of which are derived from a scientific evaluation of physical properties and then conclusions of those evaluations
the Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or made
Dont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things, from a logical proposition
Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work
Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution
Again, creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things, in the same way a conclusion of soley natural clauses, derives it conclusions
Neither is provable, but both are logical and demonstratable. these are the kind of facts they dont want you to hear Agent
See what I mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2011 1:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 79 of 358 (645687)
12-29-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:22 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
The case for creationism was not correctly represented, it may be that it was represented as religion, which is not the case
If you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existence
When Trixie entitled her post "Utter Rubbish" the word "utter" was intended as an adjective, not as the imperative mood of a verb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 80 of 358 (645689)
12-29-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:12 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion.
No one starts an investigation of any type WITHOUT considering the causes of the process
An investigation that excludes the how and why of the process would make no sense
Since outside of religious texts, we can not prove how things got here, it falls to the art of investgation, in the form of logical propositions coupled with our understanding of the physical world
This leads us to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites, the likes of which are derived by a scientific evaluation called investigation
Both of these possibilites can be demonstrated to be atleast logical explanations, leaving no other possibilites
Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena
Do any think they can refute this proposition?
It is not possible to teach your opinions "in the science arena", since no-one has yet figured out how to translate your statements into English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 102 of 358 (645796)
12-30-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Ah Yes, here is where the rubber meets the road. Lets see who is more accurate. Now pay close attention. An inextricable part of any investigation is the HOW and WHY, not just how
To detach thess from any form of investigation is not scientific or objective wouldn tyou agree.
Now pay even closer attention. Since the TOE only identifies HOW and cannot or will not address why, it follws that it cannot be falsified, there fore cannot be considered as science, according to your own rules
Wouldnt you agree
From Wiki:
"Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it."
Again, since an inextricable part of any investigation includes how and why,not just how, it follows that the TOE, must include, the process that started evolution in the first place. Whether that is in the natural world or the universe
Since the TOE, cannot explain the Why, of things to begin with, it therefore, IS NOT falsifiable.
According to your own defintions and explanations then, it must not be science
Your problem with applying the fasifiability principle to ONLY ID, is that you assume that EVO must only include HOW things work
No person in thier right mind would disregard the why of something in a valid investigation. But Ironically this is exacally what the TOE, exponents do.
They insist that the WHY is not obtainable, therefore not necessary
In essenses they make the approach of the SM, invalid as an investigative type
It doesnt matter how involed or technical the HOW of the investigation is or is not, if you leave off the Why
Do you still want to stick to the strict application of the Falsifiablity principle?
People speak well of Halperidol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 12:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 296 of 358 (647850)
01-11-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:41 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Wow your not really paying atention are you?
You have just demonstrated my point. Are you paying any attention at all. Neither can be proved,but both are valid as scientific explanations and are demonstratable
Therefore both should be taught as science
So ... you're still spamming this forum with the same crap? And you still haven't come up with any arguments to substantiate it?
Then I have to ask you ... why? Over and over again, you're presenting the same crap to the same people who know that you haven't come up with any argument for the crap and it's the same old crap.
And your motivation is ... what? Do you think that the thousandth time you spam this nonsense on this forum we're going to say: "oh, yeah, the first 999 Dawn Bertot recited the same dumb crap I wasn't convinced, but when he made it into four figures I realized that he must be right"?
Find an argument for your stupid shit. Any argument. 'Cos at least then we'd have something to discuss. All we have now is a cultist repeating a mantra.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by subbie, posted 01-11-2012 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 327 of 358 (648089)
01-13-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:47 AM


Re: summary
Once you truly question evolution (for instance) you will see no one can answer it's many flaws.
Some don't question it the way it should be questioned and end up believing it.
And apparently to judge from your example "the way it should be questioned" involves not knowing either what biologists think or why they think it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:47 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 329 of 358 (648095)
01-13-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:51 AM


Re: summary
I know what Behe thinks.
But do you know why he thinks you're descended from monkeys?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 353 of 358 (648565)
01-16-2012 3:42 PM


Summary
A potentially interesting thread got Bertot all over it, and that stuff just doesn't wash off.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024