Summations Only

Dawn Bertot,I doubt very much if this will go anywhere at all but here goes...from Message 77
From your other posts, I believe you are talking about first cauzes. If so, your comment is not correct. Take the theory of evolution for example. Evolution is a process. The first cause of the process is not relevant.Another example would be studying the process of freezing. It does not matter what has caused the liquid to reach freezing temperature. The process of freezing is being investigated.Another example could be the study of the effects of dehydration on a plant. I have done many experiments on different drought tolerant plants to study this process. At no stage was it necessary to consider the causes of the dehydration.Moving on.You mention a few times that the 'how' and the 'why' of the process is very important -from Message 77
from Message 89
Ok fair enough. You mention the word process. The process of ID.Since you believe that ID is a solid scientific position you shoudl be able to answer the following -1. How did the 'intelligent designer' create the universe?2. Why did the 'intelligent designer' create the universe?Considering the following...from Message 89
...you should be able to provide the scientific data that supports tha answers to those two questions.Now remember, ID is not religion...from Message 77
from Message 78
...so you will have to provide the method (process) by which the 'intelligent designer' created ths universe and also the reason why the 'inteligent designer' created ths universe, with scientific evidence, without referring to scripture.I am very curious how you know the reason why the 'inteligent designer' created the universe.From what I can tell of your opinion, you have soley natural cause on one side and ID on the other side as the two options.On the natural causes side we have 'natural causes' as the how, including, but not limited to the processes of the big bang, abiogenesis, theory of evolution. There is also no need of a reason why. Nature needs no reason.On the ID side, we have 'an intelligent designer did it' as the how, with no processes and no reason why.In order to equal the claims of ID, we dont even need to begin discussing evolution or abiogenesis. To equal 'an intelligent designer did it', all we need to say is 'natural causes did it'.Do you have an scientific data that supports intelligent design, that does not also support evolution?

Hey DB,This message was for you - Message 193

Hey Zen,I have read through this a few times now and I still cant work out if you are missing something that is really obvious, or I am missing something that is incredibly obscure.The 'how vs why' debate is usually described as the 'science vs philosphy' debate.From what I can tell, you are looking for a philosophical answer as to why the sky is blue. Not a technical description of the process that makes the sky appear blue.Is that correct?If it is correct, then there is a big problem. Well 2 really.1. There may be no reason why. (Shit happens)2. You are under the impression that deserve to know the answer and are capable of comprehending it. (You will get told the shit that you need to know)I could be way off though?Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hey Dawn,I am still waiting for a reply to Message 193But I also wanted to reply to some things in your recent post. How can ID, requiring a SUPERNATURAL designer, be an investigation into the NATURAL world? Is that not a direct contradiction? You keep saying this over and over as if you are trying to make it true with the number of times you make the claim.My biggest problem with this claim, every time you make it, is that you believe that not only is there purpose to everything, but there is evidence to be found to show that purpose.If you have this information, can you please put if to use in Message 1 where bluegenes has asked - Does science ask and answer "why" questions?You will need to explain the purpose behind the sky being blue.I look forward to your answer.If you are not interested, of dont like that question, here are a few others off the top of my head -What is the purpose behind wind?What is the purpose of time?What is the purpose of a rock? (any rock will do)Dont forget to provide the evidence that shows this purpose.

Hey DB, How is this then? - How can the process of ID, requiring a SUPERNATURAL designer, be an investigation into the NATURAL world? Is that not a direct contradiction? If the ID process (a process that has as yet been undefined) requires the hand of a supernatural being or any other magic, then it does not belong in the classroom.Imagine the scene in the classroom -Today class we will be studying the process where water, once cooled to a sufficient temperature becomes ice. The process involves the liquid being steadily cooled, then at the point where it reaches zero, magic intervenes and makes it solid.Would you stay in that class? If it needs magic, then it is not science. WTF? The first sentence of the message you replied to is - How about you practice what you preach? I am still waiting for a reply to the original message. I have reminded you twice, this being the third time.The points you have raised have already been dealt with by other posters anyway. Avoiding the question is not answering the question. eyes or brain? I gave you a variety of things. Take your pick. I will ignore the random drifting. Lets assume for a moment that gods exists? There lay your problem. As soon as you need to involve a magician, your idea is toast. Gone. Nothing after that. You cant introduce magic into a science classroom. exaclty as expected. Terrible. You have illustrated that you need magic. That means it is not science.You have also not been able to descibe the purpose of the sky being blue, the method by which you assertained this answer or the data that lead you to the conclusion.That would be three stikes.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : changed 'gods exits' to 'god exists' as that is quite important to the sentence.

Hello DB,You are following your standard pattern as expected.This is title of my first message to you in this thread - And it looks like this will be a total waste of time. Does this mean you cant answer the question? This seems to be your way of dodging a question.My question is in regards to the ID process. I am not 'lumping' it in with any conclusions. It is a stand alone question. No conclusions mentioned. Oh, so we are discussing process? So why cant you answer my question regarding ID process? Wouldn't a discussion of process and results be a discussion of process and conclusions? the process of IDs method? What are you talking about? Seriously Dawn, do you even know what the fuck you are saying? What law and order are you taling about? What BIOLOGICAL standpoint are you referring to when discussing something that does not have life? Like the colour of the sky! The law and ordered process that you cannot explain to anyone else? The process is not necessary? I dont care about the process. I dont care how the sky appears to be blue or how it appears blue to a person. I am asking you to tell me the purpose of the sky being blue, the method by which you have assertained this answer and the data that lead you to this conclusion. If this is your answer, then I am going to call you on your bullshit. The purpose of the sky being blue is to provide humans with a nice view? Please provide the method by which you have assertained this answer. Please include the experiments that you have performed and the data that you have collected.You seem to believe that your idea is better or equal to the scientific method, now is your chance to back it up. We dont know what your method actually is. You wont tell us. How are we supposed to evaluate your method if you are keeping it a secret? If your initial investigation starts with a requirement of magic, then it will not be a scientific approach. So you are telling me that i will need to make a judgement on a method that you wont describe, then make further judgements using definitions of law and order that that only you use and wont explain? The challenge is making any sense of what you are proposing. Our challenge is to even understand the random babbling bullshit that makes up your posts and then get you to see the huge fucking problems with it. It is quite the challenge. It is nice that you recognise it.A personal chllenge is getting you to answer the questions I asked you around 80 posts ago.I have reminded you theree times already.This is your forth reminder now.Can you and will you reply to this post -Message 193 ?

Dawn, None of your post in any way addresses anything I have been saying.How about you answer the questions i outlined in Message 193?That was nearly 100 posts ago. Since then you have clutterd this thread with claims of methods and processes you wont explian, using definitions of law, order and purpose that you wont define leading to a of ID that only you use. And you are claiming that this definition is true and factual and that you have proven this many times. You also claim that no one can can argue against your position.But you wont explain your position or answer direct questions. You say you have and you say you will. But you dont and wont.You have managed to stretch this thread out with your usual crap until it gets to summation mode. You have typed a lot without actually saying anything at all.How about you start a thread with your claim?You can start with definitions of the following -LawOrderPurposeIntelligent designIntelligent designerScientific methodIntelligent design processIntelligent design methodSolely natural causesSupplying these definitions will only be a start.Dont forget to answer my post Message 193? Is that reminder number 5 now?If you cant answer the questions, just say so. Not answering them indicates that you cant answer them. I know that not being able to answer those question demolishes your position so I am not surprised you are avoiding replying.

Hello Dawn,Are you planning on getting around to answering my questions on Message 193? What are we up to now? 6 reminders? 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.If someone objects, you just tell them they are not capable of understanding what you are selling.If a few people dont understand or object, maybe it is their fault.If most people dont understand or object, maybe there is a problem with the material being put forward.If a lack of understanding or objection is UNIVERSAL, it may be a problem with what you are saying.I know that you believe that you have something. The problem I have seen from your writing is that you have such a limited understanding of how basic science works that your idea is based on misconceptions. You dodge and weave to avoid talking in any depth with regards to the canyon sized gaps in your ideas. You miss the really important fundemental problems with your idea and continue to focus on very small untterly irrelevant details.As soon as any stage of your idea (whether it be the process, method, conclusion etc) involves magic, then it is not science. Regardless of how you want to package it.You are asking us to analyse certain aspects of your ideas in great detail when it is totally unnecessary as the proposition has been killed by a much larger, all encompassing problem.When your house is on fire, it does not matter if you have left the bathroom tap dripping.Most of us have provided you with a different reason why your idea is invalid. There are lots of reasons.You waving away the reasons does not make them go away.I know reality is not your friend but you are going to have to come to terms with it eventually. 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.Dont forget to answer my questions on Message 193. (thats 7 reminders)

Hey Dawn,You have hijacked this thread so this summary can pretty much only be directed at you. I didnt say several people. I said all people. When all people, people who are highly educated in the fields you are discussing, put forward objections to your posts, you may need to have another look at what you are saying. Judges, whose job it is to judge, find your ID idea to not be something other than science. No evidence?Do you think that if you say that it does not exist it actually disappears. Can you try that with an object near you. Close your eyes and say '*object* does not exist', then open your eyes and see if it has disappeared. I bet it does not.The rest of your post is total bullshit. A series of claims of information and ideas you have not supported or presented or are misconceptions of science and are generally not rational. Also a series of incorrect statements regarding the overwhelming body of problems with your idea that have been put forward by the rest of us. Your delusion is obviously very strong. I hope they dont let you stray too far from your cage.I started listing all of the objections to your idea and point out how you had not actually dealt with any of them but the list became too long. So I will narrow it down to a smaller list. Then, after that list became pretty huge, I got bored finding all of your mistakes and decided to stop. Here is as far as I got...I am going to refer to you in the third person in this list because i will probably refer you and other posters back to it in the future.1. Dawn believes that creationism has been proven scientifically and evidence of creation can be seen in the real world. The problem with this is that there is no scientific evidence of any god/s. As yet, Dawn has not shown 1 single piece of scientific evidence supporting the existence of any god/s. Message 37
Message 39
Message 78
Message 1
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 Message 60
Message 60
3. Dawn believes that Creationism is an explanation of something. The problem with this is 'god did it' decribes nothing at all. It is the same as saying that it happened by magic. Message 60
4. Dawn will often jump from creationsim to ID when his position is debated against. He distances himself from creationism just like the other ID nutjobs.In a reply to a comment that religion is not science Dawn stated -
Message 77
Message 77
5. Dawn often lies. Open, obvious, bald faced lies. Message 60
The lie here is that 'most of the fellas here will try and lump the two (evolution and abiogenesis) together'. Nobody with any basic knowledge of evolution will 'believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution'. Dawn knows this. He is lying. Message 129
So ID is not religion huh?Also included in Dawns lies are his comments that he has provided evidence and he has made his point. Also his claims that he makes sense and can put together a valid argument.6. Dawn cannot work out if creation/ID is a process, an explanation of existence, an origin, a method or if it is a conclusion or helps gain conlcusions. Message 60
Message 60
Message 144
Notice how the conclusion in this quote is law, order and purpose. But in the next quote, the conclusion is a designer? Message 107
So it seems that intelligent design is the process and a designer is the conclusion. But Dawn cannot describe the process of intelligent design, show any evidence of intelligent design, show any scientific research illustarting intelligent design, advise on how to perform an experiment to test for intelligent design or why things that appear to be designed MUST point to a conclusion of a designer. Message 268
So now IDs method has a process that has not been defined either.Dawn fails to see how the Theory of Evolution can be falsified regardless of the amount of times he is given ways it can be falsified.3 ways the Theory of Evolution can be falsified -Find a fossil of a modern rabbit in the cambrian.Finding an instruction manual called 'Animal Design for Supernatural Beings'God walking out on stage at a UN summit and announcing that he did it all and he did not use evolution.7. Dawn fails to answer questions that he states are extremely important and demands answers to from his opposition. Message 89
Ok, HOW did the creator/intelligent designer make the universe? Why did the creator/intelligent designer make the universe? Message 108
How did the intelligent designer/ creator make the universe? Why did the intellignet designer/creator make the universe?8. Dawn does not understand basic science. The best example from this thread is his continual insistence that the Theory of Evolution leads to or starts with solely natural causes. Evolution could have been started by gods, aliens or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. There is no requirement for the Theory of Evolution to begin with solely natural causes. Through the study of evolution, there has been no indication of supernatural interaction. Message 128
Message 107
Message 1
The Theory of Evolution does not imply or teach solely natural causes. The Theory of Evolution involves no supernatural interaction because etheir is no evidence of it. It also does not teach that fairies are part of the process. Do you think that ommiting fairies implies or indirectly teaches soley natural causes? Message 144
Natural causes is not a conclusion of the Theory of Evolution or the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution does not rule out supernatural intervention. There is just no evidence of supernatural intervention. Message 182
So the ID process, requiring a supernatural being performing magic is science? Even without any of my prejudices against creationism and ID, magic is still not science. Message 274
The conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is not solely natural causes. No evidence of supernatural causes has been found. Are you suggesting that in order for ID to be taught in science class, we would have to prove that there was no supernatural intervention in any process? Message 274
How can IDs conclusion, creation, be demonstrated in any given property in the natural world? For starters, SUPERnatural beings cannot be demonstrated in the NATURAL world. Here are 3 properties to choose from - water boils at sea level at 100c, balsa wood has a density of 380kg/m.cu+, the average weight of a male walrus is 1250kg. Please indicate how they demonstrate creation. Message 300
So the theory of law, order and purpose if the model of ID? Or is ID the process still? Is the theory of law order and process the model of creation? If this theory is scientific, then it need to be falsifiable. From your statement, it is not falsifiable. It is ALWAYS true. That would mean that if would have to have supporting evidence that exceeds the Theory of Evolution. I cant believe you are telling us all of this, you should be keeping it quite Dawn. You will win the nobel prize for cince for this! Oh wait, you wont, because it is bullshit and makes no sense. If you think it is science, have it published.Start you message to a scientific journal with the words - "I have a scientific theory that replaces the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution that cannot be falsified because it is always true" and see how far you get. Unless it is pure maths, you wont get far.9. Dawn uses words in a way known only to him. And he refuses to define these words regardless of the amount of times he is asked.These words include -LawOrderPurposeconsitency (consistency?)Scientific methodTheory of EvolutionCreationIntelligent DesignMethodProcessConclusionFasifiedhypothesisharmonychangenatural selection10. Dawn often states things that simply dont make any sense. (I am not including any examples of word salad here, just statements that can be understood but make no sense) Message 99
Seriously, he actually said that. Message 99
Yes, he really said this too. Message 107
If ID is not falsifiable, then the theory of evolution is not falsifiable? Because it must include why? That is bullshit, but it begs the question - Why did the intelligent designer design the universe? According to you, if you cannot answer that, then you dont have a theory. Message 128
Yes it would, that is why we dont include SUPERNATURAL things in the NATURAL world. Message 182
That makes no sense. If for no other reason than the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not conclude solely natural causes.11. Dawn continually states that the only scientific and/or logical position includes origins in its description. Message 128
So in order to be a logical and/or scientific position, Dawn would be able to state the origin of the intelligent designer/creator. Message 128
What is the origin of the intelligent designer/creator. Message 280
What was the initiatial initiator of the intelligent designer/creator of the universe?All the while I have been asking Dawn to respond to my post way back in Message 193. Still no reply. I know you cant answer the questions. So I am not really surprised.The thing I find most amusing about you Dawn is that you think that your idea is so wonderful and brilliant and flawless that anyone who objects just must not be as smart as you so they dont understand it. I find it ironic that someone who shows such an appalling level of stupidy and lack of knowledge with regards to the subject at hand would think that he is the only one who can understand his theory and that all of the poeple who are knowledgable about the subject just dont get it.The alternative is that your idea is a total pile of shit.If you idea does what you think it does, then you will win a nobel prize for it. I will check for it each year. Each year it does not appear, I will know you are that little bit closer to realising that you have no idea what you are talking about.I have only read one statement by Dawn Bertot that I believe was honestly written and made sense. Message 118
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.