Summations Only

Not really, you have just from the beginning misunderstood what these words actually mean in realityMy only intention is discussing philosophy, science or ID or even creationism, is to demonstrate that they are just words. An investigation is either valid in its approach or it is not. That which you describe as Id should be applied to its methodology that closest reflects reality, not a percieved idea you or others may have of itPhilosophy, Creationism or ID are not described primarily by ther desigantions, they are defined and explained by thier processesSince any investigation into the natural world is either valid in its approach or it is not, it is obvious that the terms have very little impact on thier usefulness in determining truth As i have been debating these issues for nealry 40 years now, Im sure you can understand that I am not interested whether the ID movement as a whole or a renowned scientist argrees with my positionReality and reason support it just fine. It only remains for someone to demonstrate its premises and conclusions to be invalid. As you can see, to this point it has not been doneDawn Bertot

Wow, I just cant see how anyone can drift from the original point of the argument so quickly.Tangle, what is under investigation, is the investigation process the so-called SM and the so-called, ToLO&P. Actually there is no difference, everyone feels better if they have a side.The only position could be desribed as reality and reason. Logic and reality will not really let you go past such designationsIf it makes you feel better to call it science then call it science and I will call it the ID method. Its just an investigationwhat matters in the classroom, is what can be demonstrated from reality and reasonOnly two valid, logical propositions can be explicated from the available evidence. Neither especially ID, has anthing to do with religion, its just an investigation by human mindsthe information presented in the trial was not accurate for the reasons I have statedI guess you can see the ultimate Iorny here, correct?You guys cry that it is not science, it actually is, because it violates no laws of reality or reasonYou guys get tripped up on terms, which blinds you to accuracyIts me that is trying to get you to be more accurate, therefore we could say more scientific. But you reject even the best Accuracy, for terms like the Scientific method, that would make you more scintifically accurateThe Iorny. its a commedy of errorsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Anyone with half a brain knows this is a lie. I have explained in detail, not only my proposition, but its terms. I dont mean to be rude Butterfly, I dont think you are capable of comprehending what is under considerationI say that with the greatest respect Thats fine, That is ofcourse up to Percy, ultimately not meYou should be able to see mostof the answers to most of your questiions in my summation, when that occuresHere is a challenge for you Butterfly. Look at my last response to taq and the others and see if you can figure out what I am saying and respond to thatIn some ways you remind me of Dewise1 and Devils Advocate
Dawn Bertot

Then you shouldn't try and claim renowned scientists for your position. Collins is not and never has been an ID advocate and he has never followed your insipidly stupid "methodology", which consists of nothing more than assuming the consequent and gibbering incoherently.Mutate and Survive

I retract what I've written below. I've subsequently been corrected by Larni who pointed out a double negative I'd missed. In the interest of accuracy, I'm leaving my faux pas uncorrected. Maybe it might even serve a purpose in demonstrating why it is so difficult to understand what Dawn is trying to say.The whole point of this discussion with you was to tackle your claim that ID should be taught in the science classroom. You have made post after post trying to explain why it is science, using your ToL,O&P as evidence of it's validity as science. You've claimed that yourToL,O&P is a scientific theory. After all these posts, we're none the wiser as to what you're actually saying when you use your ToL,O&P.However, your post, numbered 300 in this thread, finally contains a statement from you that has something of substance to it. It's a single sentence and it is as clear as a bell. You have stated These are your own words, lifted straight from your post, not a quote from someone else that you used. They're your own, actual words, typed by your own fingers to explain what you're saying. I've not pulled a fast one, I haven't misquoted you, I copied and pasted your words into the quote box.Do you see your problem? Why the hell should we teach anything to do with your ToL,O&P in the science classroom when you have finally admitted it ISN'T science? You've spent post after confusing post trying to explain why it IS science, only to come up with that little gem above. I have to ask. Do you actually know what you're trying to say? If you've managed to utterly confuse yourself with all your nonsensical writings, join the club.To summarise your voluminous posts, you've stated that ID should be taught in science class, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific, that ID is science, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific evidence for ID and after all that you come out with your statement, which bears repeating Just incase you've missed it Edited by Trixie, : To write retraction.

Hi Trixie.I think Dawn snuck in a double negative, there.

Gotcha! Sorry, I missed that the first, second and umpeenth time I read it. Does Dawn ever bother to write in what we would consider stadard Engish?Maybe Dawn can explain what would falsify his/her theory. All through this thread we've asked and all through this thread Dawn has made assertion after assertion, but neve once tld us what would falsify his assertion, which, as far as I can tell is a subjective opinion.

And NONE of this leads to a conclusion of intelligent design being involved merely that it LOOKS like an intelligent designer COULD have done so - but NO EVIDENCE to quantify it either way.Each night little pixies could make my lawn grow that little bit higher. After all my lawn does grow! So I now have a 'pixie in my garden' theory. You can't disprove it (I'd love to see you try) and there is certainly evidence that my grass grows! That's the sort of nonsense you get when you declare something by fiat.That's exactly what you are doing with law, order and purpose. You are inferring these conditions and then further inferring there must be an intelligent cause to provide it all. Really? And the evidence is? Ah — circular — there is order therefore there must be a designer to make the order that I see. Then my pixies are as good as your Intelligent Designer. I must need pixies to grow my grass because it grows.Don't you wonder why you are pissing alone on this one? Not just on here but in the real world. Why do the great educated countries not agree? Why don't science curricula abound with ID on every science course?In fact outside of creationist diploma-mill 'universities' (cough cough) why is ID not seen on science courses? Are all our country's great educators, scientists, politicians and lawyers so blind to the world of Dawn Bertot?.....or as far more likely....you are talking complete bollocks as usual?

Its only incoherent to someone that does not have the ability to distinguish between parroted things they have been taught, such as yourself and those that understand the simple reasoning process, such as myselfSince I did not claim renowned scientist for my poisition, it would follow your claim is nonsense. My point was that a potential believer in God follows a scientific methodology in his approach and still believes in God. Demonstrating the fact that scientist that do believe in God, can have a so-called scientific approachSince creationism and science are just words, just like philosophy, it only reamins that his investigation is scientifc in approach. The so-called ID appoach leaves nothing off in its investigation, so it is therefore a scientific method. Even if there were such a thigs as thatI dont need Mr Collins, Mr Behe, or anyone else on your side to support my valid and rational appproach, since it has been that way since the dawn of timePerhaps you would like to tackle some of the propositions I have been presentingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well then, you make an obvious non-point.We all know that there are scientists who are also theists. We are also well aware that people are capable of holding mutually exclusive opinions, so this observation is worthless. Have you ever considered a remedial English class for adults? It might make you sound less like a drunk six year old.Collins' science does follow the scientific method precisely because he does not involve his loony religious views in his work.Disagree? Then show me exactly where Francis Collins utilises religion in his professional scientific work. That is a reason why it is not a scientific method. Well don't mention them then.Mutate and Survive

And they say miracles have ceased. I believe inspite of his self-proclaimed intelligence he is starting to get it Now go back and read the rest of my position and I believe you might actually get the rest of it. Landsakes alive, he's doing it and all on his ownDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please read what I am writing and try and understand I did not imply this. read what I am saying simpleton

Again, if you had the level of articulacy that one might reasonably expect from a dyslexic eight year old, this might be possible. As it is, it's somewhat problematic divining what you mean, given that your posts are written in imbecilese.It's pretty simple; if Collins does not support your views, don't bring him up.Mutate and Survive

As far as I can see the only way for this 'hypothesis' to be falsified is if Dawn decided that she could not see Law, Order and Purpose.In a sense, if Dawn believes it is true, it must be.

Dawn, you position seems to be that you can see Law, Order and Purpose. I imagine you also see harmony.You go on to assert that that because you saw these things that one can infer ID.The only thing I don't understand is how you can tell Law, Order and Purpose mean ID.Well that's not quite true: I can see how you would see order in the hexaform of a bee's honey comes or the arrangement of carbon atoms in diamond.I can see how a rock falling down when dropped is pretty much a law. In a gravity field of 1G the rock with always fall at the same rate in vacuum.Purpose needs an intelligent initiator and this is where you go wrong. You have decided that because you see purpose it must be from an intelligent initiator.I guess I can see that.But only Purpose needs an initiator. Chaotic water beomes ordered ice due to natural forces. Things doing the same thing all the time under the same conditions is pretty lawful but the conditions must be the same. Ice will form at negative centigrate only if the conditions are right.With both Law and Order no non unnaturalistic entities are required.So you 'theory' boils down to you thinking every thing has a purpose.And this can only be true if one assumes an intelligent initiator a priori because purpose requires agency.You're not using a scientific method of investigation at all: you are putting the cart before the horse.