And the method and model the designer uses. Dawn has NEVER answered those questions
When you can demonstrate, outside of your own desires, that such is a requirement for the design principle to not be valid, in and of itself, by order and law alone, your point would have validity. As such it does not
I dont know absolutely the ultimate source of the materials that allows gravity to work, but hey, guess what, it does
Is it true that law and order exist? As such it is sufficient to establish a valid argument, scientific in nature that allows the design principle. Only a fool or a person void of any reasoning abilites would deny such a simple principle
Again if you would explain why these two are necessary and why they would invalidate the argument as such, it might make your contention more reasonable
Your drivel is still not on topic. This is not to say that it's not amusing, but if you want me to mock you at any length you should probably take it to another thread.
Define "order," "law," and "purpose" as you use them.
Its not a matter of how I use them, they are observable in reality.
Order is simply the observable and testable materials in nature, that work in an orderly fashion, in conjuction with its parts, to produce a demonstratable purpose
An organism or a simple organism doesnt stop doing what it was designed to do or become somthing different, that is not allowed by its biological make up. It follows that bio and its order, unless something prevents it
Simply disagreeing with such observable order, is not sufficient to deny its existence. it doesnt need your approval for it to be valid and observable
Your drivel is still not on topic. This is not to say that it's not amusing, but if you want me to mock you at any length you should probably take it to another thread.
Im happy to do that at any point, but there is every reason to believe you will continue to fail to present any argument and continue with your sarcasm and lame humor
When you present the wisp of a response, answer or argument here, I might take you serious somewhere else, not until then. You really dont know how to respond to this argument do you?
You really dont know how to respond to this argument do you?
You are, of course, wrong. To the extent that there is an argument buried in your sordid mess of whining, hysteria, and gibberish, I have already pointed out its gross defects on another thread.
On this thread I shall therefore content myself with pointing out that although it would be stupid to introduce creationism into science classrooms, it does not follow that every stupid thing you post is on topic merely by consequence of being stupid. It would have to be stupid and about creationism in science classrooms.
When you can demonstrate, outside of your own desires, that such is a requirement for the design principle to not be valid, in and of itself, by order and law alone, your point would have validity. As such it does not
I dont know absolutely the ultimate source of the materials that allows gravity to work, but hey, guess what, it does
Is it true that law and order exist? As such it is sufficient to establish a valid argument, scientific in nature that allows the design principle. Only a fool or a person void of any reasoning abilites would deny such a simple principle
Again if you would explain why these two are necessary and why they would invalidate the argument as such, it might make your contention more reasonable
Otherwise your just rambling
Dawn Bertot
What has this to do with whether creationism should be taught in science classes?
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
And the method and model the designer uses. Dawn has NEVER answered those questions
When you can demonstrate, outside of your own desires, that such is a requirement for the design principle to not be valid, in and of itself, by order and law alone, your point would have validity. As such it does not
I dont know absolutely the ultimate source of the materials that allows gravity to work, but hey, guess what, it does
Is it true that law and order exist? As such it is sufficient to establish a valid argument, scientific in nature that allows the design principle. Only a fool or a person void of any reasoning abilites would deny such a simple principle
Again if you would explain why these two are necessary and why they would invalidate the argument as such, it might make your contention more reasonable
Otherwise your just rambling
Dawn Bertot
I'm sorry but once again you are simply spouting nonsense and off topic.
There is no design principle until you can explain the model and method used by the designer.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Part of the division and misunderstanding is due to the fact that many believe creationism or ID is religiously based, it is not.
Have you read the post originating this thread? Is this thread about ID?
No it is not. The question posed is whether religious Creationism should be taught in classrooms.
DB writes:
No Nukes writes:
Besides, haven't you abandoned every thread where ID is on topic? Why would anyone want to join you in yet another such thread?
It amazes me how you think you can make a baseless assertion, without the slightest evidence to accompany such a statement. you have some 200 posts only been here a while and can assert such nonesense.
Why is the number of posts I've made relevant? I've read plenty of the nonsense you've written in these forums. The problem is with you attempting to hijack a thread 400+ posts in.
DB writes:
Provide the thread or post I have abandoned, if you are so inclined. Otherwise, check you facts before making silly comments
Of course I checked my facts before posting. I make a habit of it.
There are plenty of posts awaiting your response in "Intelligent Design vs. Real Science", "Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution", "Does ID follow the scientific method?", "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?", "The evidence for design and a designer", etc. I note that you started several of those threads.
Order is simply the observable and testable materials in nature, that work in an orderly fashion, in conjuction with its parts, to produce a demonstratable purpose
You can't use the word "orderly" in defining "order." That's circular and meaningless. Please try again.
Simply disagreeing with such observable order, is not sufficient to deny its existence. it doesnt need your approval for it to be valid and observable
I haven't disagreed with anything yet. I'm trying to get you to define your terms so I can understand what you are talking about.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
You can't use the word "orderly" in defining "order." That's circular and meaningless. Please try again.
you mean I cant use the words "evolution", natural selection or mutation when describing these events? Evolution is therefore invalid because it involves itself in circular reasoning?
How do you define a thing if its function is not what it is or what it is doing?
now these are the heights and breath of silliness you fellas will go to to avoid an obvious point
I gave you a very clear explanation of order and law in the previous post and you just ignorded it
You have to do that to avoid the force of the argument
I haven't disagreed with anything yet. I'm trying to get you to define your terms so I can understand what you are talking about.
Have you read the post originating this thread? Is this thread about ID?
No it is not. The question posed is whether religious Creationism should be taught in classrooms.
You obviously havent been doing this very long or you would know immediately that there is no difference between creationism and ID. Theses are terms Nuke, they only assist in defining reality, they are not reality
The reality of the situation is that they are both only an attempt from a scientific approach to explain the nature of things.
there is no such thing as religious creationism, again, just another term to help explain the nature of things. there is only a physical explanation, rationally produced, that pitts itself against reality and the natural order
Now here is the point, pay close attention. the explanation (the scientific approach)what ever you choose to call it, is logically valid or it is not
Since, the design principle from the perspective of observable order and obvious law are more than valid and no argument can be set out that demonstrates it as invalid and it falls squarely within only two possibilites, it most certainly should be taught in the science classroom.
There is no rational explanation attempting to explan the nature of things that should be excluded
If you want to call this ID, fine, if you want to call it creo, fine, if you want to call it a scientific method fine. these are only term, they are not reality. reality is what you do in your investigation and whether it is logically sound
Nuke use your head to see something deeper. Ofcourse I amn ontopic, Im trying to make clarifications where they are needed. people bog down when they dont even understand the nature of things or reality itself
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
You are, of course, wrong. To the extent that there is an argument buried in your sordid mess of whining, hysteria, and gibberish, I have already pointed out its gross defects on another thread.
On this thread I shall therefore content myself with pointing out that although it would be stupid to introduce creationism into science classrooms, it does not follow that every stupid thing you post is on topic merely by consequence of being stupid. It would have to be stupid and about creationism in science classrooms.
Your a funny guy DA, simplistic, but funny
When and if you ever understand what the words creationism, ID and scientific mehtod, really are, then you will begin to understand that not only should creationism be taught, but you will begin to understand that it invloves nothing more than an examination of the physical world by a means of observation and evaluation to a valid or invalid conclusion
the war will continue to rage because people simply cant understand that both sides are IN FACT using the same approach. the science types like to exclude creationism and ID, because, they dont understand its approach and it might invlove the supernatural.
religion involves the supernatural, creationism and ID do not need to invlove the supernatural to be valid and demonstratable
The problem with your statement is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POINTING TO ANY CREATOR OR DESIGNER.
Typs like you usualy say nothing can come from nothing so you need a creator well where did the creator come from? oh he is eternal dude he needs no creation. why cant the multi verse be eternal and our universe just a production of that multiverse
You say life is too complex it needs a designer well it has one its called evolution no need for a magical unicorn up in the sky.
you say that order needs a designer why? Order cant arise on its own if you throw a coin up in the sky it will land on heads 50% of the time thats kind of orderly isnt it.
Law as in natural law needs a designer? Why i see 2 possibilities out of numerus universes we happen to be one that is in the ballpark range for life why ours you say well if we where in one that did not have the "right" mix of natural laws we would not be able to ask the question or the other possibility is that the natural laws cannot be any different so fare i saw no evidence that they can be.
If you look at reality for what it is you will see that there is no need for a creator, if you look at it trough bible glasses and a brainwashed mind little to no education then thunder is proof of god enough for you who else but him could be throwing thunderbolts around when he is angry. < ----- You are not objective and whiteout objectivity it is very hard to make theories of how reality works
there is no such thing as religious creationism, again, just another term to help explain the nature of things. there is only a physical explanation, rationally produced, that pitts itself against reality and the natural order
Well YEC goes against reality the second it says the Erth is 6000 years old. <--- explanation.
™ Version 4.2
(1)