Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-26-2014 9:42 PM
57 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,120 Year: 27,961/28,606 Month: 3,018/2,244 Week: 422/710 Day: 132/161 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
37Next
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 436 of 549 (580927)
09-12-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by nwr
09-12-2010 12:31 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Rules of evidence is a legal term, typically applied in courtrooms. It is not a term used by science. If you are just making up stuff as you go along, then you are least owe us a clear explanation of what you mean.

Rules of evidence are a part of reality first, then courtrooms. Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation.

Just read through carefully and you will see the point I am making

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by nwr, posted 09-12-2010 12:31 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by nwr, posted 09-12-2010 12:51 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 441 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2010 1:04 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5184
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 437 of 549 (580930)
09-12-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 12:35 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Kind of a silly analogy, dont you think?

As expected, you completely evade the issue of providing criteria for what you consider to be the appearance of design.

nwr writes:
But you are utterly failing to provide any criteria as to how "apparent design" can be recognized. And that makes your claims highly subjective and perhaps no more than wishful thinking.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You just need to follow along a little closer

I have followed closely. There is nothing there other a long sequence of empty claims.

And we are still way off topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5184
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 438 of 549 (580931)
09-12-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 12:38 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Rules of evidence are a part of reality first, then courtrooms. Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation.

Just stop dancing around the issues.

Either give us an explicit list of these "rules of evidence", or give us a citation to somewhere that there is a explicit list.

As best I can tell, you have been giving us a snow job. Or, in less polite slang, you have been bullshitting us.

You've got nothing other than empty rhetoric.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:38 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 1:00 PM nwr has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 439 of 549 (580933)
09-12-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by nwr
09-12-2010 12:51 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Either give us an explicit list of these "rules of evidence", or give us a citation to somewhere that there is a explicit list.

Now I know for sure you have not been paying any attention. Pay close attention. Neither conclusion that is derived from observation, ie design, the TOE, the idea that things are a product of themselves, CAN BE PROVED from the observable IMMEDIATE evidence

But both are tenable and valid as explanations. This is all the EVIDENCE will allow. Since neither can be proved or disproved but both can be demonstrated, then both should be taught in the science classroom

How much simpler could it be from an EVIDENTIAL standpoint

Good grief.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by nwr, posted 09-12-2010 12:51 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by jar, posted 09-12-2010 1:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 442 by bluescat48, posted 09-12-2010 1:10 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 443 by nwr, posted 09-12-2010 1:21 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 440 of 549 (580934)
09-12-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 1:00 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 1:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Huntard, posted 09-12-2010 2:45 PM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 441 of 549 (580935)
09-12-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 12:38 PM


Evidence
Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation.

Not so. As Heinlein noted:

Heinlein writes:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts (1980:480-182).

The "theory" you have been trying to convey to us does not organize facts into a useful body, nor does it allow predictions.

It is more of a catechism, repeated over and over until it is beaten into the heads of the audience.

If you had evidence instead of dogma it would be easier to convince people.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:38 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 442 of 549 (580936)
09-12-2010 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 1:00 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
But both are tenable and valid as explanations. This is all the EVIDENCE will allow. Since neither can be proved or disproved but both can be demonstrated, then both should be taught in the science classroom

Yes if there was something to evaluate. Before one can evaluate evidence, there must be evidence. There is evidence of evolution ie: the fossil record, the genomes, mutations etc. but where is the evidence, to evaluate, of design. (Hint) there is none.

Edited by bluescat48, : typ

Edited by bluescat48, : accidental erasure


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 1:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:35 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5184
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 443 of 549 (580939)
09-12-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 1:00 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Now I know for sure you have not been paying any attention. Pay close attention. Neither conclusion that is derived from observation, ie design, the TOE, the idea that things are a product of themselves, CAN BE PROVED from the observable IMMEDIATE evidence

You keep saying that, as if it were relevant. It isn't.

Once again, you completely sidestep the request to explain what you mean by "rules of evidence." Presumably the reason that you sidestep it, is because you don't mean anything at all. You are just spewing diversionary nonsense.

It is the nature of scientific theories, that they are never proved. Newton's theory of gravity was never proved. These days, most scientists prefer Einstein's General Relativity as an explanation of gravity. But General Relativity has never been proved either, and never will be.

For that matter, the Tooth Fairy theory has never been disproved, though it is widely agreed that it is made up nonsense.

By asking about what can or cannot be proved, you are using the wrong criteria.

Science is valued because of its usefulness. We accept that scientific theories are tentative, and might turn out to be wrong. But we continue to use them to the extent that they are useful.

The Theory of Evolution has turned out to be exceedingly useful both to biologists and to natural historians. By contrast, ID has turned out to be useless.

If you can actually come up with a detailed theory of intelligent design, such that the theory is just as useful as a guide to scientists and natural historians as the ToE is, then people will begin to take ID seriously as possibly having scientific merit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 1:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:41 PM nwr has responded
 Message 458 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:16 PM nwr has responded
 Message 460 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:18 PM nwr has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13362
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 444 of 549 (580944)
09-12-2010 2:29 PM


Recusing Myself
I'm recusing myself from further participation in this thread.

Starting Tuesday, if there's still active discussion in this thread, I will begin moderating as Admin.

--Percy


    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 445 of 549 (580945)
09-12-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 11:06 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:

This works for your purposes but not as evidence in an argument form and what is demonstratable, both by argument and physical evidence.


Of course it does, the fact that literally everything can be explained by design means design explains nothing, and adds nothing to an explanation. Meaning it should be left out.

Anything said of design can equally be said of the conclusions derived from evolution or atheism, but you consistently ignore that they both pit themselves agaisnt only two logical possibilites, neither of which is provable, but both are testable against the available physical evidence

Yes, and like I explained to you, in such a case science demands we pick the most parsimonious one. Which would exclude design.

Here is why. You have eliminated one very reasonable onclusion, because youdont like its conclusions, Yet it follows the same available evidence and rule of evidence to derive its conclusion

No, I have eliminated the conclusion because it violates parsimony, something science says we should do.

Design should be taught in the classroom, even if you decided otherwise.

Not as science it shouldn't. It violates one of the prime rules of science, parsimony.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 11:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 446 of 549 (580946)
09-12-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by jar
09-12-2010 1:03 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
jar writes:

Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?


Yes, Dawn did, but I think she was trying to quote Taq and did it wrong, or something. If you look at Taq's Message 409, you will see him using the exact phrase, and the first time Dawn uses it is in response to that post.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by jar, posted 09-12-2010 1:03 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by jar, posted 09-12-2010 2:59 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 447 of 549 (580947)
09-12-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Huntard
09-12-2010 2:45 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Could be, but I am still pretty much clueless what Dawn Bertot is saying.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Huntard, posted 09-12-2010 2:45 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 448 of 549 (580961)
09-12-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2009 4:10 PM


ICR org reply linky.
I didnít notice this link in this thread (sorry if I missed it), but hereís a link to the IRCís response.
http://www.icr.org/article/4598/
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2009 4:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13362
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 449 of 549 (580969)
09-12-2010 5:40 PM


NCSE Note
Did anyone post this already from the NCSE:

ICR concedes defeat over its graduate school

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by jar, posted 09-12-2010 5:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 450 of 549 (580970)
09-12-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Percy
09-12-2010 5:40 PM


Re: NCSE Note
Yeah, it got posted up thread. It is a very important thing to note though, particularly this...

quote:
The ICR explains, "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics ó a predominantly religious education school ó it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Likewise, ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics is legally exempt from being required to be accredited by any secular or ecumenical or other type of accrediting association."

This is yet another example of the "Avoidance Tactic". By moving it into the Apologetics arena they are free to make any nonsense claims they want.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Percy, posted 09-12-2010 5:40 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Nij, posted 09-12-2010 9:23 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
37Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014