|
Author
|
Topic: ICR Sues Texas
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
Message 5 of 549 (506127)
04-22-2009 8:35 PM
|
|
|
UGGH
I hate frivolous lawsuits
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so. No it simply shows that there are many possibilities and that your particular brand of Christianity differs from others. Why do you think there are so many Christian Denominations, none of which are the same as the original.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
if the evolutionist or atheist want their special classes in their accepted topics, then they should fork over the money and build their own private schools, pay their own teachers and igh tuition. And what classes are you referring to? Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History, Mathematics, Geography? Where are there any Atheistic classes? What's more is that even among theists, a large portion of this group accepts science including Evolution. All theists aren't fundies.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 92 of 549 (577395)
08-28-2010 2:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Rrhain
08-27-2010 1:42 AM
|
|
if atheists want evolution then they should start their own private schools like christians and others are forced to do. What do atheists have to do with evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory, Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural entities. Where is the connection? Most evolutionists aren't Atheists. {ABE this was supposed to be a response to EvC Forum: ICR Sues Texas Which is message 88 Somehow I must have hit the wrong button Edited by bluescat48, : error in response. Edited by bluescat48, : added line
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 87 by Rrhain, posted 08-27-2010 1:42 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Your respect here is refreshing. But your last comment is laughable. You cannot work twords a goal, when the rules are not the same for evidence. And how are the rules different.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Not in a discussion concerning whether design is evidence or not. So then what is evidence of design, not appearance of design, but actual design.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Thus the rules for evidence are different. If no initiator is required for evo, i dont need to produce a designer, to know that design is excally that , design No it isn't. First you have to supply some, then create a hypothesis as to its meaning, test, evaluate, draw a conclusion, publish it and have it peer reviewed, the same as any other postulate. That is what is not being done. Again I ask, so then what is evidence of design, not appearance of design, but actual design.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
The simple rule of evidence, when applied correctly and across the board is that if i were a gasous form of life never having experienced or seen human life and came across a computer and I observed its functions and operation, the rule of evidence would be to assume because it has order it was designed. This is why there is is a problem. You stop at the assumption. Thus you are saying, it appears designed therefore it is. You don't go through the final step, confirmation. That is why ID is not science, the evidence search stops at the assumption. No attempt at conformation is made. One can esily confirm that a computer was designed with very little "elbow grease," whereas confirming design in life requires much more painstaking work than simply saying "it is irreducibly complex, therefore it is designed has to have a designer." Edited by bluescat48, : clarity and typo correction as per wounded kings point.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
But, now watch, it in no way points to the idea that there is no evidence for a designer, when complex order is present. Where is the order? You see order, I see chaos. The Universe, numerous galaxies randomly spaced, of different kinds and sizes where is the order? The solar system planets revolving around a star not in circular orbits bur elliptical and with different eccentricities where is the order? The earth rotates not with its axis not perpendicular to the plane of rotation but ~23 degrees from the plane. The revolution does not have an equal number of rotations where is the order? Life required nourishment to survive, it takes in food and converts this into tissue but also into energy much of which is wasted as heat, it also requires energy to break down the food (catabolism) and built up the tissue (anabolism). where is the order? all chaos.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
I say without fear of contradiction the complex and detailed order is evidence of itself, without seeing a designer. Your complaining that it does not and your assertion that these things are ordered of themselves, does nothing to remove the clear and obvious evidence of design The point is that is is not evidence of design only the appearance of design.
Now stay with me Eienstien, you and I have made assertions, both of which are based in reality, mine that nature observes order, rules and laws, the logical conclusion of which would and could conclude a designer, with n proofo fear of contradiction. No the logical conclusion is that it appears to be designed not that it was. This simply mean there could possibly be a designer but in no way shows there is.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
So how will you demonstrate based upon the type of evidence you are asserting, that macro biological evolution and the idea that it is an exclusive product of laws of nature, eclusive to itself? Now remember here we need the exact dogmatic, provable evidence that you require of my position I dont need and will not accept the appearance of the idea that it is a product of itsel, I need absolute evidence. First there is no such thing as dogmatic evidence. What evidence is needed is evidence that shows that the outcome meets the premise. Evolution does this by the convergence of evidence Why People believe weird things writes: from geology, paleontology,botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, anatomy, physiology and comparative anatomy. Why People Believe Weird Things, pg214, Michael Shermer The point is there is no convergence of evidence of a designer or of design. Your point fits Hasty generalization
Why People believe weird things writes: In logic, the hasty generalization is a form of improper induction. In life it is called prejudice. In either case, conclusions are drawn before the facts warrant it. pg56 same reference You are stating that order = design whereas there is no premise for order to even imply design as was shown with the reference to crystals.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Your statement here is a testament to two facts. One, it illustrates that you do not understand the nature, purpose and application of EVIDENCE in a case such as ours. Two it demonstrates you are not thinking for yourself and are echoing borrowed ideas Before one can apply evidence, there must be evidence. Where is the design evidence. Your beliefs aren't evidence as for thinking for myself, I do but I don't let my own bias interfere with the evidence so when someone else can explain the point better I defer to the one with more expertise.
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
hat you need to demonstrate that it is not evidence, is to demonstrate first, that it is not order and complexity of the highest order. Heck that is what makes it observable as evidence inn thefirst place Before I can discuss order and complexity, there must be some. Again you use your own definition of theses terms. Highest order? What does that mean?
That what you reminded me of from you old avatar, not that I mean to imply that your old. thats a country song up ther That old avatar is not as old as I am, since the avatar is me. Edited by bluescat48, : added line
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
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
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Is it true that none of the conclusions you draw for your own position or thise which you dismiss inmine are provable, yes or no No scientific theory is proven. Science does not deal in proofs. Evaluation, yes. One evaluated the data and determines if the data matches the hypothesis. If it does, it is accepted, if it doesn't it is rejected. That is what the term falsification means. All scientific theories can be falsified if better data is found. The reason that the TOE is accepted and Design is not is that there is evidence supporting the TOE whereas there is none to support design. One needs data to evaluate data, no data no evaluation. The evaluation may turn out wrong, as has been seen numerous times ie. Phlogiston, but the overturning of phlogiston was done by evaluation of data obtained from the discovery of oxygen.
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
|
™ Version 4.2