|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
When people say that evolution is a fact they're referring to the progression of fossils in the geological column. That life has changed over time is so obvious an inference from this evidence that many prefer to call it a fact. Even though you do not consider this inference a fact, certainly this evidence is something we can both agree should be taught in science class agreed
But the theories that are taught in science class are tentative inferences from the evidence and can never be considered facts. Consensus develops around theories with strong supporting evidence. Theories around which a strong consensus has developed are what is taught in science class. The proper path that creationism or ID should take to the science class is to work toward becoming accepted as part of the scientific consensus. 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. Thanks for the thoghts though Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's because it's so logical and matter of fact according to real life. Miracles are "matter of fact according to real life"? We have obviously lived very different lives. I find reproduction with variation a lot more matter of fact, 'cos of being able to observe it.
What is designed and created does not require elitist complicated mathmatical and theoretical concocted assumptions to explain. From which we deduce that gravity was not designed and created, since it does.
Most of what we observe in (abe: here and now) real life tends towards chaos, decay, corrosion, extermination, non-complexity and disorder when void of intelligent design and management. We have obviously been observing very different things. I've been observing the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. The rules are the same --- creationism fails by exactly the same rules by which evolution succeeds. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My guess is that they do. Secondly, why would you publish an exrensive paper on whether trees exist or not. So in the first place they do publish, and in the second place they wouldn't and we shouldn't expect them too? Make up your mind. It's like the child's excuse: "I didn't hit him, and in any case he hit me first!"
It should be obvious that they do exist. thats the problem here you want a simple, oservable, seemily demonstratable process to be complicated. Fiat creation of species is observable now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DB writes:
Its really very simple, its an observation of the natural order of chemical and biological processes working together and independently of each other to accomplish its desired and designed purpose, or appearent purpose Jar writes:Again, that is not a theory or even a hypothesis. I assumed you would actually be able to demonstrate why its neither of the two things you described above, itstead of just asserting it
It is also nothing there to teach that is not being taught now. We teach chemistry and biology. Thats confusing. First you describe it as neither a theory or hypothesis, then pronounce that its what is actually being taught at present?
If they explain what we see then there is no need of throwing in some imaginary designer. Yes, chemistry and biology explain what you see, presentlly, they do not explain in detail or fact what you did not observe, to proclaim it as fact
If you want some designer included then you need to present the evidence showing how the designer controls or changes normal chemical and biological processes. Why do you continue to put words in my mouth, I am talking about the rules of evidence to establish or determine a conclusion, based on the available evidence, the present condition, which allows us to make a rational decision about the possibiltiy of origins and how that may have happened. Design certainly falls within that category. Evidence is evidence whether you like it or not. Im not saying a designer should be thrown in, Im saying the evidence at present allows sucha valid conclusion
So far you have failed to show either a model that includes those designer processes or even any evidence there is some designer. If I have failed from your lofty yet unreasonable perspective, then it is no failure at all and you know it. Using a process that science sets out itself and applying that science, to the natural world by observation and experimentation and observing the order and laws nature respects is no failure. The evidence that there is possibly a designer, is the exact same evidence and approach you use to establish, that, EVENTS UNOBSERVED BY YOURSELF, possibly actually happened even if you did not witness them. Show mw how our approach is any different and I dont mean a nonsensical trip through WORD PLAY about Evolution, the theory of evolution, and the such like, all of which, regardless of the terminology are unobserved events, yet you believe them as fact. Please spare me also, the terminology trip about, Hypoth, theories and facts, we all know what we mean by the word facts If it is a fact that the strata suggests life changed and you determined this by observation of those details, then it would be as factual to determine possible design, in the forms of life in that strata, or in the simpliest living organism at present At no point in the observed information by yourself are there half baked unfinished organismswaiting for thier evolutionary perfection to complete a desired task. They are functional and operational to complete even the extrapolated idea of adaptation
Bring the designer in and put it on the lab table or present a model that actually includes more than word salad and perhaps you may have something worth examining. The important thing is that "the Designer" is really unimportant. Once the methods and processes are understood the designer simply becomes a footnote. It does not matter who designed the first radio, the first internal combustion engine, the first airplane, the first bubblegum. What is important is understanding the process. This part is jargon and unapplicable to the logic of my position. they dont add anything of value in determining rules of evidence
And that is exactly what gets taught today. How evolution can create the diversity we see around us. Right, what you are also teaching children is that one can know a thing having not observed that event directly. so the EVIDENCE is determined by making an educated judgement from the available data, to form a logical rational conclusion
Until you can show how the so called designer manipulates chemistry and physics there is no worth in the concept to teach. the manipulation as you describe it is in its self sustaining, self supported, independent order that it adheres to in the first place.It carries out a preprogrammed set of laws and rules. Who in space observing a deep space probe from a distance, would see the immediate manipulation actually and presently of that probe until it is disected, examined and evaluated. Hmmmmm? Im going to bet they thought it was designed on just the available evidence, not having met or seen the designer or ever getting to meet them Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The rules are the same --- creationism fails by exactly the same rules by which evolution succeeds. Now we are getting somewhere, lets see you explain what you have asserted, if the rules are the same. This should be fun Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well, creationists/IDists need to supply evidence for their assertions. So far, they haven't.
Now we are getting somewhere, lets see you explain what you have asserted, if the rules are the same. This should be fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well, creationists/IDists need to supply evidence for their assertions. So far, they haven't. That depends on what you consider evidencelets see if we can agree on what constitues evidence before even going down that road. Agreed Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now we are getting somewhere, lets see you explain what you have asserted, if the rules are the same. This should be fun (1) Formulate a hypothesis amenable to steps (2) and (3).(2) Derive predictions from the hypothesis (i.e. figure out the logical consequences of it being true). (3) Compare the predictions against observation to see if they match up. A hypothesis that passes this test can be elevated to the status of a theory, and must be taken as true unless and until sufficient observations have been made contrary to the predictions to require it to be revised or abandoned. There are some subtleties I have skipped over because I'm too busy to write a book on the scientific method tonight, but that gives you the general idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member
|
The rules are the same --- creationism fails by exactly the same rules by which evolution succeeds yet creation is not under the secular authority and those rules do not apply to it. Even though i have shown in another thread, 'creation as science' {in the Is it Science forum} that creation can meet most of the secula rscientific 'rules'. its vulnerability is the same as evolutions', it is NOT a repeatable occurance. secular scientists CANNOT repeat the origin of life nor the interception of that life by the process known as evolution thus it fails to qualify as secularists claim creation fails. at best all you can do is test the results of evolution BUT the problem with that is, evolutionists have failed to show beyond any reasonable doubt and with evidence that the process actually exists and IS responsible for the declared and claimed changes in llife throughout history. That is an impossible task given that life follows what Genesis 1 says and the results of creation are seen everyday and are not hypothesized, conjectured, assumed et al. and one does not have to wait a million years to see the changes. mutations are simply the reaction of a perfect gene made at creation and corrupted by sin and death that entered the world at adam's sin. there is NO possible way to prove the process of evolution had a hand in its change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Well, creationists/IDists need to supply evidence for their assertions. So far, they haven't. yet we have evidence and we do not make 'assertions;'. it is not our fault that secularists close their minds to what they do not want to hear. one piece of evidence is --- gravity. secular science cannot figure it out, cannot solve how it works, cannot provide any evidence for its origin and why it can keep people on earth while holding the moon in place. nor can they explain why the gravitational pull from the sun does NOT rip it out of its orbit with earth. (part of that comes from The Final Theory by McCutcheon, it is adapted to fit the paragraph} it is NOT that creationists do not present evidence IT IS that secularists DO NOT want to hear it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
archaeologist writes:
Sorry Arcie, but asseting is all you have done since you came here, that is why you were temporarily suspended.
yet we have evidence and we do not make 'assertions;'. it is not our fault that secularists close their minds to what they do not want to hear.
Yes yes, we know by now that you hate us, please keep these comments out, they add nothing.
one piece of evidence is --- gravity.
Gravity is evidence for creation?
secular science cannot figure it out, cannot solve how it works, cannot provide any evidence for its origin and why it can keep people on earth while holding the moon in place.
Uhm, yes we can. Gravity is the warping of spacetime by mass. That is how it works, that is why it keeps people on earth while holding the moon in place.
(part of that comes from The Final Theory by McCutcheon, it is adapted to fit the paragraph}
Makes me think the rest of his book is worthless.
it is NOT that creationists do not present evidence IT IS that secularists DO NOT want to hear it.
No, no evidence has been provided, agani not in this post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
one piece of evidence is --- gravity. secular science cannot figure it out, cannot solve how it works, cannot provide any evidence for its origin and why it can keep people on earth while holding the moon in place. nor can they explain why the gravitational pull from the sun does NOT rip it out of its orbit with earth. This is so pathetic and desperate. Except for at the extreme scales that require quantum gravity, we probably understand gravity better than anything else in existence. I would expect a good science-educated 18-year old to be able to explain your above trivial and hilarious confusion. How the hell do you think we manage to navigate probes throughout the solar system with mind-boggling accuracy if we cannot understand how gravity manages to generate both attraction and orbital behaviour? And you call this the "evidence" that scientists reject? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
archaeologist writes: its vulnerability is the same as evolutions', it is NOT a repeatable occurance. secular scientists CANNOT repeat the origin of life nor the interception of that life by the process known as evolution thus it fails to qualify as secularists claim creation fails. The replication requirement of science refers to scientific results, not to past events. It means that the observations and/or results of experiments performed by one scientist must be reproducible by other scientists.
That is an impossible task given that life follows what Genesis 1 says and the results of creation are seen everyday and are not hypothesized, conjectured, assumed et al. and one does not have to wait a million years to see the changes... mutations are simply the reaction of a perfect gene made at creation and corrupted by sin and death that entered the world at adam's sin. there is NO possible way to prove the process of evolution had a hand in its change. To the extent that the ICR curriculum follows revelation such as this instead of scientific facts and theories, it would represent a serious obstacle to accreditation. Texas, and I hope all states, require that accredited degree programs in science actually teach science. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024