|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The important part from your link...
quote: So they knew all along that their effort had nothing to do with science and everything to do with their religious marketing. Note they also count on not even having to live up to Christian Education Accreditation standards. What chumps. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Jones writes: ICR is not seeking accreditation for their "scientists" but for their "Master's Degree in Science Education" curriculum. You're right, Dr Jones. Thanks. I stand corrected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
dawn bertot writes
HOW MANY TEST do I need to do to know my computer is operating and functioning correctly. Should I keep repeating the test to see if its operating and operating correctly, while its operating Hooah writes:As a gamer and an avid overclocker, I will tell you that there are NUMEROUS tests you should perform. That is an argument from technological ignorance. Uh oh, I was hoping you would be able to see the difference between and observation or statement and an argument. Mine is not an argument in that instance,its a staetment its your obligation to point out what test I need to conduct besides the one that makes it obvious as VALID EVIDENCE, as much as evidence can be obtained Gamer and overcloker, what in the world is that and should I take you serious in an argumentation arena? ha ha Shreeks
This is the best experiment you've got? "Does life work"? You all are positing a total revamp off the scientific method. How is your method going to replace the work already done? All you are saying is "well, it looks designed, so it must be designed because I don't know how else it would work." I bet you think the sun must have been designed too, huh? that is not what I said, go back and re-read it then come to me with an argument against it. Dont start debating using the Adequate method, Nanny nanny boo boo Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Perhaps you could use spell check so I can understand what the fuck you are saying? Not only is it reprehensible to mis-spell a word that you quote, but even more-so to forgo all usage of punctuation AND fail to formulate a sentence properly. I said overclocker, not overlooker.
that is not what I said, go back and re-read it then come to me with an argument against it. I know full well what it is that you said.
Nanny nanny boo boo Maybe you should go take a nap and a juice box and wait until the adults are finished speaking. Your god believes in Unicorns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I've noticed that you say a lot of things that aren't true. But "must"? You are possessed of free will, are you not? Now that you have made an assertion go ahead and support a line that I have made that is not true, or atleast that which I cannot demonstrate to be valid as a comment My suggestion is that you stop yapping and complaining and spend more time showing why the design, that operates in an orderly, cohernt, logical fashion, to produce a specific purpose, SHOULD NOT be considered design and why this is not evidence of design and why it should not be considered as evidence My guess is that you cannot demonstrate that in a counterfactual fashion, other that silly word games. I believe the ball is in your court, go ahead and demonstrate why it is not organization, coherent and logical Even Anthony Flew finally saw this simple point. he could no longer deny the obvious. Im guessing he was a bit more educated than yourself, possibly. See, even intellectual giants can see such a simple point about design Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
My suggestion is that you stop yapping and complaining and spend more time showing why the design, that operates in an orderly, cohernt, logical fashion, to produce a specific purpose, SHOULD NOT be considered design and why this is not evidence of design and why it should not be considered as evidence Because it can be explained without the need for a designer. One ought not introduce an extra element into an explanation where none is necessary. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I know full well what it is that you said. Temper now, try and remain true to the sites rules and present evidence to the contrary, that it is NOT organization in the natural world. Lets see your argument, or should I assume you dont have one
Maybe you should go take a nap and a juice box and wait until the adults are finished speaking. This from a man that openly admits to being a gamer. Ouch
I said overclocker Ok, what is that Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Because it can be explained without the need for a designer. One ought not introduce an extra element into an explanation where none is necessary. Explaining how a computer works is not the same as showing that it was not designed The above is not an argument it is an observation, I said nothing of a designer. Secondly, you need to show evidence that it is not what it actually is, that is organized, coherent behavior to a purpose Lets see you argument. if you have none then Ill consider that I use the same rules of observation to formulate data to make it evidence Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Let's try and take this in small steps, shall we?
The above is not an argument it is an observation, I said nothing of a designer. You claim that the orderly, coherent, logical way in which the natural world works is evidence of design. Design implies a designer. Thus, whether you said it or not, your claim imply it. If you are now claiming that the orderly, coherent, logical way the natural world works does not imply a designer, please say so, one way or another.
Secondly, you need to show evidence that it is not what it actually is, that is organized, coherent behavior to a purpose Sorry, I cannot understand what you are saying. How could anyone show evidence that something is not what it is?
Lets see you argument. if you have none then Ill consider that I use the same rules of observation to formulate data to make it evidence Once again, I cannot make head nor tail of what you are saying. My position is that if you can explain the existence of something without including a designer, there's no reason to insert one. Do you agree with that or not? {AbE} While I was replying, you added this:
Explaining how a computer works is not the same as showing that it was not designed True. But I didn't mean explaining how something works. I meant explaining how something came to be. Edited by subbie, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Lets see you argument. if you have none then Ill consider that I use the same rules of observation to formulate data to make it evidence You are inferring design, not observing it. Otherwise, you would be able to produce rules which would unambiguously differentiate between designed and not designed. Snowflake; quartz crystal; stalagmite and stalactite, etc. What are the rules that unambiguously separate these from items that are designed? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Lets see your argument I created a topic that none of the resident creationists have shown an interest in: "Creation Science" experiments. I used your example as the first contestant: Message 7. Now, care to join me there as the current banter we have has absolutely shit to do with ICR and their abysmal attempt to sue the State of Texas?
Ok, what is that Don't actually try anything yourself, you might strain your brain muscle. Your god believes in Unicorns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Secondly, you need to show evidence that it is not what it actually is, that is organized, coherent behavior to a purpose I'm sorry. A Purpose? Get real. Were is there any indication that any pieces part has a purpose? What does that have to do with the topic? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
*
Edited by Percy, : Duplicate post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Buz,
You've been telling us that what you call secular science is different from intelligent design science, and we agree. Texas provides accreditation for what you're calling secular science, not intelligent design science. ICR doesn't even teach intelligent design science, they teach creation science. Steve Austin does creation science. In the opinion of what you're calling secular science, neither intelligent design science nor creation science are science. Intelligent design and creation must present their evidence and arguments in the venues of mainstream science in order to have any chance at all at building a scientific consensus for their views. The tiny percentage of scientists who accept creationist and ID views either work in unrelated fields of science, or they avoid the venues of mainstream science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Even Anthony Flew finally saw this simple point. he could no longer deny the obvious. Im guessing he was a bit more educated than yourself, possibly. See, even intellectual giants can see such a simple point about design Ah, you're talking about that book ghost written by Roy Abraham Varghese. I saw Flew on television after that poor man was persuaded to allow his name to be affixed to that nonsense. He could barely construct an intelligible sentence. Do you consider him "an intellectual giant" because of his life- long championing of atheism or his association with creationist hoaxters in his senescence? That whole episode is a canker on the face of creationism. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024