|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Not if rules of evidence all followed closely. If there is order as you admit and its the product of matter and energy, what is the product of energy and matter? Energy and matter when broken down demonstrate the same order. Unobserved behavior in this instance creation of these items is no reason to believe that they were not designed. So you believe that because matter and energy following the laws of nature demonstrate order that they are evidence of design because there "is no reason to believe that they were not designed?" Really?
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. Computers are designed and constructed by people, and people are just matter and energy following the laws of nature. A computer is just another example of the design you're claiming for life and, apparently, the entire universe. For you if it exists and follows the physical laws of the universe, it was designed. We think the diversity of species in the world today came about through evolution because when we study life we observe the processes of mutation and natural selection, and when we project those processes back in time they lead us to expect what we actually find in the fossil record. When creationists and IDists study life they do not observe the processes they claim created today's diversity of species. In fact, their claimed processes have never been observed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I, too, don't understand the conceit associated with knowing something someone else doesn't know. We all have our areas of specialty, and expertise with computers is not evidence of anything special.
I'm not a gamer, either, nor a card player. I do like chess, but it takes too much time to maintain a decent level of skill and I don't play anymore. I've always enjoyed programming, though, and I still do a lot of that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When you make a claim that there was purpose in the order, then yes, you do have to provide evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Just to nitpick I think you mean confirmation. Conformation is to do with the shape or arrangement of something, such as a folded protein.
TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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 It is your job to construct an ID hypothesis and test it with experiments, not ours. Why is it that ID supporters always want us to do their work for them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I am not anti science, neither are any of the other creationists. Logic is the oldest form of science, when we apply simple logic by observation, to the natural world we observe ORDER, TESTABILITY AND PREDICTION, consistency and laws operation in an orderly fashion, that is called science, not all science but science nonetheless. I dont need to keeping doing test on my computer to know its operating in an orderly, designed fashion. It would seem to me that your logic leads to one unavoidable conclusion. The orderly and and consistent laws of the Universe are the Designers. We don't need anything outside of these laws to explain our observations of the natural world, so they must be the designer if you claim that a designer is required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Percy writes: In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science. Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe? Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists ... No, the ICR does not have a science methodology and it actually works against developing an improved understanding of the universe. Yet again, if you disagree and truly believe that they do have such a methodology, then please present a description of that methodology that demonstrates its validity. Yet again, if that methodology does exist, then it must have been described by the creationists themselves many times over the past decades that they've been churning out their materials. Especially considering that their avowed aim is education. I've certainly never encountered any such description of a working methodology and I'm quite certain nobody else has either. Also, you are conflating ID "science" and "creation science". Even though ID has been incorporated into "creation science", they are actually not the same things and they have different histories. "Creation science" was created at the end of the 1960's in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) and in response to the striking down of the "monkey laws" that had been in effect since the mid-20's. Now that the teaching of evolution could no longer be barred for religious reasons, creationists adopted the strategy of claiming that their teachings are scientific and so they want to bar evolution education for scientific reasons. In reality, their teachings are religious. In preparing "public school" materials, they would simply take their existing blatantly religious books and make superficial cosmetic changes (eg, removing Bible verses, change "God" to "Creator", fail to identify who this "Creator" was supposed to be), such that the entire effort became known as "Hiding the Bible". Despite all their efforts to play "Hide the Bible", their materials are still blatantly religious, such that when Arkansas Act 590, 1980, (a sister law of the Louisiana law that was struck down in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) mandated the teaching of "creation science" in the name of "balanced treatment", the teachers assigned to creating the curriculum could not find any suitable materials (except for a single Reader's Digest article), finding the ICR "public school" materials too blatantly religious. So where did all those materials come from? They weren't all created ex nihilo in 1968, even though a lot were produced in the late-60's/early-70's -- bibliographic searches through creationist claims that actually cite their own creationist sources often trace back to around 1972. But many of the leading creationists of that era had been working on their own claims for many years, even a decade or two. For example, Dr. Henry Morris and Whitcomb published their Flood Geology work, The Genesis Flood, in 1961; it not only contained the basis for Flood Geology, but also Morris' earliest (to my knowledge) stab at his human population claim (AKA "The Bunny Blunder"). Nor did they create it all themselves, but rather they drew from the writings of prior creationists, such as George McCready Price (the true father of Flood Geology, having published his attacks on geology from 1906 to 1923). For that matter, attempts to find geological evidence of Noah's Flood date back to the Biblical Geologists of the early 19th Century, including one of the founders of modern geology, Adam Sedgwick, who had started out looking for the Flood but ended up realizing that the evidence indicated otherwise. So there has been a long history of people trying to find scientific evidence supporting the Bible ... or rather supporting their beliefs about the Bible. While we may rightfully suspect the honesty of some creationists in a number of cases, I prefer to think that all creationists started out with honest intentions. But the problem is that they start out "knowing" what they must find and what they must not find, or else "Scripture would have no meaning" (John Morris of the ICR stating why the earth can be no more than 10,000 years old) and that is not what they find. At that point, there are a number of things the seeker can do. Creationists do the wrong thing. They ignore and even deny the evidence. They start lying about the evidence both to themselves and to others. They create and promote deceptions such as "creation science". That's what the ICR's "research" is. Ignoring the evidence, they misrepresent science and then use whatever means they can to discredit that misrepresentation. When the ICR was in California and ran into problems with accredidation in the late 1980's, the state sent a visitation committee to the ICR's graduate school on a fact-finding mission. It's been a long time since I've read their report, but one event still sticks in my mind. Their tour guide pointed out that the biochemistry class used the same textbook as leading universities, but guess what they were doing with it. As a class, the instructor had them all going through the book, page by page, and telling them which parts to cross out because "We don't believe that." And there's a name for their "scientific discoveries", well an acronym actually: PRATTs. They're not doing science; they're trying to do science in. ID is a slightly different beast. Instead of starting out trying to promote and defend a particular narrow interpretation of the Bible, its originators and proponents started out having other kinds of difficulties with evolution, mainly philosophical ones. For example, in an essay lawyer Phillip Johnson, one of ID's founders, explained his reason for opposing evolution: it doesn't leave anything for God to do. As a movement, the other main problem they have is their misunderstanding that science is based on philosophical materialism and so one of the movement's goals is change science so that it would also make use of supernaturalistic "explanations". While most people didn't become aware of ID until 1987 when Edwards v. Aguillard had exposed "creation science's" game of "Hide the Bible" and creationists then immediately switched to the game of "Hide the Creationism" by embracing ID. Actually, ID goes back at least to 1981, which is when I saw Phillip Johnson on Nova. He had recently written Darwin on Trial which tried to present science as functioning like a court of law and so he wanted to apply courtroom rules of evidence to evolution. My reaction was, "What an idiot! Science is much more like a police investigation, following hunches and looking for clues and piecing it all together. It's only after the investigation has been completed that a complete case can be put together for the courtroom." Both "sciences", ID and creation, have political and social agendas. Neither of them want to "develop an ever improving understand of the universe". Neither of them actually does science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So you believe that because matter and energy following the laws of nature demonstrate order that they are evidence of design because there "is no reason to believe that they were not designed?" Really? No. I believe that complex order is evidence of complex order. By any reasonable rule of evidence that would be evidence to support the logical conclusion that it is designed. That is a logical, valid argument the conclusion of which is not refutable. In other words it is evidence of the order you use to detemine that the universe needs or doesnotappear to have an initiator. You make this determination based on two premises. One that no direct evidence, IN YOUR OPINION has been brought forward to demonstrate this designer. Two, that you did not witnesses any designer designing anything.These are conclusion you have advanced her in this thread or you have directly asserted or stated them. Now watch, those conclusions are based on somethig. In your view, they serve as evidence to the contrary about a designer, even though you were not there to witnesses those events My direct evidence of order serves as evidence that there is a designer. Stay with me now and Ill help you through this. Both positions pit themselves against physical data and realityand the only two l ogical possibilites for the existence of things. Both are valid premesis and neither is provable and neither is refutable. But, now watch, it in no way points to the idea that there is no evidence for a designer, when complex order is present. That is my friend how evidence works. Any conclusions you draw, not having witnesses the event you are evaluating is tentative, but it does not mean that it is not evidence, as any thinking person could see from a simple court session. Evidence nonetheless Be right back Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
My direct evidence of order serves as evidence that there is a designer. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
My direct evidence of order serves as evidence that there is a designer. What order? Would you care to respond to the thread I directed you to where this crap is ON-TOPIC? "Creation Science" experiments. Your god believes in Unicorns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
My direct evidence of order serves as evidence that there is a designer. Really, how did your conclusions from your evidence of evolution, demonstrate the provable conclusion (in your mind)that your evoution had no initiator, or that it always existed, or that it is a product of more matter? How did you come to this demonstratable evidence You simply dont understand the rules of evidence or how to apply them logically orconsistently Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
What order? Would you care to respond to the thread I directed you to where this crap is ON-TOPIC? This is exacally what I was waiting for,someone to demonstrate how and why there is not order in the complex laws of nature Please demonstrate how itis not order. Percy says it is, you say its not Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Apparently, you are fucking dense and do not understand that I am directing you to a different topic where this discussion is ON-TOPIC. I will remind you, the thread I am directing you to is in the science section, so you need to provide evidence for your claims.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You simply dont understand the rules of evidence or how to apply them logically orconsistently Actually, I do. And I also understand grammar, spelling, and punctuation. You, on the other hand, seem to be grasping at straws. Speaking of straws, are these soda straws "designed?"
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024