|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This is where your cart jumps the tracks. You have been unable to define "complex and detailed order" in a manner so as to exclude natural causes. It's like the old U.S. Supreme Court definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it." Why did I know my prediction would come, not only are afraid to respond to the argument, I KNEW you would avoid the questions like a plauge. Thats ok, because those that are not members are watching your avoidance and I sure they are smart enough to know why you wont make an attempt at answering the questions I have put to you. Now the english duke of dork once again implies that I have not responded to questions put to me, not only have I responded in detail but I have put in logical form why they are valid, with no actual responses as of yet, except by Nj, to which I am more than happy to get to later today. Coyote, answer at least one of the questions, to make it appear that you understand debating and the rules involved You audience is waiting Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Coyote, answer at least one of the questions, to make it appear that you understand debating and the rules involved Can you please tell us what the rules of evidence are or at least what rules you are using? I think I may have asked that once or twice before. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
still spouting gibberish and trying to claim it as coherent discourse, I see. You do realise that no-one here, especially Percy, thinks for a second you know what you are talking about? How about quitting with the bluster and obfuscations and actually answering some questions. Howz dem axioms doin'? Ah yes, I wondered when you would surface, ofcourse to provide nothing of value, simply to demonstrate that you as usual have nothing to offer from any logical perspective. Lets see if you can, when establishing what evidence is, explain how it is, you came to the conclusion there is no need for a designer. Now come on Space Ghost atleast try and make in sound coherent and logical And yes those axioms are still axioms. I know your reasoning methods change day to day, but realites does not Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You believe that complexity and order result from design. Your evidence is the complexity and order observed in the natural world. I believe that complexity and order result from the natural laws of the universe. My evidence is the complexity and order observed in the natural world, and in addition everything we know about the natural laws of the universe. By what rule of evidence do you conclude that complexity and order do not result from the natural laws of the universe? You and I are working from tentative information, correct? This is the point that I have from a valid form, established that it is not necessary to know everything or see everything to know that something real or possible. Its a simple rule of evidence to come to avalid conclusion. It works both ways and it can only work both ways in this instance, for anyone to be consistent in thier claims. You have to have a valid reason and rule of evidence for asserting that up to this point there is no evidence of a designer. How did you arrive at that conclusion and by what rule of observation and rule of evidence, having limited and tenative information. When you demonstrate that rule, Ill demonstrate mine is exacally the same, it is that hard and that simple But more importantly it application is irrefutable The conclusion of which iis this: If you are not using this same rule of evidence to establish your fact then, it is not true that there is no evidence to warrent his existence. Two. If you are using this rule of evidence, then it demostrates that facts can be obtained, understood and believed with limited, yet observable information in that direction. If neither is true then you need to set out a rule that allows you to come to conclusions having only tenative information, which shows the conclusion of your argument as acceptable and valid Thus it is NOT TRUE that up to this point, there is no evidence of a creator or designer, if simple, logical rules of evidence are followed. Hence, COMPLEXITY and DETAILED LAWS more that demonstrate from an evidential standpoint the need and reality of a designer My rule of evidence is not simply COMPLEXITY and ORDERED LAWS, but what is actually considered EVIDENCE AND HOW IT IS APPLIEDDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It is a perfectly factual response. You said that "order and complexity, therefore a divine designer". I wrote your argument out in a logical form, and there are zeor assumptions/premises that can be used to derive any divine involvement. The best you can do from the argument you provided is that if a designer exists, it is only the laws of nature. This is not my opinion. This is not a complaint. It is a simple fact of logic: you cannot derive a conclusion if the assumptions do not include it. Why in the world would the assumptions not include a designer if your assumptions can conclude that there was no designer and that laws and order are apart of nature, EXCLUSIVELY What I actually said was rules and order implies a designer, IF THE SAME RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE FOLLOWED your assumptions do not warrent you to conclude that the order and laws are a part and whole nature exclusivley, only that they are a part of narture. That is where YOUR logic stops If you wish to extrapolate that further assumption, then you have to work from tenative information and draw conclusions
you would have to provide the exact premise that allows you to derive design from the existence of complexity and order. No. All I have to do is demonstrate that it is a very real probabilty, that because there is very complex order and design, a designer is the very real probabilty of that observable fact. But an exact premise would be that if very complex order and laws existand they are a part of nature a designer is more than probable. Unless the oposition could demonstrate with exact detail and having all knowledge of those events and can confirm and prove absol;utley, this is not the case, then order and laws stand as a very good indication of a designer. They are indication of that fact, with no fear of contradiction What more do I need? The same rules of evidence allow science to conclude and display as factual, those things they did not observe and they tout it as evidence Further they come to the conclusion, using the same rule of evidence I do that these things are a product of themselves. yet when I use the same rule of evidence they say that not acceptable
I am not claiming there is no need for a designer to be divine. I am saying that your argument does not and cannot lead to that conclusion, and that therefore you are incorrect in making it. It depends on what you deem as a valid argument and the conclusions you arrive at concerning the how of things. If the same rules of evidence are applied, them my argument is valid. Actually, it would be valid even if they are inconsistent. You always refer to my argument, so tell me how did things get started, how do you know this and more importantly, what rule of evidence do you use for your conclusions Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dawn Bertot writes: How did you arrive at that conclusion and by what rule of observation and rule of evidence, having limited and tenative information. When you demonstrate that rule, Ill demonstrate mine is exacally the same, it is that hard and that simple We don't think we have a rule of evidence. You keep telling us we do, but we don't know what you're talking about. So since you know what that rule of evidence is why don't you tell us what it is? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
You've been retired longer than I've been serving? Boy you must be really ancient!
When I am forced to retire next year, I will have served for thrity-five (35) years. And I had personally met our command's PAO in the 1990's and have seen PAOs referenced during this past decade. Instead of hiding behind personal insults bolstered by your claims of military service, why don't you just answer the questions directly? Please note that I am not putting your claim of service in question, but rather your practice of using it to avoid responding to simple direct questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined:
|
As Percy mentions, you keep talking about some "rules of evidence".
I don't have the foggiest clue what you are jabbering about. So, please define those "rules". And I will probably tell you that those "rules" don't actually exist anywhere else but in your head for your argument. And then:
rules and order implies a designer, ...
That is why your argument fails: you assume that which you wish to conclude. There is no way to derive "design" from "complex and ordered". You were presented with examples that clearly showed complexity and order, yet which are obviously the result of entirely natural processes. You still haven't provided the determination that lets you state that if something is ordered and/or complex, then it was designed.So, now we've got that sorted, it appears your argument is actually more like: Minor conclusion by transitivity: IF order and complexity exist THEN there is a designer. Major conclusion from modus ponens: There is a designer. Which, while logically valid, is not applicable to the real world: complexity and order do not imply design or at most they imply that the "designer" is simply the laws of nature, as the examples provided earlier show. Thus your conclusion, while perfectly logical is still not realistic [viz. "applying to or to do with reality"]. Edited by Nij, : Further phrase to allow alternate conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
As Percy mentions, you keep talking about some "rules of evidence". I don't have the foggiest clue what you are jabbering about. So, please define those "rules". And I will probably tell you that those "rules" don't actually exist anywhere else but in your head for your argument. On all that is reasonable and logical, please tell me you two are playing the dumb card about evidence and rules. My hope is that that is true, its only an act. Anyone that makes a claim, that there ist presently Not enough evidence to support the idea of a designer, has made a claim using a rule of evidence. They are basing this on some form of reasoning against physical realities, the likes of which are tenative at best, having not wittnessed such events. So for you to make that claim you need to demonstrate what method of evidence you used to come to that conclusion, when you werent there to observe those events. Your pronouncing a hard fast conclusion, you need to support that with data, which would require you to know the details of those events. Since you cannot provide that DIRECT evidence, I have to conclude your evidence is either invalid or incoclusive, or it is possibly true just not absolutley demonstratable. So since your are being evasive on any rule of evidence perhaps you tell me of the above which it is, that applies to your assertion How did you come to the conclusion that there is presently not enough evidence You have derived your conclusion from tenative and limited information, that there is not enough evidence, but you believe your conclusionto be true. Yet when I say that there is enough information to support the concept of a designer, on tenative evidence, you cry foul. Now I wonder why you would do that, Hmmmmmmm?
That is why your argument fails: you assume that which you wish to conclude. There is no way to derive "design" from "complex and ordered". You were presented with examples that clearly showed complexity and order, yet which are obviously the result of entirely natural processes. You still haven't provided the determination that lets you state that if something is ordered and/or complex, then it was designed. This is why you dont understand the difference between a failed argument and one that is valid, yet tenative, in demonstrating the very real probability of a designer. This why I provided you with the example of your own conclusions concerning evidence of designer, not being enough at present. How can my argument be a failure, yet your conclusions, concerning evidence be valid, when both of us are workingfrom tentative evidence. Perhaps you could explain thay bit of contradiction. You see, because you assume that which you wish to conclude, concerning the lack of evidence of a designer. Thats how provability works not actual evidence. So while you are demonstrating how mine is a failure, you will have to show why your contention is a success, using the same rules of evidence. You will also need to demonstrate using the same method of establishing evidence, how you come to the conclusion that order is the result of entirely natural causes, using limited and tentative data and information. Thinking that they are entirely the result of natural causes and demonstrating it after such a dogmatic assertion is two different things. I know you dont believe it son but you are bound by the same rules as myself, so you will have to provide the same kind of evidence for your assertions that you require of me. By pointing out detailed and ordered laws, I would say I am way ahead of you. Hous bout we see YOUR evidence, for your assertions
So, now we've got that sorted hardly, go back a take a closer look
, it appears your argument is actually more like: IF order and complexity exist THEN they were designed; IF something was designed THEN there is a designer; Minor conclusion by transitivity: IF order and complexity exist THEN there is a designer. Order and complexity exist (fact from nature).IF order and complexity exist THEN there is a designer. Major conclusion from modus ponens: There is a designer. Which, while logically valid, is not applicable to the real world: complexity and order do not imply design or at most they imply that the "designer" is simply the laws of nature, as the examples provided earlier show. Thus your conclusion, while perfectly logical is still not realistic . Wow, and you were doing so good in your syllogism, you just had to go and add this MADE UP stuff in this last sentence. I assume you are prepared to demonstrate the evidence of the last sentence with some actual evidence, that the laws are a product of themselves. You understand that that is an ASSERTION, not actual evidence, correct? Of course you would need to show the initiator or the initiation of the source of the materials, wouldnt you? So you can just feel my anticipation right at this point, because we now have an individual that is going to settle the question once and for all. So hit me with that big evidence of how you KNOW they are simply and soley a product of nature, IM READY. The truth of the matter is this, you are dead wrong that it is NOT REALISTIC Here is why We both derive our conclusions from the only two logical and demonstratable posibilites for things in existence. The reason that both are more than realistic, is both pit themselves against reality, reason and physical properties, this is IN FACT why they are the only two reasonable and demonstratable choices. Both of which are demonstratable, neither of which is provable. Now watch and pay close attention, because both are valid conclusions and both can be demonstrated to be reasonable alternatives, both design and evolution, both should be taught BECAUSE they both arise out of logic, reason, physical properties, observability, testability and predictability hence the scientific method Its that hard and that simple, but its conclusions are irresistable 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
I am making exactly zero assertions, except the one in my last sentence: that your argument is unapplicable to reality, except in the case where the order and complexity have arisen as a result of solely natural laws.
You require the assumption that "if complexity and order exist, then they were designed". Which is not applicable to reality, because you have been shown that complexity and order do not imply design. This is a very simple idea, and you seem to have trouble with it. So what exactly -- meaning "don't go off on tangents about something else" -- is your problem with my description of your argument? And then, what exactly is your problem with the conclusion I describe? And then, what exactly is your problem with the idea that
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I've just skimmed back to message 331 (top of the page for me) without noticing any trace of anything to do with the ICR and Texas.
Closing down, probably in about 15 minutes. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Some of the messages are expressed in a way that makes it very difficult to tell what they're about at all, let alone whether they're on topic, but the discussion has for some time been focusing on the claim that what ICR wants Texas to provide accreditation for is not science.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Dawn,
We're mostly just trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I think now that you don't really mean "rule of evidence." I think you just mean logic and reason. When you say that we used a "rule of evidence" to conclude that there's no evidence for design what you really mean to say is that we used logic and reason. If you really do think there's some "rule of evidence" involved then you'll have to tell us what it is because we honestly have no idea. If you look in the article on Science in Wikipedia you can see that no "rules of evidence" are described. In fact, the only place where the article says anyting about rules is this paragraph about Feyerabend's ideas:
Wikipedia on Science writes: Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules. Is it possible you're reading Philip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial? If so, keep in mind that Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. So assuming that I now understand the point you were trying to communicate, I can tell you that you are wrong to say that we have concluded that there is no evidence for design in nature. All life on the planet is finely crafted for its environment, and in some cases, for a variety of environments. But we believe the evidence points to the laws of nature as the designer. (Of course, one doesn't usually find terms like "design" and "designer" in scientific papers on evolution, I'm just translating what we think into your terminology.) We reach this conclusion because when we examine the genetic processes of reproduction we see that there are a tiny number of errors (mutations) in each generation, and that this produces very slow but inevitable change over time. And when we look at the genetic patterns in DNA and the fossil record we see that they both reveal the type of nested hierarchy expected if they were the result of slow genetic change over time. Part of your response to Nij was:
Wow, and you were doing so good in your syllogism, you just had to go and add this MADE UP stuff in this last sentence. I assume you are prepared to demonstrate the evidence of the last sentence with some actual evidence, that the laws are a product of themselves. You understand that that is an ASSERTION, not actual evidence, correct? I think we've all experienced getting blank looks from people that tell us we're not being understood. I think everyone in this thread is having a very difficult time understanding what you're trying to say, and right now you're getting lots of blank looks. Nij was not trying to put words in your mouth. Nij was attempting to boil it down to something that everyone could understand. If he has it wrong then please just provide corrections, preferably in the same abbreviated form he's using. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
{metadiscussion of the recent topic}
As I understand it, Dawn's argument is based on order and complexity demonstrating the existence of a designer by simple examination of nature, and from this basis claiming that it is a valid conclusion to label any "research" or "study" of that designer to be science. Those contesting that claim are pointing out that the main assumption -- "IF order and complexity exist THEN they are designed/there is a designer" -- cannot be determined from anything existing in the universe. Examples were provided (e.g. quartz crystals) to show that neither order nor complexity is indicative of design, and that therefore the conclusion, while entirely logically valid, cannot be applied to reality because not all of its assumptions are applicable to reality.{/meta} So, to make this next section very clear,Dawn Bertot: can you please provide evidence and/or reasoning that shows the assumption -- that order/complexity implies design -- is applicable to reality?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024