|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Your post was notable for quoting then not answering my two questions, so here they are again:
What do mean by "order, laws and rules?" Are you referring to the natural laws of the universe? What do you mean by "ordered by themselves," and why do you think we believe this when it is something we have never said. Neither of us outside the scriptures or other scriptures can prove the totality of the positions we hold. Mine of design and yours of eternality of matter. Why do you think our position is that matter is eternal, and why do you think it makes any difference to things like evolution? Just for the record, we already know matter is not eternal. Many particles decay spontaneously, and under some theories outside the standard model even the proton can decay. Also, matter can be converted into energy - this is the basis of atomic power. Matter is not eternal.
What non-observed events are you referring to? The ones that got things started or the non-observed events that prove matter is eternal We don't believe matter is eternal, and I have no idea what non-observed events you're referring to. If you explain what it is you mean then we can address the issues you're trying to raise. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : Gee, more grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dawn Bertot writes: Buz he knows what I am asking and what I am implicating concerning eivdence, but t doesnt help to answer it directly Yet his or her corgiality more than makes up for the inability to argue a point Dawn, you didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not mean, not intelligently designed/ordered when you said ordered of itself?. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Then your argument fails. Circular reasoning is a logical error. No, the argument cannot fail where evidence is inconclusive. As Nrj pointed out it is perfectly logical. By circular I meant the whole thing is circular, both sides, operate on tenative information but draw valid conclusions, based upon observed evidence
Except it doesn't. The available evidence suggests there is no designer. The marbles are ordered by rules and laws without any designer taking part. Therefore, since we know that order, rules, and laws can and do appear all on their own, why is this specific instance any different? Or is there nothing that happens on its own? Is god required for everything? Rrhain, to demonstrate your conclusion here and that you follow a different or better method of evidence in this question, you need to prove your above statement, you cant just assume it, or say, the evidence suggest it, that isexcally what I say, who is correct.?
Incorrect. I am concluding based upon direct observation. No designer was involved in the marbles coming into order. They got that way on their own. Ok, go ahead and prove this. Rrhain its not a matter of what it sugest, ITS A MATTER OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL ALLOW
But I can demonstrate it. I just did. The marbles are in a line even though no designer was involved. Are you suggesting there was? That the invisible hand of god came down and deliberately, purposefully, and consciously put those marbles in a line? Is that what you are suggesting? No Rrhain, you simply restated what you believe, based on limited information. As much as you want you cant PROVE how YOUR marbles got in that logical order, or thatthey got there without a designer, thats why we are in the same boat called available evidence . This also why design is applicable to a science classroom, its one of only two logical probabilities Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But every observation can be said to support design. It is therefore not reasonable to use it. No matter what is observed, it can alays be said to be designed. Thereofore, unless there is some evidence of design, we use the less parsimonious explanation, which is the one that reequires no designer. This works for your purposes but not as evidence in an argument form and what is demonstratable, both by argument and physical evidence. Anything said of design can equally be said of the conclusions derived from evolution or atheism, but you consistently ignore that they both pit themselves agaisnt only two logical possibilites, neither of which is provable, but both are testable against the available physical evidence Here is why. You have eliminated one very reasonable onclusion, because youdont like its conclusions, Yet it follows the same available evidence and rule of evidence to derive its conclusion Design should be taught in the classroom, even if you decided otherwise Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Design should be taught in the classroom, even if you decided otherwise You keep repeating that but never offer any evidence of design. There is evidence though of chemical and physical influences. Why teach something where there is no evidence? How exactly do you teach 'design'? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. If you want to claim that a designer is involved then you need to supply those observations.
The only observations that either of us can supply is those that are observable, in your case change and in my case appearent design. Since it is not necessary for you to show the strating point of your process, nor that it was or is eternal in character and makeup, evidence would not require me to supply those observations outside of the observation of design, to know that it is an equal and very real probabality in the explanation of things Its that hard and that simple Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. If the known natural laws are observed and no designer is observed, why is there any reason to teach about the non-observed designer? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is evidence though of chemical and physical influences. Evidence of what? That this is happening I have no doubt. There is also evidence of order and laws operating harmoniously, so our evidence and conclusions are going to be the same, we simply cant prove this outside the scriptures
Why teach something where there is no evidence? How exactly do you teach 'design'? You dont teach design directly, you teach that which is observable, the obvious order and laws that the natural process follows. Design is a conclusion of the process the same way the TOE is a conclusion of observation of chemical processes Teach both because both are valid and observable and let the student decide. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn, you didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not mean, not intelligently designed/ordered when you said ordered of itself?. Yes I believe I did, if I understand the question? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Apparent design is a subjective appearance. As such, it cannot be part of science.The only observations that either of us can supply is those that are observable, in your case change and in my case appearent design. As best I can tell, from reading your posts, this is what seems to be under discussion:
Incidently, we are way off topic. This isn't even close to a discussion of the topic as defined in the OP. You really need a separate thread to continue this discussion. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If the known natural laws are observed and no designer is observed, why is there any reason to teach about the non-observed designer? Because rules of evidence demand it and allow it. Because it falls squarely within only to possibilities. Because athiesm and evolution draws conclusions concerning its observations as to its origins. Because atheism and evolution denounce any conclusions but thier own Any other questions Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
"Rules of Evidence" is a legal term, typically applied in courtrooms. It is not a term used by science. If you are just making up stuff as you go along, then you are least owe us a clear explanation of what you mean.
Because rules of evidence demand it and allow it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
As best I can tell, from reading your posts, this is what seems to be under discussion: if I neatly put my clothes away in a drawer, then there is apparent order so some sort of intelligent design is involved;if I toss my clothes into a pile in the corner, then there is still order, but it is a more complex order. Therefore a higher level of intelligence was involved; if my room is a totally disorganized mess, then any observed order is very complex and subtle, so that involves the highest intelligence of all. Maybe that is not what you are saying. Not even close. Dont mean to be rude but do you even understand the nature of an analogy. For yur analogy to have application you would have to remove yourself out of the scenario above. Instead you keep saying IF I. Hence wouldnt you be the designer in that situation, even if anyone ever saw you. Kind of a silly analogy, dont you think?
But you are utterly failing to provide any criteria as to how "apparent design" can be recognized. And that makes your claims highly subjective and perhaps no more than wishful thinking. You just need to follow along a little closer Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024