Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 83 of 549 (576304)
08-23-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Stile
08-23-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Who Lives Their Life as an Atheist?
You seem to be assuming that people would give honest answers to that kind of question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Stile, posted 08-23-2010 4:29 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 199 of 549 (578148)
08-31-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-31-2010 9:44 PM


Re: ICR Science
Buzsaw writes:
..., but there are a number of employers who would rather hire ID scientists and educators over secularist evolutionist ones.
I'm quite sure that those employers will be able to identify those that they want to hire, with out any reliance on state accreditation.
Buzsaw writes:
Why can't Texas allow creditation based on the science premises of both naturalistic and ID science premises so long as they meet reasonable academic standards?
There is no such thing as "ID science."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-31-2010 9:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 431 of 549 (580919)
09-12-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 11:56 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
The only observations that either of us can supply is those that are observable, in your case change and in my case appearent design.
Apparent design is a subjective appearance. As such, it cannot be part of science.
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. 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. If you want it to ever be science, then you will need very clear criteria as to what is to be considered "apparent design", and they would have to be criteria that independent researchers can follow and get the same results.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 11:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:35 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 434 of 549 (580923)
09-12-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 12:23 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Because rules of evidence demand it and allow it.
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:38 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 437 of 549 (580930)
09-12-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 12:35 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Kind of a silly analogy, dont you think?
As expected, you completely evade the issue of providing criteria for what you consider to be the appearance of design.
nwr writes:
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.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You just need to follow along a little closer
I have followed closely. There is nothing there other a long sequence of empty claims.
And we are still way off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 438 of 549 (580931)
09-12-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 12:38 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Rules of evidence are a part of reality first, then courtrooms. Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation.
Just stop dancing around the issues.
Either give us an explicit list of these "rules of evidence", or give us a citation to somewhere that there is a explicit list.
As best I can tell, you have been giving us a snow job. Or, in less polite slang, you have been bullshitting us.
You've got nothing other than empty rhetoric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 12:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 1:00 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 443 of 549 (580939)
09-12-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 1:00 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Now I know for sure you have not been paying any attention. Pay close attention. Neither conclusion that is derived from observation, ie design, the TOE, the idea that things are a product of themselves, CAN BE PROVED from the observable IMMEDIATE evidence
You keep saying that, as if it were relevant. It isn't.
Once again, you completely sidestep the request to explain what you mean by "rules of evidence." Presumably the reason that you sidestep it, is because you don't mean anything at all. You are just spewing diversionary nonsense.
It is the nature of scientific theories, that they are never proved. Newton's theory of gravity was never proved. These days, most scientists prefer Einstein's General Relativity as an explanation of gravity. But General Relativity has never been proved either, and never will be.
For that matter, the Tooth Fairy theory has never been disproved, though it is widely agreed that it is made up nonsense.
By asking about what can or cannot be proved, you are using the wrong criteria.
Science is valued because of its usefulness. We accept that scientific theories are tentative, and might turn out to be wrong. But we continue to use them to the extent that they are useful.
The Theory of Evolution has turned out to be exceedingly useful both to biologists and to natural historians. By contrast, ID has turned out to be useless.
If you can actually come up with a detailed theory of intelligent design, such that the theory is just as useful as a guide to scientists and natural historians as the ToE is, then people will begin to take ID seriously as possibly having scientific merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 1:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:41 PM nwr has replied
 Message 458 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:16 PM nwr has replied
 Message 460 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:18 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 459 of 549 (581009)
09-12-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Is it true that all the information and evidence gathered from evo and the design theory, actuall get you no closer to an explanation of he How things became to be inthefirst place. Yes or No
They won't tell me how to drive a car, or how to tie my shoelaces either.
As Theodoric pointed out, this is a complete strawman.
And you still have not indicated what are these "rules of evidence" that you have been referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:24 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 462 of 549 (581012)
09-12-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 10:16 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial.
I'm going to guess that you are again referring to those mythical rules of evidence.
Dawn Bertot writes:
The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things.
Yet somehow, you have managed to post 107 messages in this thread. But you have provided not one iota of evidence or persuasive argument that your design principle is useful for anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:29 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 466 of 549 (581016)
09-12-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 461 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 10:24 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
As I suspected you no little or nothing about debating, what you actually need to do to demostrate that you understand evidence and debating is go back to post 443 and respond to that for which you asked me in the first place. I set out these simple rules of evidence, instead of answering what you asked for, you make jokes
I have reviewed all of those posts.
You provide no evidence. You provide no rules. You do frequently assert that you are using a rule, but no recognizable rule is presented. All I see are repetitions of your worthless strawman argument (about origins).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:32 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 467 of 549 (581017)
09-12-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 10:18 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Message 460 appears to be a replica of Message 458, to which I have already responded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 10:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 478 of 549 (581049)
09-13-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2010 2:29 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
You asked for simple rules of evidence I gave examples in 443.
Nonsense. In fact, Message 443 was not even your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:29 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 479 of 549 (581051)
09-13-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2010 2:32 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Lets start with something simple for you, you asked for examples of rules of evidence I provided it
Well, no, you had not provided recognizable rules at the time you made that post (the one to which I am replying).
I see that you have since posted some "rules" in Message 473. I'll note that others are commenting on why those "rules" are problematic. For the present I won't add my comments, but will instead watch to see how you respond to those who have commented.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 482 of 549 (581087)
09-13-2010 2:22 PM


Summary
On the ICR issue:
It is good to see that Texas is for upholding standards.
On the diversion:
Regrettably, the thread was taken off track with a long series of vapid posts. Thread closure is overdue.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024