|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You seem to be assuming that people would give honest answers to that kind of question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Buzsaw writes:
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.
..., but there are a number of employers who would rather hire ID scientists and educators over secularist evolutionist ones. Buzsaw writes:
There is no such thing as "ID science."
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
As expected, you completely evade the issue of providing criteria for what you consider to be the appearance of design.
Kind of a silly analogy, dont you think? 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:
I have followed closely. There is nothing there other a long sequence of empty claims.You just need to follow along a little closer And we are still way off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Just stop dancing around the issues.Rules of evidence are a part of reality first, then courtrooms. Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You keep saying that, as if it were relevant. It isn't.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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
They won't tell me how to drive a car, or how to tie my shoelaces either.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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
I'm going to guess that you are again referring to those mythical rules of evidence.
You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
I have reviewed all of those posts.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 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Message 460 appears to be a replica of Message 458, to which I have already responded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Nonsense. In fact, Message 443 was not even your post.
You asked for simple rules of evidence I gave examples in 443.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well, no, you had not provided recognizable rules at the time you made that post (the one to which I am replying).Lets start with something simple for you, you asked for examples of rules of evidence I provided it 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024