|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. Rules of evidence are a part of reality first, then courtrooms. Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation. Just read through carefully and you will see the point I am making Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Either give us an explicit list of these "rules of evidence", or give us a citation to somewhere that there is a explicit list. 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 But both are tenable and valid as explanations. This is all the EVIDENCE will allow. Since neither can be proved or disproved but both can be demonstrated, then both should be taught in the science classroom How much simpler could it be from an EVIDENTIAL standpoint Good grief. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation. Not so. As Heinlein noted:
Heinlein writes: Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts (1980:480-182). The "theory" you have been trying to convey to us does not organize facts into a useful body, nor does it allow predictions. It is more of a catechism, repeated over and over until it is beaten into the heads of the audience. If you had evidence instead of dogma it would be easier to convince people. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But both are tenable and valid as explanations. This is all the EVIDENCE will allow. Since neither can be proved or disproved but both can be demonstrated, then both should be taught in the science classroom Yes if there was something to evaluate. Before one can evaluate evidence, there must be evidence. There is evidence of evolution ie: the fossil record, the genomes, mutations etc. but where is the evidence, to evaluate, of design. (Hint) there is none. Edited by bluescat48, : typ Edited by bluescat48, : accidental erasure 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm recusing myself from further participation in this thread.
Starting Tuesday, if there's still active discussion in this thread, I will begin moderating as Admin. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Of course it does, the fact that literally everything can be explained by design means design explains nothing, and adds nothing to an explanation. Meaning it should be left out.
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
Yes, and like I explained to you, in such a case science demands we pick the most parsimonious one. Which would exclude design.
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
No, I have eliminated the conclusion because it violates parsimony, something science says we should do.
Design should be taught in the classroom, even if you decided otherwise.
Not as science it shouldn't. It violates one of the prime rules of science, parsimony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
jar writes:
Yes, Dawn did, but I think she was trying to quote Taq and did it wrong, or something. If you look at Taq's Message 409, you will see him using the exact phrase, and the first time Dawn uses it is in response to that post.
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. "?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Could be, but I am still pretty much clueless what Dawn Bertot is saying.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4307 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
I didn’t notice this link in this thread (sorry if I missed it), but here’s a link to the IRC’s response.
Censorship in Texas: Fighting Academic and Religious Discrimination | The Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yeah, it got posted up thread. It is a very important thing to note though, particularly this...
quote: This is yet another example of the "Avoidance Tactic". By moving it into the Apologetics arena they are free to make any nonsense claims they want. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024