|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Message 460 appears to be a replica of Message 458, to which I have already responded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
s 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 No. The information that comes from study of the natural world provides several productive lines of research for determining origins. There is no such thing as design theory. In science, "theory" is a well-defined term, and the nonsense you have been feeding us is nowhere close to a scientific theory. It is religion couched in a few scientific terms, and an attempt to use logic. The logic turns out to be circular.
If you answer is No, then perhaps you could explain how and with what you arrived at the provable conclusion of how things came to be in the first place. You have been told time and time again that science deals with facts and explanations (theories), not proof. If you want proof try the local preachers. They all have proof of their claims, even though those claims almost always differ. Or try the local bars, that would probably be more useful. Since science does not deal with proof, there is no "provable conclusion" for origins. There are some productive lines of investigation. Design "theory" has not been shown to be among them.
It is a simple rule of evidence that you cannot. I can get even simpler if you need me to Thanks, you are being simple enough as it is.
It is a simple rule of observation and evidence that you and I use the same materials and evidence to arrive at our conclusions. Sorry, no. Science uses facts and theories. What you are using is dogma and scripture couched in scientific terms (badly), and flawed logic.
you believe your methods are better, but you are replacing, the word simpler with the word, involved and calling it better. Nonsense.
the truth is that no matter howi nvolved the method they bring to the table you are no closer to an answer. Nonsense.
It is a simple rule of evidence and observatin that there is order, consistency and laws being adminstered and followed in the universe and in nature. that is simple evidence, but it allows me no better a conclusion than does yours, but it is oevidenctial nonetheless. Nonsense. Your evidence and conclusions are so confused and non-scientific that we have been trying for hundreds of posts to make out what you are trying to tell us. As far as many of us can tell, you are just repeating the same nonsense with no attempt to provide any evidence or to clarify what appears to be severely flawed logic. Nonsense repeated over and over does not get any closer to evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I'm going to guess that you are again referring to those mythical rules of evidence. You asked for simple rules of evidence I gave examples in 443. I would suggest you go there and deal with them, istead of complaining. If you cannot or will not, I will accepte that as defeat Any rule of evidence can be any demonstratable fact. I have done that there, have at it
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. Did you expect me to believe you would agree with me. Your wasting your time complaining when you could actually be responding to those simple rules of observation. Hop to it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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). Lets start with something simple for you, you asked for examples of rules of evidence I provided itI am starting to assume all you can do is talk about why something is invalid, I suggest actually going and quoting them then showing why. My guess is that you dont have a clueof how to do this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Look, Dawn, it's very simple, everyome on this thread thinks you haven't provided any rules of evidence.
LEt's remedy this here and now. Fill in this list and we can all discuss them, instead of you saying time and time again that you have provided them, and everybody else saying you haven't. Just complete the list and everything will be clear: The rules of evidence are
Thanks, it will clear things up immensely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The reason that the TOE is accepted and Design is not is that there is evidence supporting the TOE whereas there is none to support design. One needs data to evaluate data, no data no evaluation. Take it slow and I will break it down for you. Again you are assuming I am talking about design, DIRECTLY, I am not. Observing the designer is not possible, but this does not mean that from an evidential standpoint by observation of the obeyed laws in nature that it is not possible, it most certainly is Observing the entirity and totality of evolution as it is described and hypothsized is not possible, but this does not mean from an observable and evidental standpoint that is DID NOT happen as described, you simply dont have all the information you need to prove it absolutley Observing the entirity and totality of the design principle is not possible absolutley, but this does not mean from an observable and evidential standpoint one cannot see the harmonious, orderly and coherent set of laws set in motion somehow, operating neither theory, even the TOE is provable absolutley but both are clearly demonstratable try and think of another theory that will allow such conclusions from both reality, reason and physical data, there ARE NO OTHERS You draw your conclusions of change, natural selcection and mutation from observable data I draw my conclusions from the same source, by simple observation of these same materials Both of these conclusions are provable, but the source is not. Since both change and laws ore provable and there is no other choices, both should be taught inthe science classroom Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
LEt's remedy this here and now. Fill in this list and we can all discuss them, instead of you saying time and time again that you have provided them, and everybody else saying you haven't. Just complete the list and everything will be clear: The rules of evidence are Rule 1. the concept of order and laws in nature is obtainable the exact same way the concept of change and natural selection are obtained Rule 2 Neither the TOE or design can be proved absolutley from these observations, but the same rules are used to obtain that information Rule 3 the information, the rules, the evidence and the conclusions of each, while not provable is demonstrable from, the method of extraction, the observable evidence and (Now watch), the only two logical, physical and possible explanations as to the HOW of things, are here in the first place Rule 4. Since all of the above are demonstratable rules of evidence concerning these matters and both use the same method, both should be taught in the science classroom "lets remedy this here and now", thats funny Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Since all of the above are demonstratable rules of evidence concerning these matters and both use the same method, both should be taught in the science classroom The fact that nature is orderly and obeys the laws of nature is taught in the science classroom. Because this is, as you admit, demonstrable in just the same way that evolution is. The conjecture that a supernatural being can and did break those laws and violate the natural order is not demonstrable and contravenes what is, as you admit, demonstrable, and so is not taught in the science classroom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hmm, those don't look like "rules of evidence" to me. When I think of "rules of evidence", I thinnk about stuff like "evidence must be repeatable", "evidence must be observable by all in the same way" and stuff like that. I fail to see how any of those could be called a rule, that can be applied to different situations. That's what rules are, guidelines to be applicable to different situations, not assertions about one particular case.
Let's take a look at the individual "rules":
Dawn Bertot writes:
Change and natural selection are due to those laws. I fail to see how this "rule" is applicable in any other situation but this one.
Rule 1. the concept of order and laws in nature is obtainable the exact same way the concept of change and natural selection are obtained Rule 2 Neither the TOE or design can be proved absolutley from these observations, but the same rules are used to obtain that information
You mention the "rules" here again, but have not given any "rules". Also, nothing in science can be proved absolutely, does this mean we should just teach any idea about a particular phenomenom? Take the sun for example, it sure looks like it is going around the earth, I don't feel like the earth is moving. Should we teach geocentrism again? It can be drawn from the same observations as heliocentrism, afterall.
Rule 3 the information, the rules, the evidence and the conclusions of each, while not provable is demonstrable from, the method of extraction, the observable evidence and (Now watch), the only two logical, physical and possible explanations as to the HOW of things, are here in the first place
But one of them violates parsimony (design), which is a rule of science (see, this rule, parsimony, can be applied to any situation, not just this case, this is why it is a rule, and your "rules" are not).
Rule 4. Since all of the above are demonstratable rules of evidence concerning these matters and both use the same method, both should be taught in the science classroom
What "rules"? Those are not rules. How do we apply these to other cases? Also, again, one violates parsimony, and therefore should not be taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
a theory or hypothesis of desighn must account for all known facts before it is accepted by the sience community
how does the theory of creation or desighn account for: Gill Slits in Human Fetusesunusable eyes deep under the skin of the Proteus anguinus the remains of a tail in humans and all the other remenents of organs in other species that where discarded if we where created and designed why would the desighner put remains of organs in the species that does not have the oportunity to use them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Frako, I think your questions allow for a great opportunity to demonstrate one of my points to Dawn:
frako writes:
It was designed that way.
how does the theory of creation or desighn account for: Gill Slits in Human Fetuses unusable eyes deep under the skin of the Proteus anguinus
It was designed that way.
the remains of a tail in humans
It was designed that way.
and all the other remenents of organs in other species that where discarded
It was designed that way. You see, anything can be said to be designed. It therefore doesn't add an explantion to anyhting, and therefore, should not be taught as science. Also, in the way Dawn is presenting it, it violates parsimony.
if we where created and designed why would the desighner put remains of organs in the species that does not have the oportunity to use them.
We don't know, the designer works in mysterious ways. Or at least, that is a viable answer when considering "design". It's also a useless answer, and precisely why "design" shouldn't be taught as science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Apparently the argument has come down to some sort of ICR does/doesn't do science thing.
My understanding is that the Texas board rejected the ICR because the ICR program concept is either not broad enough to cover the range it should and/or is too much in conflict with mainstream scientific thought. If the ICR is going to either ignore or reject biological evolution and the old Earth, then the judgment that they don't wish to teach proper is valid. That is the mainstream science perception, and even on the slim chance it turns out to be wrong, that currently still is the perception that counts. Someones outside of the mainstream (aka religious) perception does not get to define what science is. PERIOD. I am posting this via the admin mode, and normally replies to moderation messages are strongly discouraged. In this situation, however, I do invite others to work off of my comments to each come up with one final closing statement. Adminnemooseus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024