Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 471 of 549 (581026)
09-13-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2010 2:32 AM


Rules of evidence
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
  1. Rule 1
  2. Rule 2
  3. Rule 3
etc.
Thanks, it will clear things up immensely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:58 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 475 of 549 (581032)
09-13-2010 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2010 2:58 AM


Re: Rules of evidence
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:
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
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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2010 2:58 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 477 of 549 (581045)
09-13-2010 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by frako
09-13-2010 5:47 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Hello Frako, I think your questions allow for a great opportunity to demonstrate one of my points to Dawn:
frako writes:
how does the theory of creation or desighn account for:
Gill Slits in Human Fetuses
It was designed that way.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 5:47 AM frako has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 493 of 549 (581160)
09-14-2010 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Dawn Bertot
09-14-2010 2:47 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No?
Yes. The magic leprechaun. What? Why couldn't it? The observations made are consistent with a magic leprechaun doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 2:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 3:04 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 495 of 549 (581163)
09-14-2010 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Dawn Bertot
09-14-2010 3:04 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential reality
And you do the same with your "design".
His illustration in the story over shoots what is actually available to us in our reality, concerning reality and matter.
And you do the same with your "design".
All that is KNOWN is that there is change and order, both are observable evidence of only two logical possibilites.
No, only 1 logical possibility, the other one violates parsimony. If we allow for the violation of parsimony, then an infinite number of "logical" possibilities become available.
But both are observable
No they aren't. You yourself have said that design is not obervable, mearly the order that results from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 3:04 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 509 of 549 (582591)
09-22-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2010 9:00 AM


Re: Deja Vu - The feeling this topic's been reopened before
Dawn Bertot writes:
This in no way however is a slap in the face to the design argument, which or course supports itself.
But violates parsimony, and is, therefore, not good science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2010 9:00 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2010 9:16 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 512 of 549 (582596)
09-22-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Dawn Bertot
09-22-2010 9:16 AM


Re: Deja Vu - The feeling this topic's been reopened before
Dawn Bertot's ideas are not the topic of this thread. Dawn should work on his topic proposal if he wants to discuss these ideas. Off-topic content hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Add hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-22-2010 9:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 529 of 549 (582727)
09-23-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2010 2:33 AM


Re: Deja Vu - The feeling this topic's been reopened before
Dawn Bertot writes:
It would only take me 20 minutes to convince the THECB otherwise
Yeah right. You couldn't even convince me and I'm a layman. In fact, you couldn't convince anybody in this thread.
Please, start up your own thread with Percy, so we can discuss further. I'd love to see you get around the problem of parsimony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2010 2:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2010 9:13 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 535 of 549 (582739)
09-23-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 532 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2010 9:13 AM


Re: Deja Vu - The feeling this topic's been reopened before
Dawn Bertot writes:
here is perfect example of what I mean by the inability to even reason correctly. Huntard Parsimony is not A LAW to be violated. it is a general realitve and subjecttive concept or ideology that is CHOSEN or employed to try and demonstrate a point. I CANNOT violate a subject concept, I can violate the law of gravity, something real and demonstratable. Parsimony is simple a contrived subjective ideology
Parsimony is not ALWAYS true and that is the point of a subjective concept or ideology
Start your thread and I'll meet you there. Let's keep this about ICR and Texas and stuff. This is the last I will say on the subject. See you in your thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2010 9:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024