|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yes. The magic leprechaun. What? Why couldn't it? The observations made are consistent with a magic leprechaun doing it.
Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
And you do the same with your "design".
Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential reality 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
But violates parsimony, and is, therefore, not good science.
This in no way however is a slap in the face to the design argument, which or course supports itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yes, and pointing out that if ICR took your approach, they would be violating parsimony, and, therefore, not be practicing good science, which means they won;t be getting accreditation, seems to be on topic to me.
Careful now, we are trying to stay on topic. If ICR took this approach, they might meet with much greater success.
No they wouldn't, as I pointed out.
Ive debated it publically and would do so again and again, with anyone willing to step up to the plate. Its to easy to miss.
Let me see if I can get to the gist of your argument as I understand it from this thread: You say that order points to design. You also say that the same evidence that you say points to design, also point s to "evolution/the order being "self caused"". So far so good? So, basically, you are saying that the evidence we have now can be used to come to the conclusion of self caused or design. Well, if this is the case, we have to dismiss design as violating parsimony, as it adds unneccessary elements to the explanation. Therefore, were ICR to follow this path, they still wouldn't get accreditation. Edited by Admin, : Add hide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Yeah right. You couldn't even convince me and I'm a layman. In fact, you couldn't convince anybody in this thread. It would only take me 20 minutes to convince the THECB otherwise 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024