|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It would only take me 20 minutes to convince the THECB otherwise You cn contact them here. But perhaps you feel that you have better things to do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Already did that in Message 418, which you ignored. You are correct i did miss this post, for that I apologize. As I went back and read it, it becomes even more obvious you have not paid attention to what i have actually written or argued. or perhaps you are to simplistic to comprehend it. In my next thread I will start asking direct questions and pointed questions to demonstrate that which I have presented
Your response to repeated requests for definitions and clarification and for verification of our own attempts are rewording what we think you are saying are all met with more obtuse verbose postings. Your actions have made it abundantly clear that you do not wish to convince us by informing us of the wisdom of your position (which would be dazzling us with your brilliance), but rather by confusing us (which would be baffling us with your BS). This is simply a misrepresentation or an out and out lie. I have responded to and answered every single question put to me. Your confusion is due to the fact that you have been trained in a single method that refuses to acknowledge anyother
I'm sure that it goes right over the heads of your confused audience, but it still seems to sound to them that you are really saying something, they just can't understand it. Doesn't work as well in a written forum, does it? Of this I have no doubt that you cannot understand it. Perhaps you should choose another user name. Just a thought
As I said before, if you refuse to provide a reasonable description of that methodology (ie, not a BS or "double-talk" reply), then that would mean that you are just blowing smoke. And if no ID writer has ever present one either, then that would show that they're just blowing smoke too, that there is no practical basis for "design science", and hence no reason to include "design science" in the classroom and every reason to not include it. Message 418 and this one here is simply more complaining. I would be more interested in seeing you respond to what was actually said, than complaining about what you think I didnt do. IOW, instead of complaining about this or that, show how what I have presented as not accomplishing the task Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You cn contact them here. But perhaps you feel that you have better things to do. Not at all, thanks for the lead Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The first team was incompetent/unqualified. The second was not incompetent/unqualified. The second group was professional scientists. Their advice was given before the Board made their decision, because the Board followed the recommendations of the Commissioner and he followed the recommendation of the scientists. Now to the rest of your earlier post. The board simply did not have anyone that had ability to challenge thier conclusions in any accruate and logical form. If the first panel was supposedly incompotent, who challenged the findings of the second panel? Or were THEY allowed free reign of opinion and presentation? My guess is that they were
Which as I mentioned earlier, is that neither creationism nor its bastard offshoots are science. Fortunatley my position is neither creationism or a bastard off shoot. Oh by the way, thats some real good objectivity in your above sentence. Your not slighted in your opinions at all are you? Didnt you say you were a scientist?
So, first you criticise for not having professional scientists do an evaluation, then you criticise the people evaluating it for being "scientists, not .. thinkers". So which are they, Dawn? Are they scientists or are they not? Are you saying the BOARD is incompotent and that they cannot make a decision concerning these matters themself? Why would they need to hire a group of people to do thier thinking for them. I suppose your response here will be Uhhhh?
You'd be fucked over in 10 minutes; the other ten would be spent in you trying to yell over the sound of them laughing. You simply dont understand a method of correct reasoning. You also dont understand I cannot and have never lost the debate on this point, because the evidence is the same for each side. The board was not presented the information in the correct logical form Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You're criticizing the process because you disagree with the decision, but the fact of the matter is that what ICR wants to teach in Texas bears no resemblance to what accredited science programs in that state teach. Wrong, I rarely let emotions or personal opinions enter into a logical presentation of information in these matters. i have already agreed that they may have not presented thier case for design as it should have been presented, which could have lead to a one-sided decision to quickly It is of no real interest to me whether they get accredidation or not. The design principle does not rest on a group of people and thier agendas. My simple point was that the BOARD was not presented the information in a well-rounded way to make an informed decision about design or WHATEVER it was they were considering However, I would point out that if the TOE is taught as a part of your "adequate science program", wherever and whenever, that it is also teaching things, the CONCLUSIONS of which are not provable IOWs, did they reject it accredidation because it was religious or because the things in thier proposals are not provable. If you got at the real reasons, i wonder what they would actually be What is the definiton of an "adequate science program" Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It encapsulates my whole post in one sentence. It has a reasoned chain of thought, backed by definitions and/or evidence, to hold it up. I find it ironic that you call my post bluster despite ignoring the actual content, and then say you'll leave a reply until later, but presenting your conclusion now? Very poor form, even for a creationist. No not at all. I read your post but there was no real content in any argument form, simply opinions, to which i have now replied Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Unfortunately for you it is the ICR's position that matters and the ICR's position is Young Earth Creationism. The ICR's intent was to teach Young Earth Creationism in their science degree and the only way you could convince the board to accredit the ICR course is to persuade them that Young Earth Creationism is valid science. So how exactly do you plan to do that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
The board simply did not have anyone that had ability to challenge thier conclusions in any accruate and logical form. If the first panel was supposedly incompotent, who challenged the findings of the second panel? Or were THEY allowed free reign of opinion and presentation? My guess is that they were
That is their job: to inspect the programme, to develop an opinion on whether it is valid, and to present their reasoning behind that decision.But it is not free reign: there are rules and criteria that they must use to judge the programme. If the programme meets them, the opinion will be positive; if not, then it will be negative. Simple fact: ICR did not meet the criteria. Therefore the recommendation is negative. Therefore the Board did not give accreditation.I really don't know how that could be not understood or why you're mentioning somebody in the Board "challenging" these conclusions. That is not their job. Also, if you want to criticise anyone for not challenging the decision properly, you should talk to ICR themselves. They were the ones responsible for making first their application god enough and then for appealing the decision. It is not the Board's job to make an application for someone perfect. Yes, it is. You advocate intelligent design, that makes your position one of "creationism or a bastard offshoot".
Oh by the way, thats some real good objectivity in your above sentence. Your not slighted in your opinions at all are you? Didnt you say you were a scientist
Your ad hominem is entirely unjustified. I used absolutely no subjective opinion; intelligent design is a bastardised hybrid of creationism and science. How the fuck is that a "slighted opinion"?And, yes, I am a scientist. You know what that means? I follow the scientific method. Which means not assuming some conclusion to be correct before even looking at the evidence. Nij writes:
So, first you criticise for not having professional scientists do an evaluation, then you criticise the people evaluating it for being "scientists, not .. thinkers".So which are they, Dawn? Are they scientists or are they not Dawn writes:
No. I'm asking you which one you think they are: scientists or nonscientists. So answer the question and stop digging rabbit holes. Are you saying the BOARD is incompotent and that they cannot make a decision concerning these matters themself? Why would they need to hire a group of people to do thier thinking for them. I suppose your response here will be UhhhhThe Board are scientists themselves. The panel was also composed of scientists. The Board does not have the time to go and investigate every proposal themselves, so panels are created to check out each one and they report back to the Board, who make decisions based on the findings of that panel. You don't think every jury goes to do the forensics work themselves, do you? You don't think every electoral officer goes out to collect all of the votes on their own, do you?No. Other people do that job and report the evidence back to them, when the jury decides based on the evidence presented. Other people go collect the votes and count them in lots, when the officer decides which person has the higher number of votes. People aren't so fucking stupid as you to try doing everything on their own. They get help, because God is not going to come down and do it for them. You simply dont understand a method of correct reasoning. You also dont understand I cannot and have never lost the debate on this point, because the evidence is the same for each side. The board was not presented the information in the correct logical form
I find that ironic, given that you've never demonstrated your position follows from the evidence.You've already dragged us off-topic using that crap and in over one hundred posts, you couldn't even present us with simple definitions or an objective way to determine design. Continue to do it, then I'm fairly sure the moerators will block you again and/or close the thread. So don't. The board was presented with an objective and detailed consideration of ICR's proposed programme. That recommendation was to decline the application because ICR wasn't teaching science. Unless you have clear evidence demonstrating that creationis, intelligent design, and/or any of those other religious ideas have scientific merit, you should provide it. You must be aware of the hundreds of threads here alone, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Please cease participation in this thread and focus your energies on your The evidence for design and a designer thread proposal. I've removed your posting permissions in the Creation/Evolution In The News forum. Edited by Admin, : Accidentally called the forum as a thread. Edited by Admin, : Change title.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024