Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 6:41 PM
405 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 402 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,373 Year: 16,979/21,208 Month: 2,868/3,593 Week: 335/646 Day: 98/115 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3637383940
41
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Son
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 601 of 609 (612485)
04-16-2011 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 600 by Dawn Bertot
04-16-2011 3:54 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Actually, you could disprove evolution by finding either an animal or fossil that doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy for example. What Taq is asking is a similiar thing for ID. As for your view of peer review, I would like to refer you to my message 561. To make it short, why are you not setting up your own version of a scientific community, ID has lots of funds and believers so it shouldn't be that hard. Since you believe your method to be superior, it should bring in lots of money and show the current scientific community their errors rather easily.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:54 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2011 10:10 AM Son has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2699
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 602 of 609 (612486)
04-16-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Dawn Bertot
04-16-2011 3:43 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Again for the very simple reasons , as i have stated them, ID can be nothing but Science.

just as there is no such thing as reverse prejudice, there is no such thing as religious creationism, only creationism by an intelligent designer. each of the respective positions reach thier conclusions, via, reason, experimentation, applied to the natural world, conclusions being the natural result
Only a tyro would come to another conclusion as to how such conclusions are reached. as I stated before, if the judge did not have a preconcieved idea of what Id and creo were before hand, and was not led by the nose by a bunch of simplistic lawyers, it may have seen it in its simplicty

Yea its the judges fault the judge that was appointed by president bush the numskull who said the jury is still out on Evolution. The trial where most of the Experts on ID would not defend it under oath. The trial on witch ID has lost so badly that NO appeal has been filed. The trial where one of the founders of Id said that id has no theory yet only a bunch of ideas, the trial where id-ists where so happy that judge Jones was the one who was ruling before they got the verdict.

If you are unhappy about it then sue the state yourself stop pestering everyone with your ideas what science is cause that kind of science only exists in your feeble little mind. The ID "theory" has the same amount of merrit ast the theory that a stork brings new baby's to a household.

I have established, with no rebuttal at all, that any investigation of the human mind against properties in the world is a scientific invwtigation. Can anyone demonstrate that that point is not reality. Why will no one touch that point. Point to the line that is counter factual to that simple point, if indeed it has been shown as you suggest
I have demonstrated that an examination of the physical properties in this connection and its complexity, is not only an investigation, but that it will demonstrate an unwavering complexiity of order to definate detail and purpose. point to the line or argument that can demonstrate these points and items are not science
I have demonstrated that these investigations lead inevitably to the conclusion of design, in the same way one comes to the conclusion, that the process of evolution would and might lead to lead to the conclusion of soley natural causes.
both are just conclusions and both use the natural world for thier conclusions. Only sheer idiocy would assume as to most evos that the origination source is not a part of the argument

Most evos try and cleverly exclude conclusion of evo (SNCs) as unnecessary, when in fact every position or argument concerning the natural world ofcourse would include one

And yet evos test their theory while ID-ists do not test their "theory" yes your theory is in between quote marks because it is not a scientific theory at best it is a hypothesis.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2699
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 603 of 609 (612492)
04-16-2011 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Dawn Bertot
04-16-2011 3:45 AM


Re: New header (finally)
Ofcourse ID is not something different, how could it be when those are just terms. reality is a human using his brain against reality about the natural world to form conclusions, Duhhh, science

damm i always thought Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

But i guess i am wrong and all the other scientists in the world and your definition is correct.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 604 of 609 (612498)
04-16-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Dawn Bertot
04-16-2011 3:43 AM


Is it science?
I have established, with no rebuttal at all, that any investigation of the human mind against properties in the world is a scientific invwtigation.

This is patently false.

You are only doing science when you follow the scientific method.

The subject of the study does not determine whether you are doing science, it is the method one uses that determines that.

ID starts with a conclusion and cherry-picks what data it can find that might support that conclusion, while ignoring the masses of data that contradict that conclusion. It takes its case to the public rather than supporting it in the scientific journals. And given the statements in the leaked Wedge Document it is a fraud from start to finish.

And you fell for it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-16-2011 3:43 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 606 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2011 11:01 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 605 of 609 (612577)
04-17-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by Son
04-16-2011 4:13 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Actually, you could disprove evolution by finding either an animal or fossil that doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy for example.

Actually at this juncture I am not interested in disproving evolution and ID does not find its validy in that approach. ID and evolution are not opposites. Could I find evolution invalid or accurate, ID would stand on its own merits of scientific investigation by means of studying, evaluating and experimenting with the natural world and its intricate order and laws.

Its is science, because it is a valid observable and testable investigation. No thinking person would consider it otherwise, unless they are hell bent on keeping out some religious perspective out of the classroom, of which ID has nothing to with initially and at its base

What Taq is asking is a similiar thing for ID

Because they havent thought it through to its logical conclusion, they confuse ID, which is a conclusion, with evo or change, which is the process for the answer to the conclusion, "soley natural causes". Lets see him do his test on his conclusion, which is "soley natural causes". Lets see him run some tests that will come to the umistakeable, provable conclusion that things are the reseult of soley natural causes.

He's trying to demonstrate ID as non-scientific by attacking its conclusion. Now if he wishes that I run test on the natural world to test for order, law and purpose, it would leave, chnage and natural selection standing holding its jock strap, back at the starting line

Actually and in fact, these positions are and cannot logically be in opposition to eachother. But they are both investigations and a valid approach to the natural world, if we are looking for solid answers. Of course both should be taught in the classroom

To make it short, why are you not setting up your own version of a scientific community, ID has lots of funds and believers so it shouldn't be that hard. Since you believe your method to be superior, it should bring in lots of money and show the current scientific community their errors rather easily.

Im not sure what this means, but if I am reading you correctly, my intentions or my personal beliefs have nothing to do with what is logically sound. Peer reviewed nonsense and status have little or nothing to with the reality of the fact that these facts as they are have been around since the dawn (no pun intended) of time, they are testable, measurable and completley accurate

its not my method, its just the reality of the situation. Always has been, always will be. Afew "scinetists", try and distract these facts by shouting, such an investigation is not science, but what they cant demonstrate is that the approach or the conclusions they reach are any different than mine. If they could have they would have already done it here

Remember when a scientist as Taq, if he is, is running tests of change and Hierarchy and the such like on the natural world, he is testing what is measurable, (his process) not his conclusion. He then, mistakenly turns right around and says, now Bertot I want you to test your conclusion (ID)the same way I tested my PROCESS and lets see if your accurate.

Its a simple mistake they make, but it is the one that has mislead judges and others to the wrong judgments and the such like. In courtrooms they test the Conclusions of ID, when they should be testing the method and process. I the courtroom they DONT test the process and method of the conclusion, soley natural causes, for evos, when in fact if they are going to be accurate they should be testing what they require of creationist in the same setting, OUR CONCLUSION

They dont, so the whole court experience is an exercise false presuppositions.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Son, posted 04-16-2011 4:13 AM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Son, posted 04-17-2011 11:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 608 by frako, posted 04-17-2011 11:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 606 of 609 (612581)
04-17-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by Coyote
04-16-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Is it science?
This is patently false.
You are only doing science when you follow the scientific method.

And how in the world is my approach, remembering that ID is a conclusion, like soley natural causes is a conclusion, diiferent that the approach you use to study change and natural selection.
I study and experiment with the natural world via its biological structures and make-up and see order and law that culiminates in obvious purpose. how is this different than studying change and selection, both our CONCLUSIONS ASIDE. Please explain if you think you can

Change and order are there or they are not, correct.? When did obvious order need your approval for it to be order

The subject of the study does not determine whether you are doing science, it is the method one uses that determines that.

Really, Coyote, oh geez thanks I dont know where Id be without you

ID starts with a conclusion and cherry-picks what data it can find that might support that conclusion, while ignoring the masses of data that contradict that conclusion. It takes its case to the public rather than supporting it in the scientific journals. And given the statements in the leaked Wedge Document it is a fraud from start to finish.

And of course this an emotional statement, inaccurate in all its parts. demonstrate that I start with the CONCLUSION without asserting it. demonstrate my methodology and not my conclusion is at fault

And you fell for it.

No the judge and many others were smokescreened by not seeing what you were attempting to accomplish in the courtroom. You had us trying to prove our conclusion, while you guys were left with discussing only your process and not required to demostrate your conclusion.
youve got it all backwards, as usual

Oh BTW, please explain the masses of data that contradict the conclusion of ID

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2011 10:45 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1275 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 607 of 609 (612582)
04-17-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by Dawn Bertot
04-17-2011 10:10 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Whatever you think ID is (conclusion process or whatever else), you should still find a way to falsify it if you want to call it part of science. That's just how science works. You're saying yourself that it's a testable investigation and falsification is how you test it.

What I pointed in the last part of my message is that you thought that the current scientific community is doing science wrong (peer review is a part of it). The reason the current system is in place is not out of dogma but just because it works and brings money in. The thread is about an argument for creationism in science class and since you don't feel creationism should have to follow the current scientific standards, then you should show why your own standards are better for science. You can do that by applying your method and get better results. The money part would prove undisputably that your method is in fact better (since the technology resulting from it would be more efficient).

Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2011 10:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2699
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 608 of 609 (612584)
04-17-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by Dawn Bertot
04-17-2011 10:10 AM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Its is science, because it is a valid observable and testable investigation. No thinking person would consider it otherwise, unless they are hell bent on keeping out some religious perspective out of the classroom, of which ID has nothing to with initially and at its base

Ok so what test was used to determine the intelligent designer. Did you call to the hevans and say please design us a purely new form of life that does not fit with the "tree of life" scientists use and inscribe i did it the intelligent designer in its DNA.

And puff a magic half bunny half cow pops out of nothing on your lab table?

attributing things like order to a designer has the same scientific value as attributing lightning to Zeus or the intelligent lightning maker.

You have to first devise an experiment that shows that if the experiment "fails" there is no designer and if the experiment does not "fail" there can be a designer. Notice the can at the end you cannot prove anything you can only grant support for it.

In the case of evolution by aplying say antibiotics to every generation of "germs" after a number of generations the "germs" should be resistant to antibiotics. If this experiment fails it would cast serius doubt on evolution, if it does not fail it grants support for evolution.

so what happens you start of with say 100 germs apply the antibiotic and 98 germs die, you wait for the 2 left to reproduce themselves numerous of times so you get 100 germs again you apply the same antibiotic and 80 die repeat the process and at one point none die. The germs that are immune to the antibiotic are somehow different from the germs that are not. Evolution predicts that would happen so evolution does not fail this test but it gets support from it.

Can you devise an experiment or prediction that if it fails it would disprove or cast serius doubt on the intelligent design hypothesis and if it does not fail that it would grant support for the hypothesis.

Yes when you are devising experiments you are actually doing science and in that case i can grant your idea of intelligent design the status hypothesis it still has a very long way to go before it becomes a theory if ever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-17-2011 10:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 609 of 609 (612585)
04-17-2011 11:24 AM


This thread has been off topic for far too long. I'm closing it here. Start fresh threads if anyone has any issues they still want to discuss where such discussion will be on topic.
  
RewPrev1
...
3637383940
41
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017