|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I am sorry that you lost your faith due to the need for evidence. Glad you "found" science, and stopped being a YEC. Though it sounds to me like you were a kid in one of those crazy christian groups (I call them protestants), and now you are thinking for yourself, which I think overall is a good thing. gained independent thought, hopefully some more knowledge, but lost your faith in the process.
you sound friendly though, and you have to really hate your former self to last around here. can you hate you? anyways good luck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Religion is NOT science and therefore has NO place in science classes. Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion. No one starts an investigation of any type WITHOUT considering the causes of the process An investigation that excludes the how and why of the process would make no sense Since outside of religious texts, we can not prove how things got here, it falls to the art of investgation, in the form of logical propositions coupled with our understanding of the physical world This leads us to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites, the likes of which are derived by a scientific evaluation called investigation Both of these possibilites can be demonstrated to be atleast logical explanations, leaving no other possibilites Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena Do any think they can refute this proposition? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Have you read any of the Dover transcript? Have you read the Dover judgement? The case for creationism was not correctly represented, it may be that it was represented as religion, which is not the case If you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existence Science is simply a valid investigation of any property in existence hence the term Criminal Science Investigation. Without knowing or having been present for or at the crime, they use an investigative process, scientifc in nature, to deduce the possible causes of the crime that was not witnessed Creationism and ID follow the same premise, religion aside Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The case for creationism was not correctly represented, it may be that it was represented as religion, which is not the case If you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existence When Trixie entitled her post "Utter Rubbish" the word "utter" was intended as an adjective, not as the imperative mood of a verb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion. No one starts an investigation of any type WITHOUT considering the causes of the process An investigation that excludes the how and why of the process would make no sense Since outside of religious texts, we can not prove how things got here, it falls to the art of investgation, in the form of logical propositions coupled with our understanding of the physical world This leads us to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites, the likes of which are derived by a scientific evaluation called investigation Both of these possibilites can be demonstrated to be atleast logical explanations, leaving no other possibilites Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena Do any think they can refute this proposition? It is not possible to teach your opinions "in the science arena", since no-one has yet figured out how to translate your statements into English.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena Do any think they can refute this proposition? Science proceeds from evidence to hypothesis, testing of those hypotheses, and finally (after much successful testing) to accepted theory. ID does not follow this procedure. ID starts with a required conclusion and seeks to find evidence for that conclusion. As there is none, it is forced to manufacture that evidence and to ignore the masses of evidence that contradict that conclusion. In this it is the exact opposite of science. And you want that nonsense taught as an equal to science? What a joke!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Science is simply a valid investigation of any property in existence... You left off "...using the scientific method." Creationism and ID don't use the scientific method, so they cannot be considered to be science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Science is simply a valid investigation of any property in existence hence the term Criminal Science Investigation. Without knowing or having been present for or at the crime, they use an investigative process, scientifc in nature, to deduce the possible causes of the crime that was not witnessed Creationism and ID follow the same premise, religion aside It seems to me that science investigates the evidence to form a conclusion. Creationism and ID start with a conclusion and then form the evidence to support the conclusion.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
I'll take that as a no, you haven't read any of the Dover transcripts nor the judgement, otherwise you wouldn't have posted the nonsense you did.
Dawn Bertot writes: The case for creationism was not correctly represented, it may be that it was represented as religion, which is not the case Absolutely priceless, hilarious! The whole nub of the argument at Dover was that ID was not creationism yet here you are conflating the two terms! The claim that ID was not creationism was dead in the water when the term "cdesign proponentsists" was discovered in drafts of "Of Pandas and People". Neither creationism nor ID can be described as scientific explanations of existence. As others have pointed out, both start with a conclusion then try to either shoehorn evidence in or manufacture evidence by misrepresentation, by garbling totally misunderstood science or by blatant lying. Let's see exactly what the conservative Judge Jones said in his judgement. Here are some comments from his conclusion.
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. Dawn Bertot writes: Since outside of religious texts, we can not prove how things got here, it falls to the art of investgation, in the form of logical propositions coupled with our understanding of the physical world You left out a crucial part - evidence. It doesn't matter how logical a proposition is, it has to be supported by evidence. Our understanding of the physical world is based on evidence and is constantly changing as we discover new information. Anway, who are you referring to when you say "our understanding"? You see the one thing most "cdesign proponentsists" and creationists have in common is their abysmal understanding of very basic science. If man had used that understanding in trying to make progress, we'd never have landed men on the moon. Your example of CSIs using science to discovered what happened at a crime scene is faulty. If they used the methodology of ID or creationism they would immediately decide who the perpetrator was, then go about collecting evidence to support that conclusion while disregarding any evidence to the contrary. That is not science. So, yes, I'd say that many people can refute your "logic". ID is not science and should not be taught in the science arena. You really should go and read at least the Dover judgement, but the entire transcript would be better; this will give you a better idea of exactly why ID isn't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
On a crime scene investigation the effort of the detection is to find out who did it.
By comparing CSI to ID you hoist yourself by your own petard. You're not very good at this, are you?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You left off "...using the scientific method." Creationism and ID don't use the scientific method, so they cannot be considered to be science. Notice that no one in the repsponses adressed even my based contentions and observations, namely that any investigation where you dont already know the conclusion is scientific in nature You cannot staat with a conclusion, when the the answer to the unknown question is what you are seeking. You may have a perception, but that is not a conclusion, if it has not yet been established Even atheisim and those that percieve things here by soley natural causes, have the perception of possibilites of how and why, but that is not a conclusion. You cant have a conclusion in the strictest sense of the word, because that is the answer that you are seeking No one addressed the other main point that without either side actually knowing or being able to find the answer, it falls to a simple logical proposition, pitted against what we can know and investigate in the natural world Even after the strictiest investigations, it still leaves us with only two logical possibilites, both of which is demonstrateable and both of which are logical conclusions against the natural world Again creationism is not religion, ID is not religion. It is a simple evaluation and investigation, that follows the same methods of any other investigation, but comes to the same conclusion in this instance Instead of repeating that ID does not use a scientific method simply show why it does not. If it is not science and the SM is science, why has it not provided any answers for the conclusion of how and why things are here? Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
On a crime scene investigation the effort of the detection is to find out who did it. By comparing CSI to ID you hoist yourself by your own petard. You're not very good at this, are you? Actually yes I am very good at this. The purpose of a crime scene is not only who, but how and why. Do you have anyother silly comments Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
I do not know who you are, but you have a lower rating than me (i'm so jealous). LOL.
ID is total garbage. instead of smoke and mirrors is like one mirror and a burning match, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and comes off as a big lie that only creationists believe. Its really not even worth looking into. People in the woods (of North America) looking for footprints with dermal ridges and other "evidence" who are trying to find physical proof of Sasquatch are more scientific than ID. Yes cryptozoology is more valid than the BS that is ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So, yes, I'd say that many people can refute your "logic". ID is not science and should not be taught in the science arena. You really should go and read at least the Dover judgement, but the entire transcript would be better; this will give you a better idea of exactly why ID isn't science. Abstract observations by a judge are not reponses to the arguments I have set out. If you think the judge and his findings have adressed in argument form anything I have said, pull it out and demonstrate why Every investigation in this context has to start with the idea of how and why. No investigation of this nature can start with a conclusion, as that is the answer you are seeking. perception is not a conclusion. Even if it were percieved as a conclusion, it is not a logically set out conclusion
You left out a crucial part - evidence. It doesn't matter how logical a proposition is, it has to be supported by evidence An this is why you will never understand reason or evidence. Every proposition concerning the how and why of things, starts with the proposition of how and why. Even the TOE must involve itself in this aspect of the investigation. Its necessary conclusion is that it is by soley natural causes and it teaches this in principle when taught side by side with the TOE The evidence that you seek for ID as science is demonstrated in the exact same way the conclusion of soley natural causes is established, by an investigation of the physical world Neither conclusion can render a definate provable answer, but that isfar from saying ID is religion or that it does not follow the same methods for the established conclusion Until you can demonstrate why either of the above two points are not valid froma logical standpoint, it follows that they are and should be taught as very reasonable conclusions, as any indirect conclusions, taught by the TOE in the classroom Do you think there is a student out there any where that would listen to the whole TOE, then not ask the logical and investigative question, "Well ok, but where idid all come from to get started' Its a natural part of any investigation and its tenets should and can be taught independent of religion Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I do not know who you are, but you have a lower rating than me (i'm so jealous). LOL. ID is total garbage. instead of smoke and mirrors is like one mirror and a burning match, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and comes off as a big lie that only creationists believe. Its really not even worth looking into. People in the woods (of North America) looking for footprints with dermal ridges and other "evidence" who are trying to find physical proof of Sasquatch are more scientific than ID. Yes cryptozoology is more valid than the BS that is ID. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Your free to address any argument I have set out. Until then I cannot take you comments as serious Jaywill also has I believe a 2 something rating, that should tell you something about thier rating system Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024