Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 136 of 358 (646048)
01-02-2012 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 10:29 PM


A rose by anyother name is still a silly flower
Hi again Dawn Bertot,
These are assertions that need to be demonstrated in a rational way, not just boldly stated as if they were fact.
You are free to have, and to express, your opinion. Unfortunately, for you, your opinion has little ability to alter reality. It may affect your ability to communicate effectively, especially if you conflate things to have different meanings than those understood by others.
Investigations are just investigations, complete or incomplete. Especially when examining the natural world
True - you can investigate how the sky is blue, and you can investigate why the sky is blue.
That does not mean that investigation into why needs to be included in investigations into how the sky is blue, they are different aspects of investigating the color of the sky.
I can also use math in an investigation, but that does not mean that all aspects of the investigation needs to be mathematical.
Likewise I can use science in an investigation, but that does not mean that all aspects of the investigation need to be scientific.
If you want to call an investigation or examination a grocery cart, it will not change what it is or whether it is complete or valid in its approach
Correct, just as you cannot change what science is by calling it something else, nor by saying that science includes aspects of investigations that are not covered by science.
It could even be Silicon Aftar, the crystline entity or the Immortal Dowd, but that would not change its properties
Nor do your proclamations change the properties of science in general, or evolution in particular, in their ability to study how things work.
Back when I was in high school, it was an axiom that all good news stories covered who, what , why, when, where, and how. These are listed to define distinct attributes to the good news story, not synonyms.
Why asks the reason or purpose for something happening - what is the purpose for the sky being blue? The question of purpose is answered by philosophy or religion, not by science.
How asks the way or manner that something happens - by what mechanism does the sky appear blue? The question of mechanism is answered by science.
They are different aspects of the investigation of something happening.
An investigation can use science, but it is not limited to just science. Science does not investigate the issue of purpose.
Five Ws - Wikipedia
quote:
In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H), or the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]
  • Who is it about?
  • What happened?
  • Where did it take place?
  • When did it take place?
  • Why did it happen?
  • How did it happen?
In journalism
The principle underlying the maxim is that each question should elicit a factual answer facts necessary to include for a report to be considered complete.[3] Importantly, none of these questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".
In the "news style" for newspaper reporting, the Five W's are facts that should be contained in the "lead" (or lede); after the lead, the article becomes more expository. This is the inverted pyramid.
Note that this says that for the police or journalistic investigation to be complete the answers to these six different questions need to be answered independently. Curiously, police and journalists are not scientists.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 10:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2012 5:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 137 of 358 (646060)
01-02-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
01-02-2012 1:52 PM


Scientists are always asking "why" questions.
RAZD writes:
Why asks the reason or purpose for something happening - what is the purpose for the sky being blue? The question of purpose is answered by philosophy or religion, not by science.
Please don't confuse Dawn about the word "why". He has more than enough problems with language already. And "purpose" is a notoriously difficult word to define.
"Why" questions are very frequently asked and answered in science. Why is the sky blue has nothing to do with purpose. The only time that "why" (and other) questions relate to purpose in the sense that you seem to be using the word is when science is dealing with beings that can act with volition - ourselves and some other animals. But why questions are common elsewhere, and they are usually asking for the immediate reasons behind things.
"Why do plants....
You'll easily find thousands of "why" questions in the literature.
Evolutionary theory answers lots of "why" questions. "Why are there vestigial organs?" "Why do whales breath air?"
There are no restrictions on what science can try to explore and explain. It just has to be real.
What science doesn't do is make up non-biological beings who act with intent, and then attempt to "study" them. That's left to theology.
Dawn makes the mistake of thinking that making up answers to the questions of the origins of things is the same as investigating the origins of things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 1:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 11:33 PM bluegenes has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 138 of 358 (646061)
01-02-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by herebedragons
01-02-2012 9:43 AM


Re: Welcome back!
...he claims it was his discoveries in astrophysics and subsequent study of several different religions that drove him to that choice.
Not exactly.
He does claim he was a scientist before he was a Christian. But, at least in the page you linked, he doesn't attribute his conversion to any discoveries in astrophysics. He attributes it to his reading of the creation accounts in Genesis and his conclusion that they describe 11 unnamed "creation events" in a manner that he believes is too accurate to be explained other than that it was divinely inspired.
He doesn't say what he considers these "creation events" to be. He doesn't explain how they coincide with what science knows about the history of the universe or the history of life on Earth. Nor does he provide his calculations to support his conclusion that the odds of the 11 "creation events" being randomly put in the correct order are less than one in six billion.
Actually, the whole thing reads much the same as just about any other piece of apologetics I've ever read. There's certainly nothing there to suggest that it was science that led him to religion.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by herebedragons, posted 01-02-2012 9:43 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 01-02-2012 5:27 PM subbie has replied
 Message 150 by herebedragons, posted 01-03-2012 8:22 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 139 of 358 (646063)
01-02-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by subbie
01-02-2012 5:04 PM


Re: Welcome back!
I agree with your comments on Hugh Ross but there is Francis Collins is a world renowned scientist who calls himself an evangelical Christian. He refers to the DNA as the language of God and calls the evidence for evolution irrefutable. It wasn't the science that led him to faith but he finds his science and his faith not only compatible but overlapping.
He prefers the term BioLogos to Theistic Evolution but they mean the same thing.
Francis Collins in Time Magazine

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by subbie, posted 01-02-2012 5:04 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by subbie, posted 01-02-2012 5:47 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 140 of 358 (646064)
01-02-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by herebedragons
01-02-2012 9:43 AM


Re: Welcome back!
quote:
How about Hugh Ross? although not a YEC (he is a progressive creationist), he became an astrophysicist before he became a Christian and he claims it was his discoveries in astrophysics and subsequent study of several different religions that drove him to that choice.
His story here (annoying audio can be disabled at the bottom of page)
I think that you need to read more carefully.
He converted at age 19, and it had nothing to do with astronomy or the creation story. The whole thing is too lengthy, but these quotes taken from page 3 tell enough of what is going on
Having read this book [A Gideon New Testament with Proverbs and Psalms] for two years, I knew that God wanted control of my life...
...
So I didn’t do what was rational; I did what was irrational. I believed in the second law and trusted it but I did not put my faith and trust in the Bible, or in Jesus Christ. And for three months I witnessed something in my life that I had never witnessed before —my grades going downhill... ...But at nineteen years of age, I saw my grades go downhill
...
I made a commitment, on a certain Friday night, I would talk to God. I didn’t know much about prayer; I just decided I’d talk to God and ask Him to make me a Christian...
...Finally at 1:07 in the morning, though, I did turn control of my life over to Jesus Christ. My shirt was all sweaty, but the battle was over...
So he converted at age 19, and his conversion was emotional, not intellectual. So it was NOT after he became an astrophysicist at all.
And it becomes pretty clear that he was't just reading the Bible, he was reading Christian apologists, because he falls for a lot of falsehoods.
So we have an emotional conversion based on falsehoods. Not a very good example.
Edited by PaulK, : Apparently the web page put "Page 2" AFTER "Page 3"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by herebedragons, posted 01-02-2012 9:43 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by herebedragons, posted 01-03-2012 8:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 141 of 358 (646067)
01-02-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
01-02-2012 5:27 PM


Re: Welcome back!
It wasn't the science that led him to faith ....
Ah, so he has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Okay, well, thanks for the input.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 01-02-2012 5:27 PM GDR has not replied

  
agent_509
Junior Member (Idle past 4468 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 05-22-2010


Message 142 of 358 (646082)
01-02-2012 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by herebedragons
01-02-2012 9:20 AM


that is basically what happened to me when I had finished my high school biology class and came on here to debate. I definitely agree that the YECs do create a false dichotomy of the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by herebedragons, posted 01-02-2012 9:20 AM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 358 (646092)
01-02-2012 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by bluegenes
01-02-2012 5:00 PM


equivocation on meanings doesn't make your case.
Hi bluegenes,
really?
"Why" questions are very frequently asked and answered in science. Why is the sky blue has nothing to do with purpose.
Amusingly, your link shows how the sky appears blue, not why it appears to be blue, it does not show what reason or purpose is served by the sky appearing to be blue.
Again I refer you to the list I provided of the 5 w's:
quote:
Five Ws - Wikipedia
quote:
In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H), or the Six Ws) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering.[1] It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:[2]
  • Who is it about?
  • What happened?
  • Where did it take place?
  • When did it take place?
  • Why did it happen?
  • How did it happen?


bold added for emphasis.
Now I hope you would agree that asking the same question twice would be silly in forming a concise but complete picture yes? Thus we should agree that these are different questions.
Curiously, I listed these for the specific purpose of defining the usage of the terms and drawing the appropriate distinctions between them. Please feel free to investigate these terms and meanings in greater detail in reference to this specific detail (google 5W's+H).
"Why" questions are very frequently asked and answered in science ... has nothing to do with purpose.
Curiously, I look at the primary definitions of the words to check assertions like this.
Why Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose. I would wager that all those articles you gratuitously refer to actually explain "how" ... want to try and demonstrate otherwise?
How Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
1. in what way or manner; by what means?: How did the accident happen?
bold added. Pretty clear to me: that "in what way or manner; by what means" is precisely what your link on the blue sky does explain. I'll wager that this is all your articles do as well.
Now go back and read your link that explains HOW the sky appears to be blue, and note that it does not explain the purpose for the sky being blue.
If your answer fits in the "how" box of the 5W's+H then it is a "how" answer and you can't use it in the other boxes, including the "why" box.
For instance, the motive for a crime fits in the "why" box but does not explain "how" the crime was committed, and the explanation for "how" the crime was committed does not explain "why" it was committed.
Part of clarity of communication is clarity of word usage.
Please don't confuse Dawn about the word "why".
Why would you think I would try to do that?
How do I do that by explaining the difference between how and why questions?
Dawn is looking for a complete picture explanation, he is looking for the who, what, where, when, why and how explanations.
Now, I am trying to explain the difference between the parts that science can explain and what parts it cannot explain.
Please don't confuse Dawn about the word "why".
So you shouldn't try to create that confusion. Unless, of course, you agree with him . . .
Message 108 Dawn Bertot:
For any investigation into the natural world to include How but not Why, is not a complete objective investigation. Its tenative at best. And who cares about tenative
Notice how ID and creation make logical sense in combining the two, (how and Why),its the only logical approach
Once it is demonstrated that not only how, but why are both necessary in the same investigation, then one can proceed to see if they are tenable as logical and rational explanations for existence
So do you agree with Dawn?
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : quote quote
Edited by Zen Deist, : ...
Edited by Zen Deist, : Dawn quote

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2012 5:00 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 01-03-2012 4:29 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 01-03-2012 6:26 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 144 of 358 (646095)
01-03-2012 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Drosophilla
01-02-2012 6:36 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Well the 'Jar syndrome' as you put it happens to be in accord with the SM - you DON'T invent terms for which there is NO evidence. The God term has NO evidence therefore completely not needed by the SM.
And despite protestations from those who inhabit TWAT'D, science has made us the species we now are..... only those paranoid delusionists like you think otherwise.
Its funny to watch somoene like yourself, that is simply parroting things that they have heard. Jar is not countering my claim about God. He is actually implying indirectly that there is actual evidence of soley natural causes. As i pointed out his assertion in is both invalid and illogical. My assertion is not necessary to make his intimation both dishonest and illogical
When we say there is no evidence of anything happening by supernatural means we mean exactly that. Only a halfwit would consider including a term for which there is no evidence
Only a nitwit would agree with someone (like Jar) that says there is only evidences of natural causes, then not be able to understand that that is not actually true, or see the glaring, logical incocnsistencey that they have actually involved themself in. Are you a nitwit, like Jar, Droso?
Only a nitwit would make a claim that there is not evidence of order, law and purpose and thus possibly design, when that same person cannot provide evidence that it is a product of soley natural causes. Only a nitwit would not include the only other logical and demonstratable, possiblity of the existence of things into his investigative process, when that conclusion can be established from any logical standpoint against the natural world
Only a nitwit would ignore the fact that even the SM and the TOE, necessarily involve a conclusion. In this case , Soley natural causes. Only a nitwit would ignore that while this is a natural conclusion of the TOE, there no requirement to teach it, or claim it is not necessary
That makes your method incomplete and invalid as an investigation
Really - science does just deal with the 'why'.
Thats interesting, one minute you say it doesnt, the next you say it does. I have some of your cohorts saying it does, others saying it doesnt need to.
Oh, I do agree it tries to deal with why, but when it realizes it cant deal with, why, it quickly retreats to "That doesnt matter in the process of investigation" Or since we dont know why really
That is the essence of what science is about and if you'd taken even a simple low-brow intro to any science discipline it would have been one of the first things you learnt.
Who said it wasnt, I only affirmed that the Process of ID follows the same approach and comes to very demonstratable and valid conclusion, concerning things we can see and know, ie, order, law and purpose. I believe you said order was easy, correct
It's first mistake? ROTFLAMAO! Would you like to compare human knowledge and technical advancement two thousand years ago compared to now? Those ignorant bronze age shepherds would cower in terror at our jumbo jets, skyscrapers, computers and space shuttles. How the fuck do you think that came about? Try the powerful discipline of the scientific method
Yeah thats called an investigation and experiment, big deal. It was either valid or invalid. IDs procees does the samething and it is valid.
For the umpteenth time....science ONLY deals with that which can be evidenced. By the way you are a fluent liar. I have never asked you to provide a type of evidence which science cannot. I have asked you to provide REAL WORLD evidence of your intelligent being - something that can be properly and PHYSICALLY investigated (you know....like geological strata and fossil distribution, or genetic markers). You repeatedly give me nothing but words.
You really dont see the utter stupidity of what you just said and did, do you? First you claimed you didnt do something, then you turn right around and do it. My simplistic friend, again you are asking me to provide evidence of my conclusion, God, when you have no way to provide evidence of soley natural causes. Your asking me to compare your process with my conclusion. Now if we compare fossil distribution or geo strata, with, order, law and purpose, we see are doing exacally the samething, correct
Before you dispense with your conclusion or mine, you need to deal with out process. Im expecting that at some point in this debate you will do that
Not a single piece of real world evidence. Like that imaginary visit to the north pole above....it doesn't exist except in that marvellous world of TWAT'D.
I believe you said, order was easy to see, correct?. The only thing that is imaginary is your attempt to require me to demonstrate my conclusion, while you ramble on about your process.
Before I go on,do you understand the difference between a process and a conclusion?
You do realise that your wish to rewrite the definition of the scientific method doesn't mean it should happen do you? The SM has done fine so far sunshine. I've still to see your stupid God put men on the moon. The issue here is what should be taught in science classes so that the next generation of youngsters continue to advance the condition of the human species. And ID would rapidly corrode science - it would teach that 'actually the great designer did all and science doesn't count for jack shit', when in fact science has made us dominant on our planet - and who knows where else in future. The SM doesn't need your stupid God hypothesis - it does just fine without it - and always has.
Its not necessary for me to rewrite it. Its only necessary that you and the other Secular fundamentalist atheists and evolutionist, not conflate it or make it something more than it is
You really dont understand much about debating do you son. Repeating something doesnt make it true. When you can show that the SM is something more than an investigation valid or invalid, or that it is better than IDs methods, you will have answered my contention. All you have done this far is confirm my methods are the same as yours That is if you dont make that same stupid mistake of comparing my conclusion with your process. I do believe you said Order was easy to identify, correct? There are some good books on debating you can pick up here and there
What do you think the discipline of philosophy is about? Its preserve is exactly that for which the answers to questions cannot be evidenced in the way that the SM uses evidence. The big 'why' of things is classic philosophy - seems you never took a philosophy class to add to the fact you clearly never took a science class.....one wonders what you did do at school!
Won just about every debating title, one could win. But thats bragging and we shouldnt do that. What you have just described concerning philosophy is just another investigation, that, like the SM, cannot answer the same question. At bare minimum neither can provide evidence. Both are just investigations, valid or invalid. You really should think for yourself Droso. Try it and see what happens
This is like saying "I'm going to investigate how the latest Airbus has been developed, and you saying "Ah but you must first investigate hot air balloons because they flew first. And then you have to investigate birds because they flew before them....and then...."
Utterly irrelevant! The ToE is a theory ABOUT change in species. It is NOT about how life originated (abiogenesis - or the study of organic chemistry). Please please go read up about evolution before you try debating something for which you obviously know fuck all. A good into text for you would be Dawkings’ "The Greatest Show on Earth".
That probably, the most ignorant analogy I have ever entertained or had the opportunity to see. A fifth grader would not insult himself to respond to such a simple mistake. There are some good debating books out there you can pick up
Your insults and language do not change the fact that you cannot demonstrate why both or one are not simple investigations into the natural world. It does not change the fact that you cannot demonstrate IDs method as not a valid investigation or as science. Jut do that and you will have proved your point. remember simpleton, we are not talking about my conclusion,just my process. Think for yourself. TFY, hereafter, since you like that game
Im not interested in purchasing your books Richard. But wait a minute, you said earlier that the SM does investigate why. So which is it.
.
Oh yes it can my ignorant friend. The SM has successfully been 'disassociated' from philosophy for the past 2000 plus years - and look where we are now! Again, your assertions from the land of TWAT'D have absolutely no validity in the real world.
Here's a little test for you. How many books are out there describing the SM as it really is compared with how many describing it as DB thinks it is. (clue: the first way numbers books in the millions - the second? Cough, cough - care to submit the first draft of the first book describing your take on the SM - lets see how long it takes to publish - ah yes.....it's the great scientific conspiracy...Dawn's book wouldn't get published because they are all frightened of the work of this obvious maverick genius!!!
So provide me a word that is better or more, than Investigation, valid or invalid, that desribes the SM, philosophy or the ID process Have at it junior
Only in your uniformed opinion. Does it not worry you that millions of scientists throughout the world completely disagree with TWAT'D? There are a couple of words applicable to people who think their view is correct when the vast bulk of the world think otherwise....paranoid delusionists. Areshole! I asked YOU to describe YOUR understanding of the ToE not for YOU to ask ME to do it (and asking me to do it to YOUR specifications for fuck's sake!).
I'll take this as another task you can't do.
Wrong as usual
An investigation, valid or invalid. Any other silly questions? Can you demonstrate even if it is very involved or complicated in its applications that it is more or better than an investigation
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Drosophilla, posted 01-02-2012 6:36 AM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Drosophilla, posted 01-03-2012 7:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 358 (646098)
01-03-2012 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
01-02-2012 11:33 PM


Why Questions How Questions
RAZ you are being silly. The fact is science can and does ask 'Why' questions all the time. Even the the definition of "Why" you provide doesn't stipulate that conscious intent be behind reason or cause. So a question like: Why are plants green? - Is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. How are plants green? doesn't make nearly as much sense as a question does it?
Why are you defining 'why' as necessarily entailing intent of some kind when it is frequently and perfectly legitimately used to query reason or cause where there is no intent involved?
Why are you subscribing to Dawn's rather silly approach to such questions? DB has enough issues without you joining in the semantic lunacy.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 11:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2012 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 146 of 358 (646101)
01-03-2012 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
01-02-2012 11:33 PM


Re: equivocation on meanings doesn't make your case.
Zen Deist writes:
Curiously, I look at the primary definitions of the words to check assertions like this.
Curiously, for an English speaker over the age of twelve, you have remarkable problems in understanding the definitions you read.
Zen Deist quoting dictionary definition of why writes:
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
Will I have to explain the word "or" to you?
Why does it rain?
For what reason does it rain?
What causes rain? What is the cause of rain?
Zen Deist writes:
The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.
This is a mistake you've been making for a few years on this board.
Will I have to explain the word "or" to you? Reason, cause or purpose.
For some time now you've been putting forward your view that science doesn't ask or answer "why" questions.
You're 100% wrong.
{ABE}
RAZD writes:
Dawn Bertot writes:
For any investigation into the natural world to include How but not Why, is not a complete objective investigation. Its tenative at best. And who cares about tenative
Notice how ID and creation make logical sense in combining the two, (how and Why),its the only logical approach
Once it is demonstrated that not only how, but why are both necessary in the same investigation, then one can proceed to see if they are tenable as logical and rational explanations for existence
So do you agree with Dawn?
In his association of the word "why" with I.D./creationism in that extract, Dawn seems to be making exactly the same mistake about the word that you're making. But as his grasp of language is even worse than yours, it's often very hard to tell what he means.
If he's implying that science doesn't ask "why" questions, then I strongly disagree with both of you on that point.
Edited by bluegenes, : addition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2012 11:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2012 8:16 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2012 8:22 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 147 of 358 (646104)
01-03-2012 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
01-03-2012 1:53 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
To get your ID in the science classrooms it all comes down to one thing:
What REAL WORLD processes for ID can be studied for ID to qualify as a scientific subject qualifying for the scientific method?
I have given you examples of processes studied under the ToE - such as fossil sequencing, DNA markers, animal population distributions.
What are you giving back from ID SPECIFICALLY that can be studied. Until you do that ID is nothing but useless words that do not belong in a science class.
It really is that simple !!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2012 1:53 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 148 of 358 (646106)
01-03-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
01-02-2012 5:37 PM


Re: Welcome back!
I think that you need to read more carefully
My bad . I had heard his story before and thought it was the other way around. I only gave this link a cursory read (It was too lengthy) Shame on me.
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2012 5:37 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 149 of 358 (646107)
01-03-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluegenes
01-03-2012 6:26 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
bluegenes writes:
If he's implying that science doesn't ask "why" questions, then I strongly disagree with both of you on that point.
That's why science loves relativity and quantum. That's why science shuns logic, common sense and objectivity. Too many whys remain un-asked and un-told by science.
For examples, science sweeps under the rug, the whys of the zero/singularity event, the whys of before space/time existed, the logics of how life, managed to manage biogenesis through the early stages of emergence from chaotic soup to amazingly complex life systems, the whys of the fact that all recorded historical cultures have been religious, the whys their assumption of uniformitarion expansion all the way down through the billions of alleged years from the alleged singularity, the whys of the alleged extension of all dinosaurs, all the while, the survival of the other species, etc, etc, etc.........

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluegenes, posted 01-03-2012 6:26 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2012 8:39 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 01-03-2012 11:16 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2012 9:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 150 of 358 (646108)
01-03-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by subbie
01-02-2012 5:04 PM


Re: Welcome back!
There's certainly nothing there to suggest that it was science that led him to religion.
Yeah, my bad. I thought I had heard his story elsewhere and only gave the article a cursory read. I should have looked closer.
He doesn't say what he considers these "creation events" to be. He doesn't explain how they coincide with what science knows about the history of the universe or the history of life on Earth. Nor does he provide his calculations to support his conclusion that the odds of the 11 "creation events" being randomly put in the correct order are less than one in six billion.
I'm sure you would have to read his books to find out those things. This article was only apologetics. I don't know if his books will answer those questions or not, though I suspect not. I have only read his first one and it was quite a while ago.
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by subbie, posted 01-02-2012 5:04 PM subbie has seen this message but 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