Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 241 of 358 (647337)
01-09-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dawn Bertot
01-09-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Law, order and purpose do exists correct and if they do they are evidence, correct.
Ive already given you your task, I have now demostrated mine to be valid.
You need to substatiate this before anyone can correct you. If you have already substantiated it please post a link and I will quit bugging you.
Why won't you do this?
Why dose a simple investigation that identifies cetain things such as Law and Order,
Again, you have not identified Law and Order. You claim to have but I am yet to see any evidence of you doing so.
Why won't you do this?
Edited by Larni, : second bullshit quote.
Edited by Larni, : Third bullshit quote.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 242 of 358 (647426)
01-09-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dawn Bertot
01-09-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
I do know about the ID movement, its just an investigation into the natural world.
Wrong, as you would know if you bothered to look at the information I pointed you at.
What I am advocating in this thread, is that it is fit for the classroom, wouldnt you agree?. If not show me why from my position, not someone elses
Why on earth would you think that your version should be taught? So far you're the only one that's held this position Are you so arrogant that you think schools should teach what you and you alone think?
ID is creationism because they mean the same thing.
Thank you. You again made my case. Creationism is not allowed to be taught as science in US schools because it's considered unconstitutional. If ID and creationism are the same thing, as you so loudly state, then ID doesn't make it past the classroom door.
There you go, your starting to get it now
For the love of Pete, that's always been my position and it's always been science's position. You're the one who tried to imply that it wasn't science's position. Wrong again.
Law, order and purpose do exists correct and if they do they are evidence, correct. If not why not
So the evidence on which you base your conclusion that Law, Order and Purpose exist is your conclusion that L, O and P exist. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but conclusions are not evidence, they are....conclusions!
Until it can be demonstrated otherwise, correct? If not why not?
Can you demonstrate the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No. That's why your approach here is not science.
Please show why the evidence of Natural selection and change gathered by the ToE, is different than the data of Order, Law and purpose are different than that gathered by the ToLO&P. Then show why the the same type of investigation used by the SM, is different than that used by any IDst.
Since you're refusing to tell us what the data for L,O and P are, I have no way of telling if it's the same or different from the evidence for ToE. You've also not given any details of investigations used by IDists, yet you expect me to show how I think it differs. No-one can agree or disagree with information which hasn't been given. Is it a state secret?
We are are saking why it is not science if it produces the same results that are are identifiable, tenatively and immediatley
The results of this mythical investigation are not the same as the results and subsequent conclusions from evidence gathered which supports the ToE, otherwise you'd be supporting the ToE. You must think you've got further information and evidence, but you've yet to share it with us.
So far, all anyone would be able to tell a classroom full of kids is "Dawn Bertot, a poster on an internet forum states that Law, Order and Purpose exist and the evidence that supports his statement is the statement itself. Therefore the ToE is falsified by his standards and an intelligent being designed all life. The End"
So if my method of investigationis not science, just show me why.
How can we when you've yet to give any information on your method of investigation, other than parroting L,O and P? Saying something loud enough and repetitively does not turn it into fact. So far that's the only method you've demonstrated and I'm being charitable in asking for details of your method of investigation, rather than just concluding that there is no other method than the parrot method.
Ive already given you your task, I have now demostrated mine to be valid. Your only task is to show otherwise. My guess is that you cannot
You haven't demonstrated what your's is, let alone demonstrated it to be valid. You can't keep your method a secret then claim that no-one can refute it. Of course they bloody can't, they have no idea what it is or what you're wittering about.
Please supply details of your method, the evidence collected and the conclusions drawn (although we know the conclusions already) before asking anyone to refute it.
And that, my friend, isn't science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:44 AM Trixie has not replied

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


Message 243 of 358 (647497)
01-10-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Trixie
01-09-2012 4:41 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Why on earth would you think that your version should be taught? So far you're the only one that's held this position Are you so arrogant that you think schools should teach what you and you alone think?
Have you been on this planet very long. Of course I am not the only one that holds this view
Thank you. You again made my case. Creationism is not allowed to be taught as science in US schools because it's considered unconstitutional. If ID and creationism are the same thing, as you so loudly state, then ID doesn't make it past the classroom door.
Your not paying atttention to what is written in this debate
So the evidence on which you base your conclusion that Law, Order and Purpose exist is your conclusion that L, O and P exist. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but conclusions are not evidence, they are....conclusions!
Is there evidence of Law order and Purpose in the Natural world, why yes there is. If the the ToE is true because it can demonstrate Natural selection and Change, wouldnt it be true the ToLO&P was true, if it can demonstrate Law, order and purpose
Can you demonstrate the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No. That's why your approach here is not science.
Ive done this with Dros, with only the promise he would pick it apart. Only to watch him avoid doing that very thing. The FSM, is not identifiable like the law and order in the natural world. Woulndt you agree
Since you're refusing to tell us what the data for L,O and P are, I have no way of telling if it's the same or different from the evidence for ToE. You've also not given any details of investigations used by IDists, yet you expect me to show how I think it differs. No-one can agree or disagree with information which hasn't been given. Is it a state secret?
I provided the type of investigation that ID uses to Droso. The Law and Order in the natural world can be demonstrated in any given physical property. Starting with its substructure in the form of atoms and molecules, to larger and more complicated things like the brain, heart and eyes.
Its only a secret if you have your eyes, ears and mouth covered. Your not a chimp are you trixie?
Are you so ignorant that you would deny the complex order that exist in the things I have mentioned
The results of this mythical investigation are not the same as the results and subsequent conclusions from evidence gathered which supports the ToE, otherwise you'd be supporting the ToE. You must think you've got further information and evidence, but you've yet to share it with us.
All you need to do is demonstrate why an investigation into the natural world, like that of Francis Collins and other scientist is not science. What methods does he or I use that are invalid that would and donot establish that Law order and purpose.
When and how and where will you demonstrate that these properties do not exist in the natural world. Provide me with an exampleof why the method of investigation into the natrual World I employ, by observation and experimentation of lesser and greater properties fails as an investigation
Droso gave up immediately on this challenge because he knew what it entailed and realized his task was insurmountable
So far, all anyone would be able to tell a classroom full of kids is "Dawn Bertot, a poster on an internet forum states that Law, Order and Purpose exist and the evidence that supports his statement is the statement itself. Therefore the ToE is falsified by his standards and an intelligent being designed all life. The End"
Your above comment is an ignorant and dishonest representation of what I have been presenting. In the first place I dont need the ToE to be false, for my position to be valid. Trixie, atleast try and sound objective and intelligent
You haven't demonstrated what your's is, let alone demonstrated it to be valid. You can't keep your method a secret then claim that no-one can refute it. Of course they bloody can't, they have no idea what it is or what you're wittering about.
Please supply details of your method, the evidence collected and the conclusions drawn (although we know the conclusions already) before asking anyone to refute it.
To demonstrate that I have done this many times now, all one needs to do is simply present any point of the SM, to demonstrate that a scientist labeled as an IDs, uses the same methods and principles of investigation. There are no pointsof the SM, that an IDst does not employ
Have you been paying any attention to this debate at all, or are you just playing ignorant?
By the very nature of the case, your method of investigation and mine could not differ, if they are both any kind of valid inquiry
To demonstrate this point beyond any doubt, describe and explain any detail of the SM, that is not a simple investigative procees of an experimentation into the natural world.
Secular fundamental evolutionist and atheist like to pretend that they employ different and better methods, for better results or data. The very idea of such a notion is idiocy of the highest order
If that is not true, what is it about thier method of investigation that is superior. What results do they gather more evidential or better than that of Law order and purpose?
trixie you and your position cant even get out of the gate to formulate an argument against the metod of ID, muchless its data and conclusions
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Trixie, posted 01-09-2012 4:41 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Larni, posted 01-10-2012 3:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 244 of 358 (647498)
01-10-2012 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Butterflytyrant
01-09-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
How can ID, requiring a SUPERNATURAL designer, be an investigation into the NATURAL world? Is that not a direct contradiction?
It appears you have only casually looked at what is being discussed and debated. We are discussing processes, not conclusions.
.
My biggest problem with this claim, every time you make it, is that you believe that not only is there purpose to everything, but there is evidence to be found to show that purpose.
Instead of taking sides or misapplying and confusing processes with conclusions, think in strict rational and logical terms.
we are comparing investigative processes. we are looking at the results of those processes. We are seeing if the results of those processes are verifiable
If the process and the results of those processes are valid, why should they not be taught as a scientific method to the explanation of the existence of things, in the science classroom. To this point no one has even addressed the method i set out to Droso
You will need to explain the purpose behind the sky being blue.
I look forward to your answer.
Prepratory to me answering your questions, it is customary for you to atleast address the points I have raised
But since you asked. I guess before we even ask why the sky is blue we should explore the reasons that made it that way. Is there any REASON to understand how it is, that it is blue. Is there an ordered process? Why, yes there is
Some purposes are more evident than others. Isnt it interesting that you didnt ask, what is the purpose of the eyes. Or what is the purpose of the brain. Lets assume for a moment that God does exist. The purpose of the moon, not only to control the tides, was to provide a type of light. So if the sky being blue is a result of atmospheric proceses, then it could also serve as a pleasant view for man to observe, much like a sunet or a rainbow
Dont forget to provide the evidence that shows this purpose
How did I do so far. Are you prepared to demonstrate it otherwise
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 9:48 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-10-2012 4:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 245 of 358 (647499)
01-10-2012 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Tangle
01-09-2012 9:33 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Can you point to a body of peer reviewed papers published in recognised science periodicals that support your 'science' so that educationalists could knock together a curriculum?
Prepratory to any questions and related concerns, you might have, it is usually customary in any debate to address and respond in argument form to the proposition I have set out
So to continue in the same vein, I would ask you to demonstrate why what I set out to Droso, is not a scientific investigation or method.
To answer your question however, you do realize that the rational, valid investigive method has been around much longer, than any so called SM
You also realize that observable Law and order has been demonstratable and was a fact of investigation, before anyone decided to look for the tenets of the ToE. You also that it is not necessary to repeadley confirm that which is know to be true
If you believe that the tenets of the ToE are confirmed and valid, is there any need to keep confirming thier validity
the peer review you request has been available in investigative and rational form, since anyone was able to think
I dont need someone to agree with my proposition, I simply need someone anyone to show why the investigation, is not an investigation. Why its tenets as I have set them out, are not demonstratable by the process. Why the tenetsof its process are not the same as those demonstrated by the ToE
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Tangle, posted 01-09-2012 9:33 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 3:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 246 of 358 (647500)
01-10-2012 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by jar
01-09-2012 8:56 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Intelligent Design is not fit for the Science Classroom.
There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer.
It would be a valid subject for a Religion, Creative Writing or Fiction classroom.
That would not be true, even if that is what we were talking about at this point, it is not. We are discussing process, data gathered and methodologies. Since we are not discussing that which you have misapplied presently, as usual, your comment makes no sense at all
Please try and to stay up with the conversation or avoid moronic comments such as yours above
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 8:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 3:29 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 257 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 8:37 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 247 of 358 (647502)
01-10-2012 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 12:47 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Dawn Bertot writes:
Prepratory to any questions and related concerns, you might have, it is usually customary in any debate to address and respond in argument form to the proposition I have set out etc
So the answer is no then. You can't point to a body of work, agreed by the scientific community, so that the education system could create a science subject called Law and Order to be taught in science class.
Then how and why should they?

Life, don't talk to me about life. (Marvin the Paranoid Android)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:11 AM Tangle has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 248 of 358 (647503)
01-10-2012 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 12:44 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Is there evidence of Law order and Purpose in the Natural world, why yes there is. If the the ToE is true because it can demonstrate Natural selection and Change, wouldnt it be true the ToLO&P was true, if it can demonstrate Law, order and purpose
Are you so ignorant that you would deny the complex order that exist in the things I have mentioned
Please substantiate this, post a link where you have already done so or post a link where somebody else has.
Please substantiate that order means ID.
Why is that so difficult?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:16 AM Larni has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 249 of 358 (647504)
01-10-2012 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 12:52 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
The reason that you and I got into this discussion is because you suggested that ID should be taught in science class and that's what we're supposed to comment on. It's up to you to support your position that it does belong there. So far you've failed to do that, you've provided no details of what you call your evidence, nor your methods. You keep claiming that you've provided these, but you haven't. Unless you're prepared to do so, instead of saying "Well it looks ordered so someone must have given it order", this conversation is pointless.
I'm expecting you to cry "Victory" because I'm not wasting any more time on dishonest debate tactics. You may be a great debater (according to you), but that means squat when facts are involved. No matter how well you debate that the facts are different, it doesn't matter, because they'll still be the same at the end.
I'm not the only one demanding that you produce the information which you want us to examine. If you want it examined, then produce it already! Otherwise this is pointless.
Jar is spot on with his comment.
ABE Earlier Drosophila tried to explain to you why the two ideas are mutually exclusive and you disagreed. You seem to think that they can exist together. They can't. One states that an intelligent designer is required and the other states that an intelligent designer is NOT required. By the way, who is your intelligent designer?
Edited by Trixie, : Final para added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:52 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(4)
Message 250 of 358 (647507)
01-10-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 12:46 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Hey DB,
My comment - How can ID, requiring a SUPERNATURAL designer, be an investigation into the NATURAL world? Is that not a direct contradiction?
your reply - It appears you have only casually looked at what is being discussed and debated. We are discussing processes, not conclusions.
How is this then? - How can the process of ID, requiring a SUPERNATURAL designer, be an investigation into the NATURAL world? Is that not a direct contradiction?
If the process and the results of those processes are valid, why should they not be taught as a scientific method to the explanation of the existence of things, in the science classroom.
If the ID process (a process that has as yet been undefined) requires the hand of a supernatural being or any other magic, then it does not belong in the classroom.
Imagine the scene in the classroom -
Today class we will be studying the process where water, once cooled to a sufficient temperature becomes ice. The process involves the liquid being steadily cooled, then at the point where it reaches zero, magic intervenes and makes it solid.
Would you stay in that class? If it needs magic, then it is not science.
Prepratory to me answering your questions, it is customary for you to atleast address the points I have raised
WTF? The first sentence of the message you replied to is -
Hey Dawn,
I am still waiting for a reply to Message 193
But I also wanted to reply to some things in your recent post.
How about you practice what you preach? I am still waiting for a reply to the original message. I have reminded you twice, this being the third time.
The points you have raised have already been dealt with by other posters anyway.
But since you asked. I guess before we even ask why the sky is blue we should explore the reasons that made it that way. Is there any REASON to understand how it is, that it is blue. Is there an ordered process? Why, yes there is
Avoiding the question is not answering the question.
Some purposes are more evident than others. Isnt it interesting that you didnt ask, what is the purpose of the eyes. Or what is the purpose of the brain. Lets assume for a moment that God does exist. The purpose of the moon, not only to control the tides, was to provide a type of light. So if the sky being blue is a result of atmospheric proceses, then it could also serve as a pleasant view for man to observe, much like a sunet or a rainbow
eyes or brain? I gave you a variety of things. Take your pick. I will ignore the random drifting. Lets assume for a moment that gods exists? There lay your problem. As soon as you need to involve a magician, your idea is toast. Gone. Nothing after that. You cant introduce magic into a science classroom.
How did I do so far. Are you prepared to demonstrate it otherwise
exaclty as expected. Terrible. You have illustrated that you need magic. That means it is not science.
You have also not been able to descibe the purpose of the sky being blue, the method by which you assertained this answer or the data that lead you to the conclusion.
That would be three stikes.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : changed 'gods exits' to 'god exists' as that is quite important to the sentence.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:39 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

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


(3)
Message 251 of 358 (647530)
01-10-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dawn Bertot
01-08-2012 8:14 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Drosophilla: I would far rather have short sentences and shortish posts than a dozen paragraphs of exuberant verbosity!
DB: Ill give it a shot, its not always easy
No shit Sherlock!
When long-winded posts become your norm one is led to suspect that smoke and mirrors are being used to disguise the actual content of your posts.
So to your roots:
You go on and on about Law and Purpose in the observable universe' as that is some crowning definitive point. Actually human observation (without detailed examination) is worth diddly squat:
The world 'looks' on observation to be flat - detailed study shows this is nonsense
The sun looks on observation to go round the Earth - detailed study shows this to be nonsense.
The stars in the sky look on observation to be uniformly at the same distance (the ancients thought the night sky had 'holes' in it and the firmament was shining through the holes') - detailed study shows this is nonsense.
Matter looks on observation to be solid and can only be in one place at once - detailed study shows this to be nonsense....
had enough yet?
You CANNOT declare by fiat that things are as they are because they are observed to be so. That was the position of the Church in times gone by - and partly explains why we had the Dark Ages.
So your whole idea of the Tol.O.P is fundamentally flawed from the get go - because you are using an observation not backed up by experimental evidence.
Now onto the subject of Intelligent Design. Anyone with even a small understanding of biological systems knows that 'life on Earth' is the epitome of non-intelligent design. Life-forms abound with jury-rigged sub-optimal (even dangerous adaptions - why have one pipe for both eating and breathing so allowing a choking option).
This isn't the thread to start examples of non-intelligent design in Life on Earth - there are such threads on here (e.g. Recurrent Laryngeal nerve), but any biologist will tell you that if Life on Earth had been designed by an intelligence then that intelligence should have his licence revoked for engineering stupidity.
The point is that life on earth points to a non-intelligent design view NOT one of intelligence - and THAT is what any student studying biology would be FORCED to come to (forced by the weight of REAL WORLD evidence that is.
All you could say about ID in the science classroom would be a short paragraph as follows:
"Dear pupils - although there LOOKS to be order and purpose in the life forms of this planet, detailed science studies in many fields from cosmology to geology, shows that in fact this viewpoint should be taken with extreme caution.
If there is an intelligent designer that will be apparent in the way in which life is arranged on this planet. We will now look at REAL WORLD evidence to see in fact whether there is evidence for a designer or of blind processes. It can only be one or the other....what predictions do you make pupils?"
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-08-2012 8:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:20 AM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:23 AM Drosophilla has not replied
 Message 262 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 2:11 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 269 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:41 AM Drosophilla has not replied

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


Message 252 of 358 (647532)
01-10-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Tangle
01-10-2012 3:20 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
So the answer is no then. You can't point to a body of work, agreed by the scientific community, so that the education system could create a science subject called Law and Order to be taught in science class.
Then how and why should they?
Because I have given the methodology
As I pointed out earlier my friend, what you are doing is called a 'smokescreen' in debating. You ask question anfter question to distract your audience from the FACT rthat you have not answered or addressed the original contention
Wheather I have 1, 3 or 15,000 people that agree with my proposition is irrelevant to the fact that you have provided no response to its arguments
Here are the questions again
Please provide the evidence that any investigatioin into the natural world and the data that IDs method gathers is not actual evidence, nor that its method is not science
Please provide the evidence that Law, Order and purpose does not exists in those observations
Please provide for example why the Eye, brain and any substructure of any given organism is not an ordered process and cannot be identified as such.
No more distractions, just get started with your obligations
Have fun
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 3:20 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 8:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 01-10-2012 1:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 2:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 253 of 358 (647534)
01-10-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Larni
01-10-2012 3:28 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Please substantiate this, post a link where you have already done so or post a link where somebody else has.
Please substantiate that order means ID.
Why is that so difficult?
You clearly have not been paying attention either. We are not comparing my conclusion of a designer with your process, leaving off your conclusion of Soley natural causes. That can and will come later
If you decide to take up the obligation that I have provided in the previous post, then simply answer the questions and provide the argumentation as to why our Process is not science
Please try and do this with something other than, "I dont like it"
Thsi debate is between me and you in your posts, not me you and 15000 people I need to support me
You and I should be able to stand or fall with our own propositions, correct?
Are you a man or a mouse Larni
Dawn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Larni, posted 01-10-2012 3:28 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Larni, posted 01-10-2012 9:50 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 254 of 358 (647536)
01-10-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
You go on and on about Law and Purpose in the observable universe' as that is some crowning definitive point. Actually human observation (without detailed examination) is worth diddly squat:
It seems you are even further behind than the other two.
Since this is not what men like francis Collins do, it would follow that your contention is nonsense
Please demonstrate why thier investigations are not investigations. Please show why the data gathered is not ligitimate or actual, in the conclusion of an intricate ordered process
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 8:07 AM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Granny Magda, posted 01-10-2012 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 264 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 4:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 255 of 358 (647537)
01-10-2012 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Now onto the subject of Intelligent Design
hardly,
Im sorry, I fail to see where you have got started with the original arguments I had set out.
You promised to pick it apart, then trailed off into something non-related to that specific obligation
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 8:07 AM Drosophilla has 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