|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: 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
I was responding to your assertion that Law, order and purpose should be taught in science classes - nothing else. You have now demonstrated that you are in a minority of one as far as the science goes. Without a scientific concensus it won't be taught so I suggest you create your own school. Good luck with that.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Oh, but Dawn it most certainly is true.
So far you have not shown any evidence of an non-natural cause. Until you present some evidence and model of how this non-natural Designer effects change ID is not a subject for Science Classes.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Uh, Dawn...
You do know that Francis Collins is opposed to the ID movement don't you?
quote: Source; faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm Collins is sympathetic to the ID crowd but he is not an ID advocate. He is not in favour of ID in classrooms. He does not utilise ID in his work. He does not think that his work provides evidence for God;
quote: Collins does believe some wacky stuff, but he is no ally of yours, not to the extent of supporting the ID movement. You would do well to read up on his views before claiming him as a comrade. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 185 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
That's all you need to say. You have no way to substantiate your assertions about Law, Order and Purpose.
That's all I needed to know. Your debate with Dros is nothing to do with me. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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 We can certainly show that your approach is not evidence and not science. You declare that physical entities have law, order, and purpose without ever defining what an object would look like that lacked such features. You then declare that any object having such undefined characteristics are the product of intelligent design by fiat. No reasoning. No potential falsifications. Just because you say so. That is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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 This issue was decided in a federal district court in the Dover decision. You may not like it, and you may disagree with it, but you can't deny that it occurred. ID was found to be creationism and that's that.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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. I've posted this before, but creationists continue to ignore it: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture): Page not found | UW Video Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of. The point is that life on earth points to a non-intelligent design view NOT one of intelligence... The lecture I have linked to shows how this could have occurred; it's very easy. Standard creationist claims are shown to be grossly in error. Edited by Coyote, : Change titleReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3727 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Coyote, he's already stated in this thread that there is no difference between ID and creationism, so he is, in fact, in total agreement with Judge Jones and the Dover judgement. You couldn't make this up!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3662 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Wow - a short post - you are to be congratulated!!
Since this is not what men like francis Collins do, it would follow that your contention is nonsense I'll let you read GM's post to see how you got this one wrong! To repeat - your 'hypothesis' is based solely upon your 'armchair observations' that you 'think' there is law, order and purpose in this world/universe. But I've already easily demonstrated that casual observation is worthless...here's another one. People in the northern hemisphere usually assume that the earth is closest to the sun in June....by the casual observation that it is warm and the days are long in June.....but detailed investigation shows this is nonsense. The sun is at perihelion (closest approach to the sun) is (in our modern times) around 3rd January. You CAN'T declare by fiat that something you THINK you have observed MUST be so. You HAVE to use multi-buttressing observational and experimental lines of enquiry. We still have flat-earthers today believe it or not. Stupid really, since they obviously have never travelled. If the sun really did go around the flat earth - how do they explain the 6 months dark and light seasons at the poles? This is an example of investigative lines of enquiry. The flat earth is removed by a series of multi-buttressing observations such as: 1. Seasons at poles and successively lower latitudes not matching a 'sun going round earth' scenario.2. Precession of planets - observed by sudden retrograde motions of the outer planets - this causes huge celestial orbital problems if earth really is at the centre of the system - but not if the sun is!! 3. Ships coming from the horizon look is if they are coming up out of the sea - masts first etc - if the world was flat they should just appear whole and intact - this is evidence of earth curvature. 4. Lunar eclipses. As the moon moves through earth's shadow, every time a shadow is seen - it is round. See how all these different disciplines multi-buttress and confirm the correct answer - we didn't even need to launch into space for the answer! So those who argued for a 'flat earth' because the 'observation' seemed to call for it were way off the mark. You do realise that human senses and our 'common sense' attitude is fitted out to make sense to us in 'middle world'? By that I mean we don't inhabit the world of the very small (atoms and smaller) or the very large (galaxies and larger). It is tempting to think that what you think of as common sense due to human observation can be applied across the full range of existence......well it can't. The very large gives way to relativity - the warping of space-time and such and is very counter intuitive to common sense. And the very small is even worse. Where photons can be both a particle and a wave - at the same time, where you can measure either position or speed (but never both together) of electrons, where particles can tunnel through solid material and where virtual particles pop up from nothing......you really want to demand that your 'view' of the world has to be correct??? You're on a delusion trip DB - what makes study into the likes of the ToE special is the multi-buttressing of disciplines like that above for the flat earth scenario. You have provided no such multi-buttressing of your ‘ideas’ and if you did you'd find it would lead to the obvious conclusion of a lack of intelligent design - just like the lack of a flat earth. All the whining and whinging from you otherwise changes not a dime. And as the scientists, educators, politicians and lawyers (e.g. the Dover trial) are all saying is "Nope ID is not science and doesn't belong in a science class" The fact that only you and a band of creationists think otherwise against that great body of people should tell you something. Children's education is our passport to the advances of the next generation and is far too an important issue to surrender to ill informed creationist panderings!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3662 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
Hi ZD
That you have proposed 4 possibilities means that your initial claim of there being only two is false, yes? There is also an additional 5th possibility: that the (deist) designer created the universe with all the laws and mechanisms in place to result in the world and universe we see today, that these are the tools used to achieve the results without any need for constant tampering or involvement. Well that's not my position actually. I got involved in this thread at the point DB wanted to bring ID into the science classes and I maintain that, based on the evidence available, there can only be two positions to debate in a science class on this issue - namely my positions 1 and 2 (either life has been guided by intelligence or it hasn't). Points 3 and 4 were me simply asking DB if he thought they were feasible (as I have tried very hard to follow his line of thought and points 3 and 4 seemed to be possibles in his wording...no mean feat trying to follow Dawn’s word salad as I'm sure you agree). But in reality as point 3 is indistinguishable from point 1 (in terms of the real world evidence at our fingertips, and point 4 is indistinguishable from point 2 (and your point 5 is also indistinguishable from point 2) then it all boils back down to the two options that life is either evidenced as being an unguided non-intelligent process or there is evidence of intelligence in the process. And the students then concentrate on real evidence to see which of these it is.
Or does this get into the how vs why aspect. How and why are different questions with different answers. I think for science classes it's a much more fundamental question of 'does the arrangement of life on this planet look guided by intelligence or not’ rather than a how or why.
An excellent idea. This is done by paraphrasing Dawn Bertot (for example) and having him agree with it -- this is an excellent way to show you understand the opposing position in any debate. If you have got the measure of Dawn in understanding him and his thought processes then you are definitely a better man than I !!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Drosophilla,
I got involved in this thread at the point DB wanted to bring ID into the science classes and I maintain that, based on the evidence available, there can only be two positions to debate in a science class on this issue - namely my positions 1 and 2 (either life has been guided by intelligence or it hasn't). And it is easy to say that we do not know the answer, but lets see what we can determine with the scientific method. Then proceed to teach how science is done and what we can know as a result. If students want to pursue concepts of ultimate cause, then they could be guided to a philosophy class. I certainly would have no objection to teaching ID in philosophy class, and the first question I would ask is: Is ID properly pursued? Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3662 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
Hi ZD
And it is easy to say that we do not know the answer, but lets see what we can determine with the scientific method. Then proceed to teach how science is done and what we can know as a result. If students want to pursue concepts of ultimate cause, then they could be guided to a philosophy class. I think the philosophy class is the perfect arena for ID. Same as the other old chestnuts such as "Do you see the colour red as I see it?" What specifically did you have in mind for applying the scientific method to the hypothesis of ID?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. I dont mean to be rude of condecending, but you are still not grasping what is being dicussed. You are still lumping the process with the conclusion We are only at present discussing the process and its results. If you will notice that the process of the IDs method identifes the law and order from a biological standpoin to explain why the sky is blue. Sionce I can see thelaw and ordered process that brought it together, the process is not so necessary. Its purpose may simply be to provide man with a view much like that of a sunset However in this discussion you would need to show why an investigation into the skies makeup was not a scientific approach, in its intial investigation. Then you would need to show why the results (the identifiable law and order in its makeup) do not follow a pattern of law and order Are you starting to see what the challenge is for the opposition? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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? Hardly, are you suggesting that the ToLO&P, will fall prey to being discovered as inaccurate, as the things you mention above.? Your examples are silly considering no information will come in that removes that which is already true. If you have the information that exists that demonstrates Law and Order dont actually exist, then just present it Law and order are as much a part of reality as reality itself. Let me know when the information comes in that disputes the fact of Law and order Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I was responding to your assertion that Law, order and purpose should be taught in science classes - nothing else. You have now demonstrated that you are in a minority of one as far as the science goes. Without a scientific concensus it won't be taught so I suggest you create your own school. Good luck with that. One or many is not relevant as to whether it is demonstratable. I presented the questions again and you refused to answer them. Oh well, my mistake I thought you were here to debate Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024