Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 256 of 358 (647543)
01-10-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:43 AM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 257 of 358 (647544)
01-10-2012 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 12:52 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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!

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

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 258 of 358 (647549)
01-10-2012 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:20 AM


Collins is Not An IDiot
Uh, Dawn...
You do know that Francis Collins is opposed to the ID movement don't you?
quote:
Carlson {interviewer}: What do you think of this statement read to the Dover, Pennsylvania public school children that the theory is just a theory and explaining briefly intelligent design? Is that that be read to kids?
Collins: It sounds as if it's a good idea to suggest anybody listening to a discussion about science to keep your mind open and to be sure that facts are actually backed up by data. But, of course, that statement is full of a lot more than scientific facts and data and concerns about them. It is a statement that reflects a battle that's going on right now. And in my view, an unnecessary battle. So let me explain why I say that. As somebody who has watched our own D.N.A. sequence emerge, our own instruction book over the course of the last few years, all three billion letters of our code, and watched how it compares with that of other species, the evidence that comes out of that kind of analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of a single origin of life from which various forms were then derived by a process which seems entirely consistent with Darwin's view of natural selection. By saying that, some people listening to my words will immediately conclude that I must therefore be opposed to any role for god in the process that's not true. But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either.
Carlson: Why?
Collins: Intelligent design is a fairly recent arrival on the scene. Been around 15 years or so. It argues that there are certain constructs in biology, certain particular features that can't be explained by evolution because they have irreduceable complexity. Take the eye, for instance. How do you develop something as complicated as the eye by a process of natural selection. It doesn't seem like that would fit with the slow gradual process where small changes get selected for. You'd never get there. The problem with that argument is biology actually is identifying multiple intermediate steps from the simplest single light-sensitive cell to something as complicated as the eye which clearly could have evolution acting upon them and result in a complicated structure. I worry about intelligent design, though I admire its advocates for wishing to put forward something in the way of a rebuttal to the idea that evolution says there's no god. And we'll come back to why I think that's an unfortunate argument. I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.
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:
Carlson: As a scientist, as a leading scientist, that's not an overstatement in your case, what evidence leads you to believe that?
Collins: Again, scientific evidence --
Carlson: Right.
Collins: I have none. But I do think there are rational arguments for the existence of god.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:45 AM Granny Magda has replied

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


(1)
Message 259 of 358 (647553)
01-10-2012 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:16 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 260 of 358 (647614)
01-10-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:46 AM Taq has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 261 of 358 (647624)
01-10-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 2:11 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:48 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 262 of 358 (647628)
01-10-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Whoops, foot flattened!
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 title

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 8:07 AM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 263 of 358 (647629)
01-10-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coyote
01-10-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Rock drops on foot
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 2:01 PM Coyote has not replied

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


(3)
Message 264 of 358 (647651)
01-10-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 1:17 AM Drosophilla has not replied
 Message 280 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 7:51 AM Drosophilla has replied

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


Message 265 of 358 (647662)
01-10-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
01-08-2012 10:38 AM


Re: other possibilities
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 !!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2012 10:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2012 5:30 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 358 (647687)
01-10-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 4:44 PM


Re: other possibilities
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.

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 265 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 4:44 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 7:15 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 267 of 358 (647698)
01-10-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
01-10-2012 5:30 PM


Re: other possibilities
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2012 5:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2012 6:41 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 268 of 358 (647719)
01-11-2012 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Butterflytyrant
01-10-2012 4:21 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-10-2012 4:21 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-11-2012 4:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 269 of 358 (647720)
01-11-2012 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 8:07 AM Drosophilla has not replied

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


Message 270 of 358 (647721)
01-11-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Tangle
01-10-2012 8:36 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 8:36 AM Tangle 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