|
Author
|
Topic: The Science in Creationism
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Well no its not a yes or no question Yes it is. Have you finished making your case? Do you have additional evidence or argumentation you would like to bring to my attention for consideration? Can I proceed, confident you won't suddenly decide some other category of evidence is of utmost importance? These are not trick questions. They are not loaded questions.
Trust me your purpose is not clear to me why you posted them Wow. You will go to extreme lengths, even to the point of looking like a fool, to avoid answering simple questions. OK, I'll ask an easier question, What did I quote you as saying immediately before I posted the Darwin quotes? I'll make it trivially easy for you, it was in Message 679 Some of Dawn Bertot's greatest hits from this thread:
quote:
Please answer those questions
quote:
Refusing to answer a simple question...is intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty
quote:
Part of debating is Answering direct questions.
quote:
you actually justify yourself ignoring simple obvious truths, with silliest of terms and ideas
quote:
I'm trying to demonstrate the lengths you fellas will go to avoid simple truth.
quote:
You need to demonstrate a question I've asked is irrelevant You see How You avoid answering
quote:
You still didn't answer my queztion.
You like to demand answers to simple questions but there is little simpler than, "Have you finished making your case?" If you wanted to look like a hypocrite, you are doing well.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Really so it's not an axiom that things exist, until people decided it No. It was a fact before there were any people to observe it, but not an axiom.
Definition of axiom.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
and the beat goes on...
No. It was a fact before there were any people to observe it, but not an axiom. And purpose just like an axiom is a human construct. A blind man may still have eyes. A paraplegic still has legs and a Creationist still has fantasy. But Dawn Bertot has still never shown any evidence of The Science in Creationism.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Two definitions (again)...
Dawn writes: ...because they don't meet your jack ass Scientific Method approach, which I have demonstrated to many times to mention doesnt ANSWER ANY CONCLUSIONS ON EITHER SIDE WITH ABSOLUTE PROOF. Here are a couple of definitions for you to learn from:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source] When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith. Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this. Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof. The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration! So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source
That you keep harping on the "inadequacy" of the scientific method and misusing the well-defined terms of science speaks poorly for your knowledge of either. Is it too much to ask that you actually learn something about science and how it works before posting long rants against it?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
Message 710 of 986 (784269)
05-15-2016 6:52 PM
|
|
|
Explanations
Mod: Dawn, why does Opium make you sleepy?
Dawn: "Because there is in it a dormitive power whose nature it is to lull the senses to sleep" {Moliere, The Imaginary Invalid, 1673}
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 711 of 986 (784279)
05-15-2016 11:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 706 by Modulous
05-15-2016 7:36 AM
|
|
Yes it is. Have you finished making your case? Do you have additional evidence or argumentation you would like to bring to my attention for consideration? Can I proceed, confident you won't suddenly decide some other category of evidence is of utmost importance? These are not trick questions. They are not loaded questions. Well that is not the question you asked. You asked, "Is that all you have", and yes it is a loaded question for two reasons. One. It implies that I would need something else to establish my case I, dont, as I have demonstrated Two, it makes it appear as though YOU and your Scientific Method are the standard, you and it are not, as I have demonstrated, that's why we are debating
Wow. You will go to extreme lengths, even to the point of looking like a fool, to avoid answering simple questions.
OK, I'll ask an easier question, And you will stop at no length to make it appear as though you are and your method are the standard by which truth is established, you are not But to show you I am not hypocritical, unobjective or evasive, simply ask me a direct question, without underlying motives or indirect implication. Try honesty and objectivity it always works best Modulous, Well wait a minute for you guys it doesnt, ignoring the obvious is your creed. So if I was to answer with a direct yes, that I'm finished making my case, what, we are done, because you disagree? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 706 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 7:36 AM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 720 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2016 8:27 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 712 of 986 (784281)
05-16-2016 12:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 709 by Coyote
05-15-2016 11:07 AM
|
|
Re: Two definitions (again)...
Is it too much to ask that you actually learn something about science and how it works before posting long rants against it? Parroting what you were taught Coyote, is not the same as demonstrating that intricate order and purpose are NOT axiomatic, due to and as a result of reality. Imagining that axiomatic truths are a human construct demonstrates the fallacy of the Scientific method and ignores simple truth I don't have to eat out of a trash can to know it's garbage. And your below quote demonstrates why
Proof:Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Like I told Faith, you guys invent ways to ignore truth Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 709 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2016 11:07 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
No. It was a fact before there were any people to observe it, but not an axiom. And things don't really exist, if I imagine they don't correct? Because Dawn's human construct decided they don't exist, or,that they might not really exist You fellas are wackadoo!!!!!!!! Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 714 of 986 (784283)
05-16-2016 12:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 701 by AZPaul3
05-15-2016 1:37 AM
|
|
The problem is that purpose is a construct that has no reality outside human perception, and different people can have different perceptions of what is the purpose of something. You confuse purpose with function. They are not the same. Wow that's funny stuff. So what would be the other purpose of the eye, other than the Purpose of seeing, based on the idea of different perceptions, that the human construct could imagine. Given the idea according to your contention, that I only imagine purpose. Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 701 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2016 1:37 AM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
And things don't really exist, if I imagine they don't correct? The insane things you write are never correct. This would be a particularly flagrant example.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 713 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-16-2016 12:11 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Show Us The Evidence
So what would be the other purpose of the eye ... Do you have evidence that the eye has any purpose (as distinct from having a function)? If so, please show us the evidence.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Two definitions (again)...
Imagining that axiomatic truths are a human construct demonstrates the fallacy of the Scientific method and ignores simple truth Truths are not a human construct. Axioms are. However much you hate the English language, you are unable to change it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 712 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-16-2016 12:00 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 718 of 986 (784290)
05-16-2016 2:17 AM
|
|
|
About this topic
Im glad I put this thing in Free For All! 
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 5.0
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
So what would be the other purpose of the eye, other than the Purpose of seeing ... I try to lead you out of your semantical hole but you just turn around and jump back in.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
You asked, "Is that all you have", and yes it is a loaded question for two reasons. One. It implies that I would need something else to establish my case I, dont, as I have demonstrated... So if I was to answer with a direct yes, that I'm finished making my case, what, we are done, because you disagree? No, I have to show you are wrong, which I can now do knowing there is no hidden parts to your argument. You know, advancing the discussion. Not a trick question. Not a loaded question. You impugn my honour with the implication I am up to something nefarious. This is not the way to fix the faith you broke. So now we have two new questions 1. What is Science? 2. What is Creationism? From this I will show that either you are not talking about creationism, or creationism doesn't meet your own standards of science, or that your definition of science results in absurdity. Unfortunately, because you neglected to answer it the last time I asked, I have to ask this third one again: 3. What did I quote you as saying immediately before I posted the Darwin quotes? To repeat myself - I am asking to give you an opportunity to prove to me you are actually reading my posts and taking the time to try and understand what I am saying. Having to ask you repeatedly does not bolster my confidence. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2