The meaning of "meaning"

Im glad atleast one of you decided to ask the question, in connection with this debate.Rules of evidence should be the same in all fact finding situations and the same in deciding what should be adhered to as FACT.My point that Woodsey wont touch, is simply that he believes evolution to be a demonstratable fact.Yet theism and Christianity follow the same rules of evidence, covering different material.If evolution is not a fact, in the strictest sense of the word, why is it being touted as such,. Simply put you cant have one set of rules for one group and another for anotherlast but not least, none of the evidence put forward could be considered a FAILURe, as he has so boldly assrtedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Evolution is a fact.But you still did not answer the question. What should the rules of evidence be?Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

D Bertot writesW writes:when I see these kinds of comments I see a person that hasnt been debating very long, or hasnt actually learned how argumentation works or develops.Thats ok thoughhe doesnt understand that any of the traditional arguments for the existence of God still stand as proofs for his existence. For them to be removed, or considered failures.Not seeing God is not evidence that for example design is not actually design. the first instinct is that there is obvious and appearnt design. how for example would you demonstrate no design, when it is orchestrated in such a designed fashion.The design is proof of itself, not believing the demonstratable or obvious, does not remove it from its obvious reality of some form of order, which is a viable believable, demonstratable proof for the existence of a creator.Not liking that doesnt chnge the obviousExplaining how things work in conjunction with eachother
the proofs remain, the specifcs of scripture and its proofs remain, even when it is asserted to not be evidence.Dawn Bertot Ah Im sure you want it to be irrelevant, but unless you can show me evolution first hand, you have no business proclaiming it a fact, THAT IS IF WE FOLLOW YOUR RULESEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How did you come to the conclusion thatevolution (biological macro evolution) and its claims, evidences and so-called evidence was a fact?Can I use the same rules and perponderances you did for my claims? how do my claims differ from your rules.But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrarynow perhaps you could set out your rules of evidenceDawn Bertot

So once again you do not tell me what the rules of evidence should be. I'm sorry but there are no rules of evidence in that statement. I looked at the evidence that is the earth we live on. The oldest layers show no life, then simple life, then as we move to increasingly younger layers we find different life forms.Those are facts.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How did you come to the conclusion thatevolution (biological macro evolution) and its claims, evidences and so-called evidence was a fact? Even if it were a tenative fact, what would this mean in disproving the existence of Godwhen I say YOUR CONCLUSION concerning evo, i dont mean all the physical data, but the method of reasoning for its conclusionsCan I use the same rules and perponderances you did for my claims? how do my claims differ from your rules.But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrarynow perhaps you could set out your rules of evidenceDawn Bertot

Yawn.I physically handled much of the evidence and it is the physical evidence that led to my conclusions.I laid out the data above. LOLWhen you present some idea of what the rules should be we can discuss them but as of now you have avoided present what you think the rules of evidence should be. Yes, you have repeated that word salad many times but there is no content or rules laid out in that statement.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

[qs]But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrary [qs] You really havent been doing this very long have you? Are you familiar with the term 'Wave of the hand debating', you cant simply assert there are no rules in my above statement, wave your hand and makeit go awayyou need to demonstrate why they are not obvious rulesYou would be laughed out and probably carried out of the polemic arena, were you in an actual live public debate Great now we are getting somewhere, so you used a rule of evidence, that made you conclude that a process may have happened in a certain way, but not knowing absolutley and conclusively, yet you still believe it happened in that way never actually having seen the actual eventssecondly, what does it do to your theory if these facts as you present them are contested in any serious fashion by other experts? are your facts then not facts?Just a thoughtDawn bertot

sorry doubleEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yawn. No, it did not use a rule of evidence.I just held a rock in my hand. No, my facts would remain facts.Should someone present an alternative explanation then I would of course have to reexamine my conclusion but the facts would still remain facts.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

jar please try and maintain an adult attitude about this discussion, quit letting you temperment get in the way, your immature feelings are clouding our discussionsecondly, think deeper at present than any any physical aspect of what we are discussing, not the data but the method of reasoning in you logic that allowed your conclusionsD Bertot

Deeper? Yawn.I held the evidence in my hands. The data is what drives the conclusions. It is the data.It really is that simple.Oldest rocks ---> no signs of life.Younger rocks ---> simple lifestill younger rocks ----> greater diversity of life formsas we move to younger and younger rocks we find life forms change, evolve.Data. Simply data.It really is that simple.Bring me the physical data.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

jar please try and maintain an adult attitude about this discussion, quit letting you temperment get in the way, your immature feelings are clouding our discussionsecondly, think deeper at present than any physical aspect of what we are discussing, not the data but the method of reasoning in you logic that allowed your conclusions Again, demonstrate why there are no rules in that sentence, dont just assert itD Bertot

I am not the person making the claim that there are rules in that word salad. If there are rules in that word salad then please educate me, show them to me.And "think deeper" will never get more than a yawn from me.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then your only logical conclusion is that you actually saw the events of evolution actually happen, if you did not use a rule of evidence in that situation, then that is the only possible conclusion or alternative you can offer to mehaving not actually witnessed the entire events of so-called evolution cannot be deduced from a single example. its a rule of evidence, that says it must have happened that way, without knowing or seeing all the facts.You cant be serious or taken serious, in maintaing that you are not using a rule of evidenceDawn bertot