Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2018 6:16 AM
190 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,019 Year: 11,842/29,783 Month: 864/1,642 Week: 278/460 Day: 3/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 271 of 358 (647722)
01-11-2012 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Granny Magda
01-10-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Uh, Dawn...
You do know that Francis Collins is opposed to the ID movement don't you?

Uh, granny you do know he does believe in God, correct? Or atleast he see evidence of such
[qs]quote:

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.

Mr collins is not denying that order and law exist, as a matter of fact he is explains that in the next quote

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

he is responding to a religious view of ID. Since ID in its basic componets is only an investigation, it follows that he is not denying an investgative process

.

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.

In this instance Mr Collins, like yourself need to demonstrate why the words creationism and Id are not just words to explain an investigative process. reality determins the definition of words, not the other way around

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.

Notice no where in this explanation does Mr collins suggest that there is not an ordered process, even if it were by an evo process. His mistake is identifying ID with irreducible complexity. IDs basis is Law and Order, not irreducible complexity

Science will always demonstrate law and order. That what science is, that is What the processof Id is

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.

He was not addressing what I am advocating.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Granny Magda, posted 01-10-2012 9:30 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 272 of 358 (647723)
01-11-2012 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Taq
01-10-2012 1:34 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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.

My simple friend. Falsifiability is a tool we use in science to assist us in understanding and finding some things. It is not a law like the law of gravity or the eixstence of reality. If It were a hard fast rule like say reality, there would be no way to falsify that reality is actually real

On the other hand, if it is always necessary to falsify something for it to be absolutely true, then either reality does not actually exist or the rule does not extend or apply in such cases

Law, Order and purpose is one of the areas that the falsifiability principle does not extend, because by the very nature of the case there is nothing in existence that does NOT exhibit, law and order. The substructures of all life, even to its base, exhibit working laws and order to purposes

Things that are ture and are always true, need not be falsified to be true or science. You have over applied the rule of falsifiability

If I am not correct, how would the principle of falsification apply to the reality of existence itself

From Wiki:
"Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it."

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 01-10-2012 1:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 11:55 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 273 of 358 (647724)
01-11-2012 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Coyote
01-10-2012 2:01 PM


Re: Rock drops on foot
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.

Wow, just try and follow along with what i am saying and maybe you will have something to contribute in a comment

Im not debating the resultsof that court decision. Im pointing out its mistakes

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2012 2:01 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 01-11-2012 1:29 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 277 by Trixie, posted 01-11-2012 4:06 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 274 of 358 (647726)
01-11-2012 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 4:25 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
But I've already easily demonstrated that casual observation is worthless...here's another one.

No one is contending for casual observations, that is a misrepresentationof my position. I believe I mentioned substructures of all living things correct? What do we see when we examine the substructures, regardless of thier complication?

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.

Once you use this process will you observe order and law in its organization? can you predict that said properties will follow the same pattern of order, when another sample of the samthing is studied?

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!

These are simplistic misrepresentationsof what I am advocating

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???

The processes you describe will produce a ordered and lawful world, correct? Identifiable purposes, correct? Regardless of how complicated they may appear or not appear, correct?

Common sense and middle world view points are secondary to the reality of Order and Law. It should be obvious that that which you describe as opposites of the middle world, were created, put in place to produce the identifiable order and law in the middle world.

Admitting this is in no way precludes the idea that such order does not exist in those worlds either

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.

On the contrary my friend. Until you can demonstrate that Law and order do not exist, when in fact they are demonstratable at every turn, yours is just another investigation to demonstrate that point

Do you not understand that in defining and describing the mechanics of the microscopic world, you have confirmed its properties as law abiding. When the results of the mircoscopic world are actualized, they produce the grandest of order and law, in the middle world, as you describe it

There is so much law, order andpurpose in this so-called world, you confirm this principle in either of the other two

Whether it was by the process of evolution or not, the brain has very intricate and detailed parts, working in harmony and order to a clear purpose. Order doesnt need your approval for it to be order. The brain at its substructure operates and functions from what you desribe as eradict behavior. If it is indeed is eradict as you suggest, it would not produce such detailed order and purpose, now would it

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"

Like Jar my friend, you would need to demonstrate absolutely that the things that do exist, were not designed to operate in that fashion and to follow that course of existence for it to not be science

The fact that only you and a band of creationists think otherwise against that great body of people should tell you something.

Wrong. The investigation has to extend past your immediate or tenative conlcusions of data. If its not absolutely knowable how these came about, it falls to what is demonstratable from the evidence in the form of a logical proposition

The ToE has to have conclusion. Since that conclusion cannot be demonstrated, all logical possibilites that correspond to the evidence have to be demonstrtated not to be science, for them not to be taught as science

Both IDs process of investigation and its conclusion can be demonstrated in the investigation and in any given property in the natural world. Whether it is mircroscopic or granderous, it produces an ordered and law abiding world, correct? It produces identifiable results and purposes, correct?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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 264 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 4:25 PM Drosophilla has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 275 of 358 (647727)
01-11-2012 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Wow, just try and follow along with what i am saying and maybe you will have something to contribute in a comment

Im not debating the resultsof that court decision. Im pointing out its mistakes

And you would be wrong.

You are letting belief get in the way of learning, and that's the exact opposite of science.

Face it, it has been clearly demonstrated that ID is creationism in disguise. You even admitted it upthread.

Unfortunately for IDers, that disguise isn't fooling anyone, just as creation "science" didn't fool anyone.

Why can't you folks just be honest about it? You are peddling religion and everyone knows it. Why try to hide it?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:48 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 1:34 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 276 of 358 (647728)
01-11-2012 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Coyote
01-11-2012 1:29 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
And you would be wrong.

You are letting belief get in the way of learning, and that's the exact opposite of science.

Face it, it has been clearly demonstrated that ID is creationism in disguise. You even admitted it upthread.

Unfortunately for IDers, that disguise isn't fooling anyone, just as creation "science" didn't fool anyone.

Why can't you folks just be honest about it? You are peddling religion and everyone knows it. Why try to hide it?

This is simply grandstanding on your part. It is no actual argument to numerous posts I have produced just this evening. Your time and post would have been better spent in responding to an actual argument

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 01-11-2012 1:29 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 4:12 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1566 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 277 of 358 (647737)
01-11-2012 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Im not debating the resultsof that court decision. Im pointing out its mistakes

Given that you have not once made reference to the judgement "pointing out its mistakes" prior to this post, this is news to me. You've stated more than once that you have no idea about what was argued in court, you've assumed that the argument in favour of teaching "creation" in science class was wrongly put, to paraphrase you. I hate to tell you this, but they made a better attempt than you have here and it still fell flat. At least, on occasion, they did answer questions put to them.

Until you supply the evidence which many posters have repeatedly asked you for, you are failing to make your case. Instead you're trying to use a smoke screen to hide the lack of substance in your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:48 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:01 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5972
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 278 of 358 (647738)
01-11-2012 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 1:34 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Dawn Bertot writes:

Your time and post would have been better spent in responding to an actual argument

As we're all obviously missing something here, perhaps this would be a good time to restate what your argument actually is?

It may just be me, but I have no clue what you're banging on about. It seems simply to be that you see order in the world - a fact that no-one will argue about.

Of course, believers see the order and infer an order-maker, which is of course God, but this is an ancient argument that we've all heard it many, many times - so what else are you saying that needs our attention?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 1:34 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:35 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2282 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 279 of 358 (647741)
01-11-2012 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Hello DB,

You are following your standard pattern as expected.

This is title of my first message to you in this thread -

This will be a total waste of time...

And it looks like this will be a total waste of time.

My comment - 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.

Your reply - 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

Does this mean you cant answer the question? This seems to be your way of dodging a question.

My question is in regards to the ID process. I am not 'lumping' it in with any conclusions. It is a stand alone question. No conclusions mentioned.

We are only at present discussing the process and its results.

Oh, so we are discussing process? So why cant you answer my question regarding ID process? Wouldn't a discussion of process and results be a discussion of process and conclusions?

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.

the process of IDs method? What are you talking about? Seriously Dawn, do you even know what the fuck you are saying? What law and order are you taling about? What BIOLOGICAL standpoint are you referring to when discussing something that does not have life? Like the colour of the sky!

Sionce I can see thelaw and ordered process that brought it together, the process is not so necessary.

The law and ordered process that you cannot explain to anyone else? The process is not necessary? I dont care about the process. I dont care how the sky appears to be blue or how it appears blue to a person. I am asking you to tell me the purpose of the sky being blue, the method by which you have assertained this answer and the data that lead you to this conclusion.

Its purpose may simply be to provide man with a view much like that of a sunset

If this is your answer, then I am going to call you on your bullshit. The purpose of the sky being blue is to provide humans with a nice view? Please provide the method by which you have assertained this answer. Please include the experiments that you have performed and the data that you have collected.

You seem to believe that your idea is better or equal to the scientific method, now is your chance to back it up.

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.

We dont know what your method actually is. You wont tell us. How are we supposed to evaluate your method if you are keeping it a secret? If your initial investigation starts with a requirement of magic, then it will not be a scientific approach.

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

So you are telling me that i will need to make a judgement on a method that you wont describe, then make further judgements using definitions of law and order that that only you use and wont explain?

Are you starting to see what the challenge is for the opposition?

The challenge is making any sense of what you are proposing. Our challenge is to even understand the random babbling bullshit that makes up your posts and then get you to see the huge fucking problems with it. It is quite the challenge. It is nice that you recognise it.

A personal chllenge is getting you to answer the questions I asked you around 80 posts ago.

I have reminded you theree times already.

This is your forth reminder now.

Can you and will you reply to this post -Message 193 ?


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 268 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:07 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 280 of 358 (647755)
01-11-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 4:25 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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.

When I can by very specific investigation identify, an already complicated in itself, single cell, dividing and then mutiplying countless millions of times to form ordered structures of life, we consider this very specific detailed and mutiplied order and law, as just that Law and detailed order, consistent over and over

When I can by very specific repeated and predicted measurements study the same process over and over and over and over, since the beginning of time. It points out the finest constant and harmonious order of life

When I can only explain the process and can provide no absolute answer as to its intiation in by existnce itself, it falls to the logical proposition and best evidence against such realites.

The method of investigation is science, its observations and data are accurate. Its conclusion are consistant with any rational argumet as to the explanation of life

If you think that Soley natural causes are the explanation for such magnificent and detailed order, then like Jar you will have to provide exact evidence for the existence of life to make your theory the absolutely accurate one.

Since your method will only take you so far, its is logical to assume you have no direct evidence as to its appearance and intitiation. Like me you can only explain and gather detailed informationas to how it operates

Until then the Law and order exhibited in that which I have JUST described and its method are as as valid as any attempts to explain it in any other fashion

Your free to demonstrate otherwise by simple argumentation, for I am confident you will not be able to provide such evidence in an examination of the natural world

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 4:25 PM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Drosophilla, posted 01-12-2012 8:06 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 281 of 358 (647757)
01-11-2012 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Trixie
01-11-2012 4:06 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
I hate to tell you this, but they made a better attempt than you have here and it still fell flat. At least, on occasion, they did answer questions put to them.

Again I am not debating thier propositions, I am debating my propositions. Instead of grandstanding simply point out the information or question you think I have not answered and I will explain it from my context

I have spent a large amount of time responding to nearly every post, but you disregard them and thorw oout insults and accusations

Try doing what I have asked you to do


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Trixie, posted 01-11-2012 4:06 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:20 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 282 of 358 (647759)
01-11-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Butterflytyrant
01-11-2012 4:30 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
We dont know what your method actually is. You wont tell us. How are we supposed to evaluate your method if you are keeping it a secret? If your initial investigation starts with a requirement of magic, then it will not be a scientific approach.

Wow. Butterfly or should I say mallethead. The SM and the ToE can only explain the process of existence, they cannot provide any ultimate answers. Therfore any alterante explantion by its verified process has to be examined for its potential as an explanation

The ToLO&P, falls squarely withing only two demonstratable explanations. If its does not then it needs to be demonstrated in logical fashion why it does not serve as analternate explanation. Simply put that cannot be done in anysenseof the word rational, as I have now demonstrated over and over

To this point and sicnce the Dawn of thinking, it has never been NOT explained as an alternate explanation. It cnnot be demonstrated, to not be scientific in its process, as I have now demonstrated over and over

Jars illogical and nonsensical attempt to do this by pretending he has evidence of soley natural causes, is just one attempt at a failed attempt, as I have now demonstrated over and over in rational and logical form

Taq's attempt to classify it as non-science by falsification, doesnt work either, as I have demonstrated.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-11-2012 4:30 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 8:34 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 299 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3953
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 283 of 358 (647761)
01-11-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:01 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Instead of grandstanding simply point out the information or question you think I have not answered and I will explain it from my context

You have not substantiated that Order, Purpose etc are real measurable things and how they can be identified and that these indicate ID.

60 odd post on this thread and you have yet to do so.

You can't just say "I have observed it, so let it be so".

If you think that Soley natural causes are the explanation for such magnificent and detailed order, then like Jar you will have to provide exact evidence for the existence of life to make your theory the absolutely accurate one.

Well I just looked out of my office window and, yep. There is evidence of the existance of life.

I hesitate to say it but, could jar be right? (only joking, jar )

And how like a non scientist worry that a theory is not 100% accurate. Only bible thumpers and matmaticians believe they can 100% accurate.

You wear your scientific rigour on your sleeve.

Edited by Larni, : splng

Edited by Larni, : second bulshit quote

Edited by Larni, : Just, you know, more stuff. Oh and DVD extras (havn't said that in a while). Does anyone read these 'reasons for edits'? If you do give me a cheers to let me know. Or not.

Edited by Larni, : Now this is getting silly. Remeber the messages you would get on Spectrum games if you pressed Break at the right time during loading. I loved those.


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 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:01 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:30 AM Larni has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 284 of 358 (647766)
01-11-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Larni
01-11-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
You have not substantiated that Order, Purpose etc are real measurable things and how they can be identified and that these indicate ID.

60 odd post on this thread and you have yet to do so.

You can't just say "I have observed it, so let it be so".

When you can explain away the order I have described in the single cell and what it is and what it does then you will be able to say i have not identifed order and law

ignoring what I have presented does not help your cause. Please explain away the order and law associated with that process alone. You cant even get started Larni

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:20 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 8:43 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30710
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 285 of 358 (647769)
01-11-2012 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
There is evidence of natural causes.

So far you have never presented any evidence of non-natural causes.

Until you present evidence of non-natural causes you have nothing that is science.

It really is that simple.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018