Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 6:03 AM
245 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 243 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,570 Year: 10,393/29,783 Month: 1,057/1,583 Week: 75/451 Day: 7/68 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 301 of 358 (647922)
01-12-2012 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Granny Magda
01-11-2012 9:19 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Nor do you define what words mean. Since this is exactly what you are doing - redefining ID to suit your own personal delusions - you are arguing out of step with the ID movement as a whole.

Not really, you have just from the beginning misunderstood what these words actually mean in reality

My only intention is discussing philosophy, science or ID or even creationism, is to demonstrate that they are just words. An investigation is either valid in its approach or it is not. That which you describe as Id should be applied to its methodology that closest reflects reality, not a percieved idea you or others may have of it

Philosophy, Creationism or ID are not described primarily by ther desigantions, they are defined and explained by thier processes

Since any investigation into the natural world is either valid in its approach or it is not, it is obvious that the terms have very little impact on thier usefulness in determining truth

Collins has not addressed your personal version of ID because it is unique to you and, since you are merely a single anonymous internet lunatic, he is unlikely to ever think it worth addressing.
Remember; world-renowned science professionals are not going to give a crap about you or the silly nonsense you make up as you go along.

As i have been debating these issues for nealry 40 years now, Im sure you can understand that I am not interested whether the ID movement as a whole or a renowned scientist argrees with my position

Reality and reason support it just fine. It only remains for someone to demonstrate its premises and conclusions to be invalid. As you can see, to this point it has not been done

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 2:23 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 302 of 358 (647924)
01-12-2012 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Tangle
01-11-2012 8:43 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Science can explain how most of the processes in cells work and what they do. No one could possibly disagree that these processes are ordered and follow - for want of a better word - laws. Our utter confusion is about what you are infering from this astounding insight that isn't just 'therefore goddidit.'

If that's all you're saying we'll just shrug and leave you to it

Wow, I just cant see how anyone can drift from the original point of the argument so quickly.

Tangle, what is under investigation, is the investigation process the so-called SM and the so-called, ToLO&P. Actually there is no difference, everyone feels better if they have a side.

The only position could be desribed as reality and reason. Logic and reality will not really let you go past such designations

If it makes you feel better to call it science then call it science and I will call it the ID method. Its just an investigation

what matters in the classroom, is what can be demonstrated from reality and reason

Only two valid, logical propositions can be explicated from the available evidence. Neither especially ID, has anthing to do with religion, its just an investigation by human minds

the information presented in the trial was not accurate for the reasons I have stated

I guess you can see the ultimate Iorny here, correct?

You guys cry that it is not science, it actually is, because it violates no laws of reality or reason

You guys get tripped up on terms, which blinds you to accuracy

Its me that is trying to get you to be more accurate, therefore we could say more scientific. But you reject even the best Accuracy, for terms like the Scientific method, that would make you more scintifically accurate

The Iorny. its a commedy of errors

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 8:43 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by nwr, posted 01-12-2012 2:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 303 of 358 (647926)
01-12-2012 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Butterflytyrant
01-11-2012 9:19 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
You have typed a lot without actually saying anything at all.

Anyone with half a brain knows this is a lie. I have explained in detail, not only my proposition, but its terms. I dont mean to be rude Butterfly, I dont think you are capable of comprehending what is under consideration

I say that with the greatest respect

How about you start a thread with your claim?

You can start with definitions of the following -

Law

Order

Purpose

Intelligent design

Intelligent designer

Scientific method

Intelligent design process

Intelligent design method

Solely natural causes

Supplying these definitions will only be a start.

Dont forget to answer my post Message 193? Is that reminder number 5 now?

If you cant answer the questions, just say so. Not answering them indicates that you cant answer them. I know that not being able to answer those question demolishes your position so I am not surprised you are avoiding replying.

Thats fine, That is ofcourse up to Percy, ultimately not me

You should be able to see mostof the answers to most of your questiions in my summation, when that occures

Here is a challenge for you Butterfly. Look at my last response to taq and the others and see if you can figure out what I am saying and respond to that

In some ways you remind me of Dewise1 and Devils Advocate
Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 10:51 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 304 of 358 (647930)
01-12-2012 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 12:38 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
As i have been debating these issues for nealry 40 years now, Im sure you can understand that I am not interested whether the ID movement as a whole or a renowned scientist argrees with my position

Then you shouldn't try and claim renowned scientists for your position. Collins is not and never has been an ID advocate and he has never followed your insipidly stupid "methodology", which consists of nothing more than assuming the consequent and gibbering incoherently.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:38 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:33 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 305 of 358 (647934)
01-12-2012 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 12:36 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
I retract what I've written below. I've subsequently been corrected by Larni who pointed out a double negative I'd missed. In the interest of accuracy, I'm leaving my faux pas uncorrected. Maybe it might even serve a purpose in demonstrating why it is so difficult to understand what Dawn is trying to say.

The whole point of this discussion with you was to tackle your claim that ID should be taught in the science classroom. You have made post after post trying to explain why it is science, using your ToL,O&P as evidence of it's validity as science. You've claimed that yourToL,O&P is a scientific theory. After all these posts, we're none the wiser as to what you're actually saying when you use your ToL,O&P.

However, your post, numbered 300 in this thread, finally contains a statement from you that has something of substance to it. It's a single sentence and it is as clear as a bell. You have stated

Dawn Bertot writes:

Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty.

These are your own words, lifted straight from your post, not a quote from someone else that you used. They're your own, actual words, typed by your own fingers to explain what you're saying. I've not pulled a fast one, I haven't misquoted you, I copied and pasted your words into the quote box.

Do you see your problem? Why the hell should we teach anything to do with your ToL,O&P in the science classroom when you have finally admitted it ISN'T science? You've spent post after confusing post trying to explain why it IS science, only to come up with that little gem above. I have to ask. Do you actually know what you're trying to say? If you've managed to utterly confuse yourself with all your nonsensical writings, join the club.

To summarise your voluminous posts, you've stated that ID should be taught in science class, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific, that ID is science, you've claimed that your ToL,O&P is scientific evidence for ID and after all that you come out with your statement, which bears repeating

Dawn Bertot writes:

Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty.

Just incase you've missed it

Dawn Bertot writes:

Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty.

Edited by Trixie, : To write retraction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Larni, posted 01-12-2012 5:09 AM Trixie has responded

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


Message 306 of 358 (647936)
01-12-2012 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Trixie
01-12-2012 4:05 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Hi Trixie.

I think Dawn snuck in a double negative, there.


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

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

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 305 by Trixie, posted 01-12-2012 4:05 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Trixie, posted 01-12-2012 7:41 AM Larni has responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1540 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 307 of 358 (647948)
01-12-2012 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Larni
01-12-2012 5:09 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Gotcha! Sorry, I missed that the first, second and umpeenth time I read it. Does Dawn ever bother to write in what we would consider stadard Engish?

Maybe Dawn can explain what would falsify his/her theory. All through this thread we've asked and all through this thread Dawn has made assertion after assertion, but neve once tld us what would falsify his assertion, which, as far as I can tell is a subjective opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Larni, posted 01-12-2012 5:09 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Larni, posted 01-12-2012 8:54 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 308 of 358 (647951)
01-12-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 7:51 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
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.

And NONE of this leads to a conclusion of intelligent design being involved merely that it LOOKS like an intelligent designer COULD have done so - but NO EVIDENCE to quantify it either way.

Each night little pixies could make my lawn grow that little bit higher. After all my lawn does grow! So I now have a 'pixie in my garden' theory. You can't disprove it (I'd love to see you try) and there is certainly evidence that my grass grows! That's the sort of nonsense you get when you declare something by fiat.

That's exactly what you are doing with law, order and purpose. You are inferring these conditions and then further inferring there must be an intelligent cause to provide it all. Really? And the evidence is? Ah circular there is order therefore there must be a designer to make the order that I see. Then my pixies are as good as your Intelligent Designer. I must need pixies to grow my grass because it grows.

Don't you wonder why you are pissing alone on this one? Not just on here but in the real world. Why do the great educated countries not agree? Why don't science curricula abound with ID on every science course?

In fact outside of creationist diploma-mill 'universities' (cough cough) why is ID not seen on science courses? Are all our country's great educators, scientists, politicians and lawyers so blind to the world of Dawn Bertot?.....or as far more likely....you are talking complete bollocks as usual?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 7:51 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:42 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 309 of 358 (647953)
01-12-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Granny Magda
01-12-2012 2:23 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Then you shouldn't try and claim renowned scientists for your position. Collins is not and never has been an ID advocate and he has never followed your insipidly stupid "methodology", which consists of nothing more than assuming the consequent and gibbering incoherently.

Its only incoherent to someone that does not have the ability to distinguish between parroted things they have been taught, such as yourself and those that understand the simple reasoning process, such as myself

Since I did not claim renowned scientist for my poisition, it would follow your claim is nonsense. My point was that a potential believer in God follows a scientific methodology in his approach and still believes in God. Demonstrating the fact that scientist that do believe in God, can have a so-called scientific approach

Since creationism and science are just words, just like philosophy, it only reamins that his investigation is scientifc in approach. The so-called ID appoach leaves nothing off in its investigation, so it is therefore a scientific method. Even if there were such a thigs as that

I dont need Mr Collins, Mr Behe, or anyone else on your side to support my valid and rational appproach, since it has been that way since the dawn of time

Perhaps you would like to tackle some of the propositions I have been presenting

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 2:23 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 8:42 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 310 of 358 (647954)
01-12-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 8:33 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Since I dis not claim renowned scientist for my poisition, it would follow your claim is nonsense. My point was that a potential believer in God follows a scientific methodology in his approach and still believes in God

Well then, you make an obvious non-point.

We all know that there are scientists who are also theists. We are also well aware that people are capable of holding mutually exclusive opinions, so this observation is worthless.

Since creationism and science are just words, just like philosophy, it only reamins that his investigation is scientifc in approach.

Have you ever considered a remedial English class for adults? It might make you sound less like a drunk six year old.

Collins' science does follow the scientific method precisely because he does not involve his loony religious views in his work.

Disagree? Then show me exactly where Francis Collins utilises religion in his professional scientific work.

The so-called ID appoach leaves nothing off in its investigation, so it is therefore a scientific method.

That is a reason why it is not a scientific method.

I dont need Mr Collins, Mr Behe, or anyone else on your side to support my valid and rational appproach, since it has been that way since the dawn of time

Well don't mention them then.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:33 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:46 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 311 of 358 (647955)
01-12-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Drosophilla
01-12-2012 8:06 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
And NONE of this leads to a conclusion of intelligent design being involved merely that it LOOKS like an intelligent designer COULD have done so - but NO EVIDENCE to quantify it either way.

And they say miracles have ceased. I believe inspite of his self-proclaimed intelligence he is starting to get it

Don't you wonder why you are pissing alone on this one? Not just on here but in the real world. Why do the great educated countries not agree? Why don't science curricula abound with ID on every science course?

In fact outside of creationist diploma-mill 'universities' (cough cough) why is ID not seen on science courses? Are all our country's great educators, scientists, politicians and lawyers so blind to the world of Dawn Bertot?.....or as far more likely....you are talking complete bollocks as usual?

Now go back and read the rest of my position and I believe you might actually get the rest of it. Landsakes alive, he's doing it and all on his own

Dawn Bertot

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 308 by Drosophilla, posted 01-12-2012 8:06 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 312 of 358 (647957)
01-12-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Granny Magda
01-12-2012 8:42 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Disagree? Then show me exactly where Francis Collins utilises religion in his professional scientific work.[

Please read what I am writing and try and understand I did not imply this. read what I am saying simpleton


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 8:42 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 8:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 315 by Larni, posted 01-12-2012 9:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 313 of 358 (647958)
01-12-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 8:46 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Please read what I am writing and try and understand I did not imply this. read what I am saying simpleton

Again, if you had the level of articulacy that one might reasonably expect from a dyslexic eight year old, this might be possible. As it is, it's somewhat problematic divining what you mean, given that your posts are written in imbecilese.

It's pretty simple; if Collins does not support your views, don't bring him up.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 314 of 358 (647959)
01-12-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Trixie
01-12-2012 7:41 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Maybe Dawn can explain what would falsify his/her theory.

As far as I can see the only way for this 'hypothesis' to be falsified is if Dawn decided that she could not see Law, Order and Purpose.

In a sense, if Dawn believes it is true, it must be.


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

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

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 307 by Trixie, posted 01-12-2012 7:41 AM Trixie has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 315 of 358 (647961)
01-12-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 8:46 AM


My take on Dawn's position.
Dawn, you position seems to be that you can see Law, Order and Purpose. I imagine you also see harmony.

You go on to assert that that because you saw these things that one can infer ID.

The only thing I don't understand is how you can tell Law, Order and Purpose mean ID.

Well that's not quite true: I can see how you would see order in the hexaform of a bee's honey comes or the arrangement of carbon atoms in diamond.

I can see how a rock falling down when dropped is pretty much a law. In a gravity field of 1G the rock with always fall at the same rate in vacuum.

Purpose needs an intelligent initiator and this is where you go wrong. You have decided that because you see purpose it must be from an intelligent initiator.

I guess I can see that.

But only Purpose needs an initiator. Chaotic water beomes ordered ice due to natural forces. Things doing the same thing all the time under the same conditions is pretty lawful but the conditions must be the same. Ice will form at negative centigrate only if the conditions are right.

With both Law and Order no non unnaturalistic entities are required.

So you 'theory' boils down to you thinking every thing has a purpose.

And this can only be true if one assumes an intelligent initiator a priori because purpose requires agency.

You're not using a scientific method of investigation at all: you are putting the cart before the horse.


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

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

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 312 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 8:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018