Summations Only

In debate this is known as Evasion. Only someone not paying any attention at all or someone trying to avoid conflicting information, would make a comment such as that aboveDawn Bertot

Sigh.You don't attempt to falsify a conclusion, you must be able attempt to falsify a hypothesis.Sigh.The main tennet of ToE is not that there are here by 'Soley Natural' causes. ToE makes no mention of why things are here: it could be magic pixies for all ToE states on the matter.You confuse abiogenesis with ToE. As many uninformed creos do.I'm now quite interested in what you mean when you say falsification. The example of the Carboniferous Rabit works.ToE has many predictions and if we found a carboniferous rabit those predictions would not be born out.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I would consider "soley [sic] natural causes" a working assumption.And you are wrong once again; that assumption can be falsified by evidence to the contrary.Unfortunately for you and your side of the issue, no such evidence has been found.

Hello Dawn,Are you planning on getting around to answering my questions on Message 193? What are we up to now? 6 reminders? Thats quite strange. It appears that everyone who disagrees with what you are saying is wrong and/or unable to comprehend what you are selling.Lets look at a wee bit. In this thread and others were you have put this same idea on the table for consideration, people from a dozen different nations, aged from quite young to in the seventies, ranged in education from high school to doctorates, from many different disciplines have all objected to what you are selling.If someone objects, you just tell them they are not capable of understanding what you are selling.If a few people dont understand or object, maybe it is their fault.If most people dont understand or object, maybe there is a problem with the material being put forward.If a lack of understanding or objection is UNIVERSAL, it may be a problem with what you are saying.I know that you believe that you have something. The problem I have seen from your writing is that you have such a limited understanding of how basic science works that your idea is based on misconceptions. You dodge and weave to avoid talking in any depth with regards to the canyon sized gaps in your ideas. You miss the really important fundemental problems with your idea and continue to focus on very small untterly irrelevant details.As soon as any stage of your idea (whether it be the process, method, conclusion etc) involves magic, then it is not science. Regardless of how you want to package it.You are asking us to analyse certain aspects of your ideas in great detail when it is totally unnecessary as the proposition has been killed by a much larger, all encompassing problem.When your house is on fire, it does not matter if you have left the bathroom tap dripping.Most of us have provided you with a different reason why your idea is invalid. There are lots of reasons.You waving away the reasons does not make them go away.I know reality is not your friend but you are going to have to come to terms with it eventually. Thank you.If I stretch my arse cheeks really wide, you can kiss me right on the hole.I say that with the greatest respect.Dont forget to answer my questions on Message 193. (thats 7 reminders)

Are you implying that there could never be any evidence for I.D./creationism?

Hey, he got one right. Of course you dont falsify a conclusion, thats why the end hypothesis of the ToE, is Soley Narual causes. If it were a conclusion you would be able to demonstrate it. Becuase you cant, yet by obligation you maintain it as a part of the ToE. You cant just disclaim any responsibility from this conclusion and hope no one will noticeApearently Coyote, thinks you can falsify it. Lets see what you have. I would love to see how you intended to falsify the end hypothesis of the ToE, which is Soley Natural causes. Of course the main tenet (hypothesis) of the ToE, is that things are here by soley natural causes. The INVESTIGATION has to have a conclusion. You dont get to make up the rules as to where and when an investigation into the natural world starts and ends. Throwing terms at an investgation (abiogenesis) does not alleviate you of conclusions concerning the investigations that the ToE is suppose to be investgatingStopping short or in the middle of the investigation and claiming that that is all we need to examine is simply nonsense. Secular fundamental evolutionists do this to alleviate themselves of obvious obligations No, what is actually happening in that situation is, that the secular fundamental atheist or evolutionist pretends that the term abiogenesis, somehow alleviates them of thier responsibility concerning conclusions that are and should be a part of the ToE as wellFurther, even if you shift the responsibility over to a term called Abiogenesis, the problem is the same and the investigation still has to have a conclusion. You see thats the problem with the whole SM approach, you just kinda make stuff up as you go along, then hope and pretend no one will noticeIronically thought this is the point where the the S.F.Evolutionist, starts claimning that the IDst cannot falsifty thier position. By this they mean the idea of or involvement of a designer.Now they do this, having ignorantly or more probably, purposely, relieving themselves of any obligation to falsify that things are here as a result of Soley Natural causesAll they use is tactics to convince people like the judges and common folk that youve passed all the test and no one else can. Actually all you've done is avoid anything that looks like reality, not to mention a valid investigationSo when it is clear that the end hypothesis of the ToE cannot be falsified, one of two things is true. Either the ToE is not science or Falsifiabilty was not meant to be used in such an absolute manner. which one do you want?Dawn Bertot

Isnt that interesting. He claims that, that hypothesis can be falsified, then leaves off, actually explaing how that is done or fails to provide the needed evidence There you go again mixing up conclusions with processes. Of course our side of the issue has evidence in its process. Now unless you are talking about conclusions, in which case it is necessary for you to provide such evidence as well, or falsifiability is of not use correct?No Coyote you cant falsify the end hypothesis of the ToE. Which means it is either not science or that you need to rethink the strict standard you have attached to falsifiabiltySo lets see the evidence that falsifies the end hypothesis of Soley Natural causesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn. Note to self.If several people from many different countries disagree with you, yet can not refute your propositions, then go ahead and change your thinking to suit thiers, becuase they must be right, because they are the opposition and have vehemently argued thier position. Not accurately but vehemently, with vulgarity, insult and rudeness, but no evidence t the contraryIgnore the fact Dawn that, you could actually be right about anything, because several people have disagreed, but we know, you could never be right, no matter how valid your positionIgnore the fact Dawn, that they have not even begun to address in any logical fashion, the basic tenets of your position. ie, what an investigation actually involves, what an investigation includes. The actual difference between conclusions and processes.Ignore Dawn that they continue to confuse thier process with your conclusion, your conclusion with your process, your conclusion with thier process, yet they seem to, or pretend to, not know the difference, between the twoIgnore the fact Dawn, that they continue use terms like falsifiabilty, yet understand neither its actual application to an actual investigation or how they require something of others out of it, verses what they require of themselvesIgnore the fact Dawn, that while they claim there is actual Evidence of Soley Natural causes, they provide no Actual evidence of such a calimIgnore the fact Dawn, that while they claim that the hypothosis of Soley Natural causes is falsifiable, they dont actually demonstrate in a rational and logical way the evidence that supports scu a claimIgnore the fact Dawn, that they play word games with the words Evidence and Science, to eliminate any investigation and conlcusions except thier ownIgnore the fact Dawn, that they throw words like Philosophy, abiogenesis and falsifiabiltiy to alleviate themselves of any rational investigation concerning the natural worldIgnore the fact Dawn, that reality and reason say that an investigation is just an investigation. It does not need to be regulated and controlled by a certain few, thinking they have figured everything outIgnore the fact dawn that they have failed to show why when using such words as philosophy and science or the SM, why this absolves them from demonstrating an actual difference in the investigation that the ToE intiates, verses what the other words involveIgnore the fact Dawn, that they have failed to demonstrate why the very clear presence of Law, Order and Purpose should be ignored, because they have decided they dont like it or suggest that it is actually, not Law, Order and PurposeIgnore the fact Dawn that the ToLO&P, is equal to any evidence or data gathered by the process of the ToEIgnore the fact Dawn that some of these so-called experts claim that law and order exist, then others claim it does not. yet neither will demonstrate why it does not existPlease ignore the fact dawn, that the theory of Law, order and purpose and the conclusionof a designer, fall squarely within and support oneof only two logical conclusions as to the eixstence of eixstence itselfIgnore the fact Dawn that no evidence To the Contrary has been provided as to why the investigation conducted by ID scientist does not constitute a scientific investigation into the natural worldAnd Finally, as if this were not enough, ignore the fact Dawn, that no evidence has been offered as to why the investigative procees used by IDst, the data gathered, the conclusions established and the process, does not involve all the tenets of the Scientific Method and why it should not be tuaght in the science classroom as science, involving answers to the question of existence n the first placeYes, stupid me, I cant for the life of me see why I hold to and maintain the positions that I do And BTW, DawnNote to selfAvoid Butterflytyrant, as he may be a Perv, as per his words. At bare minimum we know he is perverse, so avoid him at all costsDawn Bertot

Your post is so confused and erroneous that it is not worth responding to.

*crickets*

As i supposed you are not able to provide evidence that the hypothesis that Soley Natrual causes is falsifiable, is actually that, falsifiableWell, thats one way to avoid your obligation in debateSo you dont mind looking foolish in front of your peers and viewers, correctDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

In this instance there is no DIRECT evidence of which position is correct, outside of the scriptures.In this instance you have use and teach what the available evidence allows, from the data gatheredWhether that is Order, Change, Design, or Soley narual causes.I believe both and only both are demonstratabe, correct?But it is true that while neither can be demonstrated absolutely, neither should be avoided or left off. Wouldnt you agree?That is unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwiseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

1. The ToE does not have an end hypothesis. Its hypotheses are start points and can necessarily be falsified.2. How life started is as yet not known. You are able to claim this as a point on your side of the argument. Make the most of it.3. You are not able to claim that because we don't know, or have no evidence for, how life first started that it damages any of the argument for the ToE. This is because the ToE deals with how life developed AFTER life began and because we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that life evolved and was not created as we see it today.4. You know this but deliberately try to confuse the two situations. This deliberate obfuscation harms your argument and your credibility.5. Nothing in the ToE talks about 'solely natural causes' but it is an underlying assumption. It can't examine 'unnatural causes' because it never finds any. If there were things in genetics or the fossil record that where 'unnatural' we'd be scratching our heads and puzzling over them. I am not aware of any. If you are, please let us know.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Okay so we know that you think a conlcusion needs to be falsified? You're an idiot.

Ill try and make this as simple as I can, so you can understand. There is, NOT ACTUALLY, your side and my side. That doesnt actually existThere is just an investigation into the natural world. There is just an investigation. There is not actually, YOUR investigation and MINE. there is just an investgationBecuase that which Ihave just stated is actually the CASE and true, it follows that that investigation has to have an end hypo.That end hypo is, how did life start My friend, this is what you need to prove, not just assert. You cant just asser this proposition, then assume it is true Right, so we are left with the available evidence and the conclusions (end hypos) of what that evidence allowsIn this instance its only the possibilites of Soley Natural or designIt cannot be whether you like it or not, because I dont like Soley Natural causes, but I have to allow itThis is secondary as to whether ID is a science approach, of course it is. This is secondary as to whether design should be taught as scienctific explanations, of curse it should be,as i have just demonstratedpeople have to remove thier fears and prejudices and let the facts speak for themselvesWhen that happens and only when it happens will ID be given the serious and logical consideration that it desrevesIt seems to not affect anyone objectively that these two scientifically approaches have been around since the Dawn of timeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.