Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?

Hi Dawn...just FYI...I didn't write the message to which this is a reply.

I am not being coy or evassive here. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THIS IS. PLEASE SET IT OUT AND EXPLAN IT. D Bertot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Razd writesAbsolutley and completely false. I have demonstrated how ASSUMPTIONS, validate the axiomm, not question or just assume its propositons. Again, it says to the axiom, now listen, 'You are sel-evident, (are you still listening),BECAUSE YOU REQUIRE NO PROOF. That means INCONTRAVERTABLE, NOT EVEN REQUIRING A TEST, if one wanted to do this. I further demonstrated this by the simple axiom of "Dead men tell not tales." To which, even your replies were silly and completley ridiculous And you COMPLETe unwillingness to be objective on even the simplest of points, demonstrates the position I have maintained since this started. For example you refusal to admit, that your science method, is not the only one on how one understands facts. No I understand Logic, just not your brand of it. Get it. D bertot.

Ringo writes.Do I need everyones approval to know that dead people talk to anyone? Do I need everyones approval that the law of gravity is true?If you are not going to be objective, atleast try and be honesty and REASONABLE. D Bertot

RAZD WRITES Try again.If you are not going to be objective, atleast try and be RESONABLE. People that are dead are not alive, even if you think they can come back to life, while they are dead they tell you nothing. Again no one is willing to answer the axiom in its context, just like that of Spock. Now your admission, that you dont believe any of them are true, is the closest you have come to saying I cant answer your argument Dawn. Just be a big person and say , You cannot. This is what I meant earlier when I said, when people get into a situation they cannot respond to , they start getting plain silly. Your a reasonable person, if you are not going to be reasonable with me, atleast be honest with yourself later on Enjoy, RAZD. D Bertot

It seems fitting with the above statement to make some concluding remarks here and wrap this up. Because it is with the above statement, which shows me that a person has basically lost the ability to be objective in any real sense. For example, "Even then the most we can end up with is a tenative assumption of truth".. This statement plainly says I refuse to see truth or the obvious force and reality of a Fact., (ie "dead men and the law of gravity., etc,) even if I cannot refute it or see its truth. How do reason with such a person.Having been on this website, it has reminded me of being on a trip and having stopped in a certain town and visiting with its people. Thank you for you hospitality and for the most part I think we have all learned somthing.If I do happen to see you on the other side I hope we recognize each other, so we can reminisce about these details. You have all been great and I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Death is soon for some not far away for any. In the words of Wallace I Matson at the end of the Warren-Matson Debate, Happy hunting and with this I BID YOU FAREWELL.Mr. Dawn A Bertot

Simply declaring others unable to understand you isn't going to get your point across any better. Did you ever consider that the fault might lie with your arguments and not with everyone else? Anyway, the fact remains that I cannot understand what you wrote. Someone with a clear point to make might be motivated to clarify rather than cast insults, so if you want me to understand what you're saying, you're going to have to express yourself more clearly. The strength of your arguments is not measured by your tenacity nor by your ability dole out insults, but by the merit of the arguments themselves as indicated by their ability to persuade others. Since you've persuaded no one, the evidence of your experience here says otherwise. I think you still don't have a clear understanding of what an axiom is. Wikipedia has a couple interesting things to say about axioms: What you're calling an axiom is probably more accurately called a deduction.The bottom line on this topic remains the same. ID can only establish itself as accepted science in the same way as all other accepted sciences have achieved this position, through the gathering of evidence and their construction into a cogent interpretational framework.--Percy

How can that be when I've explained in two different posts, one of which you replied to?Nonetheless, here it is again: Euclid's fifth axiom. Self-evidently true, self-evidently false, or not self evident at all?

Hey Crash (and others)I just wanted to put you all straight on what an Axiom really is It is a high resolution Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometer made by VG Elemental (now a subsidiary of Thermo Electron) in the late 1990s through to about 2002.
Here is a picture of one with nice cutaways showing the fancy stuff on the insides. I have two of them right here in my labs Sorry... Couldn't resist that. This thread has already gotten completely ridiculus anyway so i figured a bit of frivolity wouldn't really hurt. hehehe

Yes.That's an excellent example of my point. If there was significant disagreement, it wouldn't be an axiom. Logical reasons why dead people can't talk are no substitute for empirical evidence that dead people don't talk."Dead men tell no tales" is an axiom only because most of us believe it. Yes. If there was significant disagreement, it wouldn't be a law.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Ok, I coulndt resist, Maybe one more try here. The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD. Do you mean to tell me that, before anyone was around, the principle of Gravitiy was not a FACT OR A LAW. Do you mean to tell me that before the first animal or person died, it was not a law, principle or fact that they were finished communicating. Now anyone out there listening or watching can see the kind of Stupidity that I am dealing with here. So if there is significant disagreement that the world is round, then that means that it is not already a fact that it is already round.. Really friends think about what you are saying, GeeesFACT: "Something that is REAL AND EXISTS."
AXIOM: "A self-Evident TRUTH, that needs no PROOF."Unbelievable, incomprehensable and completely stupid, is the only way to describe this kind of, lack of objectivity and honesty.D Bertot

How could there be a "law, principle or fact" about something that had never happened? Interesting then, isn't it, that mine isn't the "stupidity" that they're responding to? Now you're confusing facts with axioms. The shape of the earth is a fact whether anybody knows it or not. It isn't an axiom unless it is accepted as such. "Roundness" is axiomatic if we agree on "roundness" for the sake of this discussion.(In fact, of course, the earth is not "round".) Glad I could broaden your horizons.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

I will admit up front I have no idea what is being said here. Ill make a deal with you crashfrog. If you put this in simple understandable language, I will give you a honest answer as to if it is or is not an axiom. Deal. D Bertot

I realize you are talking to Crashfrog but here is a nice example of Euclid's 5th axiom The axiom states that if angles a and b total less than 180 degrees then the two lines, line1 and line2, if extrapolated upward far enough, will eventually meet.In the diagram they are parallel

Listen up, when it did happen, it at that moment became a fact, truth or principle, without any consensus from anyone. No, you are failing to see that axioms are by the very nature of the case, are based in FACTS, with or without any consenses.Dead men tell no tales, and no particle of EVIDENCE you could provide would refute this axiom. Go back and look at the silly responses that have been offered. D Bertot