Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 2:06 AM
483 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (5 members, 478 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,903 Year: 6,509/21,208 Month: 2,270/2,634 Week: 458/572 Day: 5/70 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3637
38
394041Next
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 556 of 609 (612181)
04-13-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by Coyote
04-13-2011 5:35 PM


Re: New header (finally)
You realize this doesn't mean anything don't you?
Your "order" is nothing more than a naturally-occurring consequence of mutation and natural selection.

Now your opinion is not the point is it. If we had to choose between order and chaos, which would you choose. what does it appear to be order or disorder?

I noticed you avoided answering the question that you put to me. here it is again what are your rules for determining that evolution is the product of SOLEY natural causes, verses the fact that they were designed to evolve

remember you answer cant just be an opinion, but a scientific developed Null H/ Lets see what the rule is


This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 5:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 557 of 609 (612183)
04-13-2011 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 5:37 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
Can I help it if you are stupid, the way to measure it is to observe its behaviour, note its consistency and accuracy in producing things with a purpose and a function, that function accurately, your brain your eye, etc and a million other things

If you are so much smarter than me then outline how this is done. In fact, do so with my avatar to the left. Please measure the purpose and function. Make sure to list the units for purpose and function.

the way to test to it to see if it came from a designer, is to use the same method you used to decide that all of this functioning world is a product of soley natural causes.

So how do phylogenetic analyses point to design? Please explain.

tell me what your Null H, is in deciding that everything is a product of itself, when you werent there to observe its beginning, or the mechanism of its origination

Again, you are shifting the burden of proof. You claim that ID/Creationism is science. If so, then show us the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the experiments that test them.

ID and creationism employ all the same methods, for the answers to these questions, yet it is rejected because it is limited in the exact same way science is

Then show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design. If the methods are the same, then this shouldn't be a problem.

yeah I believe this is called examination and experimentation of physical properties already in existence, big deal. Did this give you an answer as to its ultimatel origination source, well no

Yes, it did. It shows that the DNA shared by humans and chimps ultimately originated in a common ancestor. It also showed selective pressures for specific DNA stretches compared to neutral drift for other DNA stretches.

So where is the ID/Creationist analysis, and what were the hypotheses being tested?

We do the samething, with tenative conclusions

No, we don't. Evolutionists construct testable hypotheses and test them with experiments. ID/Creationists do not. That is quite a difference.

I see Im required to go by your rules but your not, correct.

They aren't my rules. They are the rules of science. If you want to claim that ID/Creationism is science then you must show how ID/Creationism constructs testable hypotheses, and demonstrate how the described experiments test them. If you can not, then ID/Creationism is obviously not science.

So if you cant provide a Null H, does that mean you are not doing science

I am not the one claiming that ID/Creationism is science. You are. The burden of proof is on you.

Again, you have written another long post that is nothing more than an excuse for not following the rules of science. Pathetic.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:18 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 562 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:46 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 558 of 609 (612184)
04-13-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 5:45 PM


Re: New header (finally)
here it is again what are your rules for determining that evolution is the product of SOLEY natural causes, verses the fact that they were designed to evolve

Why don't you tell us? Since ID/Creationism is science, according to you, why don't you reference the peer reviewed scientific papers that outline the experiments which demonstrate the designed nature of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:28 PM Taq has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 559 of 609 (612187)
04-13-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:39 PM


Re: New header (finally)
I see a lot of words, but no hypothesis, null hypothesis, nor an experiment that would test them.

Your problem is that you have failed to answer why the observation of and experimentation of say the human eye or the intricacy of the human brain functioning, in order to a clear purpose is a test or experiment. Why the breakdown of its parts by scientists to witness how those parts work together to a purpose, in an orderly fashion, is not an experiment

Is the above i have just described an experiment (hypthesis)? or do they need to do it with more than one brain for it to be a valid scientific test.

As I demonstrated already you refuse to go by your own rules, you know its an experiment, but wont admit it. You know its science and wont admit it

you wont even answer the question on the null hypthesis I posed because its a silly rule to apply to the question under consideration.

Evos will continually try to avoid the fact that thier position involves conclusions as well. insisting that I must provide absolute evidence in the nature of a designer, is as silly as you maintaining that these functions are a product of SOLEY natural proceses

Where is you Null h for this conclusion

Why don't you tell us, since you have concluded that life is designed. What experiments did you run to differentiate between these?

My friend order will be order whether I apply a contived rule to it, such as Null H or not. your requirement is silly to begin with and you have demonstrated by your refusal to go by your insistent hard fast rule

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:39 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 560 of 609 (612188)
04-13-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:50 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
If you are so much smarter than me then outline how this is done. In fact, do so with my avatar to the left. Please measure the purpose and function. Make sure to list the units for purpose and function.

Sure no problem. Does this organism serve a function and to what purpose does it involve itself.

DB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 561 of 609 (612190)
04-13-2011 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:54 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Why don't you tell us? Since ID/Creationism is science, according to you, why don't you reference the peer reviewed scientific papers that outline the experiments which demonstrate the designed nature of evolution.

I believe it was Einstien that said God was the laws of the universe correct? Is that peer enough for you? Would you say that there were enough peer reviewed papers to indicate that there is order and lawin the universe? Desgn is a conclusion of the available evidence, like "soley natural causes" is a result of, science and evo, correct?

order and law carry as much weight as change and evo, for any conclusions in the science classroom, as science and to any conclusions concerning the existence of things Yet you teach it in the classroom, why not the other, when they are both scientifically derived

taq reqesting something from me that I dont think is necessary to begin with, is just silly. Science, real science was around long before any peer reviewed papers were required. it was called observation, experimentation and conclusions, correct?

DB

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:54 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Son, posted 04-14-2011 8:54 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 572 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 562 of 609 (612193)
04-13-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Taq
04-13-2011 5:50 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
bertot writes
yeah I believe this is called examination and experimentation of physical properties already in existence, big deal. Did this give you an answer as to its ultimatel origination source, well no

Taq writes

Yes, it did. It shows that the DNA shared by humans and chimps ultimately originated in a common ancestor. It also showed selective pressures for specific DNA stretches compared to neutral drift for other DNA stretches.

You know that is not the origination source of which i speak. so "your science", brings you to the same tenative answers, as does mine. After all your bantering and bluster it ends up that order and law are to design what, change and NS are to soley natural causes, scientific approaches that should both be taught

Then show me a creationist who uses phylogenetic analyses of orthologous ERV's shared between humans and other apes as a method for demonstrating design. If the methods are the same, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Come on taq give me something hard. All any creations or IDst 9scientist, biologist)would need to do in this instance is show the biological orderliness of these primates that produces order and purpose in the form of a monkey, to demonstrate design

Do the mechanisms you describe above operate in an orderly and consistent fashion, when you are conducting your experiments? Or or they chaotic and eratic? Which one?

Come on taq give me something hard

DB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 5:50 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 563 of 609 (612195)
04-13-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by fearandloathing
04-13-2011 5:29 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Hi dawn,
I have read all your post in this topic and can find no proof of anything. You cry foul alot, you challenge what others say but provide no proof to support what you say??

If I am wrong then please put your proof together into one statement, cite your sources. At least tell me what msgs you have posted you consider as providing proof that ID is real science.

Thanks

Im happy to do this in a seperate thread, it would take to much time to repeat. the fellas know what I am getting at, but will never admit it. others watching may benifit from it

the've complicated what science actually is, so as to exclude anything but thier conclusions in the classroom. they know science is nothing more than observation and experimentation, to tenative conclusions, especially when dealing with questions of origins

if it were presented correctly in the courtroom, in an emperical and rationalistic way, perhaps, the results would be different

they dont go by thier own rules, as i have illustrated on Null hypothesis When they cant answer it they ignore it and result to inslult

DB

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by fearandloathing, posted 04-13-2011 5:29 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 7:01 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 574 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 564 of 609 (612199)
04-13-2011 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:55 PM


Re: New header (finally)
f it were present correctly in the courtroom, in an emperical and rationalistic way perhaps, the results would be different

ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge.

Ref: Dover


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 7:13 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 565 of 609 (612202)
04-13-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by Coyote
04-13-2011 7:01 PM


Re: New header (finally)
ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge.

And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.

what are your emperical rules for distinguishing, evo as a result of soley natural causes, verses being designed to evolve. Still waiting

i answered your question, now answer mine

DB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 7:01 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by jar, posted 04-13-2011 7:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 567 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 8:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 573 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 566 of 609 (612203)
04-13-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 7:13 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Dawn Bertot writes:

ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge.

And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.

what are your emperical rules for distinguishing, evo as a result of soley natural causes, verses being designed to evolve. Still waiting

i answered your question, now answer mine

DB

There is evidence of natural causes and NO evidence of some designer.

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 565 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 7:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 567 of 609 (612206)
04-13-2011 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 7:13 PM


Re: New header (finally)
Dawn Bertot writes:

ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge.

And as usual you miss the point. it was not present accurately, not to discredit anyone, but these things happen.

michael behe didn't present ID accurately?

okay.

how would you have presented it? as creationism? that would have ended that trial a whole lot faster.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 7:13 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:31 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2678
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 568 of 609 (612220)
04-14-2011 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 5:37 PM


Re: Off topic rudeness.
tell me what your Null H, is in deciding that everything is a product of itself, when you werent there to observe its beginning, or the mechanism of its origination

Well if all life evolved all life should be related to each other if it isnot and we see that for example that some or none of the animals do not fit into this relationship tree then we can assume that evolution cannot be the cause of diversity of life on earth.

But when we look at the tree of life we see that all life is related.

Evolution is a process that adapts species to be better at surviving in a particular environment. If evolution is not true then we would also see adaptations "designs" in some animals whose SOLE purpose is to benefit another animal. In human designs a crutch would be defined like that its sole purpose is to help you walk when your leg is broken. If any animal had a design like that and "got nothing back" from the animal that is using the first animal that would go against evolution.

If one would see a fully "designed" animal pop in to existence from nothing or mud or whatever other impossible substance. that would cast serius doubt on evolution.

No beneficial mutations, you see those at least on a yearly basis the flue....

No speciation possible it has been observed numerous of times

.....

And hundreds of more possibilities to prove evolution false none of them do or at least none has been found in the last 150 Years.

What would negate design or creation???

There is a reason why science does not deal with invisible undetectable magic men you cannot disprove them applying it to a process that we do not yet understand does nothing to benefit the collective knowledge of mankind, and it has a very bad track record, whats lightning o thats Zeus farting. And to actually prove them you would have to disprove every other possibility yes invisible undetectable magic men are the last possibility for a good reason, im sorry you do not understand that / do not want to understand that/ are incapable of understanding that.

ID and creationism employ all the same methods, for the answers to these questions, yet it is rejected because it is limited in the exact same way science is

No they dont

Scientist:" i wonder how all this life came heare and how it got so diverse?"
Creo/ider:" I wonder how i can prove god with life, or at least get the bible back in to schools"

Scientist" well let me take a closer look at life"
Creo/ider:" well let me take a closer look at the bible"

Scientist" hmm all animals look like they are related, some have small diferences, some have larger ones but you still can see the resemblance
Creo/idist: the bible says god made all the animals well thats that let me put this in to the schools

Scientist: well lets try to form a hypothesis gradual change over time produced the variety of life we see today
creo/idist:" well lets brodcast our findings allover the country call it science and make people believe"

Scientist: Well lets test the hypothesis lets dig for fossils, do experiments on speciation, compare genomes of animals, look at how mutations acure, look if the time line allows for this process, construct a " tree of life" to see if all animals actualy are related, compare that tree of life to others constructed on dna, bone, and other observations ................ ......... ......... ...... ...... ....
Creationist/ider: lets invent some numbers and ideas out of the blue to give our claim credibility and debunk everything else

Scientist:" well all the testing i have done and all the observations fit perfectly, doing my best i could not disprove my hypothesis now its time for other scientists to look at my idea and try to poke holes in it and see if i am wrong"
Creo/ider:" i know i am right i dont need no stinking godless scientists to challenge my idea"

Scientist: well that went well none of them could disprove my theory they tried as hard as they could did the experiments themselves desighned new experiments and none of the experiments disproved evolution only granted it more suport in time this theory should be widely excepted as a model that best represents reality with the data availible
Creo/idist:" scientist have to except my idea because i KNOW i am right, il broadcast it on every channel and the people will decide il sue them in court because it is only fair to teach my "theory" (word used by none scientist to describe a wild guess) besides their theory (word used by scientists for a model that accurately describes reality given the data available). Il scream evolution is only a theory millions of times, il have experts who do not know shit about evolution talk to the people of how improbable it is, il make up stuff how evolution leads to killing people, make it synonym with communism and Nazism, tell believers that if they believe in evolution they will go to HELL ...............


This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 5:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Wounded King, posted 04-14-2011 9:11 AM frako has not yet responded
 Message 576 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-14-2011 4:37 PM frako has responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 569 of 609 (612224)
04-14-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Dawn Bertot
04-13-2011 6:28 PM


Re: New header (finally)
A scientist opinion is not the same as science, otherwise we should be teaching alchemy as well (Newton believed in it). Whether you like it or not, current science works with peer-review and what you presented as ID is not science. It's possible you believe the current scientific community is mistaken and that your version (and ID) is more accurate. Claiming it won't make it so but there's a way to prove your point. Set up an academy with your friend and your new "science", if your opinion is superior, you will be able to make discoveries that will lead to better medicaments/technologies and you and your friends will become filthy rich.

The point you seem to be missing is not that science works this way because of some dogma like religion, it's because it works and you get results and money from it. If your way is superior to the current scientific community, it will be obvious because you will get filthy rich and everyone will be able to check the results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-13-2011 6:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1443 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 570 of 609 (612228)
04-14-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 568 by frako
04-14-2011 7:29 AM


Evolution != Universal Common Descent
Well if all life evolved all life should be related to each other if it isnot and we see that for example that some or none of the animals do not fit into this relationship tree then we can assume that evolution cannot be the cause of diversity of life on earth.

That is an argument about universal common descent not evolution. Evolution could still be true even if there were multiple distinct lineages of life with discrete origins. Our current understanding of the history of life on Earth would be radically re-written, but not evolutionary theory.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by frako, posted 04-14-2011 7:29 AM frako has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3637
38
394041Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017