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

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

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

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

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

Your still way above me on this. Put it in simple english. I have to go to work now. Try to do this simple task for me. D Bertot

In the Bertot vs Everyone on this web-thread deabate: the Atheist, Agnostic, Evolutionist and Humanist, have UTTERLY failed to do the following.They have failed to:1. Demonstrate that any specific science is exclusive in the fact gathering process. And to demonstrate that the so-called 'scientific method', is the only process to understand the real world or to gather facts from its process2. To demonstrate that an axiom, with the applied science of deductive reasoing is invalid as a fact gathering process.3. To demonstrate that axioms by definition and application are not truth an fact in reality.4. Failed to show why "self-evident" does not mean requires no Proof.5. They failed to show why the axioms I presented were not in fact true axioms, other than chainging scenarios and words to fit in an answer.6. Failed to show why true axioms are only assumed to be true and not axioms in Fact by definition and correspondence to the real world.7. Failed to provide another alternative to the example of the axiom for the source of all things in existence.. Some didnt try, some tried and failed, some admitted they couldnt, others gave up.8. Failed to show why the axiom of the three possibilites was not exacally applicable to the Proposition.9. Failure to refute its its truthfulness and application, on their part to the real world and this proposition, demonstrates its validity.10. They failed to show why the axiom I presented is not a method of eshtablishing ID independent of religious thought or ideas.11. Thus they have failed to show why Creationism or ID should not be included as a sceintific method in the curriculum in classrooms.D Bertot.

No. Absolutley not. I took this to work with me and I studied it and I kept saying to myself, why is Euclid's Postulate not a valid axiom. Granted I dont understand from a mathmatics standpoint all its terms. It fell on me like a ton of bricks. Because its only a postualation and contemplation, that it is not a Axiom because it does not correspond to any specific thing that is real, or that it does not have application in the real world to physical things. For this reason it is simply a contemplation or hypothesis not a true AXIOM.One can do the samething by imagining a ZERO, with zeros behind it and in front of it streching to infinity, but that doesnt mean it is a real thing, because it does not have application to any physical thing, like a true axiom does.For example the axiom I provided of the 3 three and only three possibilites correspondes to to physical things that truely do exist and of course their existence requires an explanation in the form of an axiom. thus by a simple application of deductive reasoning one is able to establish a true axiom that correspondes to physical things.D bertot.

Now I know I have done this beyond any shadow of a doube. But if you want to do it somewhere else that is fine with me.D Bertot.

The above statement is simply Ludicrous. It starts with a false premise that nothing is really real, therefore it begs the question as to wheather a FACT IS a REAL THING. Again, you dont need anyones approval for a fact to be real. And you can establish its validity in truth by the simple use of an axiom and deuctive reasoning.Enjoy.D bertot

Wow I did no know we got to go past 300. Is is surprising you fellas cannot even go by your own rules.Once again for you percy. AXIOM: Self-evident truth that needs no proof. If you have a problem with the dictionary, please write your own.ID and its methods were an was an accepted science, (Fact, axiom and deductive reasoning), long before the so-caled 'scientific method'.Please enjoy
D bertot

And of course this is an unwarrented conclusion that does not follow from even the very definition provided. Think about it. he added this to support his thinking.No, Please enjoy.D Bertot