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

And this does, indeed, summarize the whole thread.The Fifth is THE classic example of an axiom. The use of axioms in Euclid's geometry is the classic use of them. Heck it is probably why we use the word axiom (which sure looks Greek to me).That you can make the above statement shows how far off in your own little world you are.

Absolutely correct Nosey
It does come from a greek word. From Wikipedia The same article also says this. This sums up both sides of the argument into one simple defining sentence.
Seems to me to say that it is agreed upon to be self evident, not that it actually is self evident.

Crash has been using a Socratic approach trying to get Dawn to realize he doesn't know what an axiom is, but this thread is past the 300 post limit, so Nosy has appropriately just jumped ahead to the conclusion.Euclid's 5th is, just as Nosy says, a classic example of an axiom. Known more famously as Euclid's 5th Postulate, in mathematics a postulate is a synonym for axiom. That Dawn thinks Euclid's 5th isn't an axiom does show, again just as Nosy says, how far into his own little world he is.Dawn's approach in this discussion falls into a common creationist category, a rhetorical approach involving redefinition of words to mean whatever they want them to mean.Dawn, the only reason it seems as if it's you against everybody is because everybody but you is using the correct definition of axiom.To repeat again the bottom line, ID can only become accepted science by the same route as all other science, by providing supporting evidence within an interpretive framework that that is sufficiently cogent and persuasive to become accepted by the scientific community. Merely declaring ID axiomatic doesn't make it so, and such rhetorical approaches aren't going to convince anyone.--Percy

All I know I learned from Alice and Archy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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 science evolved beyond this because of the numerous problems that have been repeatedly explained in this thread with doing science that way. If you are arguing for us to return to non-evidence based science, you need to demonstrate why science done that way works better than the way we currently do science.

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

This of course is not the same as saying that the method discussed is not truth of act. Its application and usage is what you need to refute, not that there may be some other way as well. Not rocket science fellas.D Bertot

Nosyned writes.If I am not mistaken it was you fellas contention, throughout this whole thread, that for an axiom to be valid it must correspond to physical things which would allow a physical test. But since it is characteristic of you fellas to change the rules constantly, then it does not suprise me at this point, that you would make this statement now.Further, I restate my position, his so-called axiom is nothing of the sort. And we call it an axiom, because it is descriptive of itself, not vis versa. Enjoy Though.D Bertot

What the heck does this mean? Which method are you referring to here?
What the heck is "truth of act?" What is its? Application and usage of what?

Sorry for that typo. You made the above statement. And I was simply saying that your statement is not the equivolent of saying that the axiomatic method is not truth in Fact. You need to demonstrate why that method is not valid as well as the oldest. Thats all i was trying to say.Why has the magical, mystical wizard, not chastised us yet for going over. Can anybody answer this axiom?D Bertot

OK chaps and chapettes. This is well over the 300 mark. JB joined a bit too late in the day.As has been suggested any relevant sequelae should go in the [forum=-25] forum.TTFN,AWEdited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.