The meaning of "meaning"

But I am trying to do that very thingThe meaning of meaning. Ill try it another way to see if you get the point I am striving for in an attempt to show you they are not contemptible, simply that you may not understand the proper way to proceed in establishing truths or factRules of evidence. Do you believe in evolution, do you believe it actually happened, Yes or No?Now watch. When and until you do demonstrate from your own perspective why you believe these "attempts" are contemptible then, you will demonstrate two things.1. That your method for deciding what is factual and believeable may be different than mine. You may have a whole set of rules that apply to others but not yourself2. Unless you can demonstrate why you should be able to firmly believe in something as a fact, without ever having seen it happen, you may need to revaluate whether these attempts are actually contimptible failuresSo, is evolution true and demonstratable as a fact?Dawn Bertot (EAM)

Im trying to get to the meat, but you wont let meYour unwillingness to proceed to the evidence or factual evidence by any means but your own demonstrates the weakness of your position and possibly yourselfEstablishing how rules of evidence should be administered is of NO LITTLE IMPORTANCE. The reason you wont answer the question as to whether evolution is a fact and can be factually demonstrated, is because, it will throw your whole position about evidence and how it is obtained into to disarayI am more than willing to demonstrate the existence of God and meaning as soon as we see if we are on the same rule sheet for what is actually evidential and considered factualDo you believe biological evolution happened and do you believe the EVIDENCE supports it enough to accept it as fact.Come on now, these are simple questions with simple answers,
correct? Ill take this as an indirect somewhat evasive way of you indicating that it is possible to know something without having actually seen it happen. Thus we have now removed the so-called FAILURES up to distinct possibilitiesThe question was not, can you know anything about it. It is, is it acceptable as a fact having not seen it. is there enough evidence to suggest it is highly probable. I know you see this distinction, whether you want to admit it or notEAM/DBEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I dont even know what this blathering is about, I called no one evil and you you missed the point totally of my post. Get in the spirit of this post and thread, then perhaps you will see what is being discussed

Im glad atleast one of you decided to ask the question, in connection with this debate.Rules of evidence should be the same in all fact finding situations and the same in deciding what should be adhered to as FACT.My point that Woodsey wont touch, is simply that he believes evolution to be a demonstratable fact.Yet theism and Christianity follow the same rules of evidence, covering different material.If evolution is not a fact, in the strictest sense of the word, why is it being touted as such,. Simply put you cant have one set of rules for one group and another for anotherlast but not least, none of the evidence put forward could be considered a FAILURe, as he has so boldly assrtedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

D Bertot writesW writes:when I see these kinds of comments I see a person that hasnt been debating very long, or hasnt actually learned how argumentation works or develops.Thats ok thoughhe doesnt understand that any of the traditional arguments for the existence of God still stand as proofs for his existence. For them to be removed, or considered failures.Not seeing God is not evidence that for example design is not actually design. the first instinct is that there is obvious and appearnt design. how for example would you demonstrate no design, when it is orchestrated in such a designed fashion.The design is proof of itself, not believing the demonstratable or obvious, does not remove it from its obvious reality of some form of order, which is a viable believable, demonstratable proof for the existence of a creator.Not liking that doesnt chnge the obviousExplaining how things work in conjunction with eachother
the proofs remain, the specifcs of scripture and its proofs remain, even when it is asserted to not be evidence.Dawn Bertot Ah Im sure you want it to be irrelevant, but unless you can show me evolution first hand, you have no business proclaiming it a fact, THAT IS IF WE FOLLOW YOUR RULESEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How did you come to the conclusion thatevolution (biological macro evolution) and its claims, evidences and so-called evidence was a fact?Can I use the same rules and perponderances you did for my claims? how do my claims differ from your rules.But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrarynow perhaps you could set out your rules of evidenceDawn Bertot

How did you come to the conclusion thatevolution (biological macro evolution) and its claims, evidences and so-called evidence was a fact? Even if it were a tenative fact, what would this mean in disproving the existence of Godwhen I say YOUR CONCLUSION concerning evo, i dont mean all the physical data, but the method of reasoning for its conclusionsCan I use the same rules and perponderances you did for my claims? how do my claims differ from your rules.But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrarynow perhaps you could set out your rules of evidenceDawn Bertot

[qs]But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrary [qs] You really havent been doing this very long have you? Are you familiar with the term 'Wave of the hand debating', you cant simply assert there are no rules in my above statement, wave your hand and makeit go awayyou need to demonstrate why they are not obvious rulesYou would be laughed out and probably carried out of the polemic arena, were you in an actual live public debate Great now we are getting somewhere, so you used a rule of evidence, that made you conclude that a process may have happened in a certain way, but not knowing absolutley and conclusively, yet you still believe it happened in that way never actually having seen the actual eventssecondly, what does it do to your theory if these facts as you present them are contested in any serious fashion by other experts? are your facts then not facts?Just a thoughtDawn bertot

sorry doubleEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

jar please try and maintain an adult attitude about this discussion, quit letting you temperment get in the way, your immature feelings are clouding our discussionsecondly, think deeper at present than any any physical aspect of what we are discussing, not the data but the method of reasoning in you logic that allowed your conclusionsD Bertot

jar please try and maintain an adult attitude about this discussion, quit letting you temperment get in the way, your immature feelings are clouding our discussionsecondly, think deeper at present than any physical aspect of what we are discussing, not the data but the method of reasoning in you logic that allowed your conclusions Again, demonstrate why there are no rules in that sentence, dont just assert itD Bertot

Then your only logical conclusion is that you actually saw the events of evolution actually happen, if you did not use a rule of evidence in that situation, then that is the only possible conclusion or alternative you can offer to mehaving not actually witnessed the entire events of so-called evolution cannot be deduced from a single example. its a rule of evidence, that says it must have happened that way, without knowing or seeing all the facts.You cant be serious or taken serious, in maintaing that you are not using a rule of evidenceDawn bertot

Then your only logical conclusion is that you actually saw the events of evolution actually happen, if you did not use a rule of evidence in that situation, then that is the only possible conclusion or alternative you can offer to mehaving not actually witnessed the entire events of so-called evolution cannot be deduced from a single example. its a rule of evidence, that says it must have happened that way, without knowing or seeing all the facts.You cant be serious or taken serious, in maintaing that you are not using a rule of evidence in establishing what the facts might or must have been. You didnt witness diddlyDawn bertot

It does not surprise me you do not understand the above statement or its direct implications. My guess it that you might actually understand but do not know how to respond logicallybut it is good to demonstrate you fellas have a whole set of rules of evidence for yourself and another for us theistSuch is lifeDawn Bertot

To demonstrate my point that you accept, believe and incur as fact, (evolution) and its entire process as fact, though having never seen what actually took place, I ONLY NEED TO REFER TO YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT, which is a small part of a gigantic process, all of which has not been so easlily demonstratedIt is not true that only division exists between evolutionist and creationist. discord also exists amoung evolutionary scientists about the HOW of it, some gradualist and some still great leapersthey both base thier conclusions on the "DATA", correctWhile, it is also equally true that some scientest, based on the data, have concluded that life appeared suddenly, without any real explanation as to whyMy physical data conerning God and meaning would suggest many things, of the same nature, ie design and obvious forthought. I could not ignore some of the data that you purpose anymore than you could ignore (and one really has to) the design and intracacy in nature itself.Why would you buy one and not the other?This discussion (at present) has very little to do with actual data, accept our references to it as an exampleThis discussion (at present)is about the HOW of establishing evidence, facts then MEANINGDAWN BERTOTEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.