|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The meaning of "meaning" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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 me having not actually witnessed the entire events of so-called evolution cannot be deduced from a single example. Huh? More word salad. I have no idea what that means or what that has to do with what I have said. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
No, it did not use a rule of evidence. I just held a rock in my hand. 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 me having 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 diddly Dawn bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Huh? More word salad. I have no idea what that means or what that has to do with what I have said. 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 logically but it is good to demonstrate you fellas have a whole set of rules of evidence for yourself and another for us theist Such is life Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Deeper? Yawn. I held the evidence in my hands. The data is what drives the conclusions. It is the data. It really is that simple. Oldest rocks ---> no signs of life. Younger rocks ---> simple life still younger rocks ----> greater diversity of life forms as we move to younger and younger rocks we find life forms change, evolve. Data. Simply data. It really is that simple. Bring me the physical data. 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 demonstrated It 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 leapers they both base thier conclusions on the "DATA", correct While, it is also equally true that some scientest, based on the data, have concluded that life appeared suddenly, without any real explanation as to why My 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 example This discussion (at present)is about the HOW of establishing evidence, facts then MEANING DAWN BERTOT Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Jar writes
I am not the person making the claim that there are rules in that word salad. If there are rules in that word salad then please educate me, show them to me. MAYBE YOUR OWN SOURCES WILL HELP EXPLAIN EVIDENCE TO YOU from wiki
Evolution as THEORY AND FACT From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Part of the Biology series on Evolution Mechanisms and processesAdaptation Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation Natural selection Speciation Research and historyIntroduction Evidence Evolutionary history of life History Level of support Modern synthesis Objections / Controversy Social effect Theory and fact Evolutionary biology fieldsCladistics Ecological genetics Evolutionary development Evolutionary psychology Molecular evolution Phylogenetics Population genetics Systematics Biology portal v d e The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection. When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] EVEN THOUGH THIS CANNOT BE DIRECTLY OSERVED. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates. Highlights on the captitalizations are mine Its not as open and shut as you might seem to think. You believe in something did not and cannot observe directly Not to mention evolution is not about origins but processes Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3405 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
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 RULES The conversation you and I are having concerns your assertion that you have proofs of the existance of god(s). I have asked you to show me these proofs, but you have persistantly failed to do so. You have instead presented us with ungrammatical irrelevencies and word salad. It is time for you to put up or shut up. If you do not present your proofs, clearly stated, I must conclude that you have no such proofs and were lieing when you claimed to have them. I realize that that is standard operating procedure among the religious, but I was hoping for better from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then once again, if I am wrong or mistaken, please explain further.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It 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 leapers But we were not discussing the "how" of Evolution. We were discussing whether Evolution was a fact. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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 demonstrated As it stands, such will be, but if at a later date, conflicting data is shown to be more reliable than the current data, the idea, theory, etc. is changed. thus: Newton to Einstein, GravityCopernicus to Kepler, Heliocentrism Mendeleev to Seaborg, Periodic Law All of these accepted facts were altered based on data the originator did not have. That is the role of science. The point which this topic is trying to show, meaning has no meaning except by what can be logically determined according to the data present and there is no meaning of anything except by evidence pointing to this data. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It 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 leapers Who are the "great leapers"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
I suppose I am a "great leaper" in that I agree with some of the ideas of Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equilibria. However, I don't see much discord. It's mainly a difference in emphasis. Punctuated equilibria (or "punk eek") does not offer any support at all for creationism.
It 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 leapers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I suppose I am a "great leaper" in that I agree with some of the ideas of Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equilibria. Me too, specifically those ideas which were in the Origin of Species. But that doesn't make me a saltationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dr Adequate writes:
Well stated. It's amazing, the way creationist jump to false conclusions about that.Me too, specifically those ideas which were in the Origin of Species. But that doesn't make me a saltationist. Well, okay, it's not amazing. Coming to faulty conclusions is par for the course for creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The conversation you and I are having concerns your assertion that you have proofs of the existance of god(s). It sure does and it also involves those statements made by yourself, that motivated me to make that claim in the first place You will not dictate the course of the conversation and deal only with the claims that I have made. You will also concern yourself with the claims you have made, that these attempts to this point are misrible failures. that is a claim that warrents more than assertions.
I have asked you to show me these proofs, but you have persistantly failed to do so. While you are confident that this is a usual pratice of the religious, I am confident that the usual practice of the secular fundamentalist atheist is to avoid the fact that they have one set of rules for themselves, concerning facts and evidence, for that which has been unobserved. To demonstrate that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are not only not failures, but very reasonable and acceptable in that respect, one needs to demonstrate the rule of evidence to be followed Interesting, to this point you have avoided answering the simple question, is it possible to accept as fact and believe in something you did not observe first hand? Wonder why?
It is time for you to put up or shut up. If you do not present your proofs, clearly stated, I must conclude that you have no such proofs and were lieing when you claimed to have them. Not a problem, baring in mind that to this point you have avoided every point concerning EVIDENCE. Yopu answered nothing concerning your methodology The first and physical reality concerning this evidence is that of design. design is not something that needs to be evaluated, it should be obvious at first glance. Upon close inspection it becomes even more obvious that the mechanism is moving in harmony with what has been previously orchestrated Even the microscopic elements themselves demonstrate more design and harmony than any thing the human mind could create and we do create things that exhibit design Moving the process backwards to the most basic parts only complicates the process for the skeptic of design, it causes more confusion and questions, yet the obvious design remains untouched by any skepticism It would be idiotic to assume design in simple human creations, then reject that which far exceeds our creations Is it possible that such things could have designed themselves, anything is possible, but one really needs to work hard at it and avoid alot of common sense to circumvent something as intricate as the brain Now, how in the world would you advance an argument that could suggest that obvious design is a misrable failure. I submit your task is impossible. Mine on the other hand requires only simple observation and a little common sense Conclusion on this point. If you can come to the conclusion that evolution took place by handling rocks and looking at strata, but cannnot see obvious desgn in the brain and microscopic organisms, i must conclude you have a strange sense of reasoning abilites. Or is that your position of atheism forces you to reject any evidence in that direction to start with. rejection of the obvious or an argument does not remove its intricacy Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024