|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Non sequitur. Even if there was a creation theory, which there isn't, and even if it was the only logical alternative to evolution, which it isn't, that still wouldn't "make" creationism scientific. In order to be scientific, creationism would still have to follow the rules and procedures of science, which it doesn't. It is one of only two logical alternatives, supported by design, which makes it more than scientific. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I thought we were interested in what was actual demonstratble fact, the consensus could be and is wrong concerning the FACT of evolution
Please try to use scientific terms correctly: Evolution is a demonstrable fact. That change occurs from generation to generation is not seriously disputed by anyone but a few cranks. The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation how existing species developed. The theory explains all of the myriad facts that have been observed, and has successfully made predictions. Religious belief does not need scientific facts or theories; it relies on scripture, dogma, faith, etc. And, as such, it cannot be used to contradict scientific facts or theories. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is no evidence of either design or designer. Further, even if there was it is worthless, of no value. The issue would still be "How does the designer do things" and so far the only model that has any evidence in support of it is the Theory of Evolution. Now you are starting to get the point, its not a matter of whether you believe there is EVIDENCE of design, its a matter of whether it should be taught as a fact or whether it could be demonstrated as a fact. Its your measuring rod. Evolution (in its entirity)is not a demonstratable fact, nor should it be taught as science. Science should only include the immediate and the observable, evolution in its entirity is NEITHER, therfore not scientific By denouncing my position you have crumbled your own Its that simple,its really that simple. Remember those words Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Uh, yes they do need to be taught about the creation theory, since design supports it and it falls well within the only two logical explanations of the origin of life in the first place Why cannot any IDer show any scientific evidence for design? Also, I see that you agree that ID is just creationism in a lighter, friendlier package. I posted this link earlier on another thread but it seems to be appropriate here too.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories I think you need to understand what a Theory is before you start throwing the word around. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Non sequitur. Even if there was a creation theory, which there isn't, and even if it was the only logical alternative to evolution, which it isn't, that still wouldn't "make" creationism scientific. In order to be scientific, creationism would still have to follow the rules and procedures of science, which it doesn't. Thats the point evolution is neither a fact nor an alternative to anything scince it demonstrates only a possibilty, that answers nothing about the origin of anything Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Evolution (in its entirity)is not a demonstratable fact, nor should it be taught as science. Bullshit. Sorry but that is simply crap and false. There is overwhelming evidence of Evolution.
Science should only include the immediate and the observable, evolution in its entirity is NEITHER, therfore not scientific Absolute nonsense. That has NOTHING to do with science. Evolution can be observed. We have tens of millions of fossils that show living critters have changed over time. Evolution is a fact.
Now you are starting to get the point, its not a matter of whether you believe there is EVIDENCE of design, its a matter of whether it should be taught as a fact or whether it could be demonstrated as a fact. As I pointed out above, even if there was evidence of design it is not worth teaching. Design and a designer, even ifg they were true tell us nothing of value. It would still be necessary for there to be a Theory of Design that explained how the designer did things. Until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seen better than the Theory of Evolution explains what is seen there is simply nothing to be taught or included in a curriculum. And guess what. For there to be a Theory of Design it will have to get to teh same physical level involving chemistry that the Theory of Evolution already covers. Design cannot be taught as either fact or Theory but only as fantasy. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
It amazes me that in the almost 3 years since you started posting here that you still do not understand the very basics about the Theory of Evolution.
Thats the point evolution is neither a fact nor an alternative to anything scince it demonstrates only a possibilty, that answers nothing about the origin of anything The TOE is not about and says nothing about origins. Can you just learn the basics of what it is about before you make wild ass claims against it? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Of course evolution is a fact, as demonstrated countless times. You have no excuse for not understanding that. My point was that creationism is not a viable alternative to that fact because creationism can not be demonstrated. Not even a miracle can turn creationism into science. ringo writes:
Thats the point evolution is neither a fact nor an alternative to anything scince it demonstrates only a possibilty, that answers nothing about the origin of anything Even if there was a creation theory, which there isn't, and even if it was the only logical alternative to evolution, which it isn't, that still wouldn't "make" creationism scientific. In order to be scientific, creationism would still have to follow the rules and procedures of science, which it doesn't. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Please try to use scientific terms correctly: Evolution is a demonstrable fact. That change occurs from generation to generation is not seriously disputed by anyone but a few cranks. The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation how existing species developed. The theory explains all of the myriad facts that have been observed, and has successfully made predictions. Religious belief does not need scientific facts or theories; it relies on scripture, dogma, faith, etc. And, as such, it cannot be used to contradict scientific facts or theories. Thats the problem, the first two although connected are passed off as fact. One is demonstrable the other is not. Most of religious belief is supporrted by data, but that has nothing to do with what we are discussing Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It amazes me that in the almost 3 years since you started posting here that you still do not understand the very basics about the Theory of Evolution. Trust me I do,my points go much deeper than those simplitic terms, divisions and nonsense. Pleae pay close attention Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Thats the problem, the first two although connected are passed off as fact. One is demonstrable the other is not.
The first is a fact, the second is a theory. Theories explain facts. Theories are disproved by facts that contradict them, and by facts they cannot explain. Religion provides neither, as it is not based on data, as you claim, but on belief and faith. These are the exact opposite of science, and in fact are both anti-science and anti-rational. Yet, you want to use religious belief as scientific evidence. Sorry, that doesn't work. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
You really seem to be confused as to what a Scientific Theory is.
In case you decline to read the link I posted above I will quote it here. quote:Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com It is not a guess. It is an explanation of facts. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Bullshit. Sorry but that is simply crap and false. There is overwhelming evidence of Evolution. Now without getting emotional, try and stay logical and watch where the argument goes. I know you honestly believe youthink you can show me the entire process of evolution, simply putyou cannot. The fossil record while it shows change does not provemacro evolution. For myself design in things is as strong as your belief orobservtion in the natural world. There is overwhelmingevidence of design
Until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seen better than the Theory of Evolution explains what is seen there is simply nothing to be taught or included in a curriculum. Sure there is, that it is a very real probabilty as to how life began, considering it has there ear marks of a designer. While neither can be proved absolutley, both hold equal validity Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Why don't you go for that Nobel prize and show us this theory of design.
Sure there is, that it is a very real probabilty as to how life began
Is there any way to go through the denseness so you will learn that the TOE has nothing to do with how life began? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024