|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread copied here from the The evidence for design and a designer thread in the Is It Science? forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I was testing for this: {bolding is mine}
Hi Dawn Bertot, I'm unable to reach any firm conclusions concerning why we're having so much difficulty obtaining a clear statement of your ideas, but I've suspected for a while now that it might be due to your unfamiliarity with the English language I posted the following message as a kind of Poeism.It was knowingly gibberish and I based it on the way Dawn Bertot writes. Panda writes:
DB could have pointed out that I was posting rubbish, or even try to critique it (at face value). You have completely ignored the effects that pre-design have.While your arguments appears to have 'outward' logical beliefs, it still lacks any 'inward' ones Your search for the first occurance is consistantly balanced on your ability to look forwards and backwards (and even sideways) at the physical area But instead DB pretended to understand.Then DB complained about my discussion method; patronised me and added a threat. Dawn Bertot writes:
I think this was meant to distract me from the fact that DB didn't understand and didn't want to admit it. Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faultyShow me specifically what I have 'ignored', Careful, you could be in for quite a ride Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I strongly suspect that the problem isn't a language one but a comprehension one. Dawn seems to have a unique way of thinking that, as far as I can tell, is not shared by any other person. His posts are largely incomprehensible by just about everyone here. And all available evidence suggests that he does not really understand what other people are saying. I'm afraid that I must take no small measure of responsibility for his presence here.
I ran into him at a PBS discussion board, related to the Kitzmiller shenanigans if memory serves, and invited him to EvC. Had I fully appreciated the depth of his inability to constructively engage in reasoned debate, I likely would not have invited him. Ah well, hindsight is 20/20. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Finally, it is evidence as far as evidence will allow. Design by observation of order, cannot be dismissed simply because you dont like it. It must be demonstrated to be invalid and illogical for it to be discarded No one is dismissing it. The point is that appearance of design does not mean design. That is the point that needs evidence to back it up.You say "X" is designed I say show the evidence. I don't simply say no that is not designed. The proof is on you. You have to show evidence that your hypothesis is valid. It is not up to me to refute it. Science is not a matter of "Read "em & weep." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You have completely ignored the effects that pre-design have. While your arguments appears to have 'outward' logical beliefs, it still lacks any 'inward' ones Your search for the first occurance is consistantly balanced on your ability to look forwards and backwards (and even sideways) at the physical area The above comment is idiocy, not worthy of attention. Hold on and let me find, someone with rational comments Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So, now that you understand that evolution has FUCK ALL to do with origins, do you plan on recanting your drivel about the "eternal existence of matter", since it has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed. Its still an idiots language that you speak Moron, can you give another alternative besides the two as to the existence of things. There is, it always existed and something eternal in nature created it. it has everything to do with that being discussed. its both a part of the logical conclusion and its there by indirect implication please provide me another alternatoive or mechanism
You have yet to provide any sort of mechanism with which to test for the design you tout. All you have done is shout "look, I'm logical. It's logical!. It's logical!" without saying much of anything else. How do we know what is designed and what is natural? Like your title implies, where is the evidence for design?
Lord in heaven you people are stupid beyond belief. Its not initially about a mechanism, except the mechanism of reality itself. what will it tell us and what will logic allow Your contrived mechanism is not the only approach. reality is the only viable approach to provide answers to the existence of things
p.s.: You might try growing up so you're not so easily offended by words, pussy face. Not only are you stupid and simplistic your a child to boot Dawn Bertot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
And as further proof of DB's complete lack of comprehension, I present this:
Dawn Bertot writes: The above comment is idiocy, not worthy of attention. Hold on and let me find, someone with rational comments It is a bit sad, really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Logic and and observable physical properties are as HONEST as it gets. What I can determine from thos aspects, is as Honest as it gets. But is it scientific? Not from what I have seen. Your problem seems to be that you confuse "possibility" with "evidence". They are not the same thing. I suppose it is possible that Leprechauns are real, but I can't cite that possibility as evidence that Leprechauns exist. What evidence do you have that an intelligent designer DID IN FACT design life? I am not asking if it is possible. I am asking what evidence we have that demonstrates that an ID was involved.
Creation, ID and evo are conclusions from logical and physical demonstrations. Creation and ID are religious beliefs, not logical conclusions. Even you can not bridge the gulf between belief and science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
what will it tell us and what will logic allow
Logic does not allow for a possibility to be redefined as evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faulty Show me specifically what I have 'ignored', Careful, you could be in for quite a ride Panda writesI think this was meant to distract me from the fact that DB didn't understand and didn't want to admit it. Im still waiting for a rebutall in a rational form of my position to begin with ill simplify it for you, so you can comprehend. every position concerning physical matter and its examinations have conclusions. evolutionists, like for people to believe that thiers doesnt, to avoid answering simple questions They say, oh that belongs to cosmology and nonsensical statements of that nature call it what you will even evolution, which is nothing more than an explanation of present matter and physical properties, has conclusions which it must address now, evolution and design are limited to physical data of a limited nature The conclusion of which is that both change and order in that material allow for design by logical argument and examination of physical properties evolution and its tenets are no more provable than design, but as the only two possibilites, it SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS tenative rational explanation order and design follow all the same BASIC rules necessary to establish it as a scientific explanation of things If falsifiability is your concern, then evolution does not pass that test either, because we know nothing of its initiation outside present data Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 109 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Logic does not allow for a possibility to be redefined as evidence. You have presented only half of my argument. Physical properties in conjunction with logic allow for evidence. the evidence of which suggest design is real , by demonstration and reason Now if you think that was done by a space alien or God is another argument Initially however, design is a logical and irresistible conclusion. not liking the obvious order in things isnot the same as removing it in any logical form. You need to remove that reality first. My bet is that you cannot Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
every position concerning physical matter and its examinations have conclusions. evolutionists, like for people to believe that thiers doesnt, to avoid answering simple questions
Can you name any theory in science that explains every single observation? I can't. All theories in science restrict themselves to a subset of all observations.
The conclusion of which is that both change and order in that material allow for design by logical argument and examination of physical properties It allows for Leprechauns too, doesn't it?
evolution and its tenets are no more provable than design, The difference is that evolution is TESTABLE. Design is not. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy, for example. Design does not. The theory of evolution predicts that LTR divergence in ERV's should mirror the phylogenetic tree constructed from orthology. Design does not. Design does not make any testable and meaningful predictions, which is why it is not scientific.
order and design follow all the same BASIC rules necessary to establish it as a scientific explanation of things Then please show us a testable hypothesis and the null hypothesis as derived from "order and design". Describe for us the experiment we can run to test this hypothesis.
If falsifiability is your concern, then evolution does not pass that test either, because we know nothing of its initiation outside present data Evolution would be falsified by a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, a bat with feathers, a bird with three middle ear bones, a lack of a phylogeny from orthologous ERV's, etc. There are tons of ways that evolution can be falsified. So would finding a bat with feathers falsify Design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you had any understanding about what I have been saying, then you wouldn't be waiting for a rebuttal. Im still waiting for a rebutall in a rational form of my position to begin with TBH: It looks like you are just stumbling around in the dark - hoping that you will eventually bump into the correct answer.You have tried 3 different 'answers' and so far you have not 'guessed' correctly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
So... we can use logic to draw conclusions from physical properties. Okay.
Physical properties in conjunction with logic allow for evidence. Dawn Bertot writes:
How does it follow that "design is real"? What are the physical properties that point to that conclusion? the evidence of which suggest design is real , by demonstration and reason "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Physical properties in conjunction with logic allow for evidence. the evidence of which suggest design is real , by demonstration and reason Then show that logic and reason instead of just alluding to it.
Initially however, design is a logical and irresistible conclusion. Based on what experiments and which hypotheses?
not liking the obvious order in things isnot the same as removing it in any logical form. You haven't shown that order leads to the conclusion of design.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024