|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 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. One simple way of avoiding issues in a debate is to pretend you do not understand someone. its very understandable that you wish to avoid the indirect implications of evolution and atheism. You insults help you justify your lack of ability yes i understand what you are saying and I have had it presented in a much more eloquent fashion by better than yourself through the years. Atleast they attempted a response, yours is limited to avoidance, dismisal and sarcasm. Your memory like your inabilty to reason correctly, is poor. The admiistrators at PBS DIRECTED US HERE, you invited no one, atleast not me I noticed no argument here from yourself. Are you afraid to give it a try As jaywill once pointed out, you fellas come here thinking to easily dismiss theism and its tenets and when you find out it is not so easily done, you resort to anger and insult Life lessons are good arent they Dawn Bertot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
There is, it always existed and something eternal in nature created it...... its both a part of the logical conclusion and its there by indirect implication The ONLY people who need an eternal anything are religious folk. There is nothing about the world the rest of us live in that necessitates an eternal anything.
please provide me another alternatoive or mechanism Alternative to what, exactly? Design?Mechanism for what, exactly? Life? Lord in heaven you people are stupid beyond belief. Says the person who couldn't formulate a cogent statement to save his life......
Your contrived mechanism is not the only approach. Oddly enough, I have yet to provide "my" mechanism for anything. We are still trying to figure out what the fuck you are talking about....
reality is the only viable approach to provide answers to the existence of things Quite so. Now, I think it's time for you to come back to reality and formulate a coherent argument instead of repeating "logic logic logic logic" over and over again.
Not only are you stupid and simplistic your a child to boot And you're an imbecilic assclown who sucks cock in hell. Isn't this fun? (thanks for moving this to FFA, Herr Direktor.) "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I've previously tried to engage you in a battle of wits on the field of reason and found you completely unarmed. I see no reason to repeat the exercise in futility.
At a minimum, you'd need to learn basic punctuation skills before I'd even venture an attempt. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It allows for Leprechauns too, doesn't it? Nobody is this simple. No it allows for a logical testable possibility of a designer. that all But that is all I need and it is proof enough of design, regardless of who that may be
Design does not make any testable and meaningful predictions, which is why it is not scientific. laws and order are the only test that design needs
The difference is that evolution is TESTABLE testable for what? that a tree works thusly. it is not testable to tell us anything about its origin, which is a logical conclusion of any position dealing with properties
Evolution would be falsified by a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian Evolution like design is not FALISIFIABLE, BECAUSE BOTH are testable to the only logical conclusions, both of which are demonstratable not provable. falsifiabilty is a contrived concept used in the exaimation of present and immediate properties. It does not affect the concept of design by an examination of the order of physical properties and the conclusions of those examinations while the immediate tents of evolution may be falsifiable, where it began and its initiaion source is not Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I think that CrazyDiamond7 and Dawn Bertot should have a one-on-one discussion...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
In what way are laws and order a "test"?
laws and order are the only test that design needs Dawn Bertot writes:
For one thing, DNA can be tested to find related organisms. Your DNA can be tested for whether it was you or your brother that committed the crime. Or maybe it was your cousin or a distant relative on your mother's side. Relatedness is what evolution is all about. The difference is that evolution is TESTABLE
testable for what? So, how can laws and order be similarly tested? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
No it allows for a logical testable possibility of a designer. If the possibility of a designer is all you're after, then so long as there isn't empirical evidence against it, anything remains possible. But the possibility of a designer doesn't result in evidence for a desgner, anymore than the possibility of life existing in Alpha-Centauri result in evidence for life in Alpha-Centauri.
But that is all I need and it is proof enough of design It isn't "proof" of anything, it just makes the case for it being possible.
Evolution like design is not FALISIFIABLE, BECAUSE BOTH are testable to the only logical conclusions Are you saying that a human fossil in the Cambrian era wouldn't falsify the ToE? If I told you that you won't find anything under my bed, and you find something, doesn't that falsify my claim? Likewise if it is stated that you won't find human fossils in the Cambrian era, and you do, doesn't that falsify the claim? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Nobody is this simple. No it allows for a logical testable possibility of a designer. that all So why can't Leprechauns be a logical testable possbility?
But that is all I need and it is proof enough of design, regardless of who that may be You also need the actual test of design, so you will need to describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the design of the experiment used to test these hypotheses. Where can we find that?
testable for what? that a tree works thusly. it is not testable to tell us anything about its origin, which is a logical conclusion of any position dealing with properties Evolution is testable. If we want to test to see if a tree shares ancestry with another tree (their shared origin) then we look for shared characteristics that fall into a nested hierarchy. What test do we do for Design?
Evolution like design is not FALISIFIABLE, BECAUSE BOTH are testable to the only logical conclusions
I just showed that it was. A rabbit in the cambrian would falsify evolution. It is potentially falsifiable. The whole point of testing something is to see if it is true or false. If I found a rabbit in the Cambrian would this falsify Design? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
In what way are laws and order a "test"? Again, what is it that your are testing for. Are you testing for more present physical properties, that are easily identifiable. Wow ,you past your test, big deal Now conduct a test to show me where those properties came from to begin with the test and the only test that will work is one of reason against the only known physical properties Evo or call it what ever you want, has to have an initiation source. To demonstrate that matter is eternal in character or that atheism is true one needs all information that has ever existed. otherwise it only remains a probability. laws and order are a test because they are testable. The can be observed, evaluated studied and predictions can be applied to see if they follow a pattern You have simply convinced yourself, you rmethodology is the only approach. But when i apply even your rules order passes the test for acceptablity Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
As I said in Message 166, you need to test for the physical properties that point to the conclusion that design is real.
Again, what is it that your are testing for. Dawn Bertot writes:
Nobody here is trying to demonstrate that.
To demonstrate that matter is eternal in character or that atheism is true one needs all information that has ever existed. Dawn Bertot writes:
No, we're not talking about "my methodology" at all. We're trying to figure out what your methodology is. Kindly show, in detail, how you test "laws and order" in such a way that they point to design. You have simply convinced yourself, you rmethodology is the only approach. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Dawn: your 'Bertot to English' translator is not working.
laws and order are a test because they are testable. The can be observed, evaluated studied and predictions can be applied to see if they follow a pattern
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If the possibility of a designer is all you're after, then so long as there isn't empirical evidence against it, anything remains possible. But the possibility of a designer doesn't result in evidence for a desgner, anymore than the possibility of life existing in Alpha-Centauri result in evidence for life in Alpha-Centauri. finally the voice of marijuana philosophical reason. but reasoning outside testtube mentality, nonetheless did you say that on your own or did your biological make up make you say that Oni, remember that discussion. Another one you may have lost put your joint down and listen. the espisode with Col Flag was the funniest of the mash series, hands down "Boy I wish you guys came with subtitles", Capt Pierce "cant you just let my people go" henry blake "Anything is not possible", when there are no other possibilites. those limited possibilites however, are limited to the only available information, which is based in emperical evidence, that how we know the are the only possibilites. Think in terms of evidence alone, not the conclusion of the evidence, whjich is not now availlable, if one does not accept the scriptures as an answer However, since the available evidence certainly allows both from a scientific approach, both should be taught. order needs to be demonstrated as not being order before any theory of design can be dismissed. Until then it is more than enough logical evidence
It isn't "proof" of anything, it just makes the case for it being possible. On the contrary, its evidence that falls squarely within only two logical possibilites.Why do you think it is one of only two choices, because the evidence suggests design ans well as the etrnality of matter. But hey, evidence nonetheless For evolution to be true, as you suggest, then it would follow you would need to know all possible information, even its initiation source. so evo is either true or it is not.
Are you saying that a human fossil in the Cambrian era wouldn't falsify the ToE? If I told you that you won't find anything under my bed, and you find something, doesn't that falsify my claim? Likewise if it is stated that you won't find human fossils in the Cambrian era, and you do, doesn't that falsify the claim? Think about it logically, you are giving examples of data that can be examined. The finitness or eternality of matter involve information, the likes of which are not now available, therfore they are not falsifiable. the best you can do is draw conclusions from data, examine its nature and then conclude that the eternality of matter or design are its initiation source. Both are valid logical conclusions, therefore both should be taught Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
As I said in Message 166, you need to test for the physical properties that point to the conclusion that design is real. Physical properties operating in a logical orderly fashion, consitently and repeadley this is the only test I need for it to be eviidence of order, therefore design. You not liking this is not enough to overthrow its conclusions All you need to do is demonstrate that it is not order. can you do that Dawn Bertot writes:
To demonstrate that matter is eternal in character or that atheism is true one needs all information that has ever existed. Nobody here is trying to demonstrate that. Why do you assume you have proven on your side what, I need to demonstrate for you? Simply because I am required to demonstrate in a physical way design or order, does not mean that you are NOT obligated to demonstrate the same, for the possible conclusions of evolution, ie the eternality of matter One of these positions is true and the other false. certain tenets of evolution, do not necessarily lead to the conclusion, that evolution is a product of matter eternal You need to demonstrate that to show that my position is false if this cannot be done, then it follows that the evidence for design by order and law are as valid as anyother. Npot simply becase they have not been falsified, but becase the follow the rule of evidence, wtihin the only two logical postionsDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
It has been proven many times: laws originates past scripture. But evidence copes around an infrastructure. "Anything is not possible", when there are no other possibilites. those limited possibilites however, are limited to the only available information, which is based in emperical evidence, that how we know the are the only possibilites. Think in terms of evidence alone, not the conclusion of the evidence, whjich is not now availlable, if one does not accept the scriptures as an answer However, since the available evidence certainly allows both from a scientific approach, both should be taught. order needs to be demonstrated as not being order before any theory of design can be dismissed. Until then it is more than enough logical evidence How does the physicist credit Evolution? The cell receives Design and Evolution chooses before Design.Evolution pictures every union outside a concept. Yours furthers the bible and design. Why do you elaborate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You're still not describing any test. What equipment do you use? What samples do you test? What results would lead to the conclusion of design? What results would not lead to a conclusion of design? Details, please.
ringo writes:
Physical properties operating in a logical orderly fashion, consitently and repeadley As I said in Message 166, you need to test for the physical properties that point to the conclusion that design is real. this is the only test I need for it to be eviidence of order, therefore design. Dawn Bertot writes:
Again, nobody is trying to demonstrate that there's no order. We're trying to figure out how that order points to design. All you need to do is demonstrate that it is not order. Describe the experiments. Without a connection in reality, all the logic in the world has no value. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024