|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
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 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The question is HOW does that order lead you to design? How do you distinguish, by experiment, what is designed from what is not? Experiment is not necessary, where logic dictates, the only possible outcome. Both design or order and eternal matter are supported by the data and logic. I dont need an experiment to determine that order and design are present, or the logical possibility of design Logic is the experiment against physical realities. No other test is needed The logical proposition and its support is proof of itself, it does not need your contived methodology, or continual experiments. One is enough in this instance
You can't just co-opt somebody else's experiment and re-interpret the conclusion. You need additional evidence from additional experiments to show that your conclusion is correct and the conclusion accepted by science is wrong. Tell me plainly, sharon stone infatuated, what does science tell us about the origin of matter, is it eternal or finite What is science RIGHT about in this question of existence in and of itself present your evidence.
You're getting ahead of yourself. You can't decide whether order is the possible result of the Tooth Fairy until you establish that the Tooth Fairy exists. order and physical properties that act orderly are ALWAYS and will always be the result of a valid logical proposition, the refutation of which IS NOT POSSIBLE. In this instance the proposition will always, always, always demonstrate design, by deduction, without the necessity for or the producing of a designer himself Thats what reality allows. Im sorry if that upsets you or that you cannot refute it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So long as there is no evidence pointing to the contrary, anything is possible. This is only logical, and, it allows for design to remain a possibility. But possibilities alone do not constitute proof, and that was my only point, as you seem to agree. Oni,there can never be evidence pointing to the CONTRARY, of a proposition that has reached it logical and physical limits. No information will ever arise that contradicts the two lone possibilites It cannot even be imagined, let alone demonstrated here you are acknowledging what Ringo wil not accept, the validity of design by implication.
All well and good, but it didn't answer the questions I asked you. They were just yes or no questions. 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? Ok yes, but that has nothing to do with information that is not available and never will be. Falsifiabilty, has nothing to do with design or the eternality of matter. Its thereforeinapplicable. Its removal does nothing to distrub the poposition of design by order Or maybe Im missing something your getting at Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But, I was just pointing out to you that a possibility doesn't make it proof. proof is not required where the available evidence, allows a thing to be more than reasonable, acceptable and especially teachable people resist the very logical conclusions of design , because they imply the supernatural. there is actually nothing supernatural. It is we as humans that are substandard to Gods very real and natural existence There is really no need to fear the propositionof design, especially when it cannot be demonstrated to be false, either physically or logically. there is however, every reason to accept it since it fits squarely within realites limits> Nothing else makes very much sense does it? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You don't need all information to test Evolution. You only need the observations we already have to construct a hypothesis and then design an experiment to create new observations that will test that hypothesis. So how does one do this with Design? What are the testable hypotheses and how does one test them? Your missing the point. it doesnt matter what evolution demonstrates or proves by its testing, it wont get you any closer to the fundamental question of existence. You worship evo,like Ringo worships that baberaham lincoln, S Stone, but I bet looking at her picture wont get you any closer to her Evos tests stop at the same point of designs, designs test are alittle simpler, but just as affective, but both stop due to a lack of further data
Testing a law only confirms the law. What we need are experiments that test Design, not laws.
Dont you see what you are implying here? Your confirming it is a law, your experiment for design is the law itself Your reasoning for evolution follows the same rule. What experiments do you conduct to test for the eternality of matter/ Now watch and pay close attention. You require one more rule for design that you do not ascribe to evolution. you require that we do test for design when order should be sufficient, to that task. However, you do not require of evolution the test for the eternality of matter,which would be required to demonstrate it was not designed the way it is You assume for youself what you require from me. order is suffiecient enough for design, if only change is required for evolution Orderly and detailed order is enough to design, what change and detailed change is to evolution Evolution by itself can only be true to its limits, if you can demonstrate that God did not design it. To do this you need to demonstrate the eternality of matter Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The problem IDers have is the same one that creationists have: they know the answers, and just have to make up some reasonable-sounding pseudo-science to bolster their own belief and hopefully to convince others. Because they know science is wrong, they don't see any need to study it. The problem is, those of use who do science look at the details and those details provided by creationists and IDers haven't added up to anything. They come on these internet boards and purvey their beliefs wrapped in pseudo-scientific jargon and all we can do is cringe--or laugh. You seem to know what all the PROBLEMS are in your above comment,maybe you can help us with some answers Really, what tests do you do that confirms the eternality of matter? Orwhat test do you do in that connection at all? When you you are finished with your scientific SOUND experiments, what do they tell you about the HOW, WHEN, WHERE and WHY of existence itself Can you show me some of those experiments with the mighty scientific method Your arrogance is matched only by your inability to think rationally. IOWs you are full of yourself
If you want to show how science is wrong, start by learning something about it. Gibberish is not going to impress anyone who knows the difference. Well Im all ears Junior, educate me on these things I have been mulling over for nearly forty five years. You seem to think your the man with all the answers. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The problem is Dawn Bertot continues to present absurdities and false dichotomies. There are not simply two possible causes, there could be an unlimited sequence of small, transitory and ephemeral causes. Give me an example of one of those other choices or causes. Now watch folks, he will give everything but another possibility It always starts with, "there could be", blah, blah blah
In addition, as has been pointed out, even if there were some designer that fact is irrelevant and unimportant except as a historical footnote and in the case of Product Liability suits. Logical propositions against a testable reality are never footnotes. That why they stay around and sound Nice try Jar, especially with the verbage Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I realize English and spelling are not you strong suit but I do find "verbage" hilarious.
This is the definition
quote:verbage from FOLDOC Ever hear of spellcheck? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
You seem to know what all the PROBLEMS are in your above comment,maybe you can help us with some answers
I hate to burst your little self-important whinge-bubble, but there are two reasons why Coyote won't even try to answer your complaints in a positive way:
Really, what tests do you do that confirms the eternality of matter? Orwhat test do you do in that connection at all.
When you you are finished with your scientific SOUND experiments, what do they tell you about the HOW, WHEN, WHERE and WHY of existence itself
What experiments?Oh, you mean the ones you want us to provide, to demonstrate support for some stupid strawman bullshit you are the only one believing in? To quote the esteemed Doctor Evil: "how about no, you crazy Dutch bastard." Your arrogance is matched only by your inability to think rationally. IOWs you are full of yourself
Funny, most everybody else would have said the same thing about you. Rather than acknowledge that you're wrong, you just continue to restate the same mindless drivel and toss the same word salads that you tried a dozen times before. Rather than explain what you actually mean when no less than three different people have told you it makes no sense, you pack a tantrum about nobody else thinking rationally. Rather than cogitating somebody else's argument about why they conclude a different position to yours, you ignore it completely and whinge about their not being logical, a claim based almost exclusively on the fact that since you believe you are using logic to arrive at your position, any other position cannot be logical at all. Welcome to the world, dipshit, that isn't how logic works.
Well Im all ears Junior, educate me on these things I have been mulling over for nearly forty five years. You seem to think your the man with all the answers
Coyote isn't the one screaming about how science is utterly wrong because they won't accept your "evidence" and "logic" for design. You are the one who wants to show there are problems. You've failed to do this at all. Now, care to try again, with perhaps a little less condescending and a little more attempting to engage in useful discussion? Edited by Admin, : Fix list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Nij writes:
You are implying that multiple people might not have said that same thing. Dawn Bertot writes: Your arrogance is matched only by your inability to think rationally. IOWs you are full of yourself Funny, most everybody else would have said the same thing about you.I defy you to find more than one!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
jar writes: Once we know the laws, the processes, the procedures, Buz, what value or significance has the designer even if it existed? Processes and procedures hypothesied and theorized by secularists purposefully avoid anything that could be attributed to ID, especially when Biblically supportive. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Theodoric writes: I realize English and spelling are not you strong suit but I do find "verbage" hilarious. ".....are not you strong......." BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I did give examples of possible causes. You even quoted some.
I said that the designer was unimportant and insignificant, irrelevant even. You need to show why the designer if true even deserves a footnote. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: Processes and procedures hypothesied and theorized by secularists purposefully avoid anything that could be attributed to ID, especially when Biblically supportive. What does that even mean Buz and how is it related to what I posted? What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni,there can never be evidence pointing to the CONTRARY, of a proposition that has reached it logical and physical limits. No information will ever arise that contradicts the two lone possibilites That's all well and good, but my point is only that so long as evidence to the contrary isn't available, anything remains possible. However, you do go further than you should when you claim that we as a human race have reached the limit. The only thing you can say is that you have reached your limit. You can't speak for anyone else. Logic is subjective, even if you think it's the right logical conclusion, it's still based on subjectivity.
It cannot even be imagined, let alone demonstrated YOU can't imagine it, you can't speak for anyone elses imagination. And history has shown us that your statement is just wrong. There was a time when it couldn't be imagined how the stars stayed in the sky, how the planets moved, what caused diseases, it couldn't even be imagined how crops grew without sacrifices. The human imagination is limited, so I wouldn't trust it too much. If your argument is that you can't imagine it, then that is a very weak argument.
Ok yes, Good, then the ToE can be falsified. If a human fossil is found in the Cambrian era, as you agree, it falsifies the prediction made by the ToE that it wouldn't be found.
Falsifiabilty, has nothing to do with design or the eternality of matter. Its therefore inapplicable. Its removal does nothing to distrub the poposition of design by order Or maybe Im missing something your getting at
I wasn't talking about design, just the ToE. Maybe that's what confused you. I only wanted to show you how the ToE would be falsified. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
proof is not required where the available evidence, allows a thing to be more than reasonable, acceptable and especially teachable
A geocentric model for the solar system is reasonable, teachable, and once very much accepted as the only model - we now know how wrong that was. Proof is required, not just logic. It has proven time and again to lead to false conclusions. - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024