Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 91 of 107 (589755)
11-04-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 10:28 AM


Re: Suggestion
Would you please stop posting off topic material in my thread.
If you can't tell that this is off topic, perhaps you should stop posting in this thread entirely.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 11:26 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 107 (589757)
11-04-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 10:28 AM


Re: Suggestion
Someone so contemptibly stupid that he's lying to me about the contents of my own posts writes:
Ill try this again and see if you try avoiding it again. Answer the question
What exacally does the totality of evolution predict that is different than IDs methodology
Instead if repeading what I asked you, perhaps you could give me an example that is different than IDs methods. Since the scientific method is superior.
So what predictions does evo make and how are its basic scientific methods different than IDs, to make it more acceptable
Examples this time, not repetitions of my questions, reworded
This should be fun to watch
Dawn Bertot
Dr A writes:
It makes predictions in a number of fields such as morphology, embryology, paleontology, genetics, behavioral ecology and biogeography.
However we have strayed far enough from the topic of this thread without me giving you a crash course in Evolution For Absolute Beginners.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 93 of 107 (589760)
11-04-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
11-03-2010 4:45 AM


Re: Final exam questions
That is not the case. ID has never, anywhere established any evidence that supports the notion that life was designed by a supernatural designer i.e. Yaweh.
Ill try and keep this simple so you caan understand. Larni we are looking at cold hard facts, I am not positing the idea of a creator.
We are establishing what we can from physical properties. In your case change and natural selection, in mine order and design. That is what the evidence allows us.
Since these are the only conclusions the evidence willl allow, and both can be established logically and physically, both are therefore scienctific in there approach
I agree that ToE has no nearing on anybodies beliefs in the supernatural but how on Earth does the fequency of allele change over time mean that matter is eternal?
Good question and an easy one to answer. Every position dealing with physical reallities needs to poist its initiation source, or atleast attempt to find its source if one is to be completely logical and scientific.
Logic and reality only allow two conclusions.
Saying one does not need to worry about such a question is both unscientific and illogical.
So If I am consistently required to provide a designer, then one would need to provide that matter is eternal for thier conclusion to be completely valid and completely scientific in nature
No TRUE scientific method would disregard its initiation source
Now watch and pay close attention. If neither of us requires such n our arguments then we both have to use only the available evidence. Natural selection is there and so is design and order, there are no toher choices, but both are clearly allowed
Disregard conclusion at this point and you will see the Design purposal follows all the same methods and passes all the same tests
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 11-03-2010 4:45 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 12:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 11-04-2010 4:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 98 by frako, posted 11-04-2010 7:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 94 of 107 (589761)
11-04-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by subbie
11-04-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Suggestion
Would you please stop posting off topic material in my thread.
If you can't tell that this is off topic, perhaps you should stop posting in this thread entirely.
Sorry I did not see this before I finished up Larnis response. As you wish

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by subbie, posted 11-04-2010 10:30 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 95 of 107 (589776)
11-04-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 10:28 AM


Re: Suggestion
What exacally does the totality of evolution predict that is different than IDs methodology
This is word salad, Dawn. Predictions and methodologies are different things.
So what predictions does evo make and how are its basic scientific methods different than IDs, to make it more acceptable
The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method. You have the hierarchial structure all wrong. It is the scientific method at the top, with the theory of evolution being a product of that method. There is no evolutionary method. There is only the scientific method.
ID is not a product of the scientific method. ID is a product of christian theology. This is why it is meaningless to have ID supporters ask for debates with scientists. You should be having a theological debate with theologians if you truly want to debate ID.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 96 of 107 (589778)
11-04-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Final exam questions
Every position dealing with physical reallities needs to poist its initiation source,
No, it doesn't. We can know that the oxidation of hydrogen results in water without needing to know where hydrogen and oxygen came from. We can know that diseases are caused by infectious germs without needing to know where the first germ came from. We can know that mass warps spacetime without needing to know where mass or spacetime came from.
No TRUE scientific method would disregard its initiation source
Not every hypothesis requires the initiation point for the whole universe in order to be tested. You are flatly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 97 of 107 (589813)
11-04-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Final exam questions
then one would need to provide that matter is eternal for thier conclusion to be completely valid and completely scientific in nature
?
Thanks for restating your assertion but you have yet to provide any rational for why this is so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 98 of 107 (589846)
11-04-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Final exam questions
Good question and an easy one to answer. Every position dealing with physical reallities needs to poist its initiation source, or atleast attempt to find its source if one is to be completely logical and scientific.
ok then tell me logicly and scientificly where did the desighner come from??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:50 PM frako has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 99 of 107 (589863)
11-04-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
11-04-2010 10:28 AM


Re: Suggestion
Whisky, Tango, Foxtrot, Oscar?
{my emphasis}
What exacally does the totality of evolution predict that is different than IDs methodology
. . .
Instead if repeading what I asked you, perhaps you could give me an example that is different than IDs methods. Since the scientific method is superior.
So what predictions does evo make and how are its basic scientific methods different than IDs, to make it more acceptable
ID has methods? ID has a methodology??? Whatever is it?!?!?!
We have repeated asked, pleaded with you, to tell us what ID's methodology is, or even to tell us whether it even has a methodology. And in response you refused to enlighten us in your own inimitable way (decrying as idiots everybody who tries to make sense our of your incomprehensible blathering).
Well, now that you finally state that there does exist an ID methodology and even insist that we compare it to the scientific method, you no longer have any excuse. Now you must present the ID methodology.
So, present it! Just exactly how are we supposed to objectively and reliably detect and determine design?
Edited by dwise1, : Just exactly how are we supposed to objectively and reliably detect and determine design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-04-2010 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 100 of 107 (589864)
11-04-2010 8:03 PM


I have asked Dawn Bertot to stop participating in this thread since he cannot stay on topic. He has apparently acceded to my request. I would suggest that anyone wishing to ask him further questions start a new thread.

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

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 101 of 107 (596139)
12-13-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
08-10-2009 6:59 AM


Re: A comment on the thread title
MrJack wrote:
quote:
Thinking about it, I don't think branding these Cdesign "propentists" as trolls is valid. A troll seeks to cause flamewars for his own amusement, to rile and annoy, for no purpose other than the kick of winding someone up. These guys "won't" to save our souls, and spread the truth.
It's only a pity they've been so repeatedly lied to they couldn't "recognide" the truth if it bit them on the arse.
What is a "propentist," MrJack? I've never seen that word before. Must be something you just made up on the spur of the moment.
And wasn't that Vice President Dan Quayle totally stupid when he misspelled "potatoe"?
On we go to "won't to save our souls". I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that you won'ted to say "want." Dan Quayle was totally stupid when he misspoke. But you scholars? Not so much. Simple oversights, and that is that.
I completely "recognide" the truth.
"Ridicule is the only weapon..." - Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2009 6:59 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taz, posted 12-13-2010 12:53 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 105 by subbie, posted 12-13-2010 12:57 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 106 by Panda, posted 12-13-2010 1:07 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 102 of 107 (596140)
12-13-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by frako
11-04-2010 7:19 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Frako wrote:
quote:
ok then tell me "logicly" and "scientificly" where did the "desighner" come from??
1. Logically
2. Scientifically
3. Designer
4. Okay
Science is a good deal more difficult than spelling words of your own choosing, and yet you failed miserably at that, in a single sentence. Say, did liberals ever tell you about how "stupid" Dan Quayle was for misspelling "potatoe."
The Holy Bible answered your question almost two thousand years ago.
God said "I am." He didn't "come" from anywhere. God is eternal and unchanging.
You may not understand this. I certainly do not. But there are many aspects of reality that we do not understand, and yet we accept them on a daily basis. The godless left merely picks and chooses from among a select few things it refuses to consider honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by frako, posted 11-04-2010 7:19 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2010 12:54 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 103 of 107 (596141)
12-13-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:44 PM


Re: A comment on the thread title
Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"
cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki
In short, cdesign proponentsist is a transitional fossil that links intelligent design and creationism.
Urban Dictionary: potatoe
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:44 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 107 (596142)
12-13-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:50 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Science is a good deal more difficult than spelling words of your own choosing
How's your spelling in Serbian, BZ?
Native English speakers should, of course, know better. But we allow a certain latitude for people who are participating in a non-native language.
If the only defense you have for your position is that your opponents occasionally commit spelling errors, then your position is truly bankrupt. Maybe you'd like to produce a higher quality of argumentation before we're forced to throw your copious errors of grammar and spelling in your face?
Say, did liberals ever tell you about how "stupid" Dan Quayle was for misspelling "potatoe."
Sorry, apparently you've confused this website with "Spelling Bee Forum."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:50 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 105 of 107 (596143)
12-13-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 12:44 PM


Re: A comment on the thread title
The term "cdesign proponentists" comes from a book called Of Pandas and People. When it was first written, it used the term "creationist." Later editions, in an effort to get around First Amendment issues, changed the term to "design proponent." However, in one instance, the change was not properly done, leaving the phrase "cdesign proponentist" behind. See No webpage found at provided URL: Skepticwiki.
It's a transitional form between creationist and design proponent, giving us clear evidence of the evolution of creationism in response to various court decisions.
{AbE}
Oh, BTW, are you aware that when Thomas Jefferson was talking about ridicule being the only weapon against unintelligible propositions, he was talking about the Christian concept of the Trinity? Just curious.
Edited by subbie, : As noted

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 12:44 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024