|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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 sourceNow 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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: |
MrJack wrote:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BarackZero Member (Idle past 4854 days) Posts: 57 Joined: |
Frako wrote:
quote: 1. Logically2. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024