Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 142 (601335)
01-19-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 9:49 PM


Re: again I ask......
What do geophysicists say caused the phenomenon?
Anyone interested in science knows what caused that.
What does either the ID or creationism model say caused it, and why?
Please post your work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 10:06 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 98 by Kapyong, posted 02-28-2011 4:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 142 (601336)
01-19-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Panda
01-19-2011 7:21 PM


Re: again I ask......
Panda writes:
If something is not complex: it is not designed. Yes?
I meant to say they were not intelligently designed.
They would have been naturally designed, but not complex.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 01-19-2011 7:21 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Panda, posted 01-20-2011 6:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 142 (601339)
01-19-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coyote
01-19-2011 9:55 PM


Re: again I ask......
Coyote writes:
Anyone interested in science knows what caused that
I am interested. I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits. You tell me. Perhaps then I can give an objective answer to the questions. What's the big secret? You''re the geophysicist.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:55 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 01-20-2011 10:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 142 (601343)
01-19-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 10:06 PM


Re: again I ask......
I am interested. I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits. You tell me. Perhaps then I can give an objective answer to the questions. What's the big secret? You''re the geophysicist.
No, I'm an archaeologist/physical anthropologist.
But I want you to apply the ID/creationist model and tell us how you would arrive at the answer.
That is what scientists had to do--apply the scientific method.
But creationists/IDers claim to be doing science, so how would they find out this answer, and any others involving design/non-design?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 95 of 142 (601377)
01-20-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 9:58 PM


Re: again I ask......
Buzsaw writes:
I meant to say they were not intelligently designed.
They would have been naturally designed, but not complex.
Just to clarify:
Things can be naturally designed or intelligently designed.
The way you would identify ID is from complexity and not design, yes?
How do you gauge complexity?
What did you measure to ascertain that the object in the image had no complexity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 96 of 142 (601406)
01-20-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 10:06 PM


Re: again I ask......
Buzsaw writes:
I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits.
This would be an excellent exercise in actually doing the research instead of getting all of your information from videos. This morning, I knew nothing about the phenomenon, though I had my suspicions (hint: Spitzbergen). It took me two minutes to find it and my suspicions were confirmed.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 98 of 142 (606855)
02-28-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coyote
01-19-2011 9:55 PM


Re: again I ask......
Gday,
Coyote writes:
Anyone interested in science knows what caused that.
I'm interested, I like puzzles, but I'm not in geophysics, and I can admit being wrong.
Without research - I surmise these rings were caused by WATER.
Perhaps a seasonal thing as water floods up from below.
How's that ?
Kapyong
P.S.
Oh - Ice would be a better answer :-(
Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.
Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:55 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 99 of 142 (612904)
04-19-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
01-19-2011 11:23 AM


Re: When pigs fly
lest Nonukes claims Ihave abandoned some thread here or there, here we go
Dawn Bertot writes
Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions.
Taq writes
False. The evolutionary model lets us demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes as shown above. It does so in a testable and falsifiable manner. The ID model doesn't have these attributes. It is not testable and it is not falsifiable.
No taq you misunderstand the nature of a conclusion in these respects. the conclusion of evolution is not evolution, but must be the conclusion of, was created or is the result of soley natural causes.
The evolutionary model regaurdless of how complicated you describe it is but an examination of physical properties. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the validty of ID. If evolution were true, it would not invalidate ID. ID stands on different ground, but uses the same process for its conclusion.
One would need to demonstrate in logical form why IDs process is not science, since it employs the self-same methods for its immediate conclusions concerning order and law
Do a google search for "cdesign proponentist". That should clear up a lot.
reality and rational thinking explain what ID and creationism are, not websites
taq dont use borrowed arguments, think for yourself. test the conclusions of what you believe, carry it to its logical conclusion to if it is valid. think for yourself
ID is the result of "creation science" losing court cases and being booted out of schools.
ID is an attempt to dress creationism in a lab coat and try to sell it as a science. That is the whole point of ID. No scientist is using ID to do scientific research. The only way in which ID is used is to push the creationist agenda of getting religion into science classes.
This of course is just bantering and has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Of course scientist dont use ID, its a conclusion of a process. They ofcourse do use the procees and model established by order and law in the natural world, which is the process for ID.
Science is more than examination. Gathering facts is but a single step in the scientific method. You also need to construct hypotheses and then test those hypotheses. ID is incapable of doing this which is why it is not science.
Your just mencing words. Hypothesis and falsifiability are just more examination. these are other words for examination. Do you stop examining when you start hypthesising. Of course not. We examine you examine
Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis)
.
So tell me then, what are the causes of the observations you conduct and what hyothesis and experiments will you conduct to demonstrate the nature of things itself? Your method or model of course can only measure processes, not conclusions.
To demonstrate my point beyond any doubt. How will you test the Null hypoithesis against the conclusion of Soley natural causes. What physical experiments could let you know for sure, it is not the result of a designer. Of course you could conduct no such test, which means one of sevearal things
You are incorrectly evaluating the IDs methodology
You are requiring of IDs methods something you dont for yours, because:
You are confusing the conclusion of ID with your process
You are misapplying the principle of falsifiabilty to ID, when it should be applied to its process
Your ignoring the fact that some physical principles (order and law) dont need to be continually retested if theve been demonstrated to be true and valid
Your ignoring the fact that order and law are as valid as change and natural selection to any conclusions concerning the origins of things
And finally you are ignoring the fact that any processes (models) that accurately (by scientific examination) explain the causes for the natural world and its origins, are scientific and should be taught in the science arena
Since the ID process (model) follows any logical and scientific examination process, it would follow logically that it has nothing to do with religion and should be taught as science. Your everwhelming and misguided prejudices, notwithstanding
ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science.
Only ignorance or prejudice of any rational thought process would make such a foolish statement. of course it does not jump anything its simply that one does not need to continually keep testing the same evidence and process when we already know order and law exist and are a valid scientific explanation of the nature and origin of things
tell me. in your scientific methodology, once you are certain and sure about a thing and know for sure it is true. Do you continue to conduct new and different test to it or do you use its principles safe in the fact that they are true and that you can proceed with its accurate attributes to apply it somewhere else/
[qs]Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science. [qs] ID, like Soley natural causes are conclusions and only thier processes can be considered science. Since IDs process more than qualifies in this connection, it follows that the process of ID and its conclusions should be taught as science, as are evo and soley natural causes.
So how do we test the claim that Order and Law are the product of an intelligent designer? Please describe these experiments, or admit that ID is not science.
Why, the same way you test the claim that evo is the product of soley natural causes, by an examination, scientific in nature of the natural world, with processes that are testable to teastable conclusions concerning physical properties
By an examination of both individual and countless organisms in the natural world. all of which will result in experiments that demonstrate order and law. if this is not good enough please explain what other test I could conduct, in the SM approach that would validate or invalidate said law and order.
Give me an example of how the SMs approach would demonstrate the conclusion of soley natural causes more than it would a designer. What experiments and null hypos would you use. Now remember it has to be more than an examination, for it to be scientific
Demonstrate that IDs process (model) is not a scientific approach, to that conclusion. Since it cannot be demonstrated by any scientific method that things were not designed to evolve. perhaps you could describe a test that would take prescedence over IDs approach, to that conclusion
Since neither of our conclusions is provable absolutely, it would follow that any valid logical, scientific explanations, should be taught in this connection. if not why not?
Since neither, as the state or country wishes has anything to do with religion, but are physical approaches, both should be taught.
It follows therefore that IDs method (model) is real science. Ones method or model does not have to involve detailed explanations and experiments where the truth is already established or where the truth cannot be known absolutely. the process of evolution and IDs model stand or fall together.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:23 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2011 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 142 (612909)
04-19-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dawn Bertot
04-19-2011 11:08 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
No taq you misunderstand the nature of a conclusion in these respects. the conclusion of evolution is not evolution, but must be the conclusion of, was created or is the result of soley natural causes.
False. The theory of evolution does not deal with origins, but with change over time.
The evolutionary model regaurdless of how complicated you describe it is but an examination of physical properties. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the validty of ID. If evolution were true, it would not invalidate ID. ID stands on different ground, but uses the same process for its conclusion.
Science is not involved in a search for "truth." This is why:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
One would need to demonstrate in logical form why IDs process is not science, since it employs the self-same methods for its immediate conclusions concerning order and law
ID does not employ the same methods as science. Just for a start, ID avoids peer-reviewed journals like vampires avoid garlic. Rather, they try to con school boards and other weak-minded groups. The "premier" ID group is the Discovery Institute -- they employ hoards of lawyers and PR flaks, but have no real scientists, no laboratory, and no research budget. The bible has done their research for them, so they don't need anything more. See the Wedge Document for the sordid details.
reality and rational thinking explain what ID and creationism are, not websites
Reality and rational thinking are the exact opposites of ID and creationism.
Of course scientist dont use ID, its a conclusion of a process. They ofcourse do use the procees and model established by order and law in the natural world, which is the process for ID.
Correct, they start with a conclusion--derived from the bible, "divine revelation," superstition, folklore, and myth. They do not use the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion. The scientific method in fact comes to conclusions that are exactly the opposite of those of creationism and it's illegitimate offspring, ID.
What physical experiments could let you know for sure, it is not the result of a designer. Of course you could conduct no such test, which means one of sevearal things
You are incorrectly evaluating the IDs methodology
You are requiring of IDs methods something you dont for yours, because:
You are confusing the conclusion of ID with your process
You are misapplying the principle of falsifiabilty to ID, when it should be applied to its process
Your ignoring the fact that some physical principles (order and law) dont need to be continually retested if theve been demonstrated to be true and valid
Your ignoring the fact that order and law are as valid as change and natural selection to any conclusions concerning the origins of things
And finally you are ignoring the fact that any processes (models) that accurately (by scientific examination) explain the causes for the natural world and its origins, are scientific and should be taught in the science arena
Since the ID process (model) follows any logical and scientific examination process, it would follow logically that it has nothing to do with religion and should be taught as science.
Wrong. Just wrong.
You are arguing as most creationists and IDers do. You know the truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH, and TRVTH. But you know it from sources other than the scientific method. So sure are you that you and only you know creationists/IDers know the truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH, and TRVTH that the scientific method is an impediment, to be discarded if it does not show the same results as you believe to be the truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH, and TRVTH.
As a result you flock to the internet to convert the heathens with your scientific acumen, and--totally ignoring the warnings of St. Augustine--spout nonsense. Here is the advice of St. Augustine. Please apply it as needed:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-19-2011 11:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2011 1:48 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 101 of 142 (612912)
04-20-2011 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
04-19-2011 11:55 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
False. The theory of evolution does not deal with origins, but with change over time.
C, try and think outside the box for once in your life. try and think for yourself without using borrowed concepts and ideas. try an be completely rational. Now pay close attention. Every ideology and investigation dealing with the natural world, is dealing with origins, your opinion notwithstanding. Every argument applied to the natural world, has a conclusion twords the origin of things. Yours is soley natural causes, some is design, some is brain in a jar on a shelf, etc, etc
ofcourse evolution deals with change just like, Id deals with order and law. But Evo still has a veiw to a conclusion. What person finding a briefcase on their stoop, having examine it throughly, then would not say, "I wonder how that got their", or I wonder where it came from. You get the point
Finding terms such as Abogenesis, to imply that the investigation has nothing to do with the conclusion is just plain nonesense. No thinking person would seperate the two and rational and reality will not allow it. Every investigation possesses thee properties
Science is not involved in a search for "truth." This is why:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
my simple friend, if "science" rejects the claims of Id, it is by implication sugesting it knows it is not true and has a better alternative. what is the alternative to ID not being true? if it knows ID is not true then it is saying that is "true", which violates the above principle
ID does not employ the same methods as science. Just for a start, ID avoids peer-reviewed journals like vampires avoid garlic. Rather, they try to con school boards and other weak-minded groups. The "premier" ID group is the Discovery Institute -- they employ hoards of lawyers and PR flaks, but have no real scientists, no laboratory, and no research budget. The bible has done their research for them, so they don't need anything more. See the Wedge Document for the sordid details.
Come on C, you know this is not a rational response, its an emotional one. Its has no valid argument. Im not "They", I cant answer for them
Correct, they start with a conclusion--derived from the bible, "divine revelation," superstition, folklore, and myth. They do not use the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion. The scientific method in fact comes to conclusions that are exactly the opposite of those of creationism and it's illegitimate offspring, ID.
Show me how when we start with an investigation of the natural world, that is starting with a conclusion. Isnt it true that your just mad that my conclusion about the how and why is different than yours
Augustine writes
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
Its clear from this post you are very zealous concering these issues but you do not have the philosophical debating skills to respond to the heart of arguments. perhaps someone else might
this is good advice from St Augustine, it applies to the specifics of scientific details in their minutness, not to general philosphical applications in the question of origins and the such like.
have no fear I will not attempt to discuss for example the details of the thread that RAZD, just opened. However the general principles of this discussion would cover even that discussion
Nor will I attempt to lecture you on archeology
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2011 11:55 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by frako, posted 04-20-2011 6:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 04-21-2011 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 102 of 142 (612928)
04-20-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
04-20-2011 1:48 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Show me how when we start with an investigation of the natural world, that is starting with a conclusion.Isnt it true that your just mad that my conclusion about the how and why is different than yours
Because you are not objective if you put your conclusion first and then work back and try to fit the evidence to that conclusion.
Example 1: 200 years ago it was believed that sticking a read hot poker in ones Ear would stop the tooth pain of that person. When starting with the conclusion that the above treatment works you ask the patient does your tooth still hurt, he replies no (in reality because the pain from the burn the hot poker caused to his ear supersedes the pain from the tooth), you have evidence that your treatment works, when the patient returns after a while (if he is a dumb bastard, dint die of an infection from the tooth or the hot poker ...) you simply conclude that another tooth hurts or the same one started to hurt again so you apply the same cure ask the same question get the same response and you are happy with it never seeking any additional evidence because you know your conclusion is true and you have the question are to prove it none of the patients teeth hurt after applying the treatment.
Now an example of how science works:
You made an observfation that lots of peoples teeth hurt so you decide to look into the matter you take a look at the teeth of the people in pain and note your observations (damaged teeth, caries, inflammation of the gums....), You take a look at the structure of the teeth themselves (pulling teeth from corpses dissecting them ...... when you get enough data (as much as possible) you from a hypothesis like tooth aches are caused by the inflammation of the Pulp. Then you test your hypothesis how do you do that you ask yourself the question if tooth pain is caused by the inflammation of the pulp then....... (restoring the pulp, removing the pulp ....) will cure the tooth pain and after a series of trials you find that your cure works and your patients do not die from infection like they do from the other guys cure.
But the other guy comes to your door says teach the controversy, i am doing science too or you are wrong my cure works better no patient has a tooth pain when he leaves my office your patients sometimes still experience some irritation of the teeth for a short while, my tooth pain cure is given by [insert the name of a deity] himself in his holy book .....
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2011 1:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 4:31 PM frako has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 103 of 142 (613039)
04-21-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
04-20-2011 1:48 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
... Now pay close attention. Every ideology and investigation dealing with the natural world, is dealing with origins, your opinion notwithstanding. Every argument applied to the natural world, has a conclusion twords the origin of things. Yours is soley natural causes, some is design, some is brain in a jar on a shelf, etc, etc
The philosphical underpinnings of 'The Scientific Method' are redunctionist. In this case the 'reduction' has been to separate the 'origin of life' from the subsequent 'diversification of life'.
Evolution only addresses the 'diversification' and is compatible with an origin of life by a deity or a designer or a natural process.
So basically I disagree with your counter above.
Dawn Bertot writes:
ofcourse evolution deals with change just like, Id deals with order and law. But Evo still has a veiw to a conclusion. What person finding a briefcase on their stoop, having examine it throughly, then would not say, "I wonder how that got their", or I wonder where it came from. You get the point
One might wonder how it got there, but the answer to that question has no bearing on the colour or content of the briefcase -- and is therefore irrelevant if your 'question' is 'What's inside?' or 'What colour is this?'
Dawn Bertot writes:
Finding terms such as Abogenesis, to imply that the investigation has nothing to do with the conclusion is just plain nonesense. No thinking person would seperate the two and rational and reality will not allow it. Every investigation possesses thee properties
Every sane person categorises -- and science has a 'divide and conquer' mentality.
Dawn Bertot writes:
my simple friend, if "science" rejects the claims of Id, it is by implication sugesting it knows it is not true and has a better alternative. what is the alternative to ID not being true? if it knows ID is not true then it is saying that is "true", which violates the above principle
No-one has to reject the claims of ID .... ID proponents have to convince the scientific community that they are on to something.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Show me how when we start with an investigation of the natural world, that is starting with a conclusion. Isnt it true that your just mad that my conclusion about the how and why is different than yours
Investigations start with observations, not conclusions. They then form a testable hypothesis ... then test it.
The conclusions come from the results of the 'testing'.
If you start with a conclusion and work backwards it's amazing what you can apparently 'proove'!!
Dawn Bertot writes:
Its clear from this post you are very zealous concering these issues but you do not have the philosophical debating skills to respond to the heart of arguments. perhaps someone else might
Is that a tactic to try to avoid discussing the issues raised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2011 1:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2011 9:33 AM Peter has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 104 of 142 (613171)
04-22-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Peter
04-21-2011 10:59 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Evolution only addresses the 'diversification' and is compatible with an origin of life by a deity or a designer or a natural process.
So basically I disagree with your counter above.
Pointing out that evo only address diversification, is not the same as demonstrating that it can logically be seperated as a rational approach, in argument form
representing ID as an philosophical underpinning and suggesting that one need not concern themselves the how of or why of a thing, is not logical or resonable.
You need to demonstrate this not simply state a fact concerning what evo is or does
Content and color of the case is just the start, its in your face, so to speak. While it may have nothing to do w/ how immediately, it will eventually and cannot be seperate in any logical approach. Wouldnt you agree?
One might wonder how it got there, but the answer to that question has no bearing on the colour or content of the briefcase -- and is therefore irrelevant if your 'question' is 'What's inside?' or 'What colour is this?'
Wonderment is not the issue involved. "Scientist" make a boast of being completley accurate and thorough in their approach to the natural world. To do so, an examination into the why is only rational and reasonable in logical formated approach correct
How concsistent is it for these "scientists" to claim accuracy in their SM, then trun right around and claim how the suitcase got there as not important or suggest they are not concerned how it got there, as a part of the scientific processes
Your attempt in point out the differnce in the two is noble, but it does not solve the problem from any logical and scientific approach
No-one has to reject the claims of ID .... ID proponents have to convince the scientific community that they are on to something.
because they confuse the conclusion of ID w/ its approach, they assume ID exponents have "nothing". When in fact the approach and method is exacally the same. The SM in this connection starts and finishes the same way
They get lost in the details and specifics of an examination of the minutness of the natural world and mistakenly assume that this minutia, is somehow a better process than the general approach of investigation itself.
Further hypothesis, tests and retest, will not result in a opposite conclusion of order and law,nor will it give a better or more accurate answer, than the only two possibilites for the explanation of things
The reason the ID approach has stood the test of time is because it is naturally and ratioanlly based.
Investigations start with observations, not conclusions. They then form a testable hypothesis ... then test it.
The conclusions come from the results of the 'testing'.
If you start with a conclusion and work backwards it's amazing what you can apparently 'proove'!!
This is ofcourse what I have been pleading for someone to do. Demonstrate how an examination into the natural world and its law and order is starting with a conclusion
demonstrate that further investigation and further investigation and testing of the details of the eye for example and how they work together to a purpose, is starting with a conclusion
The truth of the matter is that all people start with some preconcieved ideas. You dont think MR Darwin sat on Gallapogus (sorry if that is not how you spell it) and had all the data he needed to confirm all his theories do you?
Further experiments hundreds of years later have proved no better in a dismisal of the order and law to the conclusion of a designer
What you are actually seeing is a hatred for religion and its tenets, disguised under the academic outcries of foul and unscientific
Is that a tactic to try to avoid discussing the issues raised?
if you feel it is you are free to demonstrate what I have avoided, or any conclusions to that affect
Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards
When in fact it is only a logical and rational approach to the nature of things. It cannot be accurately demonstrated as invalid, unscientifc (if we use science in its original form) or irrational
I was there in my time in the service, (3 YEARS), in a small town called Brandon, I LOVE ENGLAND
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 04-21-2011 10:59 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2011 10:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 140 by Peter, posted 05-05-2011 7:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 142 (613176)
04-22-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
04-22-2011 9:33 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards
Scientists don't want design taught because it is not science. It's that simple. It is dogma pushed by PR flacks and lawyers, such as those at the Dishonesty Institute using the corrupt methods exposed in the Wedge Document.
And it is a step backward, as is all religious dogma. Science looks at the real world and tries to figure it out. Science follows where the evidence leads.
Religion begins with dogma and twists, misrepresents, or ignores any evidence that fails to conform to that dogma. That is the exact opposite of science and claiming it isn't is just foolish.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-22-2011 9:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 4:12 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 106 of 142 (613262)
04-23-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
04-22-2011 10:33 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Scientists don't want design taught because it is not science. It's that simple. It is dogma pushed by PR flacks and lawyers, such as those at the Dishonesty Institute using the corrupt methods exposed in the Wedge Document.
Perhaps you could post a few of the points that demonstrate this from the Wedge document. Im going to bet, it or them have nothing to do with the process or rational behind ID and creationism. Atleast not in its realistic sense
Anywho lets see it
And it is a step backward, as is all religious dogma. Science looks at the real world and tries to figure it out. Science follows where the evidence leads.
As far as I know and have accurately demonstrated so does ID, at least in the realistic sense of the words
Religion begins with dogma and twists, misrepresents, or ignores any evidence that fails to conform to that dogma. That is the exact opposite of science and claiming it isn't is just foolish.
I believe I have done much more than claim it, because if that were not true you would have responded in some logical fashion to my previous post to Peter. As far as I can see all you did was cry foul.
I think my first impression of you was correct, while you may be a very fine acheologist, I dont think you really know how to respond to philosophical and rational argumetns concerning the topic
Anyway lets see
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2011 10:33 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 04-23-2011 8:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024