|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Even after the strictiest investigations, it still leaves us with only two logical possibilites, both of which is demonstrateable and both of which are logical conclusions against the natural world Dawn, I have extreme difficulty making any sense at all of what you say and I now see that I'm not alone. Most of what you write is garbled and incomprehensible. It must make some kind of sense to you but to the rest of us it's totally opaque. Do you think you could slow down a bit and try to make a single argument that we can all follow? Tell us what your two 'logical possibilities' are and how you justify them.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It seems to me that science investigates the evidence to form a conclusion. Creationism and ID start with a conclusion and then form the evidence to support the conclusion. That is not possible, where the answer to that question of how and why are what you seek. You are confusing a perception with a logically set out conclusion. Even if it were true that that is what we do (it is not), it would not change the fact every investigation of the how and why has to follow the same method These fellas like to convince people they have something different and better, they dont, as you are seeing in the reponses. Refuting thier points is like shooting fish in a barrel Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn, I have extreme difficulty making any sense at all of what you say and I now see that I'm not alone. Most of what you write is garbled and incomprehensible. It must make some kind of sense to you but to the rest of us it's totally opaque. Do you think you could slow down a bit and try to make a single argument that we can all follow? Tell us what your two 'logical possibilities' are and how you justify them. Not a problem see ya later in the day
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agent_509 Junior Member (Idle past 4469 days) Posts: 16 Joined:
|
I don't "hate" my former self, I'm just pissed that my formal self didn't see things sooner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
I suggest you spend some time reading the Dover transcript before you dismiss it out of hand as abstract observations of a judge. A simple google search will bring up the entire transcript and judgement. You'll find that the judge looked at a heck of a lot of evidence before concluding that ID is not science. You might find it an interesting read.
Can you point me towards any investigations carried out by the ID crowd which provide support for ID? You seem to be claiming that there is research out there, yet in years of asking we've yet to be provided with quality papers, peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature. Even Behehad to admit that he hadn't done any research into ID. There's a crucial difference in the approaches of science and ID. Yes, both try to answer the how and why questions, but when looking at the world around us, science asks "How did the world end up the way it is?" while ID asks "How did the designer make the world the way it is?". They begin from the assmption of a designer and work back. If you don't understand why this is the wrong way to go about scientific rsearch then you have no business declaring what is and isn't science since your grasp of the subject is woeful. Can you explain to me what you mean by the following?
Every proposition concerning the how and why of things, starts with the proposition of how and why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Sigh....
Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion. Not if it doesn't follow the scientific method it isn't. And ID is dead in the water at the starting gate. Intelligent Design ASSUMES an acting intelligence from the get go....therefore not science. Scientific method:1. Gather real world data (such as fossils, or DNA molecular markers). 2. Hypothesise re trends in said data (such as postulating the ToE) 3. Look for corroborating evidence in multi-buttressing fields (such as lake varves, dendrochronology, population distributions, plate tectonics) 4. Look for ways in which the hypothesis can be FALSIFIED. Hint Dawn - if you can't falsify a hypothesis you are NOT doing science - it is even more important to be able to say what a hypothesis CAN'T do than what it can. 5. Subject to repeated confirmation of positive evidence in favour of point 3 and complete lack of falsification evidence for point 4 - tentatively accept the hypothesis ....which then moves ever more confidently from 'hypothesis' to 'theory' - yes a scientific 'theory' is the most powerful and accepted model in science....despite moronic creationist bleats of "But it's only a theory!" Next time I hear that lament, I'll tell the fool to jump off the Sydney Harbour Bridge - after all the 'theory of gravity' can't kill - it's only a theory after all......duh ! So - to get your ID in the science class room you need to demonstrate ALL the scientific methodology has been followed.....so: 1. Gather real world data.....Care to tell me exactly what real world data has been collected? In the Dover trial (which Trixie rightly comments you clearly haven't followed), ID's flagship 'scientist' Michael Behe, was forced to admit under oath that he hadn't read the 58 plus peer-reviewed journals on the evolution of the immune system which he said didn't exist !!! When your flagship ID scientist can't even gather real world data at the outset of a claim then your case is done for!2. What is the actual model of ID? What exactly does it postulate? Is it a simple moronic "God did it!" and nothing else...no moving parts to analyse? 3. What corroborating evidence backs up the cry of a designer? 4. The killer strike... how can ID be falsified? If you can't falsify ID then it doesn't get as far as the science classroom door....sorry! Science hypotheses HAVE to be falsifiable - it is an integral and definitive part of the scientific method. So come on Dawn - humour me - how can your ID be falsifiable? 5. We don't get this far with ID - as there is no real world data, no corroborating evidence from alternative sources, no ability to falsify....it means that there is nothing to work with other than a fairy-tale (I won't even dignify it with the respectable word 'hypothesis'). Don't you even feel slightly cheated by your creationist masters that they just overwrote the words 'creationism' with 'design proponents' (confirmed by their hilarious word-mix and forever enshrining their dishonesty)? Surely some small rational part of you must be thinking....this is just a con! For that is what it is ...................
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Your point was that CSI Miami or what ever operates by a method similar to ID.
I pointed out that that CSI Las Vegas or whatever aim to find out specifically who did it. There is no percentage for CSI NY or whatever to establish that crime was committed if they cannot also pin it on some one. It may well be true that ID does not dictate that Yawah is the designer (even though it does): but your statements indicate that it is the overriding purpose of ID (as with CSI Scunthorpe or whatever) in fact, to identify the designer/murderer. Again proving that you are incompetant at making the points you want to make. You twat.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Care to tell me exactly what real world data has been collected? The data gathered by ID and that gathered by Evolution, is essentially the same. The method is the same as well. The data that you gather is simply that change has taken place, the data we gather is that, order, consitency and law exist. Both of these properties are identifiable and evaluative, wouldnt you agree The only information evo gathers is basically contained in the same process of investigation, change over time the methods we use are exacally the same. The same way you observe the natural world to identify change we use the investigative procees to gather that law and order, exist Even if the TOE were true, it still exhibits law and order If the conclusions of the TOE support the idea of Soley natural causes, then the conclusions of the ID method, certainly support the idea of a designer
The killer strike... how can ID be falsified? If you can't falsify ID then it doesn't get as far as the science classroom door....sorry! Science hypotheses HAVE to be falsifiable - it is an integral and definitive part of the scientific method. So come on Dawn - humour me - how can your ID be falsifiable? 5. We don't get this far with ID - as there is no real world data, no corroborating evidence from alternative sources, no ability to falsify....it means that there is nothing to work with other than a fairy-tale (I won't even dignify it with the respectable word 'hypothesis'). Dawn Bertot BTW, Mr Behe is responsible for his conclusions, concerning the things he asserts, not me In this instance you misidentified the flag ship
What is the actual model of ID? What exactly does it postulate? Is it a simple moronic "God did it!" and nothing else...no moving parts to analyse? It gathers data in an investigation of natural processes. By doing this over and over, with thousands and thousands of examples and species and properties, it identifies a definate pattern in the form of order and consistency What would you offer to insist that our methods and conclusions are different in this instance
What corroborating evidence backs up the cry of a designer? Before I answer, what evidence backs up the conclusion of soley natural causes. Right now we are only discussing methods and processes to see if they are different. Im doing pretty good so far, wouldnt you say The evidence that backs my method is the same one that backs that change has occured. The data in the natural world I can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are excally the same, can you? In this instance you misidentified the flag ship
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Care to tell me exactly what real world data has been collected? The data gathered by ID and that gathered by Evolution, is essentially the same. The method is the same as well. The data that you gather is simply that change has taken place, the data we gather is that, order, consitency and law exist. Both of these properties are identifiable and evaluative, wouldnt you agree The only information evo gathers is basically contained in the same process of investigation, change over time the methods we use are exacally the same. The same way you observe the natural world to identify change we use the investigative procees to gather that law and order, exist Even if the TOE were true, it still exhibits law and order If the conclusions of the TOE support the idea of Soley natural causes, then the conclusions of the ID method, certainly support the idea of a designer BTW, Mr Behe is responsible for his conclusions, concerning the things he asserts, not me In this instance you misidentified the flag ship
What is the actual model of ID? What exactly does it postulate? Is it a simple moronic "God did it!" and nothing else...no moving parts to analyse? It gathers data in an investigation of natural processes. By doing this over and over, with thousands and thousands of examples and species and properties, it identifies a definate pattern in the form of order and consistency What would you offer to insist that our methods and conclusions are different in this instance
What corroborating evidence backs up the cry of a designer? Before I answer, what evidence backs up the conclusion of soley natural causes. Right now we are only discussing methods and processes to see if they are different. Im doing pretty good so far, wouldnt you say The evidence that backs my method is the same one that backs that change has occured. The data in the natural world I can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are excally the same, can you?
The killer strike... how can ID be falsified? If you can't falsify ID then it doesn't get as far as the science classroom door....sorry! Science hypotheses HAVE to be falsifiable - it is an integral and definitive part of the scientific method. So come on Dawn - humour me - how can your ID be falsifiable? 5. We don't get this far with ID - as there is no real world data, no corroborating evidence from alternative sources, no ability to falsify....it means that there is nothing to work with other than a fairy-tale (I won't even dignify it with the respectable word 'hypothesis'). Ah Yes, here is where the rubber meets the road. Lets see who is more accurate. Now pay close attention. An inextricable part of any investigation is the HOW and WHY, not just how To detach thess from any form of investigation is not scientific or objective wouldn tyou agree. Now pay even closer attention. Since the TOE only identifies HOW and cannot or will not address why, it follws that it cannot be falsified, there fore cannot be considered as science, according to your own rules Wouldnt you agree From Wiki: "Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it." Again, since an inextricable part of any investigation includes how and why,not just how, it follows that the TOE, must include, the process that started evolution in the first place. Whether that is in the natural world or the universe Since the TOE, cannot explain the Why, of things to begin with, it therefore, IS NOT falsifiable. According to your own defintions and explanations then, it must not be science Your problem with applying the fasifiability principle to ONLY ID, is that you assume that EVO must only include HOW things work No person in thier right mind would disregard the why of something in a valid investigation. But Ironically this is exacally what the TOE, exponents do. They insist that the WHY is not obtainable, therefore not necessary In essenses they make the approach of the SM, invalid as an investigative type It doesnt matter how involed or technical the HOW of the investigation is or is not, if you leave off the Why Do you still want to stick to the strict application of the Falsifiablity principle? Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It may well be true that ID does not dictate that Yawah is the designer (even though it does): but your statements indicate that it is the overriding purpose of ID (as with CSI Scunthorpe or whatever) in fact, to identify the designer/murderer. Again proving that you are incompetant at making the points you want to make. You twat. Wrong as usual. It is a simple investigation of the How and Why, to start with This is what you need to address, not something you are trying to make me say "Who" is simply a perception, the same way that Soley natural causes, is an idea. Are you claiming indirectly that the TOE, starts with the conclusion of soley natural causes? Your clearly dont understnad the fundamentals of ID or the reasoning process. Or you are just playing stupid. Hmmmmmm? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3642 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
The data gathered by ID and that gathered by Evolution, is essentially the same. How exactly does the real world data point to an intelligent guiding hand?
Even if the TOE were true, it still exhibits law and order How does a natural 'law' necessarily lead to intelligence?
BTW, Mr Behe is responsible for his conclusions, concerning the things he asserts, not me In this instance you misidentified the flag ship If you are putting yourself forward as ID's 'flagship' then it is in even more trouble than I thought !! Would you like to put forward any other 'scientist' as ID's flagship? We are talking about science here are we not?
It gathers data in an investigation of natural processes. By doing this over and over, with thousands and thousands of examples and species and properties, it identifies a definate pattern in the form of order and consistency What would you offer to insist that our methods and conclusions are different in this instance Falsifiability - as I've already stated. There are millions of fossils in hundreds of strata. The ToE makes a very precise prediction - if even one fossil is found in a strata not predicated by the ToE then the theory is utterly destroyed. For example (to quote the famous biologist J B S Haldane) fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, or trilobites in the Pilocene. Or you could pick on adaptive features. The ToE makes another very precise prediction. No new features will suddenly spring up in a line where ancestors have no such precursers. A good example is the squid/octopus's correctly wired eyes (optic nerves entering from the back of the retina and not obscurring the photocells unlike all the vertebrate lines). If a lion or human was suddenly found to have an 'octopus' wired eye this would be shattering for the ToE. Saddly for the creationists despite millions of real world animals and fossils, not a single falsification has ever been achieved....the theory passes with flying colours. Care now to tell me how I can falsify your ID? You glibly passed over that request in your reply.....I wonder why? If you can't give me real world falsification (that I can go out and do today in the real world) then please have the grace to admit you are not doing science and ID should be kept where it belongs....in a religious class.
I can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are exactly the same, can you? Human perceptions are not worth a damn - google 'gorilla and basketball' and get your friends to count the number of passes done by the white team. More than 90% will not even see the gorilla walk across the screen. Humans have a limited perception of the world they inhabit - that's why we used to think the world was flat and the sun went round the earth - that's what human perception and innate logic indicates....but as we know it is wrong.....and that is why we have..........drum roll please.......SCIENCE. Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given. Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Ah Yes, here is where the rubber meets the road. Lets see who is more accurate. Now pay close attention. An inextricable part of any investigation is the HOW and WHY, not just how To detach thess from any form of investigation is not scientific or objective wouldn tyou agree. Now pay even closer attention. Since the TOE only identifies HOW and cannot or will not address why, it follws that it cannot be falsified, there fore cannot be considered as science, according to your own rules Wouldnt you agree From Wiki: "Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it." Again, since an inextricable part of any investigation includes how and why,not just how, it follows that the TOE, must include, the process that started evolution in the first place. Whether that is in the natural world or the universe Since the TOE, cannot explain the Why, of things to begin with, it therefore, IS NOT falsifiable. According to your own defintions and explanations then, it must not be science Your problem with applying the fasifiability principle to ONLY ID, is that you assume that EVO must only include HOW things work No person in thier right mind would disregard the why of something in a valid investigation. But Ironically this is exacally what the TOE, exponents do. They insist that the WHY is not obtainable, therefore not necessary In essenses they make the approach of the SM, invalid as an investigative type It doesnt matter how involed or technical the HOW of the investigation is or is not, if you leave off the Why Do you still want to stick to the strict application of the Falsifiablity principle? People speak well of Halperidol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Once again you are running away, Dawn.
This time you are running away from your obligation to defend your position that CSI: Earth or whatever is the same as ID. You know you made a mistake by doing this. You could just say "well, I made an error saying that; I actually meant something else" but I don't think that will happen. If it did happen you would have to face the fact that you could have made an error in your thinking (as most people do, from time to time). But this would also mean that your other areas of thinking could contain errors. That could mean that it would be possible that you could be wrong about ID being science and we can't have that, can we. I'm sure I could come up with more incisive charactertisations and motivations for you but that's off topic.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Since the TOE, cannot explain the Why, of things to begin with, it therefore, IS NOT falsifiable. I think I see the problem. You haven't a clue what falsifiabe means. You do know that science is allowed to say "I don't know", don't you? Tbh, I think you've managed to demonstrate that you haven't a clue - fullstop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Dawn Bertot,
I'll get back to your other thread when I'm more bored.
Now pay even closer attention. Since the TOE only identifies HOW and cannot or will not address why, it follws that it cannot be falsified, there fore cannot be considered as science, according to your own rules Wouldnt you agree No, I would not agree, because no scientific theories explain why, they only investigate how things work. That is how science works. Explaining why is the role of philosophy and religion, with the more accurate explanations being ones not in conflict with objective evidence of how things work. Such concepts, however, are not tested hypothesis (if not untestable) at best.
Since the TOE, cannot explain the Why, of things to begin with, it therefore, IS NOT falsifiable. The ToE does not explain how planets formed, because that is not what is under investigation in biological evolution. That doesn't make the ToE untestable. The theory of gravity does explain - to the best of our knowledge - how planets formed. The theory of abiogenesis explains - to the best of our knowledge - how life formed from the available building blocks that preceded life. From Introduction to Evolution:
quote: You can't have hereditary traits without lifeforms, ergo (strictly speaking) evolution cannot apply to the formation of life (although some of the development may be similar in process).
quote: The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain how the diversity of life developed on this planet. Note that Introduction to Evolution also briefly discusses how the ToE is tested. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : quote boxesby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024