Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 226 of 358 (646927)
01-07-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
01-07-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Hey Zen,
I have read through this a few times now and I still cant work out if you are missing something that is really obvious, or I am missing something that is incredibly obscure.
The 'how vs why' debate is usually described as the 'science vs philosphy' debate.
From what I can tell, you are looking for a philosophical answer as to why the sky is blue. Not a technical description of the process that makes the sky appear blue.
Is that correct?
If it is correct, then there is a big problem. Well 2 really.
1. There may be no reason why. (Shit happens)
2. You are under the impression that deserve to know the answer and are capable of comprehending it. (You will get told the shit that you need to know)
I could be way off though?
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 1:44 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 227 of 358 (646951)
01-07-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
01-07-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
RAZD writes:
Yes, you had misread how cause was used. For what cause is the phrase.
Whether you like it or not, "why" is often used to ask about cause.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just admit that you were wrong, and then move on?

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 228 of 358 (646963)
01-07-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Butterflytyrant
01-07-2012 10:57 AM


The difference between philosophy and science?
Hi Butterflytyrant, and thanks for your input.
The 'how vs why' debate is usually described as the 'science vs philosphy' debate.
Exactly my point, both to bluegenes and (earlier) to Dawn Bertot (etc).
From what I can tell, you are looking for a philosophical answer as to why the sky is blue. Not a technical description of the process that makes the sky appear blue.
Is that correct?
That would be the difference between answering how it happened that the sky appears blue and why it happened that the sky appears blue. You could also have a theological answer (god/s-did-it) to the why question.
If it is correct, then there is a big problem. Well 2 really.
1. There may be no reason why. (Shit happens)
I am well aware of this and fully agree -- "shit happens" is, imhysao, a valid philosophical answer, and it is not much different from the theological answer that god/s-did-it.
2. You are under the impression that deserve to know the answer and are capable of comprehending it. (You will get told the shit that you need to know)
I am under no delusion that I deserve to know, or would be capable of understanding, and I am also content with the reply that "we do not know why it happened that the sky appears blue" ...
I could be way off though?
I think you are bang-on.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : spling

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-07-2012 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 229 of 358 (646965)
01-07-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Straggler
01-03-2012 4:29 AM


Re: Why Questions How Questions
Cue scene of an obnoxiously snarky kid endlessly asking "Why?"...
straggler writes:
So a question like: Why are plants green? - Is a perfectly legitimate scientific question.
Why? ...endlessly.......
How are plants green? doesn't make nearly as much sense as a question does it?
No, it wouldn't make a similar level of sense! However, TO ME, the phrase that makes the far less sense is the Why one, not the How one. In fact, in my opinion - How blows the Why form out of the water. The "How are plants green?" choice in english to pursue this inquiry in science is VASTLY SUPERIOR than "Why are plants green." It immediately directs the investigators to the right things to describe & explain & support with objective scientific evidence. No one pursuing the How question would ever suggest it would be answered with the likes of "because God wanted them to be green."
I might modestly suggest that the word "why" be shunned from scientific literature in a similar manner to the way the word "faith" would be. It wont happen, but to continue to leave it in leaves lots of room for misunderstanding. Exhibit A: our friend Dawn Bertot.
This may be a major contribution to the difficulty of people brought up in some kind of religion to understand evolution and TOE.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 01-03-2012 4:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 4:08 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 230 of 358 (646969)
01-07-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by bluegenes
01-06-2012 10:56 PM


Re: Will these claims ever be defended?
Bluegenes asks Zen Deist:
Why are you now making up rules about English usage? Why not just admit that you are wrong, and that science can and does ask why questions?
Let's advance away from the stupid word "why". The scientific community wishes to minimize ambiguity when it can, no? The word "why" should be shunned.
Experiment: Is the word "why" ambiguous when seen around the world?
Hypothesis from the UK and the USA in places: Not at all.
Evidence: It is ambiguous to some.
Measure again: Lots.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2012 10:56 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 231 of 358 (646973)
01-07-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot
01-06-2012 9:14 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Droso, show that the tenetsof the processes are mutually exclusive, not the finnding of the methods, or the conclusions. Then you will have started on a process that demonstrates IDs process as invalid and non-scientific
You can start this by dismissing this obsession you have that the positions are mutually exclusive. After all, processes are just processes, correct? First things first
Indeed - first things first. The whole business about ID and the ToE has come about because creationists want ID taught as an alternative 'theory/hypotheses' to evolution by mutation and natural selection. That is why the Wedge Strategy was formulated when creationists failed legally to get straight 'creationism' taught in science classes. They 'invented' ID to try and get a respectable scientific 'face' on creationism so it could go head to head in science classes.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection is the antithesis of Intelligent Design - they couldn't be more different if you tried.
I am going to unpick your word salad as best I can (not easy when you refuse to use the ABC of the English language - Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity). I want to ask you in simple statements if I have got your take on this issue correct - because it's pointless me trying to debate you when I really have little idea of what you are saying - because so much of your writing is obscure to say the least.
My position is:
There are two mutually incompatible positions regarding progression of life on Earth:
1. Life has progressed by blind unguided processes not under any intelligent control at all
2. Life has been guided by an intelligent designer.
Do you agree that even if the ToE were true, it would not mean that it was not designed or created to exist and thrive in the environment you are witnessing? Or at least from a logical format show why that does not follow, concerning the two propositions
Are you saying here that you entertain a third and/or fourth possibility? Such as:
3. Even if the process is unguided - there could be an intelligent designer who might have just decided not to get involved and let blind unguided processes take precedence
4. The Intelligent Designer may have guided the processes of life on earth in such a way as to emulate a blind unguided process.
Are you subscribing to either or both of points 3 and 4 above - or do you wish to make another of your own? If you wish to make one of your own it should easily be stated in less than two lines of text as I have done above.
Please use the ABC principle of language communication as I have done above. There are 4 possibilities stated - each no more than a line long -each easily understood by anyone of (say) early teenage years (those we are teaching remember).
I need to clarify EXACTLY what you mean before this debate can progress in a meaningful way for either of us. There is little point in me having to guess all the time what you mean.
I would far rather have short sentences and shortish posts than a dozen paragraphs of exuberant verbosity!
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-06-2012 9:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-08-2012 8:14 AM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2012 10:38 AM Drosophilla has replied

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


Message 232 of 358 (647151)
01-08-2012 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Drosophilla
01-07-2012 3:52 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
I would far rather have short sentences and shortish posts than a dozen paragraphs of exuberant verbosity!
Ill give it a shot, its not always easy
Indeed - first things first. The whole business about ID and the ToE has come about because creationists want ID taught as an alternative 'theory/hypotheses' to evolution by mutation and natural selection.
I cannot speak to others motivations or intentios. I was not,. nor have ever been aware of these groups or thier agendas. I proceed from a standpoint of pure reason and reality.
I can easily see the mental and logical errors, made by those that think there is a differnece between creationinsm and ID, those that think there is a connection with the ToE and a creator, those that honestly think there is difference between philosophy and the word science, those that think there is difference in a valid method of investigation, verses the same method of investigation that follows the same rules
I would defy anyone to show in any logical fashion, how, there is or could be any difference in ID or creatioism. You see that is oneof the simple logical and mental errors commited on both sides, that sets things moving in the wrong direction.
In contrast however it can be demonstrated in a logical way, why, even if the ToE were true it would not preclude a creator or designer.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection is the antithesis of Intelligent Design - they couldn't be more different if you tried.
Great, so in some logical fashion you can prove, that say the Diest position is not valid. You do realize in your above comment you have made an absolute statment. Your not just claiming one position offsets another. So lets see how you will proceed to prove that point
There are two mutually incompatible positions regarding progression of life on Earth:
1. Life has progressed by blind unguided processes not under any intelligent control at all
2. Life has been guided by an intelligent designer.
Unfortunately that is not what is meant by the two alternatives, when we speak of, "the only two possibilites". Your proposition is misguided when you use the expressions, "Life has progressed", "Life has been guided". How it proceeds is not the same as How it started.
By mixing these two concepts up you have missed the point altogether. You have to know the rules before you throw your boulder. I explain that in a moment
Are you saying here that you entertain a third and/or fourth possibility? Such as:
No, only that you have missed the point and now misdirected the understanding of the only logical explanations for existence
3. Even if the process is unguided - there could be an intelligent designer who might have just decided not to get involved and let blind unguided processes take precedence
You speak of unguided as if you have demonstrated, that, law order and purpose dont exist in the process. My friend, this is what you would need to alleviate to demonstrate that your single proposition of unguided were true to begin with
Since both propositions are demonstratable, from the available evidence, leading to only two logical explanations, then it would follow that either are acceptable as evidence as to the explanation of existence in the first place. Wouldnt you agree?
4. The Intelligent Designer may have guided the processes of life on earth in such a way as to emulate a blind unguided process.
Again, unguided process as you call it, could only be used up to a certain point. One is then forced to look at the Law, order and purpose that does exist in the process as well
Your problem Droso, is a simple one. You can never alleviate your proposition from the responsibility it has concerning the fact that the available evidence, clearly demonstrates a guiding hand in the process by the qualites I have mentioned above
Of course this again is not the underlying problem, is it? The problem is that certain ones in the science community have taken it upon themselves to redefine the word science in such a way that it excludes any rational explanation but thier own
But a logical explanation of the word science demonstrates clearly that that approach is invalid. From a scientifc (investigative)standpoint and all the available evidence, there is included the demonstratable propsition of a designer, even if you dont personally approve
Remember Droso, it is what is demonstratable from a logical and evidential standpoint, that is important, where the exact information does not allow us to prove what happened one way or another. If indeed Jar has actual Evidence of natural causes, he would be able to explain and solve all the problems. Clearly he does not
Soley natural causes is a conclusion of the ToE. Designer is a natural conclusion of the ToL.O.&P
How will you proceed to demonstrate that either process is not valid as science, valid as factual, that the information and data it gathers, is not valid and its approach is not science. Your task is insurmountable. If you can do this, you will be the first in history to accomplish such a feat
I believe you spoke earlier of Cavemen, and the TWATD. Do you remember the movie 'Cavemen', with Ringo Star, Dennis Quade and Barbara Bach
Lyle Alsadoe (an ex-football player) a mountain of a man,was playing the bad caveman. In one scene he is chasing Ringo and Dennis and he decides to throw a rock at them. Well, he is a caveman and doesnt know whats involved in throwing a rock, because he has never had occasion to do it.
So he picks up this massive boulder and begins to throw it. Not knowing the rules or knowing he needs to let go of it, he holds on to it and goes with it. One of the funniest scenes in a commedy I ever seen.
He is passing everyone on the way down and lands on his head and the rock
Whats the point Droso? You have to know whats involved in setting out a proposition before you set it out to sea. You dont understand your proposition in this instance or what it lacks or does not involve. You have to know what is what,before you throw your rock
Oh well all is not lost, Barbara or Kathy Bach, is in the moive( Im not sure which one, like that matters) and that is worth the price of admission
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Drosophilla, posted 01-07-2012 3:52 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Trixie, posted 01-08-2012 10:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 234 by Larni, posted 01-08-2012 10:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 251 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 8:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 233 of 358 (647171)
01-08-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dawn Bertot
01-08-2012 8:14 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Dawn Bertot writes:
I cannot speak to others motivations or intentios. I was not,. nor have ever been aware of these groups or thier agendas. I proceed from a standpoint of pure reason and reality.
So knowing nothing about the ID movement, you still have the nerve to suggest it be taught as science in a science class. I suggest you read The Wedge document and at least look at the Dover transcript to see what you're advocating as fit for science class.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I can easily see the mental and logical errors, made by those that think there is a differnece between creationinsm and ID,
So right there you admit that there is no difference between creationism and ID. So much for all the IDists who've spent so much time and effort telling us that ID is not creationism repackaged. It seems that in this you are in complete agreement with Judge Jones who presided over the Dover trial and declared that ID was creationism and therefore had no place in a science class.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I would defy anyone to show in any logical fashion, how, there is or could be any difference in ID or creatioism. You see that is oneof the simple logical and mental errors commited on both sides, that sets things moving in the wrong direction.
And right there you make a grave error. Science has not attempted to show that ID and creationism are different. In fact the opposite is true, science has argued all along that ID has no place in the science class because it is creationism.
Dawn Bertot writes:
In contrast however it can be demonstrated in a logical way, why, even if the ToE were true it would not preclude a creator or designer.
No-one with even a passing knowledge of the ToE claims that if it is true it precludes a creator or designer. The ToE says absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator or designer. It provides a natural mechanism that can account for the diversity we see around us. The evidence which supports the ToE suggests that a creator or designer is not required. Give that the ToE doesn't deal with origins of life in the first place, I'm stuggling to understand how it could preclude a creator anyway.
Dawn Bertot writes:
How it proceeds is not the same as How it started.
Since the ToE doesn't deal with how life began, I think you're the one becoming confused. The ToE only describes how the variety of life arose. It's ID which makes claims about origins and the source of variation.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Since both propositions are demonstratable, from the available evidence, leading to only two logical explanations, then it would follow that either are acceptable as evidence as to the explanation of existence in the first place. Wouldnt you agree?
Nope! How can you say that the explanations are acceptable as evidence of the explanation! Explanations are not evidence, although they try to reach a conclusion based on evidence.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You can never alleviate your proposition from the responsibility it has concerning the fact that the available evidence, clearly demonstrates a guiding hand in the process by the qualites I have mentioned above
You keep saying this yet I've never seen you provide that evidence. Your insistence on Law, Order and Purpose doesn't constitute evidence, it is a conclusion. I'd like to see the evidence on which you base this conclusion.
Dawn Bertot writes:
From a scientifc (investigative)standpoint and all the available evidence, there is included the demonstratable propsition of a designer, even if you dont personally approve
Once more you make claims of evidence for a designer yet provide none. Don't you think it's time you started producing some? Oh and parroting "Law, Order and Purpose" is not evidence.
Dawn Bertot writes:
How will you proceed to demonstrate that either process is not valid as science, valid as factual, that the information and data it gathers, is not valid and its approach is not science.
I'd love to see the evidence and data gathered by ID and your ToLOP. You know, the evidence and data that supports these two and doesn't support the ToE. We keep hearing about it, but it never surfaces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-08-2012 8:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Trixie has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 234 of 358 (647176)
01-08-2012 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dawn Bertot
01-08-2012 8:14 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
You speak of unguided as if you have demonstrated, that, law order and purpose dont exist in the process.
Again I demand that you demonstrate that law, order and purpose exist and predicate ID.
You have built you whole argument on this foundation that you have yet to substantiate.
Please do so or link to where you have.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-08-2012 8:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 235 of 358 (647179)
01-08-2012 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Drosophilla
01-07-2012 3:52 PM


other possibilities
Hi Drosophilla,
Just a couple of quick comments.
My position is:
There are two mutually incompatible positions regarding progression of life on Earth:
1. Life has progressed by blind unguided processes not under any intelligent control at all
2. Life has been guided by an intelligent designer.
Are you saying here that you entertain a third and/or fourth possibility? Such as:
3. Even if the process is unguided - there could be an intelligent designer who might have just decided not to get involved and let blind unguided processes take precedence
4. The Intelligent Designer may have guided the processes of life on earth in such a way as to emulate a blind unguided process.
Are you subscribing to either or both of points 3 and 4 above - or do you wish to make another of your own? If you wish to make one of your own it should easily be stated in less than two lines of text as I have done above.
That you have proposed 4 possibilities means that your initial claim of there being only two is false, yes?
There is also an additional 5th possibility: that the (deist) designer created the universe with all the laws and mechanisms in place to result in the world and universe we see today, that these are the tools used to achieve the results without any need for constant tampering or involvement.
Note that evolutionary algorithms have been used to achieve remarkable designs.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection is the antithesis of Intelligent Design - they couldn't be more different if you tried.
Really?
Or does this get into the how vs why aspect. How and why are different questions with different answers.
I need to clarify EXACTLY what you mean before this debate can progress in a meaningful way for either of us. There is little point in me having to guess all the time what you mean.
I would far rather have short sentences and shortish posts than a dozen paragraphs of exuberant verbosity!
An excellent idea. This is done by paraphrasing Dawn Bertot (for example) and having him agree with it -- this is an excellent way to show you understand the opposing position in any debate.
Advice: tackle one concept at a time.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Drosophilla, posted 01-07-2012 3:52 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 4:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 236 of 358 (647209)
01-08-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by xongsmith
01-07-2012 2:59 PM


Re: Why Questions How Questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2012 2:59 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 237 of 358 (647307)
01-09-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Trixie
01-08-2012 10:08 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
So knowing nothing about the ID movement, you still have the nerve to suggest it be taught as science in a science class. I suggest you read The Wedge document and at least look at the Dover transcript to see what you're advocating as fit for science class.
I do know about the ID movement, its just an investigation into the natural world. What I am advocating in this thread, is that it is fit for the classroom, wouldnt you agree?. If not show me why from my position, not someone elses
So right there you admit that there is no difference between creationism and ID. So much for all the IDists who've spent so much time and effort telling us that ID is not creationism repackaged. It seems that in this you are in complete agreement with Judge Jones who presided over the Dover trial and declared that ID was creationism and therefore had no place in a science class.
ID is creationism because they mean the samething. That has nothing to with the fact that they are not religion, even if they mean the samething, that they are not, Not a valid as an investigation into the real world. That is your task here to demonstrate otherwise
The evidence which supports the ToE suggests that a creator or designer is not required. Give that the ToE doesn't deal with origins of life in the first place, I'm stuggling to understand how it could preclude a creator anyway.
There you go, your starting to get it now
You keep saying this yet I've never seen you provide that evidence. Your insistence on Law, Order and Purpose doesn't constitute evidence, it is a conclusion. I'd like to see the evidence on which you base this conclusion.
Law, order and purpose do exists correct and if they do they are evidence, correct. If not why not
Once more you make claims of evidence for a designer yet provide none. Don't you think it's time you started producing some? Oh and parroting "Law, Order and Purpose" is not evidence.
Sure it is. In the absenseof that which is abosolutely knowable, it serves as the best evidence, based on and in a scientific manner. Until it can be demonstrated otherwise, correct? If not why not?
I'd love to see the evidence and data gathered by ID and your ToLOP. You know, the evidence and data that supports these two and doesn't support the ToE. We keep hearing about it, but it never surfaces.
Please show why the evidence of Natural selection and change gathered by the ToE, is different than the data of Order, Law and purpose are different than that gathered by the ToLO&P. Then show why the the same type of investigation used by the SM, is different than that used by any IDst.
We are are saking why it is not science if it produces the same results that are are identifiable, tenatively and immediatley
Im not worried at present about the conclusion of ID or the ToE. We can demonstrate that later the same way you conclude Soley Nature Causes
So if my method of investigationis not science, just show me why.
Ive already given you your task, I have now demostrated mine to be valid. Your only task is to show otherwise. My guess is that you cannot
If and when you cannot, is there any reason to suggest it should not be taught in a science classroom or as science.
Why dose a simple investigation that identifies cetain things such as Law and Order, need to be designated as religion, it is not
So as you can see and in keeping with this thread Agent and the system jumped the gun or atleast they threw out the baby with the bath water. Neither was necessary, as you can see
We need another court date. He ccme the judge, here come the judge
Dawn Bertot
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.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Trixie, posted 01-08-2012 10:08 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 8:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 239 by Tangle, posted 01-09-2012 9:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 240 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 9:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 241 by Larni, posted 01-09-2012 10:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 242 by Trixie, posted 01-09-2012 4:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 238 of 358 (647320)
01-09-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dawn Bertot
01-09-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Intelligent Design is not fit for the Science Classroom.
There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer.
It would be a valid subject for a Religion, Creative Writing or Fiction classroom.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:52 AM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 239 of 358 (647324)
01-09-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dawn Bertot
01-09-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Dawn Berlot writes:
So if my method of investigation is not science, just show me why.
Can you point to a body of peer reviewed papers published in recognised science periodicals that support your 'science' so that educationalists could knock together a curriculum?

Life, don't talk to me about life. (Marvin the Paranoid Android)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:47 AM Tangle has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 240 of 358 (647329)
01-09-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dawn Bertot
01-09-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Hey Dawn,
I am still waiting for a reply to Message 193
But I also wanted to reply to some things in your recent post.
I do know about the ID movement, its just an investigation into the natural world.
How can ID, requiring a SUPERNATURAL designer, be an investigation into the NATURAL world? Is that not a direct contradiction?
Law, order and purpose do exists correct and if they do they are evidence, correct. If not why not
You keep saying this over and over as if you are trying to make it true with the number of times you make the claim.
My biggest problem with this claim, every time you make it, is that you believe that not only is there purpose to everything, but there is evidence to be found to show that purpose.
If you have this information, can you please put if to use in Message 1 where bluegenes has asked - Does science ask and answer "why" questions?
You will need to explain the purpose behind the sky being blue.
I look forward to your answer.
If you are not interested, of dont like that question, here are a few others off the top of my head -
What is the purpose behind wind?
What is the purpose of time?
What is the purpose of a rock? (any rock will do)
Dont forget to provide the evidence that shows this purpose.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:46 AM Butterflytyrant 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