Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 2 of 358 (645157)
12-23-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by agent_509
12-23-2011 9:10 PM


What were the things that caused you to change your mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by agent_509, posted 12-23-2011 9:10 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by agent_509, posted 12-23-2011 9:30 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 81 of 358 (645692)
12-29-2011 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:12 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena
Do any think they can refute this proposition?
Science proceeds from evidence to hypothesis, testing of those hypotheses, and finally (after much successful testing) to accepted theory.
ID does not follow this procedure. ID starts with a required conclusion and seeks to find evidence for that conclusion. As there is none, it is forced to manufacture that evidence and to ignore the masses of evidence that contradict that conclusion.
In this it is the exact opposite of science.
And you want that nonsense taught as an equal to science? What a joke!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 82 of 358 (645693)
12-29-2011 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:22 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Science is simply a valid investigation of any property in existence...
You left off "...using the scientific method."
Creationism and ID don't use the scientific method, so they cannot be considered to be science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 8:18 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(6)
Message 131 of 358 (646024)
01-02-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2012 10:29 PM


Re: Nonsense by anyother name
Except that science in general, and ToE in specific, does not have any obligation or responsibility to answer why.
The obligation and responsibility of science in general, and the Toe in specific, is to answer HOW things work, so that we can predict how they will continue to work, predict what will happen in response to certain inputs.
These are assertions that need to be demonstrated in a rational way, not just boldly stated as if they were fact.
The post passed on to you some information about how science works. If you disagree, show why his post was incorrect.
At this point it seems to be just you against all of science. (Hint: the odds are not good.)
Investigations are just investigations, complete or incomplete. Especially when examining the natural world
So? You have a point in there somewhere?
Using terms like philosophy or science to redesribe what is simply a valid or invalid discussion, does not change the reality of an examination. Because that is what it is, just an examination
If you want to call an investigation or examination a grocery cart, it will not change what it is or whether it is complete or valid in its approach
It could even be Silicon Aftar, the crystline entity or the Immortal Dowd, but that would not change its properties
These last paragraphs are simply nonsense.
From observing your posts over the past few months it has become clear that you know little about science, but are sure it is all wrong anyway.
That doesn't impress me in the least.
If you want to make any headway you need to actually learn something about how science works. This will make your posts a lot more substantial, and maybe even worth reading.
(And see signature.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2012 10:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 181 of 358 (646285)
01-04-2012 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Buzsaw
01-04-2012 12:15 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
The logic, the common sense, the the real here and now observable, the cultural the recorded historical, etc all attest to supportive evidence of an intelligent designer.
Logic can be used to "prove" any number of false things. Don't you remember Ketterling's Law?: "Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence."
Common sense tells us that airplanes and bumblebees can't fly. And a great many other falsehoods. Best not to bet the rent money on "common sense," as common sense is far from common.
The "real here and now observable" is the province of science. There is currently no scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. (Did you sleep through the Dover trial?) There are a great many solid scientific explanations for things, including many things once attributed to various deities.
The "cultural [and] the recorded historical" don't show there was an intelligent designer. What they show is beliefs in thousands or millions of deities, and associated beliefs, most of which are contradictory. But that doesn't stop the believers from believing that their particular version of the TRVTH is the one-and-only TRVTH.
If religion was run like science, there would be some method for determining which of these beliefs (if any) was correct. Instead with religions when there are disagreements you get schisms, or in some notable cases, wars and wholesale slaughter.
I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 183 of 358 (646289)
01-04-2012 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Until you can understand science and the scientific method, and how they work, you should really refrain from posting sweeping conclusions about them.
You have so many errors in your post that it's not worth trying to explain them to you. They have been explained to you many times in the past, but you are simply unwilling to learn.
You have shown yourself to be a religious zealot with a closed mind. And as we all know, belief gets in the way of learning.
And that's not something to be proud of.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 7:51 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 204 of 358 (646494)
01-04-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by foreveryoung
01-04-2012 7:43 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
What does it matter if something is science or not? Reality trumps science.
Science reflects reality, and changes as needed.
Religion reflects ideology, and doesn't change.
The methodologies are exact opposites.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 7:43 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 261 of 358 (647624)
01-10-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Please provide the evidence that any investigatioin into the natural world and the data that IDs method gathers is not actual evidence, nor that its method is not science
This issue was decided in a federal district court in the Dover decision.
You may not like it, and you may disagree with it, but you can't deny that it occurred. ID was found to be creationism and that's that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 2:11 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:48 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 262 of 358 (647628)
01-10-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Whoops, foot flattened!
Now onto the subject of Intelligent Design. Anyone with even a small understanding of biological systems knows that 'life on Earth' is the epitome of non-intelligent design.
I've posted this before, but creationists continue to ignore it:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Page not found | UW Video
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
The point is that life on earth points to a non-intelligent design view NOT one of intelligence...
The lecture I have linked to shows how this could have occurred; it's very easy.
Standard creationist claims are shown to be grossly in error.
Edited by Coyote, : Change title

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 8:07 AM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 275 of 358 (647727)
01-11-2012 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Wow, just try and follow along with what i am saying and maybe you will have something to contribute in a comment
Im not debating the resultsof that court decision. Im pointing out its mistakes
And you would be wrong.
You are letting belief get in the way of learning, and that's the exact opposite of science.
Face it, it has been clearly demonstrated that ID is creationism in disguise. You even admitted it upthread.
Unfortunately for IDers, that disguise isn't fooling anyone, just as creation "science" didn't fool anyone.
Why can't you folks just be honest about it? You are peddling religion and everyone knows it. Why try to hide it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 1:34 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 333 of 358 (648130)
01-13-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Dawn Bertot
01-13-2012 8:40 AM


Re: Summary
The main tenet of the ToE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. It should be obvious that that aspect of the ToE cannot be falsified
I would consider "soley [sic] natural causes" a working assumption.
And you are wrong once again; that assumption can be falsified by evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately for you and your side of the issue, no such evidence has been found.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 8:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2012 10:54 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 339 of 358 (648469)
01-15-2012 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2012 10:53 PM


Re: Summary
Your post is so confused and erroneous that it is not worth responding to.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2012 10:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2012 11:04 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024