Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 358 (645248)
12-24-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
12-24-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Creationists Hold The Trump Card On Origins
Good point, Buz.
Always telling untruths is a bit much, in terms of characterising xians.
But it is fair to say that many xians do to try to discredit non creationists views by mis representing what the various scientific actually say (when said theories conflicts with creationist ideas).

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 29 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2011 3:56 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

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


(4)
Message 58 of 358 (645301)
12-25-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
12-25-2011 4:51 AM


Re: Something about this sentence...
I only have one question for Dawn. What is the definition of a proper conclusion?
One that ends with his god being real. That's why the charge of creos ignoring evidence and lying is so apt.

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 57 by Phat, posted 12-25-2011 4:51 AM Phat has not replied

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


(1)
Message 85 of 358 (645717)
12-29-2011 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:22 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
On a crime scene investigation the effort of the detection is to find out who did it.
By comparing CSI to ID you hoist yourself by your own petard.
You're not very good at this, are you?

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 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 12:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-29-2011 8:23 AM Larni has not replied

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


(4)
Message 97 of 358 (645757)
12-29-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
12-29-2011 12:22 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
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.

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 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 1:25 AM Larni has replied

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


(1)
Message 103 of 358 (645797)
12-30-2011 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dawn Bertot
12-30-2011 1:25 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-30-2011 1:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(3)
Message 190 of 358 (646318)
01-04-2012 9:38 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.
You are doing the same thing you always do. You ignore all of the studies and research because you don't trust what you don't understand.
And because common sense is pretty simple to understand you trust it. And when it conflicts with what you don't trust or understand (in you head) it cannot possible be wrong.
This happens in every thread you participate in.

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 178 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


(2)
Message 191 of 358 (646321)
01-04-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 7:51 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Your biggest error is to assume that Law and Order imply ID.
You have yet to support this.

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 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 7:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 212 of 358 (646544)
01-05-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by foreveryoung
01-04-2012 7:32 PM


Re: Utter rubbish!
The problem is that while the bible may be reality we cannot be sure that it is not simple made up by bronze age people with very little grasp on how reality works.
Today we use science to remove the bias that people have when they reach conclusions and it is a very effective method, indeed.
When the bible tells us one thing and yet science says it is very unlikely we have to play the percentages and go with what is most likely true, rather than what could (at an outside stretch) be true.

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 199 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 7:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

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


(1)
Message 213 of 358 (646545)
01-05-2012 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
01-05-2012 12:34 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Study the Process of, the To.L.O&P, (Law, Order and Purpose) as exhibited in the natural world. An analysis of detailed plant, animal and nearly every other form of life should reveal an intricate form of order, consistency and harmony, to produce desired, practical and useful purposes, to maintain, conduct and sustain life.
Still waiting for you to show us how this means ID is true. Hell, I'd be interested to see you quantify order, purpose and harmony.

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 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 12:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 8:29 AM Larni has not 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

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


(2)
Message 241 of 358 (647337)
01-09-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dawn Bertot
01-09-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Law, order and purpose do exists correct and if they do they are evidence, correct.
Ive already given you your task, I have now demostrated mine to be valid.
You need to substatiate this before anyone can correct you. If you have already substantiated it please post a link and I will quit bugging you.
Why won't you do this?
Why dose a simple investigation that identifies cetain things such as Law and Order,
Again, you have not identified Law and Order. You claim to have but I am yet to see any evidence of you doing so.
Why won't you do this?
Edited by Larni, : second bullshit quote.
Edited by Larni, : Third bullshit quote.

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 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2012 7:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 248 of 358 (647503)
01-10-2012 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 12:44 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Is there evidence of Law order and Purpose in the Natural world, why yes there is. If the the ToE is true because it can demonstrate Natural selection and Change, wouldnt it be true the ToLO&P was true, if it can demonstrate Law, order and purpose
Are you so ignorant that you would deny the complex order that exist in the things I have mentioned
Please substantiate this, post a link where you have already done so or post a link where somebody else has.
Please substantiate that order means ID.
Why is that so difficult?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

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 243 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 12:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:16 AM Larni has replied

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


(1)
Message 259 of 358 (647553)
01-10-2012 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
01-10-2012 8:16 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
That's all you need to say. You have no way to substantiate your assertions about Law, Order and Purpose.
That's all I needed to know.
Your debate with Dros is nothing to do with me.

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 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-10-2012 8:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(2)
Message 283 of 358 (647761)
01-11-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:01 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Instead of grandstanding simply point out the information or question you think I have not answered and I will explain it from my context
You have not substantiated that Order, Purpose etc are real measurable things and how they can be identified and that these indicate ID.
60 odd post on this thread and you have yet to do so.
You can't just say "I have observed it, so let it be so".
If you think that Soley natural causes are the explanation for such magnificent and detailed order, then like Jar you will have to provide exact evidence for the existence of life to make your theory the absolutely accurate one.
Well I just looked out of my office window and, yep. There is evidence of the existance of life.
I hesitate to say it but, could jar be right? (only joking, jar )
And how like a non scientist worry that a theory is not 100% accurate. Only bible thumpers and matmaticians believe they can 100% accurate.
You wear your scientific rigour on your sleeve.
Edited by Larni, : splng
Edited by Larni, : second bulshit quote
Edited by Larni, : Just, you know, more stuff. Oh and DVD extras (havn't said that in a while). Does anyone read these 'reasons for edits'? If you do give me a cheers to let me know. Or not.
Edited by Larni, : Now this is getting silly. Remeber the messages you would get on Spectrum games if you pressed Break at the right time during loading. I loved those.

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 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:30 AM Larni has replied

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


(1)
Message 287 of 358 (647771)
01-11-2012 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:30 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
I also see Order in biological structures.
From that I conclude natuaralist processes for life.
You need to explain this away. I've described my observation of order implying naturalistic processes so that ball is in your court.
But I'm confident you can't poke holes in this with logical argument so I'm waiting with baited breath for you to do so.
I bet you cant even get started Dawn.
Edited by Larni, : spellingk

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
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot
Message 286
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 284 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:41 AM Larni has replied
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:43 AM Larni 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