Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 284 of 358 (647766)
01-11-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Larni
01-11-2012 8:20 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
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".
When you can explain away the order I have described in the single cell and what it is and what it does then you will be able to say i have not identifed order and law
ignoring what I have presented does not help your cause. Please explain away the order and law associated with that process alone. You cant even get started Larni
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:20 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 8:43 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 286 of 358 (647770)
01-11-2012 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Tangle
01-11-2012 4:12 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Of course, believers see the order and infer an order-maker, which is of course God, but this is an ancient argument that we've all heard it many, many times - so what else are you saying that needs our attention?
Thank you, now tell your friends like Larni what you have discovered in the natural world, Law and order
Then explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
Since the ToE ansd the SM cannot explain such things, it follows that it would not be able to explain away the ToLO&P
The ToLO&P, is the only other scientifc explantion for the existence of things. Detailed order as I have described it in the single cell is simply one example. For one to claim such order does not exist, it must be demonstrated from the same process that shows that ordered and detailed, consistent process. You cant just claim "I dont see order", whenit is unfolding before your eyes
Thank you for finally admitting that law and order exist, that is atleast a start
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 4:12 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 288 of 358 (647772)
01-11-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
01-11-2012 8:37 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
From that I conclude natuaralist processes for life.
You need to explain this away. I've desribed my observation of order implying naturalistic processes so that ball is in your court.
Wow your not really paying atention are you?
You have just demonstrated my point. Are you paying any attention at all. Neither can be proved,but both are valid as scientific explanations and are demonstratable
Therefore both should be taught as science
Thanks for confirming my point
Are you prepared to demonstrate as I have showed that detailed order Dose not eixist, or are youjust going tokeep saying I dont agree with it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:37 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 293 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 9:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2012 3:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 290 of 358 (647774)
01-11-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
01-11-2012 8:37 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
I also see Order in biological structures.
First you say I need to demonstrate order to you, then you say you see order. Which is it larni?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:37 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 300 of 358 (647921)
01-12-2012 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Taq
01-11-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Science is not about falsifying reality. It is about falsifying our models of reality. Your model is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.
You either did not understand what i said or you are purposely ignoring it. falsifiability if it is to be understood as a hard fast rule, must have application to any and everything. It can be easily demonstrated that is not necessary for everything.
It is always necessary for scientific theories/models to be potentially falsifiable. We then test these models against reality. We are not trying to falsify reality. We are trying to falsify our models and theories.
Yes I am aware of that. Since the ToLO&P is a model and a theory, it is either falsifiable or it is not. In this instance it is not necessary to falsify something that is always true
Here is an illustration. If LO&P were not always present, it would not be possible for doctors to diagnose and treat symptoms. If it were not predictable enough to contain and maintain the same Law and order, they would have to start over each time, to find a method of treatment for the illness, because randomness would have changed the rules that follow a certain illness or sickness
In the same way a builder or mechanic can use the ever present laws to constuct and build things, becasue the order is always the same
Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty. It doesnt needs that principles qualites to be true and obdervable under any investigation
Then just call it reality instead of LOP. Now we need to move to your contention that reality requires an intelligent designer. How do we test this model, and how is it falsifiable?
Finally, a ray of light, now your starting to get it
Its so funny Ive done this to many times to mention. Well, Ill try again. Please pay close attention
In reality, the only thing under investigation is the investigation process of either side of the issue. Actually and to be completely accurate, we could say that its only ONE investigation by a bunch of people, some calling themselves IDst and some Scientist.
Since those terms dont really matter in Reality, its safe to say we, us, them, whoever are just investigating the natural world for explanations of the existence of things in the first place
Is our (all of ours) investigation a valid approach and are its results identifiable as tenative conclusions concerning the natural world. We can immediatley dispense with such strict definitions of the word science, a this goes a long way in causing much unneeded confusion
Thus far we (all of us on both sides) have decided that Law, order and change have taken place. I think we can all agree on that point.
Now our (all of ours) investigation, needs to have a conclusion. we cant just stop with the process or model and suggest that a conclusion of the eixstence of things is not necessary
Since an absolute conclusion cannot be determined outside of sacred texts, by the investigation or the so-called SM, or the ToLOP. The only logical, rational and reasonable thing to present as science, in the so-called science classroom, we will call it the Investigation Room. Is to present the only two logical, investigative and demonstratable, solutions to an unsolvable conclusion.
That would be the conclusion of Soley Natural Causes and Intelligent Design.
Since it is clear that no real objections or arguments can be raised against either sides Process or tenative conlcusions from those processes and neither absolute conclusion can be be determined or be determined to be false.
The only logical course of action in such an investigation, by basically the same persons, is to present both positions simply because both are science and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise
Only a fool would suggest that basically the same persons, conducting the same type of valid investigations, coming to demonstratable tenative conlcusions, each claiming they are not conducting science
This would be like having two completely blind indivduals and one or both claiming they can see better than the other
How can it be expalined any simpler than that?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 11:55 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Trixie, posted 01-12-2012 4:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 317 by Taq, posted 01-12-2012 12:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 301 of 358 (647922)
01-12-2012 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Granny Magda
01-11-2012 9:19 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Nor do you define what words mean. Since this is exactly what you are doing - redefining ID to suit your own personal delusions - you are arguing out of step with the ID movement as a whole.
Not really, you have just from the beginning misunderstood what these words actually mean in reality
My only intention is discussing philosophy, science or ID or even creationism, is to demonstrate that they are just words. An investigation is either valid in its approach or it is not. That which you describe as Id should be applied to its methodology that closest reflects reality, not a percieved idea you or others may have of it
Philosophy, Creationism or ID are not described primarily by ther desigantions, they are defined and explained by thier processes
Since any investigation into the natural world is either valid in its approach or it is not, it is obvious that the terms have very little impact on thier usefulness in determining truth
Collins has not addressed your personal version of ID because it is unique to you and, since you are merely a single anonymous internet lunatic, he is unlikely to ever think it worth addressing.
Remember; world-renowned science professionals are not going to give a crap about you or the silly nonsense you make up as you go along.
As i have been debating these issues for nealry 40 years now, Im sure you can understand that I am not interested whether the ID movement as a whole or a renowned scientist argrees with my position
Reality and reason support it just fine. It only remains for someone to demonstrate its premises and conclusions to be invalid. As you can see, to this point it has not been done
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 2:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 302 of 358 (647924)
01-12-2012 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Tangle
01-11-2012 8:43 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Science can explain how most of the processes in cells work and what they do. No one could possibly disagree that these processes are ordered and follow - for want of a better word - laws. Our utter confusion is about what you are infering from this astounding insight that isn't just 'therefore goddidit.'
If that's all you're saying we'll just shrug and leave you to it
Wow, I just cant see how anyone can drift from the original point of the argument so quickly.
Tangle, what is under investigation, is the investigation process the so-called SM and the so-called, ToLO&P. Actually there is no difference, everyone feels better if they have a side.
The only position could be desribed as reality and reason. Logic and reality will not really let you go past such designations
If it makes you feel better to call it science then call it science and I will call it the ID method. Its just an investigation
what matters in the classroom, is what can be demonstrated from reality and reason
Only two valid, logical propositions can be explicated from the available evidence. Neither especially ID, has anthing to do with religion, its just an investigation by human minds
the information presented in the trial was not accurate for the reasons I have stated
I guess you can see the ultimate Iorny here, correct?
You guys cry that it is not science, it actually is, because it violates no laws of reality or reason
You guys get tripped up on terms, which blinds you to accuracy
Its me that is trying to get you to be more accurate, therefore we could say more scientific. But you reject even the best Accuracy, for terms like the Scientific method, that would make you more scintifically accurate
The Iorny. its a commedy of errors
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 8:43 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by nwr, posted 01-12-2012 2:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 303 of 358 (647926)
01-12-2012 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Butterflytyrant
01-11-2012 9:19 PM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
You have typed a lot without actually saying anything at all.
Anyone with half a brain knows this is a lie. I have explained in detail, not only my proposition, but its terms. I dont mean to be rude Butterfly, I dont think you are capable of comprehending what is under consideration
I say that with the greatest respect
How about you start a thread with your claim?
You can start with definitions of the following -
Law
Order
Purpose
Intelligent design
Intelligent designer
Scientific method
Intelligent design process
Intelligent design method
Solely natural causes
Supplying these definitions will only be a start.
Dont forget to answer my post Message 193? Is that reminder number 5 now?
If you cant answer the questions, just say so. Not answering them indicates that you cant answer them. I know that not being able to answer those question demolishes your position so I am not surprised you are avoiding replying.
Thats fine, That is ofcourse up to Percy, ultimately not me
You should be able to see mostof the answers to most of your questiions in my summation, when that occures
Here is a challenge for you Butterfly. Look at my last response to taq and the others and see if you can figure out what I am saying and respond to that
In some ways you remind me of Dewise1 and Devils Advocate
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-13-2012 10:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 309 of 358 (647953)
01-12-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Granny Magda
01-12-2012 2:23 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Then you shouldn't try and claim renowned scientists for your position. Collins is not and never has been an ID advocate and he has never followed your insipidly stupid "methodology", which consists of nothing more than assuming the consequent and gibbering incoherently.
Its only incoherent to someone that does not have the ability to distinguish between parroted things they have been taught, such as yourself and those that understand the simple reasoning process, such as myself
Since I did not claim renowned scientist for my poisition, it would follow your claim is nonsense. My point was that a potential believer in God follows a scientific methodology in his approach and still believes in God. Demonstrating the fact that scientist that do believe in God, can have a so-called scientific approach
Since creationism and science are just words, just like philosophy, it only reamins that his investigation is scientifc in approach. The so-called ID appoach leaves nothing off in its investigation, so it is therefore a scientific method. Even if there were such a thigs as that
I dont need Mr Collins, Mr Behe, or anyone else on your side to support my valid and rational appproach, since it has been that way since the dawn of time
Perhaps you would like to tackle some of the propositions I have been presenting
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 2:23 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 8:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 311 of 358 (647955)
01-12-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Drosophilla
01-12-2012 8:06 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
And NONE of this leads to a conclusion of intelligent design being involved merely that it LOOKS like an intelligent designer COULD have done so - but NO EVIDENCE to quantify it either way.
And they say miracles have ceased. I believe inspite of his self-proclaimed intelligence he is starting to get it
Don't you wonder why you are pissing alone on this one? Not just on here but in the real world. Why do the great educated countries not agree? Why don't science curricula abound with ID on every science course?
In fact outside of creationist diploma-mill 'universities' (cough cough) why is ID not seen on science courses? Are all our country's great educators, scientists, politicians and lawyers so blind to the world of Dawn Bertot?.....or as far more likely....you are talking complete bollocks as usual?
Now go back and read the rest of my position and I believe you might actually get the rest of it. Landsakes alive, he's doing it and all on his own
Dawn Bertot
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 308 by Drosophilla, posted 01-12-2012 8:06 AM Drosophilla has not replied

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


Message 312 of 358 (647957)
01-12-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Granny Magda
01-12-2012 8:42 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Disagree? Then show me exactly where Francis Collins utilises religion in his professional scientific work.[
Please read what I am writing and try and understand I did not imply this. read what I am saying simpleton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 8:42 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Granny Magda, posted 01-12-2012 8:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 315 by Larni, posted 01-12-2012 9:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 321 of 358 (648058)
01-13-2012 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Taq
01-12-2012 12:25 PM


Re: Summary
A pop up message here at the site indicated that summations could begin after 350 posts, so I will continue
As many of us have pointed out, scientific theories must be falsifiable. This is known as the null hypothesis. In Dawn's case, the null hypothesis is law, order, and purpose coming about through unintelligent causes. Dawn must be able to describe experimental results that could potentially produce observations consistent with the null hypothesis. Dawn is incapable or refuses to describe these experiments. This is why ID is not scientific. This is why LOP is not evidence of intelligent design.
My simplistic friend, as I have pointed out to many times to mention now, you cannot falsify the ToE, because the ToE, needs to have, like all investigations need to have, that are complete and accurate, a conclusion. You can only ask me to falsify ID, if you are willing to falsify the conclusion of Soley Natrual Causes
The ToE of evolution cannot demonstrate its conclusion, so how can it, my simplistic friend, be falsifiable. You are really not that simplistic are you, please tell me you are just avoiding it or playing the dumb card
You cant stop in the middle of the investigative process, like the ToE does and say we dont need a conclusion. Examining the natural world and its limited parameters, does not complete the investigation. Once it is realized, that even the ToE cannot demonstrate its conclusion
If you think the ToE, which MUST include an answer for its existence to begin with, can be falsified, then my simplistic friend, simply present it
Well, I guess science would be a lot easier if you got to declare your model as true to avoid the scientific method. However, I think this one sentence wraps things up nicely. This one sentence reveals that ID in no uncertain terms. ID is a dogmatic belief, one that is held to be true without ever testing it or challenging it.
Even falsifiabilty were necessary in all cases, the ToE could not pass its own test. Heck the ToE cant even pass the test of what constitues an investigation, so how will it pass your falsifiability test.
Please demonstrate how the conclusion of the ToE, which is Soley Natural Causes, can be falsified. Your so blantantly dishonest you cant even go by your own rules, then insist everyone else must. I believe that is called bening a Hypocrite
Another example of ID not doing science. Once you have observations the next thing you need is a testable hypothesis and a null hypothesis. This is followed by the development of experiments that can test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. Dawn doesn't do that. Dawn skips right to the conclusion. That is not how science works. We don't NEED a conclusion. Science doesn't NEED a conclusion. There are many things in science for which the only answer is "I don't know". What science does need is testable hypotheses.
And here is where you get even more disgustingly dishonest and unobjective. Only an idiot conducting an investigation with all the specifications that you require, like that mentioned above, would then conclude to every ones amazement and with the same breath insist, that a conclusion is not necessary.
But it does extricate you from demonstrating how the conclusion of the ToE, which is Soley Natural Causes, doesnt need to be falsified, while you require ID to be falsified. see any inconsistencey there?
This not only makes you inaccurate, unobjective, but a dishonest, so-called scientist. You cant even go by your own rules
Imagine a scene and a crime scene investigation and the fella says, Well everybody we examined the scene, gathered all the data accurately, since we dont need a conclusion, lets everybody head home
Speaking from experience, the most difficult part of science is experiments.
As i have just demonstrated you only conduct incomplete dishonest experiments, then call them investigations and science
It is the elegance of your experiments that separates the great scientists from the shlubs. Anyone can come up with an idea (i.e. hypothesis). Anyone can declare by fiat that something is true as Dawn has done. What separates the scientist from the guy shouting on the corner is experimentation. What separates the great experiments from the poor experiments is the way in which they EQUALLY test the hypothesis and null hypothesis.
Really, lets see you test the null hypothesis of the conclusion, of all of the data the ToE has gathered, which formulates it ultimately conlcusion of Soley Natural Causes Remember now we cant just declare a conclusion is not necessary, unless we want to look completely unobjective. Your not unobjective are you Taq?
This is baloney. The only logical course is to construct experiments that will test both ideas. Scientists have done this with evolution. They have tested it from one side to the other. The theory has passed this testing.
You wouldnt know what an honest complete experiment was if it were following you
What about ID? As Dawn has illustrated so well, ID is untestable. Whenever we ask Dawn for experiments to test ID it is met with insults, as if we are asking for something so stupid that only someone with 3 frontal lobotomies would even think of asking for these experiments. Dawn is so deeply entrenched into a dogmatic system of belief that the very thought of questioning the conclusion is met with hostility.
At the end of the day, all we need is Dawn's statements that ID can not be tested or falsified. That is enough to demonstrate that ID is not science, and that LOP is not evidence of ID.
I see misrepresentation is also a part of your lying and unobjective approach to science. Of course, neither the ToE or ID can be testable if we are going to be complete and objective about what an investigation includes, which would involve its conclusions
If I employ accurate tactics, then certainly the ToLO&P is testable. Like a Tyro, you keep comparing my conclusion (ID) with your process (The ToE). You do understand that the conclusion of the ToE is not its Process, correct? Its not only the immediate and tenative data gathered, with no consideration for its origin, correct? The conclusion of the ToE, is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. Lets see you do an experiment and then a falsifiability test on that
When you cannot, then it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, that either your method cannot be science, because it cannot follow its own principles, or the falsifiabilty principle was not meant to applied where things are absolutely true and dont require such a non-sensical approach
So why do I say that LOP is not evidence of ID. Quite simple. ID is not falsifiable.
I promise you are going to get this after a while. Pay close attention Albert E. If the ToLO&P is not evidence of ID, because ID, not falsifiable, then the ToE, is not evidence of Soley Natural Causes, because SNC is not falsifiable.
So, this invalidates your process of the ToE as science, because it cannot pass your own test. Do you see my simple friend how you are requiring of me, something you do not require of yourself. You are assuming that the conclusion of Soley natural Causes, is falsifiable, therefore the process of the ToE, is therefore science, because its intermidiate tenets are falsifiable
How can anybody that claims to be a scientist like yourself, make such a simple mistake. Your not working on anything presently that requires detailed attention are you? Whew, I hope not
First you need to demonstrate that the conclusion of SNC is falsifiable, then you can throw dung around on the ONLY other logical explanation as to the existence of things.
This is going to be quite difficult since you cant even pass your own tests. Is the smoke starting to clear, is the bulb starting to brighten?
There is a risk involved. If LOP is going to be cited as evidence of ID then Dawn has to describe experiments where LOP could be shown to come about by natural processes. Until that experiment is described and run then Dawn can not cite LOP as evidence for ID.
Of course he can, my simple friend. Your argument implies and assumes that the ToE, its hypothesis and its tenative conclusions can demonstrate the conclusion of Soley Natural Causes. Of course it cant. that is it cant be falsified
If the the ToE, cannot be falsified against its conclusion of Soley Natural Causes, then it is silly to suggest that ID must pass some non-sensical test, that has been not been demonstrated by the same persons claiming what evidence and science is or is not
Demonstrating Natural Selection and change or even mutation is not the same as falsifying the ToE. Becuase the ToE, is only its process. You need to, as you requireof me, to falsify its conclusion of Soley Natrual Causes
Secondly, you havent demonstrated why if something is true, like LOP, why if it can be demonstratable as predictable and accurate, it is therefore not falsifiable
Of curse it could have come about about by natural causes. But that would only be testing falsifiabiity to its process, that is incomplete
So we are left with only our conclusions, neither of which is falsifiable. So are you going to give up the ToE as science, because its conclusion is not falsifiable or are you going to give up the falsifiabilty principle. let me know when you decide?
All we are left with is the only two possible explanation for the existence of things, both of which follow scientific methodologies, both gather accurate, although tenative data. Both have assertable conclusions
And i say the court, is there any reason why one should be considered as religion, I have compared the process then demonstrated that is not accurate, to refer it as religion.
The proposition I have set out, as you can see is irrefutable and irresistible in its conclusion. But you are free to demonstrate otherwise, if you think you can
No one is investigating ID. No one is constructing falsifiable ID hypotheses and testing them through experimentation. You, yourself, deny that anything like this can be done. Hence, no investigation. It is indoctrination. Period.
When you ignore simple mistakes that you are making by comparing my conclusions with your process, then dont apply your own rules (falsifiabilty) to your conclusions, then it is easy for you to make an inaccurate statement as that above. I promise you will get how reason works after awhile
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Taq, posted 01-12-2012 12:25 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2012 3:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 325 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 4:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 330 of 358 (648105)
01-13-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Larni
01-13-2012 4:15 AM


Re: Summary
Dawn, you do know that for a hypothesis to be falsifiable there must be some possible evidence that would rule the hypothesis out, don't you?
So for ToE: finding a rabit in strata dated as Carboniferous.
It seems you are using the word falsification in a different way. When you say ToE cannot be falsified, what exactly do you think you mean?
Larni. Immediate conclusions as the example you provided are not what the totallity of the ToE is. It like any valid investigation, has to have a conclusion concerning all of its tenets and conclusions
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
You cant just claim that certain aspects of the ToE are what constitute the ToE.
Example Taq has charged that the process of LOP is not testable becuase the ID is not falisifiable
If this is true, then it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, that the ToE in its totallity is not science either, because its conclusion is not falsifiable
So then he is confronted with an awful situation, as I have pointed out
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 4:15 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 8:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 335 by bluegenes, posted 01-14-2012 12:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 331 of 358 (648106)
01-13-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Tangle
01-13-2012 3:14 AM


Re: Summary
Sadly Dawn, what you have written is incomprehensible.
I suppose it must make some kind of sense to you but if you want to make any progress with the world outside your head, your going to have to engage with it.
In debate this is known as Evasion. Only someone not paying any attention at all or someone trying to avoid conflicting information, would make a comment such as that above
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2012 3:14 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 336 of 358 (648465)
01-15-2012 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Larni
01-13-2012 8:58 AM


Re: Summary
Sigh.
You don't attempt to falsify a conclusion, you must be able attempt to falsify a hypothesis.
Sigh.
Hey, he got one right. Of course you dont falsify a conclusion, thats why the end hypothesis of the ToE, is Soley Narual causes. If it were a conclusion you would be able to demonstrate it. Becuase you cant, yet by obligation you maintain it as a part of the ToE. You cant just disclaim any responsibility from this conclusion and hope no one will notice
Apearently Coyote, thinks you can falsify it. Lets see what you have. I would love to see how you intended to falsify the end hypothesis of the ToE, which is Soley Natural causes.
The main tennet of ToE is not that there are here by 'Soley Natural' causes. ToE makes no mention of why things are here: it could be magic pixies for all ToE states on the matter.
Of course the main tenet (hypothesis) of the ToE, is that things are here by soley natural causes. The INVESTIGATION has to have a conclusion. You dont get to make up the rules as to where and when an investigation into the natural world starts and ends. Throwing terms at an investgation (abiogenesis) does not alleviate you of conclusions concerning the investigations that the ToE is suppose to be investgating
Stopping short or in the middle of the investigation and claiming that that is all we need to examine is simply nonsense. Secular fundamental evolutionists do this to alleviate themselves of obvious obligations
You confuse abiogenesis with ToE. As many uninformed creos do.
No, what is actually happening in that situation is, that the secular fundamental atheist or evolutionist pretends that the term abiogenesis, somehow alleviates them of thier responsibility concerning conclusions that are and should be a part of the ToE as well
Further, even if you shift the responsibility over to a term called Abiogenesis, the problem is the same and the investigation still has to have a conclusion. You see thats the problem with the whole SM approach, you just kinda make stuff up as you go along, then hope and pretend no one will notice
Ironically thought this is the point where the the S.F.Evolutionist, starts claimning that the IDst cannot falsifty thier position. By this they mean the idea of or involvement of a designer.
Now they do this, having ignorantly or more probably, purposely, relieving themselves of any obligation to falsify that things are here as a result of Soley Natural causes
All they use is tactics to convince people like the judges and common folk that youve passed all the test and no one else can. Actually all you've done is avoid anything that looks like reality, not to mention a valid investigation
So when it is clear that the end hypothesis of the ToE cannot be falsified, one of two things is true. Either the ToE is not science or Falsifiabilty was not meant to be used in such an absolute manner. which one do you want?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 8:58 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2012 10:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2012 5:11 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 344 by Larni, posted 01-16-2012 5:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 347 by jar, posted 01-16-2012 9:36 AM Dawn Bertot 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