Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 511 of 638 (737071)
09-16-2014 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Taq
09-16-2014 2:28 PM


Re: The Tao
If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do.
Taq writes:
Scientific arguments are based on logic and reason.
I do not deny this. Science is a wonderful field.
But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?
If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori.
If the answer is yes, then why submit logic and reason to the same "scientific verification" requirements that you do in your corpus of science?
Taq writes:
All you have offered is an unfalsifiable claim that there is design in nature. That is neither logical nor reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Taq, posted 09-16-2014 2:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2014 4:15 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 513 by Taq, posted 09-16-2014 4:31 PM taiji2 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 512 of 638 (737074)
09-16-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by taiji2
09-16-2014 3:39 PM


Logic and reason
does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?
Logic and reason are all very well, but both must yield to evidence.
The largest and most well-thought out idea can be slain by a single contrary fact. Likewise, without any evidence that idea is about as valid as propelling a spaceship with angels.
Reading between the lines, it seems that you are trying to argue that "intelligent design" is a legitimate field for science to explore. Great!
Present the evidence and we can get started. (You might start out with evidence for deities, as that would be a logical beginning.)
But beware of those contrary facts that may rear their heads along the way.
And be prepared for the evidence to be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 3:39 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:59 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 513 of 638 (737075)
09-16-2014 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by taiji2
09-16-2014 3:39 PM


Re: The Tao
But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?
Does science acknowledge imagined fantasies as being equal to evidenced theories? No.
Can you show that design is something more than something you imagine? Can you show how it is at least falsifiable?
If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori.
If you think that something made up on the spot should be considered on the same level as well evidenced theories, then you probably should give up the argument right now.
As of now, you haven't presented anything other than wishful thinking in support of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 3:39 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:18 AM Taq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 514 of 638 (737076)
09-16-2014 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by taiji2
09-16-2014 4:15 AM


Re: The Tao
Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group?
The group is: People who talk about Intelligent Design and the wonder why people associate them with Christianty.
This is unfortunate. In my mind, intelligent and design are two words in common usage in the english language. As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility. I can look for historical usageof the words in combination which predate what you mentioned above, but is that really necessary? I make the hypothesis that intelligent design are two common words used together to communicate a simple idea and that such usage predates your invention. I leave it to you to prove or disprove this.
Okay. First off, you admit that you are unfamiliar with the Discovery Institute, have not heard of the book Of Pandas and People, and have never seen the Wedge Document.
Those three things are the defining features of both the invention and the wide spread usage of the phrase "Intelligent Design".
The term "Intelligent Design", as you are using it, was invented in 1987 after the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, where it was ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula.
Timeline of intelligent design - Wikipedia
As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility.
I get what you're saying. But look at it like this: the words "pro" and "choice" must have been used together at some point before abortion was a thing. Now, if you were in a discussion about, say, whether or not you should choose the order for the meal for your wife, and you come in saying that you are Pro-Choice, I don't think you should be surprised that someone mistook you for talking about abortion.
And if they did, would you really argue against them because the words "pro" and "choice" must have been used together in the past and therefore you can use that phrase to describe whether or not your wife should have the choice in what she orders for dinner? Ya know what I'm saying? Pro-Choice is a thing. Intelligent Design is a thing. To use those phrases to talk about other things that they are not is going to cause confusion.
for instance I could say I am gay (meaning happy) and be misunderstood. Another instance of a word being hijacke.
Exactly. Except in this case, Intelligent Design means something specific and you have hijacked it to use it to mean something else.
In Message 508, you wrote:
My logical argument allows that evolution could have happened exactly as science has said.
See, this is why you cannot be talking about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Intelligent Design requires the explicit rejection of evolution. If you ain't rejecting evolution, then you ain't talkin' 'bout ID.
Cat Sci writes:
Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain.
That is a strong statement. Has science been done to support it?
Huh? What do you mean? Ideas are things that happen in brains. That is what they are.
Cat Sci writes:
From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains.
Based on the unsupported ipso facto statement you just made.
But that's just how science works. Every single scientific fact has the exact same support.
Cat Sci writes:
If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain.
Sure....... something on the order of let there be Tai Chi.
That idea came from your brain. Can you show me an idea that didn't come from a brain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:15 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 515 of 638 (737077)
09-16-2014 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Coyote
09-16-2014 4:15 PM


Re: Logic and reason
does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?
coyote writes:
Logic and reason are all very well, but both must yield to evidence.
agreed. but agreed with the caveat that the evidence is sometimes not what it seems. I recall someone discussing that the sun seeming to move around the earth was evidence at one time that the earth was flat. Evidence or interpretation of evidence is not infallible I think.
coyote writes:
The largest and most well-thought out idea can be slain by a single contrary fact.
agreed. If the contrary fact is incontestibly fact.
coyote writes:
Likewise, without any evidence that idea is about as valid as propelling a spaceship with angels.
danger here. lack of evidence does not presuppose evidence is lacking. Is this really what you want to say about validity?
coyote writes:
Reading between the lines, it seems that you are trying to argue that "intelligent design" is a legitimate field for science to explore. Great!
No need to read between the lines here. I would love for science to consider the question of design. Our best minds should answer the questions. Millions and perhaps billions of people through time have incorporated the presumption of design into their worldview. It is not like the notion is frivolous or useless to mankind.
Do you refute as invalid the notion of the Supreme Court justice on observing and defining pornography and deny that he saw pornography unless he could scientifically prove it?
If not, why do you refute the notion of all people who see design in nature. Unless you can show scientifically that the justice did not see pornography, you should not state without science that design in nature does not exist.
coyote writes:
Present the evidence and we can get started. (You might start out with evidence for deities, as that would be a logical beginning.)
Ok. My proposition is that design is everywhere in nature. Like pornography, I know it when I see it. I am not alone. Millions, perhaps billions of fellow humans observe(d) evidence this way. That is a statistically large population of observers seeing evidence. If it is not evidence but something else, prove it.
coyote writes:
But beware of those contrary facts that may rear their heads along the way.
no problem, with the caveats given
coyote writes:
And be prepared for the evidence to be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
no problem, just do the science

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2014 4:15 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Stile, posted 09-17-2014 10:57 AM taiji2 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 516 of 638 (737078)
09-16-2014 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by RAZD
09-16-2014 8:09 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?
Because mass bends spacetime.
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?
Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist?
That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages.
Why is subjective, how is objective.
Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how".
Why is the sky blue?
Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum.
See? Each of those questions is scientifically answerable.
But, what you are trying to say, is that science cannot answer the purpose of those things.
And sure, it can't. But all you're doing is Begging the Question. If there is no purpose in the first place, then its no wonder that science cannot find it.
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy?
That's not what poisoning the well is...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2014 8:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2014 5:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 517 of 638 (737079)
09-16-2014 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by Percy
09-16-2014 3:28 PM


Re: The Tao
I had composed a more lengthy response but the server went down before I posted. I will keep this more brief.
taiji2 writes:
You have helped me achieve clarity.
Percy writes:
Lord help you achieve clarity out of this jumbled muddle.
If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Again, I suggest that perhaps the name of the thread could have been made a bit more clear.
Percy writes:
Click on this link: Science Forums at Evc. This particular forum, Intelligent Design, is on the list. It's one of the science forums at EvC. The natural assumption is that people will join threads in these forums to discuss science.
You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer.
I interpret what you are saying is that only scientists or those with science views should be on this forum. If the answer is yes, I am in the wrong place, I am leaving, and I am sorry to have wasted your time.
Percy writes:
If you're arguing that intelligent design has no scientific support then I couldn't agree more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 3:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2014 5:54 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 520 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 8:31 PM taiji2 has replied

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


Message 518 of 638 (737080)
09-16-2014 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by New Cat's Eye
09-16-2014 5:07 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?
Because mass bends spacetime.
That is how they are attracted. Why does mass bend spacetime?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?
Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms.
That explains how sugars are used, it doesn't explain why they are sweet.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist?
That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages.
That is how they came to be, it doesn't explain why they did.
Why is subjective, how is objective.
Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how".
Then you are confusing the terms or committing an equivocation fallacy
Why is the sky blue?
Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum.
That explains how the sky is blue but not why it is blue.
See? Each of those questions is scientifically answerable.
Each of those answers involve how not why.
But, what you are trying to say, is that science cannot answer the purpose of those things.
And sure, it can't. But all you're doing is Begging the Question. ...
Is it begging the question to use the definition of why?
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy?
That's not what poisoning the well is...
Poisoning the well is a preemptive attempt to rule out an argument that is valid, and here would be claiming that I can't use the definition of why when the difference between why and how clearly lies in the proper use of the words with the definitions of their use.
quote:
Why
adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?:
Why did you behave so badly?
How
adverb
1. in what way or manner; by what means?:
How did the accident happen?
Using words properly helps assure good communication. Using words to mean different things than the other person means is a way to assure bad communication (for example Faith's definitions and meanings rather than scientific ones)
... If there is no purpose in the first place, then its no wonder that science cannot find it.
Or if the purpose cannot be determined.
Even if Picasso said he painted the face blue because he felt like it, that does not answer the question, because now you would have to ask why did he feel like it ... especially when he has used other colors on other occasions presumably because he felt like it: feeling like it has no predictive, and thus no testable, aspect, which means it cannot be investigated by science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 516 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2014 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2014 11:16 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 556 by Omnivorous, posted 09-17-2014 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 519 of 638 (737081)
09-16-2014 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by taiji2
09-16-2014 5:19 PM


Re: The Tao
I had composed a more lengthy response but the server went down before I posted.
Compose replies in a text editor (like notepad) and you won't lose it, plus you can keep it alongside the post you are replying to and avoid paging up and down from the reply window to the post you are replying to.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 517 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 5:19 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 520 of 638 (737084)
09-16-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by taiji2
09-16-2014 5:19 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer.
You are a very touchy guy. No one's trying to get you "off this thread." What I wrote was a response to your statement that the thread's title isn't sufficiently clear if there's supposed to be an emphasis on science. So I pointed at that the thread is in one of the science forums.
But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 5:19 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 10:09 PM Percy has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 521 of 638 (737087)
09-16-2014 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Percy
09-16-2014 8:31 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
You can get me off this thread forever with a yes or no answer.
Percy writes:
You are a very touchy guy.
Well no actually. At least not in this case. I have recognized that you are the forum moderator. As such, I pay particular attention to what you tell me regarding where I am and what I am doing on the forum. I recognize your authority. So when you remind me I am on a science forum and say there is an assumption people join threads in these (science) forums to discuss science ........ well I just assumed there was a message there. My interpretation of that message was you were telling me the forums on the website are divided between science forums and forums that are not science. My interpretation was that you were suggesting I was in the wrong place on the website. If my interpretation was right, I was indicating my willingness to move my presence to where it was appropriate. If my interpretation was wrong, I simply needed an answer that my interpretation was wrong.
Percy writes:
No one's trying to get you "off this thread." What I wrote was a response to your statement that the thread's title isn't sufficiently clear if there's supposed to be an emphasis on science. So I pointed at that the thread is in one of the science forums.
ok, so if your answer is that no, it is appropriate for me to stay on the thread, then we are good and I will hang around. Thanks
Percy writes:
But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position.
There you go again saying I said what I didn't say. No problem, what is going on here is debate and I suppose that is proper debate tactics. I can plod past it. I won't even get prickly about it.
Edited by taiji2, : correct grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 8:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Percy, posted 09-17-2014 7:26 AM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 522 of 638 (737093)
09-17-2014 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Taq
09-16-2014 4:31 PM


Re: The Tao
But I have a question, does science acknowledge logical and reasonable arguments can exist outside of what science has postulated,theorized, tested, proved, etc..?
Taq writes:
Does science acknowledge imagined fantasies as being equal to evidenced theories? No.
I agree absolutely based upon what I know of science. But, how is this relevant in a response to a message of mine that makes no reference to imagined fantasies? Are you opening a new line of questioning?
perhaps you meant to reference my quote previous where I asked if science believes logic and reasoning exists only within the community of science or if they acknowledge logic and reasoning might represent a larger population.
Taq writes:
Can you show that design is something more than something you imagine? Can you show how it is at least falsifiable?
Well I think I can and I think I have. My cosmological view is that the universe, along with all the natural laws upon which it operates, came from nothing into something through design.
My evidence? I think I have read here that the big bang produced a huge amount of matter composed of mainly hydrogen atoms. This in a short time too, I have never heard of phyletic gradualism being referenced in discussion of the big bang. I have previously made the proposition that the atom is designed. I come to this conclusion using logic and reason and deduction.
If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff.
If you are talking evolution, lets start from the big bang and apply the science from there. I stand ready to be taught, teach me.
If the answer is no, then I know no way to restate and continue the conversation. Science has closed further conversation a priori.
Taq writes:
If you think that something made up on the spot should be considered on the same level as well evidenced theories, then you probably should give up the argument right now.
Show me the quote, otherwise don't quote what I think.
Tqq writes:
As of now, you haven't presented anything other than wishful thinking in support of ID.
Add "In my opinion'"to the front of your statement and we are good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Taq, posted 09-16-2014 4:31 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 2:47 AM taiji2 has replied
 Message 531 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2014 9:59 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 523 of 638 (737096)
09-17-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by RAZD
09-16-2014 8:09 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?
I'm calling BS on this line of argument. Of course there are some non scientific question using the word why. The point here is whether you actually asked one.
If you ask why Picasso shaped a persons nose as he did, a perfectly good answer to that question would be wanted to provoke reaction X.
If you want to ask a question that science cannot answer, simply using a why does not cut it. You cannot demonstrate that one why question is not scientific by asking different ones as you do here.
As for why sugar exists, who says there is a reason. Why is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) a suitable answer? Is it because your really meant to ask something else?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2014 8:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2014 8:50 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 524 of 638 (737097)
09-17-2014 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by taiji2
09-17-2014 12:18 AM


Re: The Tao
If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff.
Seriously bro. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Atoms are very simply put together. You would be utterly surprised at how little is required to specify completely the operation of an atom. What the heck is "inert gases questioned" supposed to mean anyway? Inert gases do form compounds and some very important chemistry is built on that fact.
I'm not saying that you don't actually have a position that can be defended. But when you post rot like this, you are not convincing anyone.
Given the mere presence of quarks, electrons, and a low enough energy level, it turns out to be impossible that atoms do not exist. No designing necessary. Don't like that answer? Or more likely you've never even considered it.
After the Big Bang, only the very simplest of nuclei existed. Those nuclei consisted of only three different elementary particles. Where is the complexity in that?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:18 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 9:33 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 525 of 638 (737098)
09-17-2014 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by taiji2
09-16-2014 10:09 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
Well no actually. At least not in this case. I have recognized that you are the forum moderator. As such, I pay particular attention to what you tell me regarding where I am and what I am doing on the forum. I recognize your authority. So when you remind me I am on a science forum and say there is an assumption people join threads in these (science) forums to discuss science ........ well I just assumed there was a message there. My interpretation of that message was you were telling me the forums on the website are divided between science forums and forums that are not science. My interpretation was that you were suggesting I was in the wrong place on the website. If my interpretation was right, I was indicating my willingness to move my presence to where it was appropriate. If my interpretation was wrong, I simply needed an answer that my interpretation was wrong.
You're torturing yourself with over analysis in this thread. I said I was only responding to what you said about the thread's title not being clear, and that's all that I meant. I'm only a participant in this thread. Moderators are not normally permitted to moderate threads where they're participating.
Percy writes:
But I don't think anyone here has any problem with you arguing here that intelligent design is outside the realm of science. It seems an eminently sensible position.
There you go again saying I said what I didn't say.
There were no quotation marks around what I said you said. I wasn't quoting you verbatim. I don't have to use the identical words you used to say the same thing you said, and in Message 506 you said, "If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do."
This statement would be inexplicable if you had a legitimate scientific argument for intelligent design, but if you do actually have one then it's well past time to start presenting it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 10:09 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 9:41 AM Percy has seen this message but 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