|
Author
|
Topic: The Science in Creationism
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006 Member Rating: 5.5
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Falsification
So is your response intended to imply that existence is not a law or that things do Not exists. Nope.
Actually I'm trying to demonstrate the lengths you fellas will go to avoid simple truth. Well, that's too bad, because you failed. I just can't understand anything you are writing. It is gibberish. You must have a hard time communicating in your real life.
I think you can see the problems Dr. A is having It looks like he is doing fine to me.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
Message 107 of 986 (783312)
05-04-2016 9:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by Taq
05-04-2016 9:16 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
No it is the same. Design in creation proceeds these biological principles. You would need to demonstrate that it was not designed to evolve.
Design supersedes any premise you can detect observe or formulate from in what you believe to be soley natural causes
Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 104 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:16 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 108 by Genomicus, posted 05-04-2016 9:26 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied | | | Message 110 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:27 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 852 Joined: 02-15-2012
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Design supersedes any premise you can detect observe or formulate from in what you believe to be soley natural causes Define "design."
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Yes the same indirect evidence you use to establish unobserved events I doubt that very much. But just to check, can you please show me this evidence?
In this case Intricate detailed design and purpose. It's not necessary to see this happening to know it's design But it is necessary to have evidence for design and purpose. Please show me the evidence.
In an earlier post you intimated that Function and purpose were the same thing. No I did not. Please do not tell stupid lies.
Do you have any direct evidence for your conclusions of Soleynatural caused being a conclusion oOF evolution You have not explained what you mean by "direct evidence", and the phrase "Soleynatural caused being a conclusion oOF evolution" is not written in the English language. If you will ask me a clear question I will answer it.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes: No it is the same. Then please show us how the matching morphological and DNA phylogenies evidences design.
You would need to demonstrate that it was not designed to evolve. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens
Design supersedes any premise you can detect observe or formulate from in what you believe to be soley natural causes That is a claim, not evidence.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Falsification
No not at all. You've been taught a method that is contrary to common sense and reason
You parrot what you hear
You've been taught contrary to reason that some absolute truths exist
Then you invent idiotic ways to try and convince others
Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-04-2016 9:22 PM | | Tanypteryx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 113 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:36 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 112 of 986 (783318)
05-04-2016 9:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by Taq
05-04-2016 9:27 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
I'll bank on it Christopher no longer holds to that view Please explain how these terms do not imply design A designed object You we're not a witness to is not a claim. It either had order or it does not Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:27 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:39 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: Falsification
No not at all. You've been taught a method that is contrary to common sense and reason
You parrot what you hear
You've been taught contrary to reason that some absolute truths exist
Then you invent idiotic ways to try and convince others
Dawn Bertot You do realize that you just described almost every single post that you have written, right? You read that intricate design evidences a deity on creationist website and you parrot it here, and you expect to convince others. You use a fallacious method of evidencing a claim, and you expect to convince people using this method that goes against all common sense and reason. Really, this is your method in action: Invisible unicorns make rainbows. Since rainbows exist, this is indirect evidence for invisible unicorns. You are doing the same for intricate design and designers. Never do you stop to think that intricate designs don't require a designer just as rainbows do not require invisible unicorns.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes: Please explain how these terms do not imply design There is this thing called the burden of proof which is placed on the person making the claim. You are claiming that intricate designs are evidence of a designer. It is up to you to evidence this claim. It isn't up to us to disprove it.
A designed object You we're not a witness to is not a claim. It either had order or it does not Whether something has order is irrelevant to the claim of design. We can scoop up a bucket full of dirt and dump it into an aquarium full of water and it will produce order, no designer necessary.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Do you use direct or indirect evidence to determine the validity of unobserved events Please show me there is not order in intricate design. Do you have direct evidence for the necessary conclusion that Biological Evolution is a product of Soley Natural causes
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes: Do you use direct or indirect evidence to determine the validity of unobserved events I use testable and falsifiable hypotheses to determine the validity of claims for unobserved events.
Please show me there is not order in intricate design. Please show me that there is not rainbows.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 117 of 986 (783323)
05-04-2016 9:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
05-04-2016 9:39 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Whether something has order is irrelevant to the claim of design See what I mean No common sense Did you make that statement up or read it somewhere I'm only obligated to use the same Indirect Evidence you do to establish any conclusions Unless you have direct evidence for your claims Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:39 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 119 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:49 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 118 of 986 (783324)
05-04-2016 9:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by Taq
05-04-2016 9:43 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Really
What testable and falsifiable evidence do you use to determine that evolution is a product of soley natural causes
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:43 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Taq, posted 05-04-2016 9:50 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Whether something has order is irrelevant to the claim of design
See what I mean
No common sense I already gave you an example of order forming in the absence of a designer. If order can occur without a designer, then it is irrelevant for determining design.
I'm only obligated to use the same Indirect Evidence you do to establish any conclusions Except that you don't use that evidence. The evidence is matching phylogenies for morphology and DNA sequences. How does that evidence design?
Unless you have direct evidence for your claims The direct evidence is matching phylogenies for morphology and DNA sequences.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
What testable and falsifiable evidence do you use to determine that evolution is a product of soley natural causes How do you determine if a rainbow is created solely by natural causes and not by invisible unicorns?
|
™ Version 4.2