|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Exceptions and gray areas prove the rule. Exceptions disprove a rule. That's what "exception" means. But you haven't even told us what you think the rule is. I asked, but all you've told me about it is that the fact that it doesn't work proves that its right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This seems to be good place to restart for myself. Thanks ICANT and Faith you've been doing an excellent job in my absense
Dr A I asked a question earlier. Are we suppose to assume you do not understand the difference between direct and indirect evidence? I 've read all of the skeptics post since and not a single on has addressed the actual issues The presumption of Athiesm and it's conclusion of sole y natural causes as evidence, needs to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. I set out a simple proposition and it has not been addressed Dr A knows the difference between direct and indirect evidence but he plays the dumb card to avoid answering the question Here's the argument again. We deduce evidence of a creator from intricate design in natureOne cannot simply dismiss the harmonious relationship of the detailed parts working together to form a useful purpose. One must demonstrate this is not happening and I cannot see the intricacy Since it clearly exists, its an axiomatic truth that this is happening, one is more than warranted to conclude a designerNow my deduction is one of indirect evidence because I did not witnesse how the whole process started But this qualifies as evidence nonetheless. Since the SFH claims to follow a scientific method when deciphering things in natureAnd of course a natural Conclusion of any investigation is its conclusion This conclusion for the theory of evolution is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes.But they have no method of supporting this conclusion besides Indirect evidence. So the conclusion of this argument is that if they can only deduce Soley Natural Causes only in an indirect, evidential manner, then we all must be doing science or neither of us is doing science, to come to our conclusions Lets see if they will address this argument, that haven't yet. Watch pay very close attention too see if they actually address and answer the argument.This is the crux of the matter and the theme of this thread Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Taq
What Faith is trying to tell you is you have evidence of things in closed system. These examples you provide explain nothing about Or provide direct evidence of its origin. For this you need indirect evidence. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes the aliens would know the difference and which one to eat out of, because we would explain it to them the same way we help you understand the difference between direct and indirect evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Dr A I asked a question earlier. Are we suppose to assume you do not understand the difference between direct and indirect evidence? Since I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean by these terms, and because I am not telepathic, that would be a safe assumption.
The presumption of Athiesm and it's conclusion of sole y natural causes as evidence, needs to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. That would be an excellent topic for another thread.
Dr A knows the difference between direct and indirect evidence I'm still not telepathic. Why don't you just tell us what you mean by these terms? ... you do know what you mean, don't you?
Here's the argument again. We deduce evidence of a creator from intricate design in nature Where is the evidence that there is intricate design in nature? Show me the evidence.
One cannot simply dismiss the harmonious relationship of the detailed parts working together to form a useful purpose. One must demonstrate this is not happening and I cannot see the intricacy No, one must ask you for evidence that it is a product of design. Show me the evidence.
Lets see if they will address this argument, that haven't yet. What a strange lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes the aliens would know the difference and which one to eat out of Then that would not be "an alien from Alpha Centauri who knew nothing of Earth and its life and its human inhabitants".
because we would explain it to them the same way we help you understand the difference between direct and indirect evidence That's something you haven't done. For some reason you've chosen to dribble out disingenuous crap instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Remember me telling the audience to watch and see if you would actually address the argument I had set out
The reason I warned them is I knew you would side step simply doing thatAnd surprise surprise you did Ok let's play along. But pay attention kiddies to see if he actually responds to the heart of the argument Direct evidence could be described in terms of what I actually witnessed, actually was present for an actual event verses indirect evidence, not being present If course there are degrees of these categories but these will suffice Do you have direct evidence that all things in existence are a result of soley natural causes If you do what is it? If I'm lying please show me the argument that responds to my argument Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Remember me telling the audience to watch and see if you would actually address the argument I had set out The reason I warned them is I knew you would side step simply doing that And surprise surprise you did What a fucking liar you are, to be sure.
Direct evidence could be described in terms of what I actually witnessed, actually was present for an actual event verses indirect evidence, not being present So one has "direct evidence" for a thing if and only if one has witnessed it oneself? Thank you.
Do you have direct evidence that all things in existence are a result of soley natural causes Of course not. Why would you even ask such a question? Are you insane? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If I am an f-in liar produce the argument that is counterfactual to mine
Yes that's as good a definition for direct evidence as any So if you have no Direct evidence for the conclusion that natural causes are the explanation and source for all things You must be using indirect evidence, not doing science or maybe something else you guys made up Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If I am an f-in liar produce the argument that is counterfactual to mine You rest your argument on the claim that there is design in nature but have produced no evidence for this.
So if you have no Direct evidence for the conclusion that natural causes are the explanation and source for all things You must be using indirect evidence, not doing science What a nutty thing to say. Science is obviously dependent on the use of indirect evidence. No-one has ever seen an atom, or gravity, or the weak nuclear force, or the Earth's core, or a living pterodactyl, or the fusion reaction at the heart of the sun. If it comes to that, no-one has seen any general law, only particular instances of them. If science consisted exclusively of a list of things that people have seen, it would be so simple that a creationist could do it, and so useless that no-one would bother. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
So here we are 265 posts and still not a sign of science in creationism.
A bunch of incoherent ravings about some caricature of science and incoherent demands for something, something about indirect and direct evidence, and some smug posturing about all your opponents ducking the hard questions, but where's the beef? We thought you were going to show us some creation science, but all you seem to have is gibberish about your opponents. Are you ever going to teach us about the science in creationism? 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: |
Now notice class
I predicted that Dr A would not attempt an answer at that argument I set out in post 257. Instead he spoke about indirect evidence. There must be some reason he won't respond directly to the argument. Secondly Ihe called me a f-in liar, so I asked him to produce the actual argument that is counterfactual to the argument in 257.He didn't do that either Next after much anticipation he agrees with my definition of evidence. Finally But for some reason and I know why, he won't tie that acceptance of indirect evidence with his natural Conclusion of sole y natural causes. Here's why. If he does that he will be admitting that his evidence for the why's of everything are like our evidence for a designer. That's why he won't attempt a straight forward tackle of my argument Secondly, he will be admitting that our indirect evidential approach is actually doing investigative science Sure it's not as involved as all the principles of science, but science nonetheless Unless he's prepared to admit neither of us is doing science Well let's see what Mr witicism does next kiddies. Lets see if he can sarcasm his way out of this one Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Tany
Surely even you can see that to show evidence you have to establish the nature of evidence, What it is and how it's established The beef you ask for is in my argument in 257. Perhaps you would make an attempt at answering it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Now notice class I predicted that Dr A would not attempt an answer at that argument I set out in post 257. Instead he spoke about indirect evidence. There must be some reason he won't respond directly to the argument. I did respond directly to the argument, you fucking liar.
Secondly Ihe called me a f-in liar, so I asked him to produce the actual argument that is counterfactual to the argument in 257. He didn't do that either Yes I did, you fucking liar.
Next after much anticipation he agrees with my definition of evidence. Finally If by that you mean I finally got you to define your terms, then yes I did. I practically had to beat it out of you, but I did finally get you to say what you mean in a reasonable approximation to the English language as it is spoken.
But for some reason and I know why, he won't tie that acceptance of indirect evidence with his natural Conclusion of sole y natural causes. This is gibberish.
Here's why. If he does that he will be admitting that his evidence for the why's of everything are like our evidence for a designer. No, that's not why I don't do the nonsensical things you describe in a gibberish made-up language, you driveling loony. The actual reason that I don't "admit" that is that I am neither a liar nor completely batshit crazy. Now, do you have any evidence for design in nature? I have asked you several times now. Also, I believe I asked you to make posts that do not consist of lies and gibberish. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
when it is easy to cite intricate objects that were not designed Crystals of various types for example those seen in caverns and in other rock formations (e.g. karst formations in Chongqing). Snowflakes, tree branches, coral reefs. Plenty of intricate designs with no intelligent agent involved. Except God of course, and isn't that what we are talking about? There is design implied in all those things you list although the most intricate in the living things. But I already considered all that anyway, and the nonliving things are not anywhere near the intricacy and complexity of living things, which would include trees and corals, that are made up of separate systems all working together to power the functioning organism.
And if I want to do the types of question begging you do, I can point to the anatomy or brain of every evolved creature that ever existed. But really that is the point of the discussion. And the intricacy of the brain too of course also implies a Designer. And that IS the point of the discussion. The intricacy implies design, that's the point, not evolution.
Futher, even microevolution has been shown to produce complex structures in animals. That alone is sufficient. Of course, because the DNA, the entire reproductive system of any creature, has been designed to produce such complex structures. It's built in.
Now about irreducible complexity. Do you know what that term means. Oh yes, and I've seen lots of the claims that there are creatures that possess all the separate steps, which supposedly proves that the complexity is not irreducible and a designer is not needed. But as usual these apologetics all rely on homologies, claiming that the existence anywhere in the whole range of living things of any one of the "stages" of a complex design, proves that that complex design must have evolved. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024