|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't care if you only test Natural causes only, Erm, I don't care that you don't care. My point was that if YOU want to test supernatural causes, you are welcome to, until you do though, you cannot claim parity with science.
I don't care if you only test Natural causes only, only the simplest of minds would intimate that your investigation didn't require a conclusion Your verbiage won't help you Clearly the same is true of you.
quote: This was what we were talking about. Parity with science. You think both are science because indirect use of evidence. That's what I was arguing against. I suggested, in summary, that a) Your deductions must contain premises that assert the very things we are disputing, begging the questionb) That we don't conclude 'soley natural causes' but so far only natural causes have been tested in such a way as to result in a significant degree of confidence that they are causes. c) That claiming something as evidence for your position, even if you are technically correct, is not sufficient for you to have a scientific position. You explanation or theory, needs to explain all the known and relevant evidence pertaining to the matter at hand. What was it you said?
quote: I like that you also said
quote: Cos that was my first thought when I read:
I will be honest with you. I read through you post several times and I will admit your problem is still the same So let's 'pay attention kiddies to see if he actually responds to the heart of the argument'.
But thank you for an attempted response I'll return the thanks, when the attempt is reciprocated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Lets look at B and C in your attempt at an argument.
To any thinking person your making a silly distinction between natural causes and Soley Natural Causes to avoid your obligation that this thing called the evolution theory must and does have to answer the question of how it all started Modulus do you have any direct evidence that soley narural causes started it all. Yes or No And concerns C in your conclusions. If you have nothing but indirect evidence and you don't, as to how things started, such as I do, then it explains all the known and relevant evidence concerning the Why of things, as far as can be deduced. Wouldnt you agreeUnless you can demonstrate otherwise Do you have any direct evidence that all things are here as a result of only natural causes assuming you were Not there when it started Or perhaps your answer is "I don't know" or maybe something different. I don't think a lot verbiage and jargon are necessary to answer a simple question, do you And when did I bring up supernatural causes Yet? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You see Modulous here's one of the problems we have with the theory of Evolution and the Secular Fundamentalist position.
In another doctrine, study or investigation, asking a person do you have any DIRECT EVIDENCE for your conclusionsn/s, they CAN answer with a simple yes or no. But with SFH or evolutionist, it immediately becomes a moot point, explaining to us that it's irelevant or we don't need to worry about such questions. But if you have no Direct evidence to support the ONLY conclusion that matters, wouldn't it more scientific just so say no Any thinking person knows that given enough indirect evidence (in this instance intricate design) one is warranted in drawing the valid conclusion of a designer.Nothing unfactual or unscientific in that conclusion Using your preconceived ideas of what science is or is not, is not the same as showing I have not followed logical systematic steps to come to a sustainable warranted conclusion, even if I can't prove the conclusion. Lastly, it should be noted that because your doctrine has no real answers and because there is every REASON that points to a designer, This coupled with the fact that I have a supportable document in the scriptures that gives me Direct Evidence of those events and how they happened, I'll be more than happy to go with that evidence. Unless you can give me any real answers with direct evidence. Can you? All of this is really that simple. But if you think I've missed something just ask or set it out in plain language 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
To any thinking person your making a silly distinction between natural causes and Soley Natural Causes to avoid your obligation that this thing called the evolution theory must and does have to answer the question of how it all started So you criticize people who believe in 'solely natural causes', but you want to take the opportunity to call me silly for acknowledging that supernatural causes might be involved? Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot? You were the one to bring up the 'solely' distinction - this is your silliness in any event. I was just agreeing with you, but if you would rather I didn't....
Modulus do you have any direct evidence that soley narural causes started it all. Yes or No The argument is that Creation Science uses evidence in a similar fashion to Standard Science. 'pay attention kiddies to see if he actually responds to the heart of the argument'. So pay attentiona) I have never claimed 'direct evidence' for anything b) I don't hold the position that 'solely natural causes' started it all So your demand is absurd. The answer is 'No', incidentally.
If you have nothing but indirect evidence and you don't, as to how things started, such as I do, then it explains all the known and relevant evidence concerning the Why of things, as far as can be deduced. Wouldnt you agree I can't agree, that isn't English. Using indirect evidence is not sufficient to put you on an equal footing with science. That's as good an answer I can give you. I am not sure why you thought repeating yourself without provisioning me with further argument or evidence was going to achieve anything but if you just want me to repeat the answers I have already given you...you got your wish.
Do you have any direct evidence that all things are here as a result of only natural causes assuming you were Not there when it started Or perhaps your answer is "I don't know" or maybe something different. I don't care. The directness or indirectness of the evidence used by evolution is irrelevant as to whether creationism utilizes science. As I have argued and you have not responded to.
I don't think a lot verbiage and jargon are necessary to answer a simple question, do you Exactly, so whenever you are ready.
And when did I bring up supernatural causes Yet? quote:Message 1 quote:Message 7 quote:Message 7 quote:Message 7 quote:Message 7 quote:Message 88
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you don't hold the position that Sole y natural causes started it all.what is your direct evidence for that answer
Yes indirect evidence puts me on an equal footing at least in a response to how it all started Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
They'd have to make useful changes in the sex cells in the genes for the ears.
Right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You see I was correct all along. So your big scientific answer Is
"I don't care" Which is tantamount to I don't have a clue. I used those examples in the Bible as illustration to another point, not necessarily my main support in this thread
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: If you don't hold the position that Sole y natural causes started it all.what is your direct evidence for that answer Yes indirect evidence puts me on an equal footing at least in a response to how it all started Dawn, why do you keep bringing up really sill questions that have been dealt with repeatedly in this thread as well as many other threads at EvC? All the way back in Message 193 I posted:
quote: and in Message 202:
quote: and in Message 207:
quote: What you need to do to be taken as someone with anything of value to offer is to actually present evidence to support your position. Not just more unsupported assertions but the evidence everyone has been asking for since the start of the thread. Where is the evidence (do you know what the term evidence means? ) for any cause other than a natural cause or of any design other than those examples where we know the designer and that the designer is also natural.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
You see Modulous here's one of the problems we have with the theory of Evolution and the Secular Fundamentalist position. In another doctrine, study or investigation, asking a person do you have any DIRECT EVIDENCE for your conclusionsn/s, they CAN answer with a simple yes or no. Yes.
But with SFH or evolutionist, it immediately becomes a moot point, explaining to us that it's irelevant or we don't need to worry about such questions. This thread is about you trying to explain how there is science in creation. The state of affairs with evolution is mostly irrelevant. If you think it is flawed science, and you can't even meet that standard, you are failing miserably. But this is typical behaviour. A creationist says they want to talk about creation, and they just complain about evolutionists, humanists and atheists. It's ridiculous and makes you look absurd.
But if you have no Direct evidence to support the ONLY conclusion that matters, wouldn't it more scientific just so say no No, it would be more honest.
Any thinking person knows that given enough indirect evidence (in this instance intricate design) one is warranted in drawing the valid conclusion of a designer. Nothing unfactual or unscientific in that conclusion Nor is it science, the thing you are meant to be showing us exists in Creationism.
Using your preconceived ideas of what science is or is not, is not the same as showing I have not followed logical systematic steps to come to a sustainable warranted conclusion, even if I can't prove the conclusion. If you want to argue that what you are doing is of a similar standard to what scientists do, it needs to be of a similar standard to what scientists do. I would have thought this was blindingly obvious. So far you've simply said 'it looks designed therefore a supernatural designer did it' which is not a series of logical steps, the conclusion is not warranted from your evidence by any reasonable standard. Therefore, not even close to science.
Lastly, it should be noted that because your doctrine has no real answers and because there is every REASON that points to a designer, This coupled with the fact that I have a supportable document in the scriptures that gives me Direct Evidence of those events and how they happened, You are allowed whatever perspective you like. But you haven't met the standards of a scientific conclusion.
I'll be more than happy to go with that evidence. Unless you can give me any real answers with direct evidence. Can you? Yes I can. Marsupial mice exist (direct evidence).Placental mice exist (direct evidence) They look very similar to one another (direct evidence) Yet they are more genetically different from one another than Humans and Cows are. (direct evidence) All of this is observed and documented. Evolution's explanation is well known and public knowledge.What's yours? We can compare it to the evolutionary answer to see which theory handles it with the least amount of ad hoc explanations, taking account the most evidence, not just the listed evidence above. Let's put your ideas to a real test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you don't hold the position that Sole y natural causes started it all.what is your direct evidence for that answer What answer?
Yes indirect evidence puts me on an equal footing at least in a response to how it all started No it doesn't, for reasons I have already given and you haven't responded to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But Jar your missing the very point that I'm making
All of your points above say the same silly thing, "We don't have the answer to that one yet" As of yet no has demonstrated that given all the available evidence indirect evidence is insufficient in establishing a case for design in this instance. I'm still waiting for it. "It's irrelevant" is not answer. No one has demonstrated that indirect evidence is not a valid scientic approach
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You see I was correct all along. So your big scientific answer Is "I don't care" You weren't correct as you didn't predict that I wouldn't care whether my evidence is referred to as 'direct' or 'indirect' with regards to my ideas as how things came to be, you are wrong that I couched this as a 'bit scientific answer'. All I care about is whether you can provision evidence and reasoning on a par with evolution science. If you can't, I'll stick with the best explanation I've got.
Which is tantamount to I don't have a clue. Whether or not I do, this thread isn't about me or my ideas. It's about you and yours. So the work is in your hands. Explain phenomena as well as or better than evolution does, and you have a point. Complain, whine, avoid the topic and generate fake victories if you like. It won't advance the notion that you have any science to bring to this discussion.
I used those examples in the Bible as illustration to another point, not necessarily my main support in this thread The question wasn't about 'main support'. Your question was whether you had brought up supernatural causes. And you have. Not just the biblical ones. Your main point seems to surround the concept of defeating 'solely natural causes' - so supernatural causes are built in to your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Modulous
If your answer to the question of, do you have any direct evidence that Sole y natural causes or natural causes started all , is No, as you have indicated earlier Then yes indirect evidence is valid as science and valid as aScientific approach Did I miss why Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No one has even claimed that indirect evidence is not a valid approach, but you have never provided ANY evidence, direct or indirect. I need to ask yet again, do you know what evidence is? Hint: it is not simple assertion.
Where is your evidence Dawn?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Your best explanation is You don't know
There is is no need for me to explain nature better than evolution that's not the point. All I need to do is show very good evidence, of even indirectly by design. I've done that Since you admit you have no answers, what makes my investigation invalid as science
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024