Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
Heathen, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,366 Year: 18,402/19,786 Month: 822/1,705 Week: 74/518 Day: 0/74 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 46 of 107 (589345)
11-01-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by frako
11-01-2010 3:44 AM


Re: Final exam questions
thats why he predicted they would find evidence if they would not there would be no evolution, what does ID predict ? How can it be falsified? What assumptions are yet to be proven and can they be left out ?

I noticed you didnt deny that he started with a conclusion, something you fellas proclaim is bass ackwards. So if your DADDY started with a conclusion are we justified in doing the same?

ID can be falsified, simply by demonstrating that order and law do not eixst, including purpose

ID predicts that law and order is recognizable and continues in great detail, in minute detail, in specific detail

It also predicts this behavior will continue, if taken outside of the womb and placed in a test tube, for example

It predicts that this process will continue even if it is proclaimed to not be design.

What assumptions are yet to be proven and can they be left out ?

One would need to forumulate an assumption that these things do not exist for the assumption to have any meaning

I wanted to address your question before getting back to the topic in my other responses

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by frako, posted 11-01-2010 3:44 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 11-02-2010 11:09 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 11-02-2010 12:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 56 by frako, posted 11-02-2010 1:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 47 of 107 (589346)
11-01-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2010 4:30 AM


Re: Final exam questions
One of these things appears to be the scientific method. You have already had several threads to be thoroughly wrong about that topic; this one is about something else.

I know its about something else and I just wanted to respond to Frakos inquiry
Since there is nothing in the scientific method that affects the tenets of ID, your statement makes no sense as usual

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 4:30 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 48 of 107 (589348)
11-01-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taq
11-01-2010 1:35 PM


Re: What, judges cant be idiots like yourselves?
The very fact that you call for debates instead of ID scientific research tells us that you don't know how science works.

Wrong. We are happy to discuss that very topic in public debate, in fact we insist on it being discussed.

The fact that you distinguish debate from ID research demonstrates you know nothing of either

False. The judge was there to protect the Constituion, which he did. Look up the Lemon Test sometime and then tell us what secular uses ID has.

what he was defending was a misunderstanding of evidence and how it works, or he simply overlooked it or was not presented it, correctly

ID has to do with whether it is evidential or applicable, Im not sure why you think it has to have secular value to be valid

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 11-01-2010 1:35 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Nij, posted 11-02-2010 12:49 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 54 by Taq, posted 11-02-2010 12:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 49 of 107 (589351)
11-01-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Nij
11-01-2010 4:32 AM


Re: Final exam questions
And as it happens, your snide rejoinder completely missed the point.

Those students are supposed to provide an essay demonstrating, as part of the standard for the course, that ID has some theological significance. This says entirely nothing about ID/creationism's preconceived conclusions. Which all of us here know about, but that's off-topic.

That you would take such an unambiguous discussion about why they are there and what they are supposed to demonstrate as part of the course, and infer that we are talking about ID/creationism's tendency to ignore evidence in favour of preconceived notions, says a lot about what you really see in it.

Why does it bother you that ID may have some theological application,in connection with science, in a private school. Are you trying to control thier thoughts as well now

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Nij, posted 11-01-2010 4:32 AM Nij has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Nij, posted 11-02-2010 12:17 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 50 of 107 (589352)
11-01-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
08-10-2009 9:04 PM


Re: Dembski in a snit: Let's challenge his students (to see if they think)
Perhaps we should issue a challenge: “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Welcomed -- all you have to do is support your claims with facts and answer all rebuttals.”

Perhaps we should start a new thread just for them.

Any time you are ready RAZD. Just set out the proposition and if my hands are not tied by admin in omiting what i need to discuss it, you have your challenge met

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2009 9:04 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
Nij
Member (Idle past 3172 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 51 of 107 (589384)
11-02-2010 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:54 PM


Re: Final exam questions
It doesn't bother me at all that ID has theological aspects.

What does bother me is that instead of discussing those aspects and specifically the students' requirement to present them, you decided to complain about preconceived conclusions supposedly being the basis of evolution.

Here's a thought for you: how about you don't project ID/creationism's shortcomings onto real science?

If that wasn't enough, yes, it is a valid thing to question why religious apologetics is required in what is supposedly a science class. IDiots: they don't seem able to think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:27 PM Nij has not yet responded
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 11-02-2010 7:56 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3172 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 52 of 107 (589387)
11-02-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:49 PM


I'm full aware this is off-topic, but somebody needs to do it...
Wrong. We are happy to discuss that very topic in public debate, in fact we insist on it being discussed.

You were just told that science research doesn't involve public debate, and this is because public opinion is irrelevant to what counts as valid science, yet you wish to repeat exactly the same claim in which it does.
I don't think any more need be said on that.

The fact that you distinguish debate from ID research demonstrates you know nothing of either

Actually, no, it indicates that Taq knows the difference between the two.
Perhaps in ID Crazyland "research" and "public debate" are synonymous, but out here in reality, they aren't.

what he was defending was a misunderstanding of evidence and how it works, or he simply overlooked it or was not presented it, correctly

Hmm, you mean evidence like what was presented to him them? Funny thing is, the witnesses that creotards presented admitted that ID was of a religious nature and the scientific community demonstrated that it was not science. And guess what? It happened that they used that evidence and made their decision not once, not twice, not thrice, not even just four times, but five times!

That's a total of 12 judges.
Presiding on 5 different cases, all in different courts.
Over a period of 3 decades.

This was not a simple error of the defense "not presenting it correctly", or of "overlook{ing}" the evidence or of the judge "misunderstanding" it. The fact is, in both law and science, that ID/creationism is religion, not science.
Every time I think you couldn't be more wrong, I'm forced to lower my opinion of you yet again. You are entirely incorrect on the issue at hand.

ID has to do with whether it is evidential or applicable, Im not sure why you think it has to have secular value to be valid

Because science is by definition secular. You know, all those rules about falsifiability and parsimony and not dealing with the supernatural and stuff?
If it isn't of secular value, it obvoiously has no secular aspects, therefore it clearly can't be science. Because you see, no matter how badly your cult might wish to change the definition, science does not concern itself with religion at all.

Edited by Nij, : Further phrase.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:49 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:42 PM Nij has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 53 of 107 (589415)
11-02-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Final exam questions
ID can be falsified, simply by demonstrating that order and law do not eixst,

This is such bullshit.

You keep saying this but you have yet to demonstrate that ID specifically results from 'order' or 'law'.

Why does it bother you that ID may have some theological application,in connection with science, in a private school. Are you trying to control thier thoughts as well now

The point is: ID is dressed up theology. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since there is nothing in the scientific method that affects the tenets of ID, your statement makes no sense as usual

Did you mean to write this? The scientific method has no bearing on ID?

Finally we agree.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:39 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:54 PM Larni has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 8081
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 54 of 107 (589420)
11-02-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:49 PM


Re: What, judges cant be idiots like yourselves?
Wrong. We are happy to discuss that very topic in public debate, in fact we insist on it being discussed.

So what ID research are you going to discuss? Can you please reference the peer reviewed papers from scientific journals that we will be discussing?

The fact that you distinguish debate from ID research demonstrates you know nothing of either

I know what science is. In science, we do research. So where is the ID research? If there is no research then there is nothing to debate.

what he was defending was a misunderstanding of evidence and how it works, or he simply overlooked it or was not presented it, correctly

Then please point us to ID peer reviewed research so we can see how ID is tested and by what evidence.

ID has to do with whether it is evidential or applicable,

You really do not understand how evidence works, do you. A theory is not evidential. That is word salad. A theory is TESTABLE. If ID is not a theory then there is nothing to debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:49 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 5:07 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8081
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 55 of 107 (589421)
11-02-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Final exam questions
ID can be falsified, simply by demonstrating that order and law do not eixst, including purpose

Would ID be falsified if it was shown that order and law did not require an intelligent designer and that natural mechanisms were all that was required for order to occur?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 56 of 107 (589429)
11-02-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Final exam questions
I noticed you didnt deny that he started with a conclusion, something you fellas proclaim is bass ackwards. So if your DADDY started with a conclusion are we justified in doing the same?

well no our "daddy", went arround the world and collected samples of animals and some fossils too. When he started to examine the stuff he braught home he found that some of the fossil bones of extinct species where related to living species in america, and his notes abbout birds that where simmilar and yet diferent depending on where they where he speculated that one species changes in to a nother. And after a lot more work he proposed natural selection evolution and so one...

he did not say out of the blue evolution made us he actualy did some work contraery to the IDists and creationists.

ID can be falsified, simply by demonstrating that order and law do not eixst, including purpose

It is a big jump form order to desighn so what you are saying that order hasto come from a divine one and that is the reason that my coin falls on heads 50% of the time and on tails 50% of the time.

and a2+b2=c2 tells you that god is responsible

purpose??? ok what is our purpose, where did you find out abbout our purpose

and what about chaos is that something your god did not yet put to order ???

ID predicts that law and order is recognizable and continues in great detail, in minute detail, in specific detail

It also predicts this behavior will continue, if taken outside of the womb and placed in a test tube, for example

It predicts that this process will continue even if it is proclaimed to not be design.

and this proves desighn how?? why do you need a god to make it so you are saying that it is impossible for nature do do it on its own whitout a fingersnap from god??

One would need to forumulate an assumption that these things do not exist for the assumption to have any meaning

I wanted to address your question before getting back to the topic in my other responses

i was thinking more abbout the asumption of there being a god would all the stuff you say that prove him still be the same if one left out a divine creator. Well we do not know and trying to prove something whit something you do not know is kinda tough. So on the one hand you have natural laws spawning from nature and you can see that every day, and on the other you have a creator whom you never see. Both explenations explain the current status one asumes there is no invisible undetectible shugar daddy and one assumes there is one. Im going whit the one that says there is no shuggar daddy cause he failed to show up well ever. If he does show up or if he does one of those behind the scens miracles one that science cannot explain well then i might give him a nother thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 57 of 107 (589443)
11-02-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Nij
11-02-2010 12:17 AM


Re: Final exam questions
I'm full aware this is off-topic, but somebody needs to do it...

Expalin what IT is that you need to do

It doesn't bother me at all that ID has theological aspects.
What does bother me is that instead of discussing those aspects and specifically the students' requirement to present them, you decided to complain about preconceived conclusions supposedly being the basis of evolution.

Is this different than you complaining about what some private college does. it seems that even private institutions are not free from you fellas tyranny

it seems you are not far removed from Hillary trying to control what people think and thier opinions to make them hate crimes. Sorry jr thats why they are private colleges so they dont have to be controlled by tyrants like yourself and Dawkins

Here's a thought for you: how about you don't project ID/creationism's shortcomings onto real science?

heres another thought. Only a tyrant and an arrogant moron would claim to have the only definition of real science, so why dont you stay out of thier buisness

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Nij, posted 11-02-2010 12:17 AM Nij has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 11-02-2010 4:33 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 61 by Dirk, posted 11-02-2010 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1233 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 58 of 107 (589444)
11-02-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dawn Bertot
11-02-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Sorry jr thats why they are private colleges so they dont have to be controlled by tyrants like yourself and Dawkins

Instead they opt for less educated tyrants to tell them what to do? It's a private college for a reason you simple minded fool!

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-02-2010 4:47 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 59 of 107 (589446)
11-02-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Nij
11-02-2010 12:49 AM


Re: I'm full aware this is off-topic, but somebody needs to do it...
Actually, no, it indicates that Taq knows the difference between the two.
Perhaps in ID Crazyland "research" and "public debate" are synonymous, but out here in reality, they aren't.

well sure when you set up what the rules of science are in your own little world and then proclaim victory, sure you can call this reality if you want

Your understanding of science and evidence is limited and ridiculous

taq understands very little then, because debate is not opinion and is not restricted to an auditorium, debate is simply a point of view given the amount of evidence presented

Hmm, you mean evidence like what was presented to him them? Funny thing is, the witnesses that creotards presented admitted that ID was of a religious nature and the scientific community demonstrated that it was not science. And guess what? It happened that they used that evidence and made their decision not once, not twice, not thrice, not even just four times, but five times!

Then thier admission was INACCURATE and the conclusion that ID is not science was stupidity of the highest order

And guess what I noticed you did not present that EVIDENCE here that supposedly demonstrates ID as not science.

Hey instead of bragging simpleton, perhaps you could present that "evidence"

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Nij, posted 11-02-2010 12:49 AM Nij has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Nij, posted 11-02-2010 7:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 107 (589447)
11-02-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by onifre
11-02-2010 4:33 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Instead they opt for less educated tyrants to tell them what to do? It's a private college for a reason you simple minded fool!

You honestly believe they are private because they only want to present a view of ID?

hey perhaps you could present the evidence that demonstrates that Id is not science, as of yet ive only established it follows all the same rules of the "scientific method"

ive demonstrated its similarities, tell me what it lacks, come ONI you can do better than these other clowns

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 11-02-2010 4:33 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Species8472, posted 11-02-2010 4:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019