Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 96 of 142 (601406)
01-20-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 10:06 PM


Re: again I ask......
Buzsaw writes:
I Googled but did not know what to call them so didn't get hits.
This would be an excellent exercise in actually doing the research instead of getting all of your information from videos. This morning, I knew nothing about the phenomenon, though I had my suspicions (hint: Spitzbergen). It took me two minutes to find it and my suspicions were confirmed.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 10:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 112 of 142 (613277)
04-24-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
04-23-2011 8:32 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn bertot writes:
... starting with the natural world, just like you do, observing its order and law, just like you do, testing its properties, just like you do, formulating a hypothesis, just like you do, testing that hypothesis, just like you do, testing the hypothesis over andover again against different properties, just like yiou do, is STARTING WITH A CONCLUSION
"Law" is a conclusion, not an observation.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-23-2011 8:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 04-24-2011 9:48 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:15 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 120 of 142 (613340)
04-24-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2011 7:15 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
If change and order are both observable and testable, then it would follow that order is not a conclusion, but a process actually taking place.
Order is not an observation. It's a convenient way of describing our observations. Do you understand the difference between a thing and a description of that thing? You can ride a horse but you can't ride a description of a horse.
The order in graphite and the order in diamond is just the way we describe the arrangement of the carbon atoms. It isn't a "thing" in itself.
Similarly, a law is a convenient description of a process. Newton's Laws of Motion describe how we observe things moving. The laws are not processes themselves.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:50 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 124 of 142 (613359)
04-24-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2011 7:50 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
You did not answer my question. Is change and order observable in the physical world?
Change isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about order and law. I did say that order is not an observation and I explained why.
Dawm Bertot writes:
I cant measure a discription of a horse the way I can measure and identifiy order
How do you measure the order in a sample of graphite? How do you compare it to the order in a diamond?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Please demonstrate that a law I can see and measure is not a process
Please demonstrate that you can see Newtion's Laws of Motion. Hint: you can see the motion. How do you see the law?

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:50 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:44 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 129 of 142 (613503)
04-25-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dawn Bertot
04-25-2011 5:44 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
Since you do not believe order is observable and measurable, might I assume the same of Change. wouldnt they be the same
We can observe changes in order. If "Dog bites man" becomes "Man bites dog", that's a change in order. But all we can do is compare one order with another.
Dawn bertot writes:
Ringo, what were these things before they were solid materials? Of course they were composed of molecules and atoms, all with orderly structures, operating in an harmonious fashion to form the rock or the diamond. You measure the solid material order by the ordered organisms that formed it in the first place
The question was: How?
I can explain how I measure a two-by-four. I can tell you the Sears catalogue number of the tape measure that I use. I can tell you how I hook one end on the two-by-four and pull it out and then read the number at the other end.
That's how I want you to explain how you measure order and law.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-26-2011 8:19 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 134 of 142 (613714)
04-26-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dawn Bertot
04-26-2011 8:19 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
Ringo, I hate to burst your bubble but dog biting men is not an order of anything, its an occasional accurance.
I'm talking about the word order. A little change in the order makes a big change in the meaning. Another change could make it meaningless: Bites man dog.
That's all order is, a way of comparing things. It isn't a thing in itself.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well I gave you perfectly valid answer, you circumvented it, dismissed it an never refered to it, then turned right around and gave me an illustration of the same type I provided you.
Never mind "an illustration of the same type". I gave you specifics of the equipment that I would use and the way I would use it. Give me the catalogue number of the instrument that you would use to measure "law".
Dawn Bertot writes:
then you apply the measuring rod/tape in the form of say an airplane, to test and use said laws. If they are constent, consistent, unwavering and orderly, then the machine will continue to operate with no fear of the laws changing.
All that does is confirm the observations that have already been made. You said you could measure a law. A measurement produces a quantitative result, not just a qualitative confirmation.
How much does Newton's Third Law weigh?

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-26-2011 8:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-27-2011 9:44 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 136 of 142 (613843)
04-27-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dawn Bertot
04-27-2011 9:44 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
First demonstrate that only an inanimate object, has to be the rule for a tool, to measure things, then your argument will have some validity.
This discussion is based on your claim that IDists use the same methods as scientists. Scientists use real objects to measure real objects. If you can't do that, your claim is falsified. Unless you can come up with a number for your measurement, you're not doing science.
If you can begin to understand what measurement is, you can begin to understand what scientists do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-27-2011 9:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2011 4:48 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 139 of 142 (614088)
05-01-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2011 4:48 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:
you first need to establish in some logical manner, why that is exclusivley true, to begin with, and why I cant measure, study and evaluate the order in nature by witnessing its consistent harmony, in to many objects and organisms to mention.
You have that backwards. The observations come first and then the logic is applied to those observations.
How do you think we discovered that "consistent harmony" in the first place? For example, how did we discover that planetary orbits are elliptical and that the sun is at one focus of the ellipse?
Answer: We took a lot of observations, measured a lot of positions, accumulated a big pile of real-world numbers measured with real-world instruments - and then we analyzed those numbers, plotted them on a graph, if you will, and discovered that all planets have consistent motion, that that motion is elliptical and that the sun is at one focus.
Even if you could anticipate, using nothing but your brain, that orbits are elliptical and the sun is at one focus, the physical measurements are still required to confirm the conjecture.
The difference between science and ID, in a nutshell, is that IDists never confirm their conjectures, they never link hypothesis to substance.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2011 4:48 PM Dawn Bertot has 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