Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 48 of 142 (600752)
01-16-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
01-16-2011 10:54 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
ID will become scientific when, and only when, a model is presented and tested that explains how the designer interacts to control outcomes. Of course, once that happens the designer is no longer relevant except as an historical footnote or in the case of product liability suits.
I see you didnt pay very close attention in the thread i had concerning the matter of intelligent design
The model is no different than yours, except for the fact that it is not so involved because it does not need to be overly involved
An elaborate examination such as yours only exists because you examine every detail in nature that is provided in nature.
ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design. No other or more involved examination is required to produce this very scientific fact
However, if one does choose to examine closer or over and over the results will be the same
To deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involved
All you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or model
Now how in the world would you ever do that? Asserting there is no model and demonstrating it logically are two different things. Try the latter
Examination is just examination, no matter the depth or involvement
I am surprised you did not learn this from the previous thread
Further, Im not sure how you arrived at the comical conclusion that after discovering the model, that the designer is somehow irrelevent. That doesnt even follow logically
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-16-2011 10:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 01-16-2011 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-17-2011 10:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 2:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2011 3:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 51 of 142 (600806)
01-17-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coyote
01-16-2011 11:55 PM


Re: When pigs fly
We have asked creationists masquerading as IDers time and time again to provide the method for determining what is designed and what is not designed. We have yet to receive an answer that fits the scientific model. All we get is "I know design when I see it" (akin to a former Supreme Court Justice's method for identifying obscenity).
You even admit this yourself by your quote above. "Obvious order" is what you say it is, not something for which you can devise a set of rules to differentiate from "obvious disorder" or "naturally occurring" etc.
But you are missing the point entirely. Asking someone to provide you a model for ID ignores several obvious points
1. That you have a model and we do not for the explanation of things, you do not
2. That your model is something more than simple explanations of things, it is not
3. That our model of identifying something is different than yours, it is not
4. That your "model" can demonstrate it is simply and soley natural order, it cannot
5. That your "model" can remove the premise of demonstratable order, or even if it appears to be ordered, it cannot
These assumptions on your behalf, leave ID as not only a model for the explanation of things but makes it as an scientific investigation as any provided
Unless you you can demonstrate why the above assumptions are somehow not applicable or invalid
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 01-16-2011 11:55 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 01-17-2011 11:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 11:41 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 53 of 142 (600817)
01-17-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
01-17-2011 10:44 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
When you present the model for how the designer intervenes then perhaps we can discuss it. Simply continuing to say it is the same model means nothing.
You clearly dont understand simple reasoning. Showing how he intervenes is absolutely not necessary, if I can demonstrate in an examination and in logical form the order that indicates that he does.
Youve mixed up two things where one is not required for the other
How presumptuous of you Jar to jump from point A to C, sidestepping B, by assuming I need a model other than that which I already have
You need to demonstrate that my clearly existing model is not sufficient to the purpose that it is provides, to demonstrate clear order in the nature of things
Since you cannot do this it follows logically that it is not only a Model but it is exacally the same as nyone else uses
Besides all of that,what specifically does your "model" provide to us that IDs does not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 01-17-2011 10:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-17-2011 12:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 2:53 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 55 of 142 (600822)
01-17-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by dwise1
01-17-2011 11:37 AM


Re: When pigs fly
We have repeatedly requested that you stop bullshitting and that you present ID's methodology for detecting and determining design. You persist in refusing to present any methodology and instead just keep repeating the same old bullshit, thus implicitly admitting that you have nothing.
My simple friend try and understand how reason and critical thinking works. I have repeadely provided you with a model, by simple examination, observation and conclusions, not any different than yours.
If I am making assumptions, yours are much worse and you dont even see it
Now watch Dewise, if mine is not a model then show how
A. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SM
You cant jump from point A to C by assuming all these things concerning our methodology
When you can demonstrate that the conclusions reached by the SM, ie, by soley natural causes is any more valid than the clearly observable order, you will have demonstrated that we have no model and yours is superior
because you dont understand simple reasoning, you think you are justified in your assumption that we have no model
Show the above points ot be invalid then you will be justified in your assumptions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 01-17-2011 11:37 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 01-18-2011 12:42 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 01-18-2011 12:42 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 56 of 142 (600824)
01-17-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coyote
01-17-2011 11:41 AM


Re: When pigs fly
I'm not missing the point at all.
You have been asked time and time again to provide any consistent rules for differentiating design from non-design. You can't do it.
Until you can show some method for distinguishing design you are at the "I know it when I see it" stage.
And that's not science, that's religious belief.
Now either present some rules for distinguishing design or stop pretending ID is science.
So then you wont make an attempt at responding to the clear assumptions on your part I have provided
Until you respond to those assumptions on your part I have provided, then I cant take your assertion serious that we have no model, it is not science and you test things differently than we do and arrive at better conclusions
I say your assertion that I have no model is just that an assertion. If I am wrong them break down those thinngs I provided and show why
It is a further assertion by yourself that I have provided no model
it is an assertion by yourself that my model is not a model
Here is your opportunity to demonstrate why my above points are not valid
clear, obvious, observable and demonstrable order are not "I know it when I see it"
Its there for any scrutiny
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 11:41 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 12:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 76 by Coragyps, posted 01-19-2011 9:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 57 of 142 (600827)
01-17-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by dwise1
01-17-2011 11:37 AM


Re: When pigs fly
You want to have ID taught in the public schools. What educational value could that possibly have? What happens when it is taught to schoolchildren? We see the products of fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian upbringing and education, where ID and other aspects of creationism are taught non-stop: a generation whom you consider to be slackard hangers-on who merely associate with Christianity because they are deconverting from Christianity in droves.
Dawn, if you actually have some actual support for ID, then please present it and stop bullshitting. [/qs]
dewise, you cant address arguments with assumptions. i have provided you with a method and a model and all you need to to is show WHY, not assert, that those conclusions are invalid.
deal with the assumptions I have suggested you are making, then lets see if ID doesnt have a model and I havent presented one
The educational value is that it is science and it is very logical. You simply dont like it because it implies creation and God. But that is not what the argument is about
My guess is that you wont attempt this because you dont know how to respond to that argument
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 01-17-2011 11:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 59 of 142 (600830)
01-17-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coyote
01-17-2011 12:11 PM


Re: When pigs fly
So how do you know? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
What rules allow you to predict, with accuracy and confidence, what is designed and what is natural?
Face it, you have nothing resembling science. You have belief so strong that you can't even see what you are doing. But belief is not science--it is the opposite.
You resuse to deal with that I have provided. You are again jumping from A toC. I have provided you with a model and you refuse to show why it in not a model
Lets just start there C and please explain via the assertions I accussed you of why what I presented is not a model and scientific
Give it a whirl

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 12:11 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 69 of 142 (601150)
01-18-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
01-17-2011 12:25 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
And so you have no model to present.
Sorry Charlie, you don't even get the worm.
Atleast dewise (finally) and Coyote made an attempt at responding to the argument and to which I will be responding as soon as possible
it does not surprise me jar, that you did not
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-17-2011 12:25 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 1:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 70 of 142 (601151)
01-18-2011 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2011 3:14 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
It is not clear to me whether you are a flagrant liar or merely immensely stupid.
If you will try to justify the totally unsupported claim that you have just made, then perhaps I shall be able to decide one way or the other.
Not a problem
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2011 3:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 74 of 142 (601188)
01-19-2011 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
01-17-2011 2:37 PM


Re: When pigs fly
A. Show us the examination! In science we start with observation, and when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. Is this what you mean by "examination?" What facts do you have? And how do you evaluate and confirm those facts? You claim something is designed? How do you confirm that fact? How do you tell what is and what is not designed? What rules or criteria do you use? Without a formal process for confirming observations as facts you have nothing.
I dont know absolutely whether something is designed or not and it is not necessary for me to know it absolutely to know that a method of examination is model for observation and experimentation or that it is soley a result of natural causes
This is ofcourse what I have been asking you all along, what FACTS is it that you have? You claim you have facts. what do those "facts" do for you in answering questions of origination and origins
Lets try this again. My model is suffiecient in establishing that order and law exist. Your model is sufficient in establishing that things work in a certain manner. this is all either of us has and can conclude from our "Models"
we then draw conclusions from those Models as to the nature of that examination or model. Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions. however, now pay close attention, the models will let us demonstrate order on my side and change on your side. these are visible and demonstratable characteristics, not speculation
B. Your "examination" is far from a model. Once you have a body of verified facts, then you can propose hypotheses to explain them. Once those hypotheses have been tested, the surviving ones begin to take on explanatory power, and may eventually end up as what we call a "theory." A model is not a theory; it is more akin to an hypothesis:
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
To establish what? And to what purpose? So you have a model, what does it do and how is it any different than the model that verfies Order and law
Your assumption through a lack of simple understanding about reason itself, assumes I am arguing for design or a designer. Im not, thats a conclusion. By the same process of examination or Model, if you like, we reach our conclusions of order and change. This is all mine does and that is all yours does, no matter its technical involvement
hence ID is initially established by a scientific examination process (model if you like)by the demonstration of order, verifiable in the same way any FACTS that evo can demonstrate
C. You have no verified facts from which to draw conclusions. You only have "I know design when I see it." That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.
that is a lie and you know it. Order and law exist, whether you believe it a product of natural causes or design. I dont initially see design I see Order and establish it the same way you do any fact derived by your so-called superior model
here is a challenge for you. Present any fact, not conclusion, derived by the Model you tout, that would be different or differently derived in the same way Order and law are observed
Your second assumption is that the "ID model" is derived as a result of ID or creationist thinking, it is not. ITS JUST A MODEL an examination, just like anyother examination, or fact, derived in the same way you "facts" are established
This is where we came in. Until you can determine reliably what is designed and what is not designed you have nothing. You're at the "I know design when I see it" level and that isn't science.
And of course this is nonsense as I have just indicated. every examination of physical properties that produces a demonstratable fact (order and law in this case) is science. The only persons that are fooled by the bar (model) you have set are youselves and someone not intelligent enough to not recognize a con job.
The only facts that your model establish are those that can be easily recognized by evaluation, ie, things exist, change happened, things are different, things are still happening. Etc, etc, etc.
Without admitting it and usually denying it, (by carefully disavowing science reaching conclusions) your conclusion from all of this "Model", you tout, is that the above mentioned things are a result of soley natural causes, which like after establishing that Order exists, we are justified in suggesting that design exists
But, and much more importantly, before either of us get to those conclusions we have already used a model and method that qualifies as science. that is of course, unless you are prepared to admit or demonstrate that Order is not present and Law does not reside in nature.
Calling for a demonstration of how God interviens in this process, ignores the very rules you employ in your own research methods and more importanly ignores simple rules of reason. Time, processes, change and order are all present and verfiable by research methods, I dont need conclusions for that to be fact
In the absense of that which is absolutely demonstratable I can only rely on the observable and testable. In your case change over time, in mine Order and law of an intricate nature. Neither of these require conclusions or religion. Both are science in action
Sorry boys thats the way it is and the proposition I have set out here cannot be demostrated as false or invalid
If you think it can be have at it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2011 2:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 01-19-2011 9:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 78 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 10:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2011 11:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 99 of 142 (612904)
04-19-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
01-19-2011 11:23 AM


Re: When pigs fly
lest Nonukes claims Ihave abandoned some thread here or there, here we go
Dawn Bertot writes
Neither your model or mine lets us demonstrate (prove) either of our conclusions.
Taq writes
False. The evolutionary model lets us demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes as shown above. It does so in a testable and falsifiable manner. The ID model doesn't have these attributes. It is not testable and it is not falsifiable.
No taq you misunderstand the nature of a conclusion in these respects. the conclusion of evolution is not evolution, but must be the conclusion of, was created or is the result of soley natural causes.
The evolutionary model regaurdless of how complicated you describe it is but an examination of physical properties. The truth or falsity of evolution has nothing to do with the validty of ID. If evolution were true, it would not invalidate ID. ID stands on different ground, but uses the same process for its conclusion.
One would need to demonstrate in logical form why IDs process is not science, since it employs the self-same methods for its immediate conclusions concerning order and law
Do a google search for "cdesign proponentist". That should clear up a lot.
reality and rational thinking explain what ID and creationism are, not websites
taq dont use borrowed arguments, think for yourself. test the conclusions of what you believe, carry it to its logical conclusion to if it is valid. think for yourself
ID is the result of "creation science" losing court cases and being booted out of schools.
ID is an attempt to dress creationism in a lab coat and try to sell it as a science. That is the whole point of ID. No scientist is using ID to do scientific research. The only way in which ID is used is to push the creationist agenda of getting religion into science classes.
This of course is just bantering and has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Of course scientist dont use ID, its a conclusion of a process. They ofcourse do use the procees and model established by order and law in the natural world, which is the process for ID.
Science is more than examination. Gathering facts is but a single step in the scientific method. You also need to construct hypotheses and then test those hypotheses. ID is incapable of doing this which is why it is not science.
Your just mencing words. Hypothesis and falsifiability are just more examination. these are other words for examination. Do you stop examining when you start hypthesising. Of course not. We examine you examine
Observing order and law is but the first step in the scientific method. You also need to construct a hypothesis as to the cause of these observations, and then design experiments that will test this hypothesis (and the null hypothesis)
.
So tell me then, what are the causes of the observations you conduct and what hyothesis and experiments will you conduct to demonstrate the nature of things itself? Your method or model of course can only measure processes, not conclusions.
To demonstrate my point beyond any doubt. How will you test the Null hypoithesis against the conclusion of Soley natural causes. What physical experiments could let you know for sure, it is not the result of a designer. Of course you could conduct no such test, which means one of sevearal things
You are incorrectly evaluating the IDs methodology
You are requiring of IDs methods something you dont for yours, because:
You are confusing the conclusion of ID with your process
You are misapplying the principle of falsifiabilty to ID, when it should be applied to its process
Your ignoring the fact that some physical principles (order and law) dont need to be continually retested if theve been demonstrated to be true and valid
Your ignoring the fact that order and law are as valid as change and natural selection to any conclusions concerning the origins of things
And finally you are ignoring the fact that any processes (models) that accurately (by scientific examination) explain the causes for the natural world and its origins, are scientific and should be taught in the science arena
Since the ID process (model) follows any logical and scientific examination process, it would follow logically that it has nothing to do with religion and should be taught as science. Your everwhelming and misguided prejudices, notwithstanding
ID does not do this. It jumps over the hypothesis and experiment stages of the scientific method and lands at the conclusion. This is why ID is not science.
Only ignorance or prejudice of any rational thought process would make such a foolish statement. of course it does not jump anything its simply that one does not need to continually keep testing the same evidence and process when we already know order and law exist and are a valid scientific explanation of the nature and origin of things
tell me. in your scientific methodology, once you are certain and sure about a thing and know for sure it is true. Do you continue to conduct new and different test to it or do you use its principles safe in the fact that they are true and that you can proceed with its accurate attributes to apply it somewhere else/
[qs]Making claims with no experimental support ignores the rules of science which is why ID is not science. If you want to claim that ID is science then you must follow the rules of science. The theory of evolution does have experimental support which is why it is science. [qs] ID, like Soley natural causes are conclusions and only thier processes can be considered science. Since IDs process more than qualifies in this connection, it follows that the process of ID and its conclusions should be taught as science, as are evo and soley natural causes.
So how do we test the claim that Order and Law are the product of an intelligent designer? Please describe these experiments, or admit that ID is not science.
Why, the same way you test the claim that evo is the product of soley natural causes, by an examination, scientific in nature of the natural world, with processes that are testable to teastable conclusions concerning physical properties
By an examination of both individual and countless organisms in the natural world. all of which will result in experiments that demonstrate order and law. if this is not good enough please explain what other test I could conduct, in the SM approach that would validate or invalidate said law and order.
Give me an example of how the SMs approach would demonstrate the conclusion of soley natural causes more than it would a designer. What experiments and null hypos would you use. Now remember it has to be more than an examination, for it to be scientific
Demonstrate that IDs process (model) is not a scientific approach, to that conclusion. Since it cannot be demonstrated by any scientific method that things were not designed to evolve. perhaps you could describe a test that would take prescedence over IDs approach, to that conclusion
Since neither of our conclusions is provable absolutely, it would follow that any valid logical, scientific explanations, should be taught in this connection. if not why not?
Since neither, as the state or country wishes has anything to do with religion, but are physical approaches, both should be taught.
It follows therefore that IDs method (model) is real science. Ones method or model does not have to involve detailed explanations and experiments where the truth is already established or where the truth cannot be known absolutely. the process of evolution and IDs model stand or fall together.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 11:23 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2011 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 101 of 142 (612912)
04-20-2011 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
04-19-2011 11:55 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
False. The theory of evolution does not deal with origins, but with change over time.
C, try and think outside the box for once in your life. try and think for yourself without using borrowed concepts and ideas. try an be completely rational. Now pay close attention. Every ideology and investigation dealing with the natural world, is dealing with origins, your opinion notwithstanding. Every argument applied to the natural world, has a conclusion twords the origin of things. Yours is soley natural causes, some is design, some is brain in a jar on a shelf, etc, etc
ofcourse evolution deals with change just like, Id deals with order and law. But Evo still has a veiw to a conclusion. What person finding a briefcase on their stoop, having examine it throughly, then would not say, "I wonder how that got their", or I wonder where it came from. You get the point
Finding terms such as Abogenesis, to imply that the investigation has nothing to do with the conclusion is just plain nonesense. No thinking person would seperate the two and rational and reality will not allow it. Every investigation possesses thee properties
Science is not involved in a search for "truth." This is why:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
my simple friend, if "science" rejects the claims of Id, it is by implication sugesting it knows it is not true and has a better alternative. what is the alternative to ID not being true? if it knows ID is not true then it is saying that is "true", which violates the above principle
ID does not employ the same methods as science. Just for a start, ID avoids peer-reviewed journals like vampires avoid garlic. Rather, they try to con school boards and other weak-minded groups. The "premier" ID group is the Discovery Institute -- they employ hoards of lawyers and PR flaks, but have no real scientists, no laboratory, and no research budget. The bible has done their research for them, so they don't need anything more. See the Wedge Document for the sordid details.
Come on C, you know this is not a rational response, its an emotional one. Its has no valid argument. Im not "They", I cant answer for them
Correct, they start with a conclusion--derived from the bible, "divine revelation," superstition, folklore, and myth. They do not use the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion. The scientific method in fact comes to conclusions that are exactly the opposite of those of creationism and it's illegitimate offspring, ID.
Show me how when we start with an investigation of the natural world, that is starting with a conclusion. Isnt it true that your just mad that my conclusion about the how and why is different than yours
Augustine writes
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
Its clear from this post you are very zealous concering these issues but you do not have the philosophical debating skills to respond to the heart of arguments. perhaps someone else might
this is good advice from St Augustine, it applies to the specifics of scientific details in their minutness, not to general philosphical applications in the question of origins and the such like.
have no fear I will not attempt to discuss for example the details of the thread that RAZD, just opened. However the general principles of this discussion would cover even that discussion
Nor will I attempt to lecture you on archeology
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2011 11:55 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by frako, posted 04-20-2011 6:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 04-21-2011 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 104 of 142 (613171)
04-22-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Peter
04-21-2011 10:59 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Evolution only addresses the 'diversification' and is compatible with an origin of life by a deity or a designer or a natural process.
So basically I disagree with your counter above.
Pointing out that evo only address diversification, is not the same as demonstrating that it can logically be seperated as a rational approach, in argument form
representing ID as an philosophical underpinning and suggesting that one need not concern themselves the how of or why of a thing, is not logical or resonable.
You need to demonstrate this not simply state a fact concerning what evo is or does
Content and color of the case is just the start, its in your face, so to speak. While it may have nothing to do w/ how immediately, it will eventually and cannot be seperate in any logical approach. Wouldnt you agree?
One might wonder how it got there, but the answer to that question has no bearing on the colour or content of the briefcase -- and is therefore irrelevant if your 'question' is 'What's inside?' or 'What colour is this?'
Wonderment is not the issue involved. "Scientist" make a boast of being completley accurate and thorough in their approach to the natural world. To do so, an examination into the why is only rational and reasonable in logical formated approach correct
How concsistent is it for these "scientists" to claim accuracy in their SM, then trun right around and claim how the suitcase got there as not important or suggest they are not concerned how it got there, as a part of the scientific processes
Your attempt in point out the differnce in the two is noble, but it does not solve the problem from any logical and scientific approach
No-one has to reject the claims of ID .... ID proponents have to convince the scientific community that they are on to something.
because they confuse the conclusion of ID w/ its approach, they assume ID exponents have "nothing". When in fact the approach and method is exacally the same. The SM in this connection starts and finishes the same way
They get lost in the details and specifics of an examination of the minutness of the natural world and mistakenly assume that this minutia, is somehow a better process than the general approach of investigation itself.
Further hypothesis, tests and retest, will not result in a opposite conclusion of order and law,nor will it give a better or more accurate answer, than the only two possibilites for the explanation of things
The reason the ID approach has stood the test of time is because it is naturally and ratioanlly based.
Investigations start with observations, not conclusions. They then form a testable hypothesis ... then test it.
The conclusions come from the results of the 'testing'.
If you start with a conclusion and work backwards it's amazing what you can apparently 'proove'!!
This is ofcourse what I have been pleading for someone to do. Demonstrate how an examination into the natural world and its law and order is starting with a conclusion
demonstrate that further investigation and further investigation and testing of the details of the eye for example and how they work together to a purpose, is starting with a conclusion
The truth of the matter is that all people start with some preconcieved ideas. You dont think MR Darwin sat on Gallapogus (sorry if that is not how you spell it) and had all the data he needed to confirm all his theories do you?
Further experiments hundreds of years later have proved no better in a dismisal of the order and law to the conclusion of a designer
What you are actually seeing is a hatred for religion and its tenets, disguised under the academic outcries of foul and unscientific
Is that a tactic to try to avoid discussing the issues raised?
if you feel it is you are free to demonstrate what I have avoided, or any conclusions to that affect
Peter they dont want Design taught, not because it cant be accurately demonstrated, but because they are afraid the flood gates would be open for any religion to tout their claims and they percieve it as a step backwards
When in fact it is only a logical and rational approach to the nature of things. It cannot be accurately demonstrated as invalid, unscientifc (if we use science in its original form) or irrational
I was there in my time in the service, (3 YEARS), in a small town called Brandon, I LOVE ENGLAND
Dawn Bertot
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Peter, posted 04-21-2011 10:59 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2011 10:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 140 by Peter, posted 05-05-2011 7:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 106 of 142 (613262)
04-23-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
04-22-2011 10:33 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Scientists don't want design taught because it is not science. It's that simple. It is dogma pushed by PR flacks and lawyers, such as those at the Dishonesty Institute using the corrupt methods exposed in the Wedge Document.
Perhaps you could post a few of the points that demonstrate this from the Wedge document. Im going to bet, it or them have nothing to do with the process or rational behind ID and creationism. Atleast not in its realistic sense
Anywho lets see it
And it is a step backward, as is all religious dogma. Science looks at the real world and tries to figure it out. Science follows where the evidence leads.
As far as I know and have accurately demonstrated so does ID, at least in the realistic sense of the words
Religion begins with dogma and twists, misrepresents, or ignores any evidence that fails to conform to that dogma. That is the exact opposite of science and claiming it isn't is just foolish.
I believe I have done much more than claim it, because if that were not true you would have responded in some logical fashion to my previous post to Peter. As far as I can see all you did was cry foul.
I think my first impression of you was correct, while you may be a very fine acheologist, I dont think you really know how to respond to philosophical and rational argumetns concerning the topic
Anyway lets see
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2011 10:33 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 04-23-2011 8:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 107 of 142 (613263)
04-23-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by frako
04-20-2011 6:33 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
You made an observfation that lots of peoples teeth hurt so you decide to look into the matter you take a look at the teeth of the people in pain and note your observations (damaged teeth, caries, inflammation of the gums....),
How would you proceed if you wanted know where the peolple and their teeth came form, so and so forth, backwards and backwards.
Since you have horribly misrepresented IDs approach in your example of the Red hot poker, there is very little reason to respond to an example that is way off base
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by frako, posted 04-20-2011 6:33 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by frako, posted 04-23-2011 5:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024