Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:00 PM
28 online now:
edge, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Taq, Theodoric (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,835 Year: 9,871/19,786 Month: 2,293/2,119 Week: 329/724 Day: 54/114 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 122 of 142 (613343)
04-24-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2011 7:10 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
Dawn Bertot writes:

Speaking of the wedge document he provided Coyote writes:

See much science there? Any use of the scientific method? Any attempt to go from data gathering to hypothesis to testing and finally to theory?
No?

Of course not and that is exacally what I predicted, it would be. remember me saying it would not represent the design argument accurately, so I was correct, correct? What you quoted is and was not meant to be an argument, but a statement concerning the affects of humanistic doctrine, not a formal argument

The Dishonesty Institute, authors of the Wedge Document, are the leading proponents of ID. They do not present the design argument as a scientific argument, but rather focus on trying to fool people. They employ PR flacks and lawyers rather than scientists. Their "Fellows" are creationists first and scientists second.

If you have a problem with the quality of their scientific research (of which there is none), perhaps you should take it up with them. Perhaps you could suggest they add a research budget, and maybe open up a research laboratory somewhere. Maybe they could employ scientists who are not pushing creationism in the form of ID and see what the evidence really shows?

But I suspect that's the last thing they want to do. They really know what the evidence shows, and they are in total denial. That's why all the PR flacks and lawyers, eh?

Coyote writes:

It's just PR and apologetics, using the fraudulent ID "science" as a cover to push a particular religious belief.

No its not apologetics, its a formal statement on the affects of humanistic doctrine and its 100 percent correct, in that respect. Does the Wedge document have something of a formal argument concerning design you wish to take issue with

A formal statement? It's a fund-raising memo! They know where their bucks are coming from and they are pushing all the right buttons to get their bucks. If they were serious about ID as a scientific endeavor this is the absolute last thing they would be doing. But now, because someone let this fund-raising memo out, we can see the dishonesty in their own words. We can see that there is no science there, it's just an attempt to push a particular brand of fundamentalism.

Coyote writes:

The Wedge Document was an internal fund raising paper that leaked out and gave the whole sordid mess away. But the Dishonesty Institute has gone ahead and tried to con folks anyway. No shame, I guess.

Unless you could produce something in it that accurately reflects the position od ID as inaccurate as I have presented it ,then Ill let you have your issues with this paper and its exponents.

Accurately reflects the position of ID? This is ID! This is what's behind the scenes in the ID movement. No science but lots of schemes to push their particular brand of fundamentalism. This was shown in the Wedge Document, and again in Pandas and more recently at Dover! There is no science behind the ID movement, but there are plenty of thinly-disguised religious beliefs which IDers/creation "scientists"/creationists are still trying to foist onto any unsuspecting people they can.

Dishonest from start to finish. And you fell for it.

Edited by Coyote, : Spelling


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:10 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 123 of 142 (613344)
04-24-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
04-24-2011 7:36 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
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.

This is where of course secular fundamentalatheists and secular fundamental scientist step beyond any reason to avoid an obvious conclusion. You did not answer my question. Is change and order observable in the physical world?

You dishonestly shines like a light house when you redefine the obvious (order) as a "convient way describing something". That is simply intellectual dishonesty

Might I discribe "change" as a convient way of describing the reality of change

You can ride a horse but you can't ride a description of a horse.

I cant measure a discription of a horse the way I can measure and identifiy order

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.

Not only are you intellectually dishonest, your a liar

Please demonstrate that a law I can see and measure is not a process

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 7:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 8:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

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

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


Message 125 of 142 (613422)
04-25-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dawn Bertot
04-24-2011 7:14 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
@
Not a problem. But to understand the nature of the test you need to understand what science is and to be able to understand a scientific approach to the natural world.
 
Since I have now given you several illustrations and you have simply ignorned them and refused in an argument form, to break it down and show why its PROCESS in not science, Ill try and be a bit more specific and see if you will answer the question directly, given the nature of an accredited scientist.
 
Ignoring Behes conclusions, how could one ignore his status and his completely scientific approach to the natural world. he is a scientist, he uses scientifc methods to understand and evaluate the natural world
Even if you disagree with his conclusions, can you deny his approach?
 
that being the case and ignoring any conclusions as to how and why he thinks things are here, how would you begin to deny that his process or his approach is not science.
 
Do you see your immediate problem. To begin to attack the idea that ID is not science, you need to attack a scientists approach and method, which are clearly the same as yours to even beign to intimate our method is not science
 
To carry the argument even further, lets assume there is some scientist out there that agrees with your conclusion and process of evolution and all its tenets, but he says in an academic way, I dont see how that affects the idea that it could have been designed to evolve by a process of order and law.
 
I think you are starting to see the fallacy of conjoining IDs conclusions with its processes

I think y ou aee starting to see the fallacy of conjoining religious or the supernatural with the methods of the design process

No irreducible complex system has been found in nature throwing his whole argument out the window. His argument has about as much merit as this one: Because there are such things as pink unicorns flying around every day and doing miracles we can say that pink unicorns are gods. <--- whiteout actually finding a pink flying unicorn this argument fails, without actually seeing and testing one of the miracles this argument fails, and even if you find and do both of the first 2 things the last part still fails.

Ill put it in question form for you. Could things have been designed to progress or as you call it evolve. yes or no.

DID they need to be designed in the first place to do ANYTHING. Your question is similar to could the coin have been designed to fall 50% of the time on one side and 50% on the other side. The only difference in my statement is that the coin actually had been designed but not the laws of chance that make it fall 50% of the time on one side and 50% on the other. Let me ask you and obvious question back is it possible there is NO designer?

You clearly have not learned the difference between evidence and proof, nobody is indicating that things could not be a process of natural causes. What however the evidence (process) suggests, is that because very definable order and law exists and because it is not possible to determine either conclusion absolutely, both are very real conclusions determined by very real processes.

Well you see evolution is a model that represents the real world as best it can given the evidence available (actually finding too many fossils and other evidence at this time), ID is not a real conclusion based on real processes it is an idea its basic drive is ireducable complexity witch has not been observed all the law and order you are simply not good things to substantiate ID,s position and so fare every explanation that does not involve magic man dun it was considered way better then the ones who do.

becuae you cannot falsify that it was not created by a designer, correct?

That is the WHOLE PROBLEM can you falsify tooth faries second job is to hold your feet to the ground. Theories in science HAVE TO BE FALSIFIABLE or they are worthless.

Well, now that you have heard it as it really is and needs to be presented, perhaps you laughter will turn into, Hmmmmm?

Go and write a paper and present it to scientists then and your smugness will turn to hmmmm? (crying maybe, screaming scientists are evil....)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-24-2011 7:14 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:45 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 126 of 142 (613499)
04-25-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
04-24-2011 7:44 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense (i.e., never)
The Dishonesty Institute, authors of the Wedge Document, are the leading proponents of ID. They do not present the design argument as a scientific argument, but rather focus on trying to fool people.
then why did you bring it up to me, what does it have to do with my position
 
If you have a problem with the quality of their scientific research (of which there is none), perhaps you should take it up with them

 
You introduced them not me. My only point was to see i f you had a problem with some argument they presented
 
Accurately reflects the position of ID? This is ID! This is what's behind the scenes in the ID movement. No science but lots of schemes to push their particular brand of fundamentalism.

 
In fairness to them, I havent dead thier rocument, so Ill try and read it and see exacally what thier position is or is not
 
Dishonest from start to finish. And you fell for it.

 
If by IT, you mean reality and reason, then Im guilty
 
Dawn Bertot
 
 
 
 
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 04-24-2011 7:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 127 of 142 (613500)
04-25-2011 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
04-24-2011 8:20 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
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.

 
Ringo, tell me you are really Sharon Stone or atleast a ditzzy broad. Your really funny. When I introduced Change, I was using it as an formal argument, addressing your query about Order, thrown im my direction.
Since you do not believe order is observable and measurable, might I assume the same of Change. wouldnt they be the same

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?

Blondy and Dagwood. 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

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?

 

By the way anyone would, by building a machine that can be used to test, measure and utilze their obvious law, order and affects. No one would build an airplane, for example, believing that the laws in nature, wouldnt act and stay the same. He wouldnt be afraid to build it, because in the middle of flight he would fear that the laws would all of a sudden collapse.

You can test measure and see the affects of the laws in the chemical world as well, its how we develope medicine

 

Put whatever term you wish to describe order and law on those items, their affects will be the same. Thier reality is what makes them what they are, not terms.

 

As I stated before, denying that such things are real and we can observe them is the height of intellectual dishonesty

 

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 8:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 04-25-2011 6:02 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 128 of 142 (613501)
04-25-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by frako
04-25-2011 7:19 AM


Re: When creationists talk sense
No irreducible complex system has been found in nature throwing his whole argument out the window. His argument has about as much merit as this one:

Wroig, IC, is a sub argument to the existing foundational argument of demonstratable order and law as you have just wittnessed in my post to Ringo. Only a fool would compare the two points of IC and order as equals.

You may be able to bandy the concept of IC, there is no bandying Order and law, hence the statement, the Fool has said in his mind there is no GOD

besides this you still did not answer my direct question. We know you dont like his conclusions, but is his process science, is he doing science in his work, Yes or No?

DID they need to be designed in the first place to do ANYTHING. Your question is similar to could the coin have been designed to fall 50% of the time on one side and 50% on the other side. The only difference in my statement is that the coin actually had been designed but not the laws of chance that make it fall 50% of the time on one side and 50% on the other. Let me ask you and obvious question back is it possible there is NO designer?

Since things are here and here in an orlerly and law abiding fashion, the question, did it need to be designed is obviously Irrelevent. the only two logical question would be, are they a product off themsevles or were they created

I dont know why any thinking person would continue to use the example or analogy of the coin being tossed, when that analogy is quite false and has idiocy written all over it. it should be obvious even to the simplest of minds, you cant start your analogy that is attempting to demonstrate design is not possible, by using the example of a designer and his action of tossing the coin. how stupid is that?

Yes of course it is possible, there is no designer, thats what makes the possibility of design very real. the valdity of evolution rest with its process, the validity of Design rest with its process. Soley natural causes is a principle taught as science. both sides should be presented if they are interested in objectivity

You clearly have not learned the difference between evidence and proof, nobody is indicating that things could not be a process of natural causes. What however the evidence (process) suggests, is that because very definable order and law exists and because it is not possible to determine either conclusion absolutely, both are very real conclusions determined by very real processes.

Well you see evolution is a model that represents the real world

so is order

ID is not a real conclusion

Of course its real. All conclusions are real, the question is whether it is demonstratable, it is

based on real processes it is an idea its basic drive is ireducable complexity

Youve got it backwards. harmonny, consistency and unification are the drivers of order. Complexity or IC is another way to define the order . Order does not need IC to explain or support it. It does that by itself. Youll get it after a while. Just call me the ole seed dropper

You would need to demonstrate order does not exist and that it is not actually order, to demonstrate that design is not possible.

The only possible attempt is that attempted by Ringo, to reword it and or ignore it altogether. Both failed as I demonstrated in my post to him

That is the WHOLE PROBLEM can you falsify tooth faries second job is to hold your feet to the ground. Theories in science HAVE TO BE FALSIFIABLE or they are worthless.

Since you paid no attention to my question concerning whether Behe was doing science in his method. Ill ask you this one again. Is there a differnce between a process and a conclusion?

Do you understand that you are asking me to falsify my conclusion, when you are only ATTEMPTING to falsify your process?

Do you understand that both our processes, order and change can pass the falsifiabilty terst

Do you understand that neither of our conclusions can pass the falsifiability test, because of the definition of Null hypothesis I presented to you from Wiki

Do you understand that both our processes exist in, for and by, the same natural world/

Do you understand that our conclusions, process and science are in no way different?

Indeed how could they be

Go and write a paper and present it to scientists then and your smugness will turn to hmmmm? (crying maybe, screaming scientists are evil....)

It has nothing to do with smugness, its simple reason and reality. Think it out

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by frako, posted 04-25-2011 7:19 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-25-2011 11:34 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

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

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 130 of 142 (613534)
04-25-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dawn Bertot
04-25-2011 5:45 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Dawn Bertot writes:

besides this you still did not answer my direct question. We know you dont like his conclusions, but is his process science, is he doing science in his work, Yes or No?

Apologies for sticking my oar in, but the clear answer to this question is No. Behe has never, so far as I know, done any real research to test his IC hypothesis, for the simple reason that there is no falsifiable, testable IC hypothesis. Absent that, he's not doing science. Simply observing that there's order as well as complexity in the universe is not sufficient.

Evolution is falsifiable, because you can construct a test for it that can be phrased in terms of an if/then statement. For example, if organisms on this planet share common ancestry (a necessary result of evolutionary change), then their relationships have to fall into a nested hierarchy. Well, the test is to see if the contrapositive is true: if relationships among organisms do NOT fall into a nested hierarchy, then they do NOT share common ancestry. So far, all life on this planet can be organized in terms of nested hierarchies. Therefore, common ancestry (and thus evolution) has not, by this test at least, been demonstrated to be false.

If you can cite Behe putting his any of suppositions in the form of a testable hypothesis, as I've done above for evolution, then I'll gladly revise my position.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-25-2011 5:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-26-2011 8:11 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 131 of 142 (613705)
04-26-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ZenMonkey
04-25-2011 11:34 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
Apologies for sticking my oar in, but the clear answer to this question is No. Behe has never, so far as I know, done any real research to test his IC hypothesis, for the simple reason that there is no falsifiable, testable IC hypothesis

No apology necessary, you cant "stick your nose" in an open fourm, thats why its a forum.

fair enough on your approach above, but it appears you have jumped in not, reading possibly what has already been written

How can there be no falsifiablity test for IC, if you believe you and others have demonstrated it to be false. Wouldnt that be it?

Again Im not asking whether you agree with his conclusions concerning, IC or design. Im asking simply are the methods he uses to examine the natural world, scientific in nature and practice, his conclusions aside

Simply observing that there's order as well as complexity in the universe is not sufficient.

It may not be suffiecient for someones opinion, but it is certainly sufficent for the establishment of evidence, in the nature of a valid conclusion, as to the source and origin of all things. And that is the truth and reality of what we have to work with, if one does not believe or include the written inspired word. I do, you dont, so I have to meet you on your turf.

In this instance you MUST make a clear distinction between your opinion and prejudices verses what is rational, believable, evidential against the natural world and any conclusions concerning it.

When it is all set out rationally, you will find that both our procesess (not conclusions)involve the same methods and models. You could not demonstrate this otherwise, as is indicative of the fact that, no one will provide a logical reason as to why behes methods are not scientific approaches, conclusions aside of course

Its easy to claim something is not science, but you have to demonstrate in a logical fashion

Therefore, common ancestry (and thus evolution) has not, by this test at least, been demonstrated to be false.

Zen evolution has nothing to with whether ID is true or testable. there not related directly

If you can cite Behe putting his any of suppositions in the form of a testable hypothesis, as I've done above for evolution, then I'll gladly revise my position.

Zen the question at present is whether Behe or scientist of his calibur are doing science, not you testing his conclusions or presuppositions

Zen think about it logically. If you believe you have falsified his position on the physical aspects of his research, then of course it would follow logically that he has/had a testable hypothesis, even if you dont agree with its physical tenets

Which means at bare minimum he is doing science.

IC is not the driving force for the design principle. You cant falsify order, because it is true, the same as your change and heiracry principle

all we need now is to detemine which conclusion, one or both are acceptable against the available evidence. can you guess what the answer might be. Hey you got it, its both of them

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-25-2011 11:34 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 132 of 142 (613706)
04-26-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
04-25-2011 6:02 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
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.

Come on now, tell me truthfully, your reallly blond right? Only a dizzy blond would make such a goofy statement. Ringo, I hate to burst your bubble but dog biting men is not an order of anything, its an occasional accurance. If however, dogs on all occasions bit men, instead of licking, sniffing, and not biting men, that would be order.

they would need to do it consistently and and on all occcasions, that would be order and law. Thats what we see in nature and in natural things, unwavering, consistent and purposeful order.

So when you compare this type of order with other order, it is unmistakenly order.

The first principle of camparing one order w/ another is are they constant, consistent, harmonious and follow a specific pattern for thier individual organism. In other words they never change

Starting to get it?

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.

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.

Ringo the laws of the universe and nature are constant, irrevocable and unchanging. the order in those laws is excally the same.
How you measure them is the same way you would measure your 2x4. First you establish the fact that such constent rules and order exists, as does your board. These rules of course do exist.

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.

ringo thats why we give them these designations, the words order and law accurately describe what THEY DO AND WHAT THEY ARE.

Perhaps this time you would care to actually address what Ive stated here, as it not being a measuring rod.,

ringo, dog biting man is not an order or a law

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 04-25-2011 6:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by DrJones*, posted 04-26-2011 8:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 8:51 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1868
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 133 of 142 (613713)
04-26-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dawn Bertot
04-26-2011 8:19 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
I hate to burst your bubble but dog biting men is not an order of anything

The phrase "dog bites man" consists of three words in a specific order, if you change that order you get the phrase "man bites dog".


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-26-2011 8:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

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

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 135 of 142 (613842)
04-27-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
04-26-2011 8:51 PM


Re: When creationists talk sense
It is true I misunderstood what you intentions were in that example, but it turns out what you are attempting is even more absurd, than what I thought you suggesting.

Ringo, there is no such thing as "word order", that is not a natural physical reality. The words or phrase, dog bites man, is not a reality, they are contirved abstract ideas and terms. Our concepts, terms and imagined words dont define the reality of order, youve got it backwards. The Physical realness and eality of order and its physical consistant motions are what define our terms, not vis versa

We give reality those terms, because the physical realities are actually happening, in the affect of order and law.

Therefore the expression dog bites man and man bites dog,, bite man dog etc, cannot be used as a valid analogy in an atttempt to demonstrate the suggested subjective nature of order itself, which is a clear physical reality.

You would need to, actually in physical form, demonstrate why what is happening is not happening. You cant just do it with subjective terms by moving them around.

As ive already demonstrated, if you want to apply those subjective terms and phrases, as an example, dog bites man and man bites dog, to the actual physical reality of order, they wont work that way either, due to the fact that there is no order or consistency, even in your abstract idea.

besides being abstract concepts, the conclusions of that illustration dont even match the physical reality and examples of order and law in the nartural world

That's all order is, a way of comparing things. It isn't a thing in itself.

Wrong, it is a physical reality. Comparing one thing with another has nothing to do with the immediate and identifiable, reality, consistency and harmony ,in the natural world, that brings about the countless, respective, organisms and life forms in existence

If you could demonstrate that those things didnt actually have order and that that order didnt come to a clear purpose, you might have a point. How will you remove the reality of order in the natural world, it a physical and logical impossibility

Lets assume, that there were only one life form in existence in the universe and it was a human being. Why would I need to campare it with anything else to know that there was order in its makeup. if it functioned harmoniously to even a relative purpose and that order was visible, identifiable and testable by experiment and reason, comparing it with something elese would not remove that FACT

order is a thing because it is a physical reality. Thats why subjective attempts, such as yours above, that are not reality based will not work to remove the force of its actual existence. You need to overthrough its physical reality, not just throw realitve, rearranged terms at it

Now pay close attention, here is the single most powerful argument in existence, because it is reality based, and deals with existence itself

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by thiings which are MADE, (original word means ordered), even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20

Order or Law is a reality by the very nature of its existence, its a physical reality. It cannot be dismissed by argumentation, subjective terms or in argument form. Any argument would need to include an actual physical example of non-order.

In other words, a person has no excuse for ignoring such an obvious existence. All attempts will fail, either physically or rationally.

the only way to dismiss the reality of order, is to imagine its non-existence and as I have demonstrated that doesnt work in reality

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".

Ringo, when you start with a false premise, its easy to assume there is no answer to your query. Your assuming that an inanimate object ONLY can be used as a tool. Well of course that is not true. do you not concsider your BRAIN a tool to measure, consistent, constant, harmonious activity in the real world.

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.

You said you could measure a law. A measurement produces a quantitative result, not just a qualitative confirmation

The quantitative result of order is consistent, constant and harmonious behavior, that is a part of the actual reality of the natural world. Are you prepared to DEMONSTRATE, not just assert that such observations are not a real thing, quantitative in nature.

Please demonstrate that the results of order (physical realities) and observable law (another physical reality are not a reality, real in character and quantitative in nature.

Any thinking person would easy realize the quantitative law in nature, if for nothing else it is physical in nature to begin with

Again Ringo, quantitative and qualitive are abstract terms. Reality defines their existence, not the other way around

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 04-26-2011 8:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 10:11 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 137 by DrJones*, posted 04-27-2011 10:57 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

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

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019