Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

The evidence for design and a designer

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
Admin
Director
Posts: 13040
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 18 of 153 (583510)
09-27-2010 7:21 PM

Topic Description:
​
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
This thread is about the evidence for design and a designer, and discussion will focus on these areas:
​
  • How evolutionists hold others to requirements they do not impose on themselves.
    ​
  • How analysis of the evidence by the same requirements evolutionists hold themselves to supports design and a designer.
​
For this discussion the definition of evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly.
​
Edited by Admin, : Reduce to topic description only.
​
--Percy
EvC Forum Director
Admin
Director
Posts: 13040
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 20 of 153 (583779)
09-28-2010 9:33 PM

Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The evidence for design and a designer thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
Admin
Director
Posts: 13040
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 31 of 153 (584303)
10-01-2010 7:36 AM 		Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
10-01-2010 2:22 AM

Re: What requirements?
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
Yet in the scientific method no requirement is made for the initiation source of the physical realities, or present physical evidence that leads one to the conclusion of the TOE. Even if itis implied or suggested that things have always existed, one would need to provide evidence of the same nature that is required of the theory of design to produce a designer.
​
...
​
Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place.
​
You're arguing that the theory of evolution is missing the evidence for how the universe originated, and that because it is missing this evidence that it is not being held to the same standards ID is being held to. But the origin of the universe is a topic of cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution, except to the extent that it's the source of all the matter and energy that are fundamental to every field of science, from geology to chemistry to anthropology.
​
We spent much effort getting clear on the topic of this thread. If this is what you wanted to talk about then you should have said so. Since you didn't include this as part of the topic, that means that it is off-topic in this thread. If you would like to discuss how the various fields of science outside of cosmological investigations of origins are incomplete if they don't include how the universe originated then you'll have to propose a new thread.
​
Please, no replies to this message. Take problems with discussion to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.
​
--Percy
EvC Forum Director
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-01-2010 2:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
Admin
Director
Posts: 13040
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 63 of 153 (585895)
10-10-2010 9:51 AM 		Reply to: Message 62 by BarackZero
10-10-2010 9:33 AM

Re: What requirements?
Hi Barack,
​
I just replied to your complaint in Hyena Attacks, please see Message 40.
​
This thread is in the science forums, which are usually paid more attention by moderators than Coffee House. If you truly wish to set a higher tone in discussion then I suggest you avoid openings like this:
​
BarackZero writes:
​
dwise1 - truly a humble name, writes:
​
Also, please do not attempt to play the role of moderator yourself, as you do here:
​
This is a clear violation of Rule #10, not that any "moderator" gives a damn, or will do anything about it.
​
If you are having problems with discussion then please post a message to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread describing the problem and providing links to any relevant messages or threads. But since this is your first post in this thread, it isn't possible that you could already be experiencing a problem.
​
I merely point out the pervasive hypocrisy of Darwinists, and of course the left in general.
​
"Understanding through Discussion" is a joke, and all of you have made it so through your "bullshit" posts.
​
Q.E.D.
​
Hyenas proceed with your attack. You are unable to do otherwise.
​
Please keep your discussion focused on the topic.
​
Barack, you joined just this past Friday, and it's only Sunday. You've been here less than three full days. You seem to have come in with some preconceptions and a chip on your shoulder. All you've done so far is prove the dictum, "Treat people with disrespect and they will treat you back with disrespect." As AdminModulous told you, if you improve your tone a notch or two you'll get better results, and the support of moderators as well.
​
Please, no replies to this message in this thread.
​
--Percy
EvC Forum Director
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by BarackZero, posted 10-10-2010 9:33 AM BarackZero has not replied
Admin
Director
Posts: 13040
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 152 of 153 (587300)
10-18-2010 9:54 AM 		Reply to: Message 145 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 8:36 AM

Hi Dawn Bertot,
​
I'm unable to reach any firm conclusions concerning why we're having so much difficulty obtaining a clear statement of your ideas, but I've suspected for a while now that it might be due to your unfamiliarity with the English language, and this clinches it for me:
​
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
You should know very well (since you are such a seasoned public debater in the evo-creo arena) that evolution has fuck all to do with origins. If you knew so much about evolution, you would know that it could occur whether there was a magic sky daddy farting atoms into existence, abiogenesis occurring, transpermia etc.
​
So you say it does have to do with origins, Percy and others say it does not.
​
Hooah was stating in the strongest terms possible that evolution has nothing to do with origins, yet you concluded he was stating the opposite.
​
This continual language confusion convinces me that Free For All is the best place for this thread. If at some point some clarity emerges I will move the thread back here. Those who decide to continue participation in this thread should be aware that there is no moderation over at Free For All.
​
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
​
--Percy
EvC Forum Director
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
Admin
Director
Posts: 13040
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2

Normal Thread Display
Message 153 of 153 (587302)
10-18-2010 9:56 AM

Thread Copied to Free For All Forum
Thread copied to the The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024