|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
If you want a different take on Christianity you might look at some other threads on this forum. Here is one that is current. A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture We're all just searching for truth or as close as we can get to it eh? (Yes I am Canadian. ) You have sure picked interesting fields of study. Congrats. A very good suggestion GDR, it might even get him on his way back home. He is young and impressionable, which means there is still time to shape his thinking His first step is to make a distinction between fundamentalism and a strict YEC position. Its appears like yourself he has thown out the baby with the bath water It proves one thing, not having a solid foundation in these matters allows a person to be easily swayed Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Isn't it curious. I've seen many stories from people who turned away from creationism and accepted science after they stopped simply believing what others told them and looked at the evidence themselves. The young man acted to hastily. His problem is simple, he has confused evolution with creationism, they have nothing do with eachother directly and are therefore unrelated Not thinking things through to there logical conclusion will always result in hasty and unwise choices. Its a matter of simple logic and reasoning, not someones opinions I know therefore he has not examined the 'Evidence'
Can anyone point me to a scientist who turned from science to creationism because that's where they believed the evidence led them? Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdity That would be like saying can anyone point me to a scientist who has turned away from science to demonstrate his conclusions Your question is non-sensical and illogical Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
HHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA HHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA seriusly rofl magic man dun it is not science period!!!! LOL p.s. Even i fmagic man had dun it it would not be science how did he do itwhat proceces where involved how can you tell he dun it magic just does not cut it Well an actual argument in response to what i had argued, would have been better, but if this is all you have Ill understand Its not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science, unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwise I guess you have nothing better than the above Dawn Bertot Edited by AdminModulous, : added carriage returns to the HHAA section to avoid formatting issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
creationism conclusions are derived from the bible No Agent, creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the ONLY two logical possibilites, of the existence of things, and the only two that existence will allows us, as an explanation. Both of which are derived from a scientific evaluation of physical properties and then conclusions of those evaluations The Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or made That very much acceptable proposition is not derived JUST from scripture, but observation and reason initially Dont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things, from only two logical propositions Evolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work, not an explantion for the existence of things as a whole Most of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They havent Again, creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things, in the same way a conclusion of soley natural clauses, derives it conclusions Neither is provable, but both are logical and demonstratable. these are the kind of facts they dont want you to hear, Agent Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
DA writes
See what I mean? Now see Agent, did this man offer an argument in contrast to what I said, or only sarcasm an insult. Thats all they have in this connection Watch and see if anything of an argument is offered. They know that the proposition is solid and cannot be touched. Lets see if they have anything Agent Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is evidence of natural causes. Until you can present comparable evidence of the "Designer" you have nothing. It really is that simple. Jar likes to play with words. He likes to leave the very mistaken impression that there is 'evidence' of the cause for the things in existence The actual fact is, that there are things in existence, thats all we actually know outside and disregarding the scripture and other texts explaining existences causes For Jars intimation to be taken seriously as evidence, of the ultimate causes, he would actually have to provide the actual source of these properties, like quarks and other particles, that seem come into existence from nowhere or from another source as yet unknown So no Jar, there is not "Evidence" of the causes of things, as you are trying to imply, there is only evidence that things are in existence. There is big difference between what the facts actually are and what you are intimating Outside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of things That being the case, causation falls to a simple logical proposition of possiblities, of which Id and creation are very much a part of those considerations Both should be taught in the science classroom We have been over all of this to many times to mentionDawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Now then, was there any reason that you felt the need to lie about this? It's not even a good lie, I mean we could go back and show you the number of times it's been pointed out that abogenesis is about how life started and evolution is what happens after that. Isn't it enough for you that you can say that science can't yet say how life started? Why lie when you've got a decent story anyway? Is it just habbit? We have been through all of this, over the years,that is not my implication at all. Yes I know they believe what you have stated, it is not what they practice
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I feel I must rise to the defense of Dawn. I don't for a moment believe that he's lying. A lie is knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's clear that Dawn's connection with reality is so tenuous that he actually believes that supporters of the ToE lump it in together with abiogenesis. He is, of course, wrong. But I don't believe he knows he is. For once inyour life Subbie try and go deeper, before it is explained why I dont believe what you stated above I know they dont believe that Subbie, but it is not what is practived in the media, televison or the classroom Try to show atleast some intelligence, Subbie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Religion is NOT science and therefore has NO place in science classes. Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion. No one starts an investigation of any type WITHOUT considering the causes of the process An investigation that excludes the how and why of the process would make no sense Since outside of religious texts, we can not prove how things got here, it falls to the art of investgation, in the form of logical propositions coupled with our understanding of the physical world This leads us to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites, the likes of which are derived by a scientific evaluation called investigation Both of these possibilites can be demonstrated to be atleast logical explanations, leaving no other possibilites Since ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arena Do any think they can refute this proposition? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Have you read any of the Dover transcript? Have you read the Dover judgement? The case for creationism was not correctly represented, it may be that it was represented as religion, which is not the case If you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existence Science is simply a valid investigation of any property in existence hence the term Criminal Science Investigation. Without knowing or having been present for or at the crime, they use an investigative process, scientifc in nature, to deduce the possible causes of the crime that was not witnessed Creationism and ID follow the same premise, religion aside Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You left off "...using the scientific method." Creationism and ID don't use the scientific method, so they cannot be considered to be science. Notice that no one in the repsponses adressed even my based contentions and observations, namely that any investigation where you dont already know the conclusion is scientific in nature You cannot staat with a conclusion, when the the answer to the unknown question is what you are seeking. You may have a perception, but that is not a conclusion, if it has not yet been established Even atheisim and those that percieve things here by soley natural causes, have the perception of possibilites of how and why, but that is not a conclusion. You cant have a conclusion in the strictest sense of the word, because that is the answer that you are seeking No one addressed the other main point that without either side actually knowing or being able to find the answer, it falls to a simple logical proposition, pitted against what we can know and investigate in the natural world Even after the strictiest investigations, it still leaves us with only two logical possibilites, both of which is demonstrateable and both of which are logical conclusions against the natural world Again creationism is not religion, ID is not religion. It is a simple evaluation and investigation, that follows the same methods of any other investigation, but comes to the same conclusion in this instance Instead of repeating that ID does not use a scientific method simply show why it does not. If it is not science and the SM is science, why has it not provided any answers for the conclusion of how and why things are here? Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
On a crime scene investigation the effort of the detection is to find out who did it. By comparing CSI to ID you hoist yourself by your own petard. You're not very good at this, are you? Actually yes I am very good at this. The purpose of a crime scene is not only who, but how and why. Do you have anyother silly comments Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So, yes, I'd say that many people can refute your "logic". ID is not science and should not be taught in the science arena. You really should go and read at least the Dover judgement, but the entire transcript would be better; this will give you a better idea of exactly why ID isn't science. Abstract observations by a judge are not reponses to the arguments I have set out. If you think the judge and his findings have adressed in argument form anything I have said, pull it out and demonstrate why Every investigation in this context has to start with the idea of how and why. No investigation of this nature can start with a conclusion, as that is the answer you are seeking. perception is not a conclusion. Even if it were percieved as a conclusion, it is not a logically set out conclusion
You left out a crucial part - evidence. It doesn't matter how logical a proposition is, it has to be supported by evidence An this is why you will never understand reason or evidence. Every proposition concerning the how and why of things, starts with the proposition of how and why. Even the TOE must involve itself in this aspect of the investigation. Its necessary conclusion is that it is by soley natural causes and it teaches this in principle when taught side by side with the TOE The evidence that you seek for ID as science is demonstrated in the exact same way the conclusion of soley natural causes is established, by an investigation of the physical world Neither conclusion can render a definate provable answer, but that isfar from saying ID is religion or that it does not follow the same methods for the established conclusion Until you can demonstrate why either of the above two points are not valid froma logical standpoint, it follows that they are and should be taught as very reasonable conclusions, as any indirect conclusions, taught by the TOE in the classroom Do you think there is a student out there any where that would listen to the whole TOE, then not ask the logical and investigative question, "Well ok, but where idid all come from to get started' Its a natural part of any investigation and its tenets should and can be taught independent of religion Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I do not know who you are, but you have a lower rating than me (i'm so jealous). LOL. ID is total garbage. instead of smoke and mirrors is like one mirror and a burning match, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and comes off as a big lie that only creationists believe. Its really not even worth looking into. People in the woods (of North America) looking for footprints with dermal ridges and other "evidence" who are trying to find physical proof of Sasquatch are more scientific than ID. Yes cryptozoology is more valid than the BS that is ID. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Your free to address any argument I have set out. Until then I cannot take you comments as serious Jaywill also has I believe a 2 something rating, that should tell you something about thier rating system Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It seems to me that science investigates the evidence to form a conclusion. Creationism and ID start with a conclusion and then form the evidence to support the conclusion. That is not possible, where the answer to that question of how and why are what you seek. You are confusing a perception with a logically set out conclusion. Even if it were true that that is what we do (it is not), it would not change the fact every investigation of the how and why has to follow the same method These fellas like to convince people they have something different and better, they dont, as you are seeing in the reponses. Refuting thier points is like shooting fish in a barrel Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024