Summations Only

Not a problem see ya later in the day

The data gathered by ID and that gathered by Evolution, is essentially the same. The method is the same as well. The data that you gather is simply that change has taken place, the data we gather is that, order, consitency and law exist. Both of these properties are identifiable and evaluative, wouldnt you agreeThe only information evo gathers is basically contained in the same process of investigation, change over timethe methods we use are exacally the same. The same way you observe the natural world to identify change we use the investigative procees to gather that law and order, existEven if the TOE were true, it still exhibits law and orderIf the conclusions of the TOE support the idea of Soley natural causes, then the conclusions of the ID method, certainly support the idea of a designer Dawn BertotBTW, Mr Behe is responsible for his conclusions, concerning the things he asserts, not meIn this instance you misidentified the flag ship It gathers data in an investigation of natural processes. By doing this over and over, with thousands and thousands of examples and species and properties, it identifies a definate pattern in the form of order and consistencyWhat would you offer to insist that our methods and conclusions are different in this instance Before I answer, what evidence backs up the conclusion of soley natural causes. Right now we are only discussing methods and processes to see if they are different. Im doing pretty good so far, wouldnt you sayThe evidence that backs my method is the same one that backs that change has occured. The data in the natural worldI can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are excally the same, can you?In this instance you misidentified the flag ship

The data gathered by ID and that gathered by Evolution, is essentially the same. The method is the same as well. The data that you gather is simply that change has taken place, the data we gather is that, order, consitency and law exist. Both of these properties are identifiable and evaluative, wouldnt you agreeThe only information evo gathers is basically contained in the same process of investigation, change over timethe methods we use are exacally the same. The same way you observe the natural world to identify change we use the investigative procees to gather that law and order, existEven if the TOE were true, it still exhibits law and orderIf the conclusions of the TOE support the idea of Soley natural causes, then the conclusions of the ID method, certainly support the idea of a designerBTW, Mr Behe is responsible for his conclusions, concerning the things he asserts, not meIn this instance you misidentified the flag ship It gathers data in an investigation of natural processes. By doing this over and over, with thousands and thousands of examples and species and properties, it identifies a definate pattern in the form of order and consistencyWhat would you offer to insist that our methods and conclusions are different in this instance Before I answer, what evidence backs up the conclusion of soley natural causes. Right now we are only discussing methods and processes to see if they are different. Im doing pretty good so far, wouldnt you sayThe evidence that backs my method is the same one that backs that change has occured. The data in the natural worldI can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are excally the same, can you? Ah Yes, here is where the rubber meets the road. Lets see who is more accurate. Now pay close attention. An inextricable part of any investigation is the HOW and WHY, not just howTo detach thess from any form of investigation is not scientific or objective wouldn tyou agree.Now pay even closer attention. Since the TOE only identifies HOW and cannot or will not address why, it follws that it cannot be falsified, there fore cannot be considered as science, according to your own rulesWouldnt you agreeFrom Wiki:"Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it."Again, since an inextricable part of any investigation includes how and why,not just how, it follows that the TOE, must include, the process that started evolution in the first place. Whether that is in the natural world or the universeSince the TOE, cannot explain the Why, of things to begin with, it therefore, IS NOT falsifiable.According to your own defintions and explanations then, it must not be scienceYour problem with applying the fasifiability principle to ONLY ID, is that you assume that EVO must only include HOW things workNo person in thier right mind would disregard the why of something in a valid investigation. But Ironically this is exacally what the TOE, exponents do.They insist that the WHY is not obtainable, therefore not necessaryIn essenses they make the approach of the SM, invalid as an investigative typeIt doesnt matter how involed or technical the HOW of the investigation is or is not, if you leave off the WhyDo you still want to stick to the strict application of the Falsifiablity principle?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wrong as usual. It is a simple investigation of the How and Why, to start withThis is what you need to address, not something you are trying to make me say"Who" is simply a perception, the same way that Soley natural causes, is an idea. Are you claiming indirectly that the TOE, starts with the conclusion of soley natural causes?Your clearly dont understnad the fundamentals of ID or the reasoning process. Or you are just playing stupid. Hmmmmmm?Dawn Bertot

Droph writes DB writesPay close attention to the next statment D. How does TOE point to the conclusion of Soley natural causes. It is interesting that you ignored any of my points and continued to lecture on evolution. Here they are again, then I will answer your direct question.Why does the TOE get to qualify as science, in the form of an investigation, when it openly acknowledges that it does not investigate the question of Why? Who in thier right mind would think that after an examination and explanation of the present natural world, then getting to the question of its origins, exclaim, we are not concern with that aspect.Why would anyone taking on the task of a valid investigation into the source and nature of the natural world, suggest or adminttedly say, "We do not concern ourselves with why?This position makes the TOE, incomplete and invalid as a scientific. If not why not?It also makes the TOE unfalsifiable. If not why not?Repeating that evolution is just a study of the natural world, does not explain why any thinking person would consider it an actual, complete rational explanation of anything, except how for example, a tree worksNow to your direct question. ID or the process of ID points to the conclusion of a Designer, because it tenets are just like those practiced by the SM, its a detailed investigation, like the SM, into the natural world.If its not you should be able to point to something that the the SM discovers and that we cannot see in our same approach. In the same way. If my method of investgation, from a biological standpoint is not science, then you should be able to point out why I do not see order, law or puposeThink about it rationally and practically. We live on the same planet, we are both have the same finite limitations. Any serious investigation will be able to see two simple things on both sides harmony and order, change, adaptation and Natural Selection. One points to the conclusion that possibly these things accomplished that by itself. The other is equally valid because it points to and has the tenets of design, even without your approavalNow pay close attention. While neither answer the question absolutely, both qualify as scientific approaches, in the discovery of order and law on the one hand and change and selection on the other.Both point to possible solutions to the question of why, atleast from a logical standpoint. That is both the ID approach and the SM, offer scientific approaches to the only two existing possibilitesUnless you are prepared to demonstrate why say for example, any valid, biological examination, should make me, not see the results of order, the same way you discover change, in the natural worldI think you will have a very difficult time demonstrating why my approach is not science or that it does not diwscover that which I have described. But you knock yourself out No, you are just confusing processes with conclusions. While you require me to provide the strictest proof of why the ID method points to a designer (and I am happy to do this, as I just did), you have the gaul to claim that you dont need to do this, because the SM, does not involve itself with that aspect.Your mixing oranges with apples. Stick to the methodS first, then we can discuss conclusions later My simple friend. ID like the SM, is an approach to the natural world. Its flagship is reason, order, consistency, harmony, law and purpose. If I need someone like you do to back up my every word, then I dont have a leg to stand on do I My simple friend you are still representing creationism as an opposition to evolution. They are not directly related. Your confusing, IDs process with its conclusions. Your comparing your process with my conclusion.What you need to do, my nice, but simple friend is compare your SM, with IDs scientific approach initially, then the conclusions of each can be discussed at another pointYou are comparing your method with my conclusion. Your conclusion of the TOE (Why),is the same as my conclusion in ID, we dont know absolutely. So if ID is not falsifiable, then neither is the TOE, because it must include why, to be a valid investigation. If it does not then it is neither falsifiable or science. Which horn of the delimma do you wantBoth of our methods, which are scientific in approach, support our respective conclusions, even if they are not provable. Therefore ID and creationism have nothing to do with religion and both should be taught in the science classroom as plausible explanations of the Hown and WhyMan Im good As you can now see I did not pass over it. The conclusions of ID are not the same as its process, anymore than the direct or indirect conlcusions of the TOE are the same as its processes. If you can falsify the TOEs process or immediate conclusions, then it would follow you can falsify the immediate conclusions of the ID approach, not is unatanable conclusions.Confirming the immediate tenets of the TOE, is not the same as falsifyiing its far reaching and ultimate conclusions, which must be a part of the scientific investigation to make it valid as science to begin with. You would need to falsify all of the TOEs tenets, not just some of them, for the TOE to pass the falsification test, correct? [qs]If you can't give me real world falsification (that I can go out and do today in the real world) then please have the grace to admit you are not doing science and ID should be kept where it belongs....in a religious class.I can see both change and order, can you? I can see that our methods are exactly the same, can you? Unfortunately its not as simple as that for your position, as I have now with stinging accuracy demonstrated. Care to take a stab at any of the above questions and arguments?Glossing over order, law and purpose in the natural world and describing it as perceptions, will not make thier valdity pass.Here is a simple question. Does it appear that law and order exist in the universe and our world. Upon even closer scientific experimental examination in a biological approach it becomes even clearer doesnt it that those properties existRemember now, dont confuse or COMPARE your process with my conclusion. Lets compare your process with my process and see what is or is not science, what is or is not falsifiableRemember now, it doesnt work to just falsify part of the TOE, you need to do it with all its tenets, all its conclusions, which must be a part of the investigation to make it valid, which would include any of its far reaching conclusions.Anyone can see change, natural selection and adaptation, who cares, I can do the samething with my scientific approach coming to your same conclusions. I also can do the samething using my scientific approach, to dis cover law order and purpose. What we need is the real results of the TOE,not only How but WhyYour problems are immediatate and simpleYour comparing your procees with my conclusions
You are comparing creationism/ID with the TOE, there not related
Your failing to realize that while they are not related, they both have an obligation in investigation of how and why
Your requiring me to produce answers, where you cannot
Your claiming your process reveals something different or better it does not
Your claiming you conclusions are not necessary, they are
Etc, Etc, EtcDrumroll please........................Silence, dismisal and denial from the SM campDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wrong ZD, you of all people should know that you cannot just throw out words like philosophy and religion and make a valid conclusion disappearAny investigation by anybody anywhere concerning the natural world must include and explanation of Why. If it does not it makes no logical senseImagine a young person sitting in the back of the classroom, have heard the TOE, then he holds up his hand and says, OK thats a great explanation teacher, but where did all of this come fromAnd the teacher exclaims, we dont really concern ourselves with thatNo ZD, not from any logical standpoint can you extricate the Why from the How. Claimining one and not the other is stupidity at bestIt does not help your position or free the TOE from its obligations and responsibilites in the area of WHY, especially when we dont know exacally why.Think about it logically ZD. What is the purpose of the scientific investigation into the universe and world in the first place. To find how, when, where and WhyThrowing terms at an excluding the TOE from its obligations will not help your causeYou disappoint me ZD, your a logician and can t figure that out. Come on For any investigation into the natural world to include How but not Why, is not a complete objective investigation. Its tenative at best. And who cares about tenativeNotice how ID and creation make logical sense in combining the two, (how and Why),its the only logical approachOnce it is demonstrated that not only how, but why are both necessary in the same investigation, then one can proceed to see if they are tenable as logical and rational explanations for existenceIf you include one and exclude the other in the same investigation you are unobjectivce at bestDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As I have demonstrated in logical form, your are directly lying in your terms, OR you do not understand your implications from the terms and expressions and how you use themUntil you make a serious response to my argument in that connection from that exact post, you cannot be taken seriouslyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

When you respond to my previous post that concerns this issue Im more than happy to answer this one. You firstDawn Bertot

Did the match create or strike itself? Who struck the Match, DuhYour turnDawn Bertot

You like your example until it controverts your argument?Show me a match striking itselfWhile you can show me a dog scratching itself, Ill bet you cant show me a match striking itselfHave fun

It clear you didnt read anything I actually said or argued. Please go back and do thatBut people do have motives in thier investigations and thier approaches, right I dont know what that meansDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Jar I have already done this in your initial post to me in this thread. Please go back and answer that responseThe we can start from thereDawn Bertot

Both are involved, so yes I meant people as well. How could it be otherwise. Even if people werent here to investigate it, the how still would have happened. So it matters Trixie, think about it. Evenif we reduce it to how, the problem is still the same. The TOE only resolves answers here on this small world, it does not answer the question of how overallBut to be valid as an explanation it has to do that, it cant just dismiss it as irrelevant then proceed as if that doesnt matterDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Same Song, second verse, alittle louder alittle worse. Or should I say alot louder. I am amuzed at you fellas, that scream loud, name call, insult and use sarcasm, to hide the fact that you havent actully addressed the issue.Jar, like yourself understands very little about reasoning. Jar likes to play with words to indicate he has evidence that he does not. Let me demonstrate. If there is actual "evidence" of soley natural causes, then he would be able to not only explain but demonstrate the things which you describe below.Since he cannot for example explain why sub-atomic particles come into existence, seemingly from nowhere, it follows logically that he does not understand how this process takes place. If he assumes/it they come from nowhere verses somewhere, then he needs to demostrate that to know its soley natural causes. Since he cannot, it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, like you and Jar, he does not have and there are actually no evidences of natural causes. Is the light bulb, starting to come on?If Jar had actual "evidence" of natural causes, he would be able to show us the actual process, when it started and exacally what happened at that time. Since he cannot, it follows he does not have actual evidence of soley natural cuses Really, thanks, I didnt know that. Your a swift one arent you son, cant slip anything by you can we? Ironically its you that is suggesting that science is not really science. If you suggest that science follows certain rules, then that same process cannot adhere to its own principles, it either has a faulty definition of science or it is not science. You might recognize this, its called simple reasoning, if you missed itIts first mistake, it to assume that its investigative process, does not need to involve questions of origins. Instead of just repeating yourself on this point and reminding what you have decided the SM involves and should do, just show me in logical form why it shouldnt include origins or orgination processesDismissing it outright is called 'wave of the hand debating'. So immediately two possibiltes present themself. Either the SM excludes requirments for themself they require for someomne else or they dont understand why exluding this process in any valid investigation is not logicalWhere did I ever say the SM was not science? What I said and to this point you still have not given it anything but Lipservice. Is that you cannot dismiss the obligation from the SM, that suggests that when conducting an investigation that it has no obligation to understand why after, you discover How.Ascribing, assigning or relegating it to the area of Philosophy does not help you. Until you can in some logical way demonstrate why any investigation into the real world should not include its origins. And without even trying you demonstrate not only what I am saying, but with all the gaul you can muster Mr, you ignorantly claim that the TOE, which is an investigation and involes the SM, does not involve logical conclusions of its consequences, in the form of origins. Nobody in thier right mind would assume any investigation, the TOE or other wise would not include this property of investigation. One would think your reasoning couldnt get any worse, but bam, it does. If I thought the above comment by yourself was commical, the next one demonstrates your massive lack of reasoning abilties My simple friend. All ideologies, science or philosophy, whatever, are or should be based in proper reasoning. Science and philosophy are just terms we have used to describe them. They are either valid or they are not. They either correspond to existence or relaity or they do not. Relegating and disregarding your responsibility in an investigation of the natural world, in the area of origins, to philosophy, is not only poor reasoning, but it shows you understand nothing about philosophy.Philosophy in reality cannot be disassociated from any valid investigation of the natural world. No rational investigationof the natural world could exclude questions of origins and be coonsistent. So logically by your own admissions its either not science or its bad investigation. Its an investigation into the natural world, which if it is to be considered a complete and rational one, needs to include the origins. Or at best it needs to adress that issue if it includes falsification in its process Id say I described pretty accurately right? I believe this is called an investigation, correct? Its also an investigation thats stops short of all it should include. Did the earth and universe appear suddenly by themself, leaving just those things to investigate? Term and designation, shouldnt qualify how an investigation proceeds, should it assist the process. But at the end of the day its just an investigation, rightIf this is all that it does then it solves nothing an investigation should, it answers no real questions, that matterAt best its a dishonest investigation that stops short of anything This is only true if the TOE and the SM answers any real questions, it does not. It is only true if your compare your process with my conclusion, which you just did. That is a mistake. If however you compare my process with your process, it will be demonstrated that it is an investigation that can predict, detailed order, detailed and intricate harmony and purpose If your implication here is that God should act in a certain way, design things in a certain way, to prove that evolution somehow supports the idea of soley natural causes, it wont work. As I stated before, regardless of your findings or speculations, it has nothing to do with what is logically demonstratable, FROM ALL THE PHYSICAL evidence. While you observe one, you disregard the other, order law and purpose. YOu exclude this observation and prediction out of your investigation, to get your desired resultIts you that stops short of searching for answers. He has given you the very real observalble evidence of detailed and intricate order, law and purpose. Its you that has stopped short and disregarded this part of the investigative process and claim it doesnt matter. You relegate it to philosophy, not understnading that reason and philosophy are the foundation of any science or investigation. You have mistakenly replaced terms and phrases with what is simple reasoning It shows that evolution is "correct" about what? Does it show real evidence from the real world that, it is a product of soley natural causes? No If my conclusion must always matter, then it should follow that yours does to. Does the SMor evo show that its a product of soley natural causes?When the TOE is bold and accurate enough to include all the aspects of an investigation, at bare minimum, it will begin to be logical and rational See what I mean. D, there both just investigations, rationalor irrational. The idfference between the two is in your mind only We will call this the Jar syndrome from now on ok? Its not a matter of what I like or dont like, its a matter of what is logical and demonstratable. I appreciate your admission of law and order.Incredible as the claim by yourself may seem, it is not true that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural process, as I have demonstrated up above, concerning Jars contention. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the ID Process, is science and its properties are falsifiable, even its conclusions are notits the snowflakes substructure that shows the exact order. That order is consistent across the natural worldIts difficult debating a creationist that knows what he is talking about, isnt it? Well I dont know how many times I need to do this, but OK. A close examination of some, if not most or all of the natural processes, will show and predict the very real property of , order, consistency, harmony and purposeSince however, you have already agreed that Order is real in the words, "Order is easy", it follows that I have no need to establish this any furtherAgain, this is not the point though is it? It does not matter what the TOE or the SM predict if they only describe and predict, things that can be discovered by any simple investigation. But the SM, falls short of its obligations doesnt it?IDs process does essentially the samething, unless you can demonstrate otherwise This statement is the icing on the cake that you dont undertand the difference between a process and a conclusion. It removes all doubt that you dont understand that you are comparing your process with my conclusion. It removes all doubt that you dont see you are requiring of me, what you do not require of yourselfOf course it is a matters whether there is law and order. That is what IDs process discovers, that is what it predicts over and over again Thats easy. Please describe the TOE in other words that do not mean Investigation No its not. As a matter of fact you are lying to your students by convincing them that the TOE is an honest investigation into the real world, Its not because it deliberatley misplaces and dsregards actual, order law and purpose. The TOE implies and indirectly teaches, processes by Soley natural cuases, Without including the only other scientifically demonstatable approach, that has nothing to do with religionDoing science would include all vaild scientific approaches to the Natural world correct? Yes, by you not comparing my conclusion with your process. When you examine my process like you do yours, you will see its results, that point to a conclusion. When you examine your process, you will see its results that point to the conclusion of Soley Natural causes. How is that for objectivity. But I bet objectivity is not in your dictionary, is it Your mimicking and parroting ideas you have been fed and heard. Your not thinking for yourself and in any rational way. Any tyro in logic would know both these fields are just examinations and investigations, valid or invalidBoth investigations and any investigation to the natural world cannot exclude the origins. Only a tyro would assume otherwise. Are you a tyroAny Tyro would know that philosophy is the foundation for any science or any rational argument. Are you a Tyro?Your problems are immediatate and simple As I have already demonstrated, he is not even rational on that point. We will call it the Jar syndrome, that is obth illogical and irrational, as I have demonstrated with stinging accuracyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It is all, anywhere, an investigation, thats all. Its either complete or incomplete in its approachThrowing terms at reality does not change the reality of a complete, rational and logical investigationIve covered most of your points in my last post to Dorso. If you feel Ive missed something, Ill be happy to answer itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.