Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 9:17 PM
21 online now:
frako (1 member, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 29/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
21222324Next
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 286 of 358 (647770)
01-11-2012 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Tangle
01-11-2012 4:12 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Of course, believers see the order and infer an order-maker, which is of course God, but this is an ancient argument that we've all heard it many, many times - so what else are you saying that needs our attention?

Thank you, now tell your friends like Larni what you have discovered in the natural world, Law and order

Then explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation

Since the ToE ansd the SM cannot explain such things, it follows that it would not be able to explain away the ToLO&P

The ToLO&P, is the only other scientifc explantion for the existence of things. Detailed order as I have described it in the single cell is simply one example. For one to claim such order does not exist, it must be demonstrated from the same process that shows that ordered and detailed, consistent process. You cant just claim "I dont see order", whenit is unfolding before your eyes

Thank you for finally admitting that law and order exist, that is atleast a start

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2012 4:12 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 287 of 358 (647771)
01-11-2012 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:30 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
I also see Order in biological structures.

From that I conclude natuaralist processes for life.

You need to explain this away. I've described my observation of order implying naturalistic processes so that ball is in your court.

But I'm confident you can't poke holes in this with logical argument so I'm waiting with baited breath for you to do so.

I bet you cant even get started Dawn.

Edited by Larni, : spellingk


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot
Message 286
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:41 AM Larni has responded
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:43 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 288 of 358 (647772)
01-11-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
01-11-2012 8:37 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
From that I conclude natuaralist processes for life.

You need to explain this away. I've desribed my observation of order implying naturalistic processes so that ball is in your court.

Wow your not really paying atention are you?

You have just demonstrated my point. Are you paying any attention at all. Neither can be proved,but both are valid as scientific explanations and are demonstratable

Therefore both should be taught as science

Thanks for confirming my point

Are you prepared to demonstrate as I have showed that detailed order Dose not eixist, or are youjust going tokeep saying I dont agree with it

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:37 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 293 by jar, posted 01-11-2012 9:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2012 3:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6680
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 289 of 358 (647773)
01-11-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:30 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Dawn Bertot writes:

When you can explain away the order I have described in the single cell and what it is and what it does then you will be able to say i have not identifed order and law

Science can explain how most of the processes in cells work and what they do. No one could possibly disagree that these processes are ordered and follow - for want of a better word - laws. Our utter confusion is about what you are infering from this astounding insight that isn't just 'therefore goddidit.'

If that's all you're saying we'll just shrug and leave you to it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:51 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 290 of 358 (647774)
01-11-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
01-11-2012 8:37 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
I also see Order in biological structures.

First you say I need to demonstrate order to you, then you say you see order. Which is it larni?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-11-2012 8:37 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 291 of 358 (647775)
01-11-2012 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:41 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
No Dawn, you don't understand.

When I wrote that I knew I was writing a bullshit echo of what you have been writing all through this thread.

Neither can be proved,but both are valid as scientific explanations and are demonstratable

I know my point in utter bullshit and you say they are both valid?

I really don't know what to say.

First you say I need to demonstrate order to you, then you say you see order. Which is it larni?

Again. A parrotting of your position that you seem to think is as valid as mine.

Edited by Larni, : saving post numbers, edit by edit.

Edited by Larni, : 'yours' to 'mine', last sentence. Hey, a real edit comment. Oops, ruined.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(3)
Message 292 of 358 (647777)
01-11-2012 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 12:45 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Uh, granny you do know he does believe in God, correct? Or atleast he see evidence of such

Of course I do. He just doesn't think that there is a scientific way to prove the claim that God exists. In that he differs from the position you are advocating. That's why it is dishonest of you to cite Collins in support of your position.

Mr collins is not denying that order and law exist,

Nor does he claim that they exist. Or even mention them.

he is responding to a religious view of ID. Since ID in its basic componets is only an investigation, it follows that he is not denying an investgative process

He is responding to the ID movement as it actually is, not to your bastardised version thereof.

In this instance Mr Collins, like yourself need to demonstrate why the words creationism and Id are not just words to explain an investigative process. reality determins the definition of words, not the other way around

Nor do you define what words mean. Since this is exactly what you are doing - redefining ID to suit your own personal delusions - you are arguing out of step with the ID movement as a whole.

Collins has not addressed your personal version of ID because it is unique to you and, since you are merely a single anonymous internet lunatic, he is unlikely to ever think it worth addressing.

Remember; world-renowned science professionals are not going to give a crap about you or the silly nonsense you make up as you go along.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:45 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2012 12:41 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:38 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 293 of 358 (647779)
01-11-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:41 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Dawn writes:

Neither can be proved,but both are valid as scientific explanations and are demonstratable

Until you can present evidence of a non-natural cause you have nothing to demonstrate and so nothing that can be taught.

It really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 294 of 358 (647806)
01-11-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 12:46 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
My simple friend. Falsifiability is a tool we use in science to assist us in understanding and finding some things. It is not a law like the law of gravity or the eixstence of reality. If It were a hard fast rule like say reality, there would be no way to falsify that reality is actually real

Science is not about falsifying reality. It is about falsifying our models of reality. Your model is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.

On the other hand, if it is always necessary to falsify something for it to be absolutely true, then either reality does not actually exist or the rule does not extend or apply in such cases

It is always necessary for scientific theories/models to be potentially falsifiable. We then test these models against reality. We are not trying to falsify reality. We are trying to falsify our models and theories.

Law, Order and purpose is one of the areas that the falsifiability principle does not extend, because by the very nature of the case there is nothing in existence that does NOT exhibit, law and order.

Then just call it reality instead of LOP. Now we need to move to your contention that reality requires an intelligent designer. How do we test this model, and how is it falsifiable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 12:46 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:36 AM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19758
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 295 of 358 (647821)
01-11-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Granny Magda
01-11-2012 9:19 AM


Re: Collins is Not An IDiot
Hi Granny Magda, just to throw in my 2¢ worth

He is responding to the ID movement as it actually is, not to your bastardised version thereof.

Nor is he presenting what he thinks ID should be doing. ID as it is being used is different from ID as it should be pursued (or at least as it could be pursued).

Nor do you define what words mean. Since this is exactly what you are doing - redefining ID to suit your own personal delusions - you are arguing out of step with the ID movement as a whole.

One could go back to the original definitions of ID and then compare them with how it is pursued by various proponentists to see if they are using the concept as designed or using their own interpretations. Just because 95% of physicists feel that the big bang + inflation is the best explanation we have for the formation of the universe does not mean that the 5% pursuing string theory are wrong. This is an argument from popularity fallacy.

The original intelligent design proponents predate Johnson and the Wedge Document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

quote:
The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. ...
... The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in 1802. ...

You can think of modern IDists as being Neo-Paleyists (Paley was a Christian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

quote:
Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) in religious philosophy is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an all-powerful creator. According to deists, the creator does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. ...
... Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment especially in Britain, France, Germany and America among intellectuals raised as Christians who found they could not believe in supernatural miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity, ...

Creationist ID proponentists assume their god/s first then use ID to find their god/s, and this is necessarily a self-limiting approach and a logically false approach. These people should properly be labelled IDCists for clarity:

http://ncse.com/...al/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism

quote:
"Intelligent Design" creationism (IDC) is a successor to the "creation science" movement, which dates back to the 1960s. The IDC movement began in the middle 1980s as an antievolution movement which could include young earth, old earth, and progressive creationists; ...

This is what you have been identifying as ID.

The basic problem with IDCists is that ID and creationism are not necessarily compatible concepts.

ID is seen as a way to find god/s by finding evidence of design
Creationism is the preconception\assumption that they know the particular god/s

ID freed of preconceptions would be the hypothesis that we can determine whether (or not) the universe is the product of god/s. This is deism.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Granny Magda, posted 01-11-2012 9:19 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 296 of 358 (647850)
01-11-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:41 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Wow your not really paying atention are you?

You have just demonstrated my point. Are you paying any attention at all. Neither can be proved,but both are valid as scientific explanations and are demonstratable

Therefore both should be taught as science

So ... you're still spamming this forum with the same crap? And you still haven't come up with any arguments to substantiate it?

Then I have to ask you ... why? Over and over again, you're presenting the same crap to the same people who know that you haven't come up with any argument for the crap and it's the same old crap.

And your motivation is ... what? Do you think that the thousandth time you spam this nonsense on this forum we're going to say: "oh, yeah, the first 999 Dawn Bertot recited the same dumb crap I wasn't convinced, but when he made it into four figures I realized that he must be right"?

Find an argument for your stupid shit. Any argument. 'Cos at least then we'd have something to discuss. All we have now is a cultist repeating a mantra.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by subbie, posted 01-11-2012 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 297 of 358 (647867)
01-11-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2012 3:37 PM


Re: Rock drops on foot
So ... you're still spamming this forum with the same crap? And you still haven't come up with any arguments to substantiate it?

You might as well ask your shoe to come up with something better. He keeps driveling the same dreck because he genuinely believes he's making some kind of point. He's incapable of understanding any of the 100s of criticisms of it. Seriously, you're more likely to make headway with Buz.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2012 3:37 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19758
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 298 of 358 (647903)
01-11-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Drosophilla
01-10-2012 7:15 PM


Re: other possibilities
Hi again Drosphilla,

And it is easy to say that we do not know the answer, but lets see what we can determine with the scientific method. Then proceed to teach how science is done and what we can know as a result.

If students want to pursue concepts of ultimate cause, then they could be guided to a philosophy class.

I think the philosophy class is the perfect arena for ID.

And it would be legal under the constitution, as is comparative religion (the separation requires that no one religion be established, and it would be interesting to cover the religious faiths in America when it was founded: several types of non-evangelical christianity (evangelical hadn't evolved back then) , deism, judaism, islam, various native american beliefs, various african beliefs, etc.).

You could also (legally) have a history and philosophy of science course, which could discuss how science developed from Aristotle to Al-Biruni (and some other muslims) to Popper to today.

What specifically did you have in mind for applying the scientific method to the hypothesis of ID?

Whoa, slow down there.

First we need to establish what the scientific process is, what it can do and what limits there are on the process. A briefs introduction to the history and philosophy of science and the development of the scientific method and the concept of falsifiability.

A scientific hypothesis needs to be testable (in theory if not in fact), and it needs to make predictions. It is through testing that science approaches an understanding of how things work and eliminates what doesn't work, and it is through predictions that an hypothesis can be tested for broad application.

Then we can ask if the ID (or the IDC) hypothesis is scientific.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Drosophilla, posted 01-10-2012 7:15 PM Drosophilla has acknowledged this reply

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2501 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 299 of 358 (647914)
01-11-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Dawn,

Wow. Butterfly or should I say mallethead. The SM and the ToE can only explain the process of existence, they cannot provide any ultimate answers. Therfore any alterante explantion by its verified process has to be examined for its potential as an explanation

The ToLO&P, falls squarely withing only two demonstratable explanations. If its does not then it needs to be demonstrated in logical fashion why it does not serve as analternate explanation. Simply put that cannot be done in anysenseof the word rational, as I have now demonstrated over and over

To this point and sicnce the Dawn of thinking, it has never been NOT explained as an alternate explanation. It cnnot be demonstrated, to not be scientific in its process, as I have now demonstrated over and over

Jars illogical and nonsensical attempt to do this by pretending he has evidence of soley natural causes, is just one attempt at a failed attempt, as I have now demonstrated over and over in rational and logical form

Taq's attempt to classify it as non-science by falsification, doesnt work either, as I have demonstrated.

Dawn Bertot

None of your post in any way addresses anything I have been saying.

How about you answer the questions i outlined in Message 193?

That was nearly 100 posts ago. Since then you have clutterd this thread with claims of methods and processes you wont explian, using definitions of law, order and purpose that you wont define leading to a of ID that only you use. And you are claiming that this definition is true and factual and that you have proven this many times. You also claim that no one can can argue against your position.

But you wont explain your position or answer direct questions. You say you have and you say you will. But you dont and wont.

You have managed to stretch this thread out with your usual crap until it gets to summation mode. You have typed a lot without actually saying anything at all.

How about you start a thread with your claim?

You can start with definitions of the following -

Law

Order

Purpose

Intelligent design

Intelligent designer

Scientific method

Intelligent design process

Intelligent design method

Solely natural causes

Supplying these definitions will only be a start.

Dont forget to answer my post Message 193? Is that reminder number 5 now?

If you cant answer the questions, just say so. Not answering them indicates that you cant answer them. I know that not being able to answer those question demolishes your position so I am not surprised you are avoiding replying.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2012 8:07 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 1:04 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 352 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 300 of 358 (647921)
01-12-2012 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Taq
01-11-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Dont throw that rock yet
Science is not about falsifying reality. It is about falsifying our models of reality. Your model is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.

You either did not understand what i said or you are purposely ignoring it. falsifiability if it is to be understood as a hard fast rule, must have application to any and everything. It can be easily demonstrated that is not necessary for everything.

It is always necessary for scientific theories/models to be potentially falsifiable. We then test these models against reality. We are not trying to falsify reality. We are trying to falsify our models and theories.

Yes I am aware of that. Since the ToLO&P is a model and a theory, it is either falsifiable or it is not. In this instance it is not necessary to falsify something that is always true

Here is an illustration. If LO&P were not always present, it would not be possible for doctors to diagnose and treat symptoms. If it were not predictable enough to contain and maintain the same Law and order, they would have to start over each time, to find a method of treatment for the illness, because randomness would have changed the rules that follow a certain illness or sickness

In the same way a builder or mechanic can use the ever present laws to constuct and build things, becasue the order is always the same

Therefore the ToLO&P cannot be not classified as science because it does not involve the principle of Falsifiabilty. It doesnt needs that principles qualites to be true and obdervable under any investigation

Then just call it reality instead of LOP. Now we need to move to your contention that reality requires an intelligent designer. How do we test this model, and how is it falsifiable?

Finally, a ray of light, now your starting to get it

Its so funny Ive done this to many times to mention. Well, Ill try again. Please pay close attention

In reality, the only thing under investigation is the investigation process of either side of the issue. Actually and to be completely accurate, we could say that its only ONE investigation by a bunch of people, some calling themselves IDst and some Scientist.

Since those terms dont really matter in Reality, its safe to say we, us, them, whoever are just investigating the natural world for explanations of the existence of things in the first place

Is our (all of ours) investigation a valid approach and are its results identifiable as tenative conclusions concerning the natural world. We can immediatley dispense with such strict definitions of the word science, a this goes a long way in causing much unneeded confusion

Thus far we (all of us on both sides) have decided that Law, order and change have taken place. I think we can all agree on that point.

Now our (all of ours) investigation, needs to have a conclusion. we cant just stop with the process or model and suggest that a conclusion of the eixstence of things is not necessary

Since an absolute conclusion cannot be determined outside of sacred texts, by the investigation or the so-called SM, or the ToLOP. The only logical, rational and reasonable thing to present as science, in the so-called science classroom, we will call it the Investigation Room. Is to present the only two logical, investigative and demonstratable, solutions to an unsolvable conclusion.

That would be the conclusion of Soley Natural Causes and Intelligent Design.

Since it is clear that no real objections or arguments can be raised against either sides Process or tenative conlcusions from those processes and neither absolute conclusion can be be determined or be determined to be false.

The only logical course of action in such an investigation, by basically the same persons, is to present both positions simply because both are science and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise

Only a fool would suggest that basically the same persons, conducting the same type of valid investigations, coming to demonstratable tenative conlcusions, each claiming they are not conducting science

This would be like having two completely blind indivduals and one or both claiming they can see better than the other

How can it be expalined any simpler than that?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 11:55 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Trixie, posted 01-12-2012 4:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 317 by Taq, posted 01-12-2012 12:25 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
21222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019