Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
88 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,675 Year: 5,321/14,102 Month: 242/677 Week: 47/54 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 186 of 223 (725349)
04-26-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Ed67
04-24-2014 3:01 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Could define in your own words what CSI is, please? The implication I'm getting from poster is that you cannot do so and I would like to see you prove them wrong.

All the best.


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

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 3:01 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 8:05 AM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 193 of 223 (725388)
04-26-2014 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Ed67
04-26-2014 8:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Could you link me to the post where you have done so, please?

All the best.


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

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 8:05 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021