Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
71 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (2 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,326 Year: 5,972/14,102 Month: 120/438 Week: 52/112 Day: 7/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 3 of 146 (861031)
08-16-2019 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jedothek
08-15-2019 2:11 PM


In your own words how would you state the ID hypothesis and how would you test it?

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 1 by Jedothek, posted 08-15-2019 2:11 PM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:07 AM Larni has not yet responded

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


Message 7 of 146 (861138)
08-17-2019 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
08-16-2019 9:37 AM


I don’t think they are coming back

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 6 by Faith, posted 08-16-2019 9:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 16 of 146 (861181)
08-18-2019 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-18-2019 7:50 AM


ID proponentists swear up and down that the intelligent designer is not the god of the Bible.

YECs seem to be honest about what their beliefs are.


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 10 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 7:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:19 AM Larni has responded
 Message 24 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:47 AM Larni has not yet responded

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


Message 18 of 146 (861183)
08-18-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
08-18-2019 10:14 AM


Re: ID and creationism
Fair enough.

Reading through that link we come to the predictions of design.

What measurements of complexity are you using? I could not find it?


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 15 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 19 of 146 (861184)
08-18-2019 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
08-18-2019 10:19 AM


I think that many people lump ID and YEC together because the approach they take is putting the cart before the horse.

The scientific method will seek evidence to attempt to disconfirm a hypothesis. What ID and YEC do is to seek evidence to confirm the hypothesis.

So from the position of someone adhering to the scientific method the method the ID and YEC use is not the scientific method.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


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 17 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 10:43 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Larni has responded

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


Message 39 of 146 (861220)
08-18-2019 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer about your position: but if you aren’t using the scientific method (by your own admition) you are not testing an hypothesis and will not be able to make a conclusion that is evidence based.

Also: you have not specified the units of measurement ID measures complexity. Is this something you are able to do?

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


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 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek 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