Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Johonny

(25,803 posts)
33. In the process of proving something right or wrong- I.E. is it provable
Thu May 16, 2013, 07:03 PM
May 2013

All provable statements are true- not correct. To PROVE this to you.

Prove: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of-

Proving is a process if you don't believe me look it up
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provable

How not to prove something: For instance GOD may have made the sky blue because of water vapor but he tricks you into thinking it is blue do to light refracting in the atmosphere. You think you know the right answer but only because GOD has created the world to fool you. My explanation the same as your explanation of ID versus evolution. GOD has created all this evidence that evolutionary process is real, but it is all a trick. ID is true and is so by default because GOD made it so.

You claim water makes the sky blue is provable, I.E. something that can be proven. I am saying to do this you must be able to gather evidence that it is right or wrong and then chose which process is the best explanation for a phenomenon. In other words your may create a question that can be proven true or false and then declare it unlikely to be the best explanation for being false. Or you can just declare it is true by default and say god did it. So you ARE WRONG if you think provable things can only be TRUE. I am right to say claiming something is provable means you can test its validity. My oldest sibling is a woman. This can be proven true or false. It is a statement that can be proven. This turns out to be false. You probably won't accept you are wrong on this point but... I'm not sure what more I can say. You obviously care a lot about this subject but you should at least understand the basics to discuss this.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Deus ex machina, literally. eShirl May 2013 #1
The peacock's tail, the extravagant proboscis of the male tblue37 May 2013 #2
"Are" is overly confident, I think. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #4
The peacock's tail as a consequence of sexual selection is also supported by HereSince1628 May 2013 #21
The Problem With That, Sir, Is That It Is Untestable The Magistrate May 2013 #3
That's a red herring, I think. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #5
If You Cannot Test The Validity Of An Explanation, It is An Article Of Faith The Magistrate May 2013 #6
Or a guess. But that's an orthogonal question to whether or not it's right. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #7
Claiming It Does Explain, Sir, Claims Validity For It, Making It An Article Of Faith The Magistrate May 2013 #10
That's not my view, stated or otherwise - was that a deliberate or an accidental misstatement? Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #13
Then This Whole Thing, Sir, Is Not Worth Disturbing the Path Of a Single Electron Over The Magistrate May 2013 #14
I strongly disagree. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #16
"I think that a lot of people don't really understand how evidence works" MattBaggins May 2013 #44
Well, no. Of course it doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #57
you know what Intelligent Design is, don't you? CreekDog May 2013 #17
What do you mean by "scientifically strong"? Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #22
um, no zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #53
I'm afraid that's a complete non-sequitur; I think you may have misunderstood. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #54
a fine example zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #55
Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #56
A perfect debunk DonB May 2013 #34
We seriously have proponents of Intelligent Design at DU?... SidDithers May 2013 #8
I've never seen any, but it's a useful illustration. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #9
"God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is a suspension of explanation. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #11
No and yes respectively. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #12
No it is purely a suspension of explanation MattBaggins May 2013 #45
why does existence exist? DeadEyeDyck May 2013 #31
Why is yellow yellow? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #40
You make a good point about the meaning of "explain" mathematic May 2013 #15
ID pretends that the Intelligent Designer is the only reasonable explanation. It's not. DetlefK May 2013 #18
I much prefer "we wouldn't be having this discussion" TrogL May 2013 #19
2 is not provable, it's wrong Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #23
For someting to be wrong-it has to be provable doesn't it? Johonny May 2013 #25
No, absolutely not. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #28
In the process of proving something right or wrong- I.E. is it provable Johonny May 2013 #33
Huh??? hobbit709 May 2013 #20
Yours is the first truly appropriate response to the OP CBGLuthier May 2013 #24
When criticising language use, make sure not to omit apostrophes... Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #29
I do believe that my intent was clear CBGLuthier May 2013 #32
Against, of course, as is made plain in the OP - try actually reading it. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #42
Bayes requires facts and relevant data MattBaggins May 2013 #47
Then try praying instead of taking antibiotics. n/t Ian David May 2013 #26
Try reading posts instead of guessing what you think they might say. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #27
I don't think anyone seems to understand what you're trying to say. n/t Ian David May 2013 #30
As a theory I.D. Is useless as it is not falsifiable. Warren Stupidity May 2013 #35
Absolutely, but I think the point is possibly better cast in terms of predictive power. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #43
So utterly wrong alarimer May 2013 #36
Intelligent Design Does NOT automatically mean "God". What part of that simple truth do you not get? KittyWampus May 2013 #37
Uh no, ID is crypto creationism. Warren Stupidity May 2013 #41
"It therefore had to exist from the very beginning since like begets like." MattBaggins May 2013 #48
Almost all of that is nonsense, apart from the last line, which is just comedy. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #49
No it isn't. MNBrewer May 2013 #38
A key requirement for a good logical theory is that it not prove too much. struggle4progress May 2013 #39
For ignorant bible-thumping republicans, perhaps SoCalDem May 2013 #46
So, I'm guessing you didn't read the OP either? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #51
I do not need answers, I just am Puzzledtraveller May 2013 #50
Kick...nt SidDithers May 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I.D can explain more of t...»Reply #33