ICR Sues Texas

Maybe relative isn't the right word for what you're trying to describe. This is from Answers.com: A word closer to what you're thinking of might be "independent." I'm still not getting it. All snowflakes are different, but they all have six points. All people are different, but they all have 2 arms and 2 legs. And the basic structure of a person, that which is its makeup, the molecules and the such like are comparable to others in a different place and are testable to be the same order of another person, even if the other produces a different relative shape. Okay, I'm going to have to dissect this. You appear to be saying that organisms and molecules have a testable and observable order, and that by using a rule of evidence you were able to conclude that organisms and molecules are designed. So I guess I'm wondering what is the rule of evidence you used to reach your conclusion.--Percy

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

My beautiful structure didnt form itself , it is a relative shape of a more complex system of organization, its substructure. which is observableas pretty much the same across the board in its make-up, the micro-organisms.That is where you observe the complex design and order, which is pretty much undeniable in any argument form. All I need to see is an argument demonstrating that it is not designed or orderly
. True, hence, the test of design is both in the order of the substructure which is the same and testable in many different places
Hence the conclusion of design is more than warrented, especially since even the simplest structure of design is more complex than any our human minds can design.
Besides the complex order, this should be our first clue I thought I had already covered this, but ok. The same rule that allows evolution to decide that as of yet there is no evidence to conclude a designer.
How did you arrive at that hard fast conclusion that there is no designer?. You mist have a rule of evidence that allows this conclusion, without knowing, , even if it is tenative, having not wittnessed its begining, correct?Now watch, both of us use physical data to our determination, actually, yours is no data at all. Mine is based in OBVIOUS COMPLEX ORDER AND DETAIL,yet we both have arrived at a conclusion following a rule of evidence.So your choices are clear, either drop the conclusion that there is no evidence as of yet, or admit you are using arule of evidence, the likes of which allows a hard fast conclusion of no evidence, having not witnessed said events for which you derive your conclusions.Which one would you like ?Are you beginning to see how the rule of evidence works
So ligically,demonstratably and by the rules of evidence, there is evidnce for design, you have simply dismissed in the process what you use without even knowing itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As far as I can understand, your argument-in-a-nutshell is that

things with complexity are designed, and

that the complexity arises from the same basis, and

that the complexity is therefore designed, and

this "same basis" is the designer, thereby demonstrating that

a designer exists.

​

From the examples you have presented, that basis would be chemistry and the laws of physics, as science has told us for quite a wee while now.

​

So the designer if anything, is just the laws of nature. Exactly as science tells us and exactly as someone that accepts evolution would think.

​

If you're arguing that there is somehow a divine intervention involved then you'll need to expand that out a bit, because it doesn't derive at all from the above points. Unless I'm missing something, in which case it would be quite helpful to have that explained.

​

Edited by Nij, : "Where's P?"
"Running down my leg!"

Do you not understand that by making this comment, you are drawing a conclusion, the likes of which you are making a determination based on events you did not witness.Hence you are allowing in yourself and your argument,something that you will not allow in mine.Your conclusion is that there is no evidence of the designer, you are drawing a conclusion using a rule of evidence, mine is that there is good reason to bekieve there is, based on soild evidence.do you see your inconsistencyand double standardDawn Bertot

It would only be an "inconsistencyand double standard" if the evidence in both cases was the same. It is not.We have been trying to get you to make a coherent statement of the evidence you see pointing to a designer, and you have not been able to do so. You are going around in circles assuming that which you should be proving.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nonsense. You clearly either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Which pains me somewhat, as I did try to make it simple and unambiguous, and evidently failed.My conclusion is that from the premises and evidence you provided (or were provided with) the only possible designer that can be concluded is nature itself. No divinity could be directly derived from any of those premises o evidences. If that is not what your argument says, then please indicate to me which premise allows you to conclude any divinity being involved; it's not apparent anywhere. I'm using your argument. How could I restrict something from you and then use it myself in the exact same argument that you used yourself? Bullshit. My conclusion is that based on your argument -- as I could understand it -- there was no requirement for the designer to be divine. I specifically stated that if there is a designer, it is merely the collection of the laws of nature.For the second time, from which premise can you derive that the designer is divine? I don't, because there is none. I am working solely through your argument with zero reference to any of my own.
If there is inconsistency or a double standard that you see, it must be solely contained in your own argument.Edited by Nij, : Fix quotebox.

Ive noticed that you rarely ever respond to questions or points, you simply complain about them, call them names or say its irrelevent. Did you really not "understand" my last post or was this a way to avoid answering itI have set it out so simply, even a child could understand it Here it is again.Both of us draw our conclusions based on data and information, both of us base our conclusions on tenative information, the conclusion of which is tenative, but demonsrtable from any logical perspective, using a rule of evidence thusly:For you to know that there is not enough evidence as of yet for a designer, you would need to know the beginning of the process. Since you do not know those facts you have drawn a tentative conclusion, which you nonetheless believe to be demonstratableMy eveidence follows the same path, to say that COMPLEX AND DETAILED ORDER, is a clear indication of design, based on tenative but observableable informationNow to demonstrate that this is evidence and that you do not understand the nature of evidence, even when it it is following you, I will ask you two direct questions, in the hope you will answer them, or anyone can make an attemptHOW did YOU come to the conclusion that there is presently not enough information to determine a designer? What was your reasoning and why do you believe it to be valid.Secondly, How did you come to the conclusion, what method of reasoning do you use to determinethe universe is simply a product of chemical processes and that there is no initiator, actually, literally and personally?Now depending on your answer two or threeconclusions are possible. A. your conclusion is tenative and false. B. your conclusion is tenative and true, or C. Your conclusion is tenative but demonstratable from the given evidence. If its A, the argumentis over, if its B , how will you prove it, if its C, then both serve as evidence of a position that is reasonable and demonstratable.You cannot make dogmatic assertions, the conclusion of which you deem to be true and factual, using data that is tentative, then complain I have not demonstrated evidence by using the self same methodIts not that there is not evidence you have simply been indoctrinated with a form of fact finding that is incomplete and violates even the rules and conclusions you have set out for yourselfIf you answer the question honestly, of how you know there is not enough info presently, then you will understand what evidence is actuallyThe conclusion of this "evidence" is the way one should understand how something is taught in a science classroom. Here is why, your postulations and mine concerning design are the only two possible explanations, but they are pitted against physical realities and reason, the conclusion of which there are no others.This makes them determined by scientific edeavors. Now watch and play close attention. If either is not, then neither would be candidate for those limited possibilitesNow I have set out a valid argument here, possibly you could respond to it without stricly complaints and sarcasm. If not, maybe you could answer the two questions I have presented Around in circles, hardly. Lets see if you can respond to a couple of basic questions concerning evidence. You see, I have already several times demonstrated design, you just dont recognize itDawn BertotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn, I do not know which branch you served in, but do not drag the U.S. military into your own personal theological debacles! I am still serving! If you had actually ever served, then you would know full well that, while you still had every right to your own personal beliefs, opinions, etc, you were expressly advised to keep your military affiliation out of it! Have you never been counseled by your Public Affairs Officer?Please do not ever suggest any military support for your imaginations. You are entirely on your own here! If you had ever actually served (as I have), then you have known that!Edited by dwise1, : HTML correction

this not a counterfactual response this is a complaint w/ no actual reasons as to why the only possible designer is nature. youve done nothing but disagree You havent even countered my argument yet, all you have done is disagree Since you dont set out in any logical form how there is no requirement for a designer, other than just stating it is the laws of nature.secondly you didnt explain how from my argument you were justified in claiming there was no need for the designer to be divine, since I never even implied it even indirectlyPerhaps you could explain this odd method of argumentation, simply by implication and assertion By the COMPLEX ORDER AND LAWS in nature and the rules of evidence Answer the two questions I posed to Coyote and see if you can find an inconsistency in the application of evidential rulesDawn Bertot

You people never cease to amaze me. Where did I and please provide the line, phrase or idea that I ever associated the military with my theological ideas.My reference to Hooah was about his arrogance not his personal beliefs, the way in which he would not stop badgeringIm fine on my own and in defending what I believe as you can certainly seefurther, Ive been retired longer than you have been in Im sure, so dont lecture me on military protocolOne other reason I am sure you probably have not been in to long is that you actually refernced and refered to the Public Affairs office. JeepYou better be able to support you above assertion, or I will expect an suspension from admin for youDawn BertotEdited 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.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix some code (hope it was what intended).

It is a perfectly factual response. You said that "order and complexity, therefore a divine designer". I wrote your argument out in a logical form, and there are zeor assumptions/premises that can be used to derive any divine involvement. The best you can do from the argument you provided is that if a designer exists, it is only the laws of nature.This is not my opinion. This is not a complaint. It is a simple fact of logic: you cannot derive a conclusion if the assumptions do not include it. No, I have not. I merely made it explicit and demonstrated that your conclusion did not follow from your argument. And all you have done is said I did something that I have not, without answering the point I made; to do so, you would have to provide the exact premise that allows you to derive design from the existence of complexity and order. I am not claiming there is no need for a designer to be divine. I am saying that your argument does not and cannot lead to that conclusion, and that therefore you are incorrect in making it. Lol. Perhaps you could explain your odd method of argumentation, where the conclusion never follows from the premises?My argument depends on neither implication nor assertion. It depends entirely upon the rules of logic, which as I have shown, yours do not. The existence of complex order and laws is only a logical premise for the existence of complex order and laws; it is not a logcial premise for the existence of a divine designer. "A --> A" is a necessary truth; "A --> B" must be assumed as a premise, and I don't recall you doing it.Your "rules of evidence" have never been defined, hence are not admissible as part of any premise, and thereby cannot be used in the argument (until you do define them, that is). But I never referenced anything by Coyote. I never referenced anything involving evidence. I never referenced anything involving "evidential rules".
All I have done is put your own argument into a logical form, and shown that it does not lead to your conclusion.Now, how about you try defending your position from itself, instead of the ghost attacks you think I am creating?Edited by Nij, : Fix quotebox.

still spouting gibberish and trying to claim it as coherent discourse, I see. You do realise that no-one here, especially Percy, thinks for a second you know what you are talking about? How about quitting with the bluster and obfuscations and actually answering some questions.Howz dem axioms doin'?

This is where your cart jumps the tracks.You have been unable to define "complex and detailed order" in a manner so as to exclude natural causes.It's like the old U.S. Supreme Court definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Dawn Bertot,I'm afraid I'm not able to make much sense of your arguments, so let me try another tack.You believe that complexity and order result from design. Your evidence is the complexity and order observed in the natural world.I believe that complexity and order result from the natural laws of the universe. My evidence is the complexity and order observed in the natural world, and in addition everything we know about the natural laws of the universe.By what rule of evidence do you conclude that complexity and order do not result from the natural laws of the universe?--Percy