ICR Sues Texas

Hi Dawn Bertot,Your post was notable for quoting then not answering my two questions, so here they are again: Why do you think our position is that matter is eternal, and why do you think it makes any difference to things like evolution? Just for the record, we already know matter is not eternal. Many particles decay spontaneously, and under some theories outside the standard model even the proton can decay. Also, matter can be converted into energy - this is the basis of atomic power. Matter is not eternal. We don't believe matter is eternal, and I have no idea what non-observed events you're referring to.If you explain what it is you mean then we can address the issues you're trying to raise.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Gee, more grammar.

Dawn, you didn't answer my question. Did you or did you not mean, not intelligently designed/ordered when you said ordered of itself?.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

No, the argument cannot fail where evidence is inconclusive. As Nrj pointed out it is perfectly logical. By circular I meant the whole thing is circular, both sides, operate on tenative information but draw valid conclusions, based upon observed evidence Rrhain, to demonstrate your conclusion here and that you follow a different or better method of evidence in this question, you need to prove your above statement, you cant just assume it, or say, the evidence suggest it, that isexcally what I say, who is correct.? Ok, go ahead and prove this. Rrhain its not a matter of what it sugest, ITS A MATTER OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL ALLOW No Rrhain, you simply restated what you believe, based on limited information. As much as you want you cant PROVE how YOUR marbles got in that logical order, or thatthey got there without a designer, thats why we are in the same boat called available evidence .This also why design is applicable to a science classroom, its one of only two logical probabilitiesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This works for your purposes but not as evidence in an argument form and what is demonstratable, both by argument and physical evidence.Anything said of design can equally be said of the conclusions derived from evolution or atheism, but you consistently ignore that they both pit themselves agaisnt only two logical possibilites, neither of which is provable, but both are testable against the available physical evidenceHere is why. You have eliminated one very reasonable onclusion, because youdont like its conclusions, Yet it follows the same available evidence and rule of evidence to derive its conclusionDesign should be taught in the classroom, even if you decided otherwiseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You keep repeating that but never offer any evidence of design.There is evidence though of chemical and physical influences.Why teach something where there is no evidence?How exactly do you teach 'design'?

---

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

I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. If you want to claim that a designer is involved then you need to supply those observations.The only observations that either of us can supply is those that are observable, in your case change and in my case appearent design. Since it is not necessary for you to show the strating point of your process, nor that it was or is eternal in character and makeup, evidence would not require me to supply those observations outside of the observation of design, to know that it is an equal and very real probabality in the explanation of thingsIts that hard and that simpleDawn Bertot

If the known natural laws are observed and no designer is observed, why is there any reason to teach about the non-observed designer?

---

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

Evidence of what? That this is happening I have no doubt. There is also evidence of order and laws operating harmoniously, so our evidence and conclusions are going to be the same, we simply cant prove this outside the scriptures You dont teach design directly, you teach that which is observable, the obvious order and laws that the natural process follows. Design is a conclusion of the process the same way the TOE is a conclusion of observation of chemical processesTeach both because both are valid and observable and let the student decide.Dawn Bertot

Yes I believe I did, if I understand the question?Dawn Bertot

Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?

---

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

Apparent design is a subjective appearance. As such, it cannot be part of science.As best I can tell, from reading your posts, this is what seems to be under discussion:

• if I neatly put my clothes away in a drawer, then there is apparent order so some sort of intelligent design is involved;
• if I toss my clothes into a pile in the corner, then there is still order, but it is a more complex order. Therefore a higher level of intelligence was involved;
• if my room is a totally disorganized mess, then any observed order is very complex and subtle, so that involves the highest intelligence of all.

Maybe that is not what you are saying. But you are utterly failing to provide any criteria as to how "apparent design" can be recognized. And that makes your claims highly subjective and perhaps no more than wishful thinking. If you want it to ever be science, then you will need very clear criteria as to what is to be considered "apparent design", and they would have to be criteria that independent researchers can follow and get the same results.Incidently, we are way off topic. This isn't even close to a discussion of the topic as defined in the OP. You really need a separate thread to continue this discussion.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Because rules of evidence demand it and allow it. Because it falls squarely within only to possibilities. Because athiesm and evolution draws conclusions concerning its observations as to its origins. Because atheism and evolution denounce any conclusions but thier ownAny other questionsDawn Bertot

Did you say "I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. "?

---

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

"Rules of Evidence" is a legal term, typically applied in courtrooms. It is not a term used by science. If you are just making up stuff as you go along, then you are least owe us a clear explanation of what you mean.

Not even close. Dont mean to be rude but do you even understand the nature of an analogy. For yur analogy to have application you would have to remove yourself out of the scenario above. Instead you keep saying IF I. Hence wouldnt you be the designer in that situation, even if anyone ever saw you.Kind of a silly analogy, dont you think? You just need to follow along a little closerDawn Bertot