ICR Sues Texas

Im saying that you cannot explain how the materials to make the rainbow came to be in the first place, you have to assume thier origin, the material that is No explaining is simply an detailed observation, but observation, like the desgin peopleis all you have as well, after that (excludingthe word of God) you like me only have assumptionsFor this reason both should be taught in he classroomDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A side issue of this thread has become and I am glad you and admin has allowed it, was what constiyutes evidence in establishing truths concerning the valifity of what we know concerning the nature of things and why they are here in the first place and how.The real issue has been nonetheless evidence aand how it can be established.Neither of us outside the scriptures or other scriptures can prove the totality of the positions we hold. Mine of design and yours of eternality of matter.We cannot even prove the conclusions of the observations we make concerning design or even the total conclusions of the TOEThe evidence of of both and the demonstration of that evidence is exacally the same, AND BOTH ARE OBVIOUS BUT NOT PROVABLEWhy in the world should design not be included in the science room when it follows the principles For the same reason you say there is no evidence of a designer. Why do y ou believe whether there is a designer makes a difference to observing designDo you see the double standard you are attempting to set up. Your not required to explain the conclusions of your positions but I am The ones that got things started or the non-observed events that prove matter is eternalThese are the things you need to demonstrate that my position is false, your positon is true or that we follow a different rule of evidential adminastrationActually it is the same and should be taught along side evolutionCan you demonstrate it otherwiseDawn Bertot

Buz he knows what I am asking and what I am implicating concerning eivdence, but t doesnt help to answer it directlyYet his or her corgiality more than makes up for the inability to argue a pointDawn Bertot

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.

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

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

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

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

Rules of evidence are a part of reality first, then courtrooms. Evidence is evidence no matter what the situation.Just read through carefully and you will see the point I am makingDawn Bertot

Now I know for sure you have not been paying any attention. Pay close attention. Neither conclusion that is derived from observation, ie design, the TOE, the idea that things are a product of themselves, CAN BE PROVED from the observable IMMEDIATE evidenceBut both are tenable and valid as explanations. This is all the EVIDENCE will allow. Since neither can be proved or disproved but both can be demonstrated, then both should be taught in the science classroomHow much simpler could it be from an EVIDENTIAL standpointGood grief.Dawn Bertot

Very verbose but simplistic. The only fact here under discussion is the fact that we both the evo and the theist operate on the exact same playing fieldOne does not need to "pile up facts" to know that it is limited in and by tenable evidence. I have demonstrated this to many times to mention [qs]The "theory" you have been trying to convey to us does not organize facts into a useful body, nor does it allow predictions.It is more of a catechism, repeated over and over until it is beaten into the heads of the audience. Its not a theory that there is limited information and evidence on both sides of the coin. Its not a theory that neither conclusion drawn by theist or evos can be proved. Its not a theory that we both use the same type of evidence gathering to demonstrate each side. Its not a theory that both positions are oneof only two possible solutions to the question.These are facts of the highest orderYou could not demonstrate my contentions above as otherwise,norcould you demonstrate evenon of the conclusions or assertions from the TOE as provable beyond any doubtAnd that is the theme of my contentions, that we both operate on the same limited evidenceDawn Bertot

Once again for all those unable to follow along. this is not about evo, it is not about design or even the appearance of design, DIRECTLY. Its about the EVIDENCE of the fact that we are both lmited by direct observation and evidence, to prove any conclusions about the things refernced above.This is the fact that you are EVALUATING.Is it true that none of the conclusions you draw for your own position or thise which you dismiss inmine are provable, yes or noThe evidence you offer above about those demonstratable things only allows you to go so far in your search. they are only evidence of immediate materials, which conclusions are drawn from to extrapolate possible tenative conclusions.Both of our conclusions from design and the things mentioned above by your self get you no closer to a resolution of how they became to be in the first place.That is simple rule of observation and evidence, the conclusion of which is irresistibleDawn Bertot

You must be one of those that doesnt know how to follow along logically. Ill start putting it in question ofrm to help the slow ones. Here is a simple rule of evidence.Is it true that all the information and evidence gathered from evo and the design theory, actuall get you no closer to an explanation of he How things became to be inthefirst place. Yes or NoIf you answer is No, then perhaps you could explain how and with what you arrived at the provable conclusion of how things came to be in the first place.It is a simple rule of evidence that you cannot. I can get even simpler if you need me toIt is a simple rule of observation and evidence that you and I use the same materials and evidence to arrive at our conclusions.you believe your methods are better, but you are replacing, the word simpler with the word, involved and calling it better.the truth is that no matter howi nvolved the method they bring to the table you are no closer to an answer.It is a simple rule of evidence and observatin that there is order, consistency and laws being adminstered and followed in the universe and in nature. that is simple evidence, but it allows me no better a conclusion than does yours, but it is oevidenctial nonethelessDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.