Summations Only

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigationIt was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently definedAnd lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theoryFrom this it was concluded that many creationist had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideologyIt is these issues that I purpose discussing in some detail to demonstrate that Secular Fundamental Humanists conclusion and the specifics I have mentioned, that alledgedly support thier assertions, are simply not the caseIt is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigationIn post 107 of the thread Why We Should Not Expect Many of Any Creationists, I began to develops arguments in response to these assertionsIt is here I would like if permitted to continue these arguments if permittedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

TA
I will get to this as quick as I can. I am happy to respond to any queries and or arguments
Dawn Bertot

Sorry for the lateness of my response. First as to the question or whether I believe in a young earth or old. I have no problems with young earth creationism due to the fact that the miraculous if that were a part of it skews the what would otherwise look testable in nature
An example we could consider Adams age at his creation. He would have appeared much older than he actually was. If creation is true the we are not privileged to a lot of information that would change the actual facts as they would now appear, if the bible is ones beliefBut I have always leaned twords the Gap theory as I see it in Genesis 1:1-2. Granted this is a great presumption but it would be consistent with the nature of God and what we Might see in nature.
Either or, it matters not to how creationism is established intiallySecondly ThinAir I am in the affirmative intially In this discussion. In other words I have set out certain arguments concerning Falsifiability, especially concerning it's limitations and how it should be applied
If you could address that issue initially and the arguments I set out on it then we will be in a better situation to answer your 2 questions.As a good sport however I will give a response to those in hopes that you will respond to my earlier argumentsSo as an answer directly to your question I maintain and will stand by the fact that clear and obvious purpose as a result of intricate design cannot be falsified because it has a truth to it as that of existence itselfSo early on you see two things. Creationism does not rely on the written word for its scientific approach and if we apoly a faulty limited definition of falsifiability, then of course a lot of things could be considered falsifiable in or out of the scripturesSo let's see what your response will be to axiomatic truths when the test of falsisifiability is applied to it. Then we can move speedily to your queriesDawn 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 Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

While I understand your questions please explain how and why these observations would apply to whether a thing was created, or created to operate in this manner you suggest or came about as a natural process directed by chance
How would this change my propositions concerning how creation is initially considered
Dawn Bertot

This discussion has nothing initially to do with YEC creationism or biblical perspectives
You have imposed something on my OP that is not there
Dawn Bertot

Instead of insisting that I provide you with a leading authority.
It would be better to respond to my actual argument. Which is how would you falsify an axiomatic truth like existence itself. And for our purposes here Purpose as a clear observable result of intricate designWe can as we go along see if design is a matter of perspective or whether it is as axiomatic as say existence itselfAgain I am not yet entertaining questions of biblical models of creation
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

But sir I have answered your question by demonstrating that falsifiable cannot apply in certain areas, its limited as in the case of existenceIt's your scientific principle that says nothing can be believed unless It has the potential to be proven wrong correct? so where would the potential be in falsifying that things do Not actually existI'm telling you plainly there is no potential in falsifying creation (design) not because it's not observable and testable, It is
It's simply due to the fact that falsifiabilityis not an absoluteYour assuming that Falsifiabilty can be applied in every scientific endeavor.
Now do you understand
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sir let me ask you a simple question to respond to your very verbose comment here.
Is it absolutely true that things exist? Yes or no
Dawn Bertot

But you haven't responded to my arguments just your questions
Do things exist or not
How do you falsify an axiomatic truth
Dawn Bertot

Yes I'll be happy to answer it. Is there clear Purpose as a result of things operating in a clear logical ordered fashion
Yes or noYou see Dr A imaging things were not designed is not the same as actually doing away with the clear observable principles as I have listed them aboveHow would you make these principles go away any more than the laws of gravity
Dawn Bertot

Your last two post are excellent in defining what I'm trying to explain in this thread your assuming science is directed by terms ideas and concepts it not exclusive to these. Reality and physical properties determine what science is or is not, then develops terms and ideas based on these lawsWhy will you not answer my simple question. Do things exist or not? If things exist do they they have the potential to be falsified?Please answer those questions
Dawn Bertot

There is no such thing as a metaphysical question relating to physical properties that clearly exist. If things clearly exist then they are not Outside the physical.Trying to make a distinction between science and physical properties that clearly exist by calling it metaphysical and knowing they exist, is intellectual dishonestyRefusing to answer a simple question like do things actually exist and responding by saying it's metaphysical is intellectual sloppiness and dishonestyAssuming that a so-called Scientific principle like Falsifiability is valid as a principle yet knowing it's not a necessity to demonstrate an obvious truth, is the worst form of intellectual dishonestyIn short there is no such thing as meta physics. Retreating to this is a simple evasion of answering simple questions put to you
Dawn Bertot

Well that's about as silly an answer as I've ever heard. With a bit of jargon and wrangling you managed to avoid answering my clear question.
I said nothing about order, orderly or ordered. I simply ask if there was Purpose as a result of intricate detailed design. I then ask how you would dismiss these as you would any other law?Notice I did not say who or if someone ordered them. Nothing by or from speculation. I'm simply asking if they are laws like gravity and of course they areAnd we determine these laws like the law of gravity by simple scientific observationThe question Dr A is not whether I can prove absolutely whether God ordered these things but only whether I am using a scientific approach like any science to come to my conclusions. You use the same type of evidence that things were a result of soley natural causesThe process is the same the science is the same.Dawn Bertot

Since I can clearly see these things in nature your answer would be the same as if I asked someone if things exist and they answered No
You need to do away with this purpose and order not just imagine they don't exist
Lets see what you can actually do
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

My good friend please listen to what I a m about to say. Part of debating is Answering direct questions. Based on everything You CAN observe in a scientific way, do things exist? Yes or No. Secondly how did you arrive at your conclusion?Part of establishing whether creationism is Falsifiable, you first have to decide whether it falsifiability is valid and needed in all places and cases. You can't just assume as you are that this principle is valid all the time, thats simply silly.Here is an illustration, in reality we have laws and then we have humanly devised principles. Gravity and existence are two of the actual laws. Falsifiabilty and Parisomony are humanly devised principlesYou can't just assume Your principles are applicable just because you made them up. They may have some application but they are not natural lawsNext, there is no such thing as the metaphysical, there is only reality. Even if there were the question of whether things exist would have nothing to do with the metaphysical, since I can actually test whether things do exist
It's a humanly devised term that refers to nothing with no hope of it being an actual reality much less a natural law.Using terms like metaphysical and physical to avoid answering questions, would be like saying we may not know whether things actually exist or notYou are very correct that Your "science" does not deal with obvious or axiomatic truths and that is painfully clear. But to assume that our science can't be science because I can actually discover an obvious truth only because I haven't applied an over applied principle is both dishonest and intellectually dishonestThe cleaver way you do this is by making extreme distinctions between terms like Math, science and metaphysics. While there is a human distinction between them for use purposes, they don't define reality not do these distinctions you make define what laws and truth actually are, that is decided by Reality itself.But these distinctions do help you fellas avoid admitding any real truth or acknowledge absolutesNow pay very close attention. Saying that science is always changing is exacally the point I'm trying to make with regard to your misunderstanding of how science is establishedMistaking reality, constant unchanging laws and absolute truths for science is making your lack of knowledge of reality the science itselfScience is not what you decide it is, or must be based on your contrived principles. Science is what reality decided it is, not your changing decisions based on faulty present information
You've mistaken yourself and changing faulty principles for actual science. Especially since the word means knowledge. Since knowledge is what it already is, you don't invent it you Just discover itWhen this happens you actually justify yourself ignoring simple obvious truths, with silliest of terms and ideas, falsifiabilty being one of themYou may be able to eliminate faulty theories but that doesn't mean you can disregard obvious truths. Science doesn't change, facts are what they are.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.