Summations Only

While I have to depart for now
Tell me your meaning of the word Know

Hmmm? Well let's see. If I have numerous parts working harmoniusly functioning in an orderly fashion in my eye to produce a very specific purpose, sight
Well yeah I'd say thats evidence of design. Nos you can choose to ignore supplant and disagree with what is actually going on
But that's not the same as doing away with it is itOne might as well ignore that things themself don't exist If one is going dismiss this type of orderNo you do not Have Evidence or at least you have failed to produce any evidence as you use the term that things are here sole y by natural processes
Maybe you can produce that again
Dawn Bertot

But you have provided no evidence that your position is correct. Produce it if you think I missed it.My evidence for things is as valid as yours that they are here by natural causesYou conclusions cannot be based on direct evidence but you speak as if they canAgain what was your evidence?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your in a different thinking area sir. You've been trained to ignore simple truths. That's the problem

No jar I don't need to provide these things anymore than you will provide anything more than indirect evidence for the conclusions of evolution
Unless you willing to provide direct evidence for your conclusions.
Can you do that?
Dawn Bertot

I will give you one thing you do speak like a biologist and not a philosopher. My simple friend observations are only part of an investigation, they don't explain how the process started.There is more to existence than life on earth or evolution. Stoping at natural causes presuppose the investigation is overSo only part of your conclusions here are valid. All of the evidence is not consistent with natural causes, namely how it all started
There's your problem

If there is intricate order in nature as you suggest, what other evidence would you need to demonstrate design, of even indirect evidence
What would need to be present more for it to be evidence?

Design is defined by clear and present order resulting in very specific purposes. Just like existence itself, it doesn't need your approval to suggest, imply or be design
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I don't think so son. You don't know how to follow evidence. And I can demonstrate that by a simple observation on the form of a question
How did all of this get started
You assume that your observations of the natural world are the and of the story.
Secondly, you beg for a type of evidence that you dont require of yourself. In other words you cant establish the why's of your conclusions except by indirect evidence, than demand that I provide absolute proof of mine
So please explain how I'm incoherent in these argument
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

We're biological evolution the whole of reality you might have a point. These address no conclusions of how and why things are here
There is more to the investigation and its conclusions
Dawn Bertot

Geno
How did natural selection and mutation happen to be here to allow this order you say exists
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Nonukes
You haven't supported arguments as I will point out in my summation when that arrives
It's not possible that you yourselves could be mistaken, correct?
It's the same ole stuff No nukes because it's valid no need to change weapons if thier working, correct
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Very good summation Faith. You have to understand these fellas have been trained to ignore obvious truths. Thier very training assumes there can be no absolutes
They use contrived ideas like falsification and assume it must be true in all places.
Intricate design would be obvious to any thinking person, especially in biological processes. But they need to ignore it to avoid the conclusion of a designer
Listening to most of Dr A responses should demonstrate to anyone the lengths they will go to avoid truth
Pointing out the silliness of thier avoidance explains thier motives.
the old arguments are the best as you demonstrate in your points
They make distinctions like physical and metaphysical to avoid a nswering the why's of things
They assume that why is not as important or necessary at allAnd finally they say that understanding where it came from or how it got started is not really a scientific question therefore not necessary to attempt to answer. They say it's outside reality to know these things. But if it's important enough to give a detailed explanation of how it works, then it certainly would be important to ask why and how
All of this to avoid obvious truth which eliminates any responsibilty other than to themselvesBut thanks for the comments Faith they were very goodEdited 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.

Rrhain
As Faith pointed out these are things that happen within a system. They don't address any of the real how's and why's.
Evolution is not the issue. The issue is how evidence is brought to bare on an approach to a So called scientific method
Dr A's avoidance and evasion aside, all seekers use indirect evidence in establishing answers to unobserved events.The question is not can I observe a tree functioning but what is the source of the tree.
It is at this point the SFH retreats and insists that it doesn't matter and that we shouldn't look for any answersDenying the intricate design in biological systems like that of an eye and insisting it is not real evidence, then insisting that the conclusion of soley natural causes for the source of all things, is using the same type of indirect evidence.But we are told our indirect evidence is not actually evidence but we should accept the conclusion of Soley Natural Causes based on the same type of indirect evidenceSo the problem is not evolution but one of unfairness and dishonesty when handling evidenceDawn Bertot

Yes
A pile of rocks that has fallen randomly off the side of a hill