Summations Only

Erm, I don't care that you don't care.My point was that if YOU want to test supernatural causes, you are welcome to, until you do though, you cannot claim parity with science. Clearly the same is true of you.

quote:

---

So the conclusion of this argument is that if they can only deduce Soley Natural Causes only in an indirect, evidential manner, then we all must be doing science or neither of us is doing science, to come to our conclusions

---

This was what we were talking about. Parity with science. You think both are science because indirect use of evidence. That's what I was arguing against. I suggested, in summary, thata) Your deductions must contain premises that assert the very things we are disputing, begging the question
b) That we don't conclude 'soley natural causes' but so far only natural causes have been tested in such a way as to result in a significant degree of confidence that they are causes.
c) That claiming something as evidence for your position, even if you are technically correct, is not sufficient for you to have a scientific position. You explanation or theory, needs to explain all the known and relevant evidence pertaining to the matter at hand.What was it you said?

quote:

---

Lets see if they will address this argument, that haven't yet. Watch pay very close attention too see if they actually address and answer the argument.
This is the crux of the matter and the theme of this thread

---

I like that you also said

quote:

---

I knew you would side step simply doing that

---

Cos that was my first thought when I read: So let's 'pay attention kiddies to see if he actually responds to the heart of the argument'. I'll return the thanks, when the attempt is reciprocated.

Lets look at B and C in your attempt at an argument.To any thinking person your making a silly distinction between natural causes and Soley Natural Causes to avoid your obligation that this thing called the evolution theory must and does have to answer the question of how it all startedModulus do you have any direct evidence that soley narural causes started it all. Yes or NoAnd concerns C in your conclusions. If you have nothing but indirect evidence and you don't, as to how things started, such as I do, then it explains all the known and relevant evidence concerning the Why of things, as far as can be deduced. Wouldnt you agree
Unless you can demonstrate otherwiseDo you have any direct evidence that all things are here as a result of only natural causes assuming you were Not there when it startedOr perhaps your answer is "I don't know" or maybe something different.I don't think a lot verbiage and jargon are necessary to answer a simple question, do youAnd when did I bring up supernatural causes Yet?Dawn 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.

You see Modulous here's one of the problems we have with the theory of Evolution and the Secular Fundamentalist position.In another doctrine, study or investigation, asking a person do you have any DIRECT EVIDENCE for your conclusionsn/s, they CAN answer with a simple yes or no.But with SFH or evolutionist, it immediately becomes a moot point, explaining to us that it's irelevant or we don't need to worry about such questions.But if you have no Direct evidence to support the ONLY conclusion that matters, wouldn't it more scientific just so say noAny thinking person knows that given enough indirect evidence (in this instance intricate design) one is warranted in drawing the valid conclusion of a designer.
Nothing unfactual or unscientific in that conclusionUsing your preconceived ideas of what science is or is not, is not the same as showing I have not followed logical systematic steps to come to a sustainable warranted conclusion, even if I can't prove the conclusion.Lastly, it should be noted that because your doctrine has no real answers and because there is every REASON that points to a designer, This coupled with the fact that I have a supportable document in the scriptures that gives me Direct Evidence of those events and how they happened,I'll be more than happy to go with that evidence.Unless you can give me any real answers with direct evidence.Can you? All of this is really that simple. But if you think I've missed something just ask or set it out in plain languageDawn 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.

So you criticize people who believe in 'solely natural causes', but you want to take the opportunity to call me silly for acknowledging that supernatural causes might be involved?Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot?You were the one to bring up the 'solely' distinction - this is your silliness in any event. I was just agreeing with you, but if you would rather I didn't.... The argument is that Creation Science uses evidence in a similar fashion to Standard Science. 'pay attention kiddies to see if he actually responds to the heart of the argument'.So pay attention
a) I have never claimed 'direct evidence' for anything
b) I don't hold the position that 'solely natural causes' started it allSo your demand is absurd. The answer is 'No', incidentally. I can't agree, that isn't English.Using indirect evidence is not sufficient to put you on an equal footing with science. That's as good an answer I can give you. I am not sure why you thought repeating yourself without provisioning me with further argument or evidence was going to achieve anything but if you just want me to repeat the answers I have already given you...you got your wish. I don't care.The directness or indirectness of the evidence used by evolution is irrelevant as to whether creationism utilizes science. As I have argued and you have not responded to. Exactly, so whenever you are ready.

quote:

---

Creation Science

---

Message 1

quote:

---

the miraculous

---

Message 7

quote:

---

consider Adams age at his creation.

---

Message 7

quote:

---

I have always leaned twords the Gap theory as I see it in Genesis

---

Message 7

quote:

---

the nature of God

---

Message 7

quote:

---

Soley Natural Causes

---

Message 88

If you don't hold the position that Sole y natural causes started it all.what is your direct evidence for that answerYes indirect evidence puts me on an equal footing at least in a response to how it all startedEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Neutral drift. Sometimes even deleterious mutations can be involved. IIRCC there were some deleterious mutations in mutational pathways of mosquitoes evolving insecticide resistance but I can't dig it up now.

You see I was correct all along. So your big scientific answer Is
"I don't care"
Which is tantamount to I don't have a clue.I used those examples in the Bible as illustration to another point, not necessarily my main support in this thread

Dawn, why do you keep bringing up really sill questions that have been dealt with repeatedly in this thread as well as many other threads at EvC?All the way back in Message 193 I posted:

quote:

---

Dawn, not a single person has said that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes because it is utterly irrelevant.

​

What people have said is that there is ample evidence that only natural causes have ever been found for anything other than those things where we definitely know the designer and that designer be us and that solely natural causes exist to explain all that is seen today and in the few cases remaining where we do not know the cause we can say "We don't yet understand that one. But since no cause other than solely natural ones have ever been seen it is likely that when we do understand that one the cause like all others will turn out to be solely natural."

​

No God need apply.

---

and in Message 202:

quote:

---

Note I point out what people have actually said in the past. Next I point out why the claim of other than natural causes would be irrelevant.

​

The fact is that natural causes are sufficient to explain what is seen and in the few cases where causes are not yet know the proper answer is "We don't know that answer yet".

​

BUT, no cause other than a natural cause has ever been observed with the single exception of those examples where we have a known designer.

​

Until there is evidence of some other than natural cause is presented then there is no reason to imaging those causes we discover in the future will be other than natural.

​

Case closed. After all Dawn in Message 180 you already admitted that there is no Science in your position but rather some imagined Divine Revelation.

---

and in Message 207:

quote:

---

But you have not yet presented any evidence Dawn, zero.

​

And you have said that what you are using is some alleged divine revelation of a particular religion.

​

That is NOT science.

​

It is not indirect evidence.

​

It is not direct evidence of anything but a claim that YOU see some assertion you claim is in a religious text.

​

Bring a single example of something that has other than a natural cause which is not also something where we know both the cause and the designer?

​

Show us any evidence of a super-natural cause if you what us to consider super-natural causes?

​

Also try honesty Dawn. I have not made a claim of solely natural causes; I have said so far there is no evidence of anything other than natural causes except in those instances where we know the cause and designer.

​

Until you present evidence of something other than a natural cause there is no reason to even suspect anything but a natural cause.

---

What you need to do to be taken as someone with anything of value to offer is to actually present evidence to support your position. Not just more unsupported assertions but the evidence everyone has been asking for since the start of the thread.Where is the evidence (do you know what the term evidence means? ) for any cause other than a natural cause or of any design other than those examples where we know the designer and that the designer is also natural.

Yes. This thread is about you trying to explain how there is science in creation. The state of affairs with evolution is mostly irrelevant. If you think it is flawed science, and you can't even meet that standard, you are failing miserably.But this is typical behaviour. A creationist says they want to talk about creation, and they just complain about evolutionists, humanists and atheists. It's ridiculous and makes you look absurd. No, it would be more honest. Nor is it science, the thing you are meant to be showing us exists in Creationism. If you want to argue that what you are doing is of a similar standard to what scientists do, it needs to be of a similar standard to what scientists do. I would have thought this was blindingly obvious.So far you've simply said 'it looks designed therefore a supernatural designer did it' which is not a series of logical steps, the conclusion is not warranted from your evidence by any reasonable standard. Therefore, not even close to science. You are allowed whatever perspective you like. But you haven't met the standards of a scientific conclusion. Yes I can.Marsupial mice exist (direct evidence).
Placental mice exist (direct evidence)
They look very similar to one another (direct evidence)
Yet they are more genetically different from one another than Humans and Cows are. (direct evidence)All of this is observed and documented.Evolution's explanation is well known and public knowledge.
What's yours? We can compare it to the evolutionary answer to see which theory handles it with the least amount of ad hoc explanations, taking account the most evidence, not just the listed evidence above. Let's put your ideas to a real test.

What answer? No it doesn't, for reasons I have already given and you haven't responded to.

But Jar your missing the very point that I'm making
All of your points above say the same silly thing,"We don't have the answer to that one yet"As of yet no has demonstrated that given all the available evidence indirect evidence is insufficient in establishing a case for design in this instance. I'm still waiting for it."It's irrelevant" is not answer.No one has demonstrated that indirect evidence is not a valid scientic approach

You weren't correct as you didn't predict that I wouldn't care whether my evidence is referred to as 'direct' or 'indirect' with regards to my ideas as how things came to be, you are wrong that I couched this as a 'bit scientific answer'. All I care about is whether you can provision evidence and reasoning on a par with evolution science. If you can't, I'll stick with the best explanation I've got. Whether or not I do, this thread isn't about me or my ideas. It's about you and yours. So the work is in your hands. Explain phenomena as well as or better than evolution does, and you have a point.Complain, whine, avoid the topic and generate fake victories if you like. It won't advance the notion that you have any science to bring to this discussion. The question wasn't about 'main support'. Your question was whether you had brought up supernatural causes. And you have. Not just the biblical ones. Your main point seems to surround the concept of defeating 'solely natural causes' - so supernatural causes are built in to your argument.

Modulous
If your answer to the question of, do you have any direct evidence that Sole y natural causes or natural causes started all , is No, as you have indicated earlierThen yes indirect evidence is valid as science and valid as a
Scientific approach
Did I miss whyEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No one has even claimed that indirect evidence is not a valid approach, but you have never provided ANY evidence, direct or indirect. I need to ask yet again, do you know what evidence is? Hint: it is not simple assertion.Where is your evidence Dawn?

Your best explanation is You don't knowThere is is no need for me to explain nature better than evolution that's not the point. All I need to do is show very good evidence, of even indirectly by design. I've done thatSince you admit you have no answers, what makes my investigation invalid as science