Summations Only

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

Yes I know verbatim what evidence is, do you?Maybe you could provide actual evidence that the conclusion of evolution, soley natural causes is sustainableCan you?

A response to post 309
Modulous
Do you have direct evidence of how this very detailed process you describe started
Yes or noYou say the state of affairs of evolution is irelevant
Well there you goMy science for answers to unwittnessed events is indirect evidence based on available evidenceWhy is this not methodical in nature, even if it's not elaborate

No not admitting that until you show why indirect evidence is not valid, where design shows they are
Can you do thatAll empirical reasoning is science If we don't use a distorted version of the word science like you doWhat totality of evidence you idiot. You already admitted you don't have an answer as to the Why of thingsYour totality of evidence amounts to no answersI don't need supernatural entites to demonstrate your contradictory positionEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It does if we don't use your limited secular definition of the word science, yes it does
You've perverted the word so explanations of causes can have no meaning and are therefore irelevant

Once again Jar, the natural logical conclusion of evolution, IS soley natural causes, whether you state it or notYes there are other ways to find causes other than natural causes. There is good evidence of design in natural thingsThe methodology of determining this follows very specific scientific reasoned principlesIt's concfusions are as valid as any of those posited by evolutions conclusionsOr you are willing to face up to your conclusions, why they must exist and how you arrive at them

But Modulous were not talking about evolution were talking about the conclusion evolution positsThere is no such thing as superscience anymore than there is anything called metaphysics, don't be silly it's just scienceYou say it's a wash. Yaaaaa think?
Unless we are reasonable correct in searching where the evidence leads.Sorry for the idiot comment but reallyEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You assume science has to be elaborate in all cases.
Can't somethings just be simple and have valid conclusions without huge involved processes
Nearly everything we do everyday Involves science simple to great

There is no such thing as astrology, it's a product of the mind it does not involve actual propertiesBy using the conclusion evolution posits, by any investigative standard, I am showing the science of design in creation.Now design can stand on its own merit, but by comparison evolution posits a conclusion using a method called indirect evidence.So since we use the same method it must be scienceIt's as good as an apology I can give if you are going to stand by your statementEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No astrology is not science because the word has to have meaning against something in reality. It's a made up word. Design corresponds to something in reality, It's meaning can be testedYou see that's your problem, you can't extricate yourself from the FACT that the conclusion of evolution IS Sole y natural causes. Saying it's irelevant or that your not saying that doesn't helpSo it must be established some way and the way is indirect evidence. Its your baggage deal with itDawn Bertot

Well that was almost an attempt at my argument. So in an evasive way you don't deny you can't extricate yourself from the logical conclusion of Soley Natural cause. I'll take that as an admission of defeat at least in that point.Superevolution doesn't exist and it doesn't help your doctrine.Astrologys conclusions are not testable by empirical evidence even by indirect evidence, unlike the theory of a designerAnother thing that amuses me about you fellas is that You walk around implying that we made up that the conclusion of evolution is soley natural causes, them get mad at us for brining it upBut it is Simply what it itEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Faith thanks much for your support. You are an excellent polemist and your knowledge is very extensive. I've been doing this for a lot of years now and you have to understand, these fellas are not going to ever see design because they have been taught that truth does not really exist and that absolute truth certainly does notThey also have learned a way of understanding evidence that is contrary to any thinking person and reasonThis is why I have pushed the obvious contradiction in the evolutionary theory, of its conclusionYou've noticed Thierry answers, It doesn't matter, I don't care, its irelevant, etc.By demonstrating these issues you identify where the real problem existsEvolution by solely natural causes is not something they can ignore, it's an unavoidable conclusion of their "evidence".It demonstrates that the evidence that supports design, is the same type as thiers. But they will wrangle every way to get out of this as you have seenBut please continue your side it reinforces the main argumentDawn Bertot

I not only insist on it , it is an irresistible conclusion. There is no such thing as superevo, it's just an investigation called science. Your problem would be the same, if you rename it Modulous. When you test properties in the natural world, you are not testing it's source. So to brag about your experiments and how complicated they are, only demonstrates how it works not where it came from or how it started. I can test my hypothesis of design by examining detailed intricate order in nature, you just get all it'll more involved, but it doesn't prove your conclusion.For this you need the same type of evidence of a designer, indirect evidence. I can test design the same way you examine the world.You have no superior standard for determine evidence.If I'm making things up please demonstrateDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yeah not a problem. Your so-called science does not test it's conclusion, but it has a conclusion, Soley Nature Causes. What is your direct evidence for your conclusion. When you can extricate yourself from this problem or let me know what type of evidence you used for this necessary conclusion, it may cease to be a contradictionLast time I'll point it out to you, unless you have a solution

With your science you don't test the conclusion of evolution, which is Soley Natural causes, you test only what is going on. To test it conclusion you would need indirect evidence like usSo your doing the right thing, or your not doing science. Which is itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.