Summations Only

So thirteen pages in and Dawn has never come close to providing any science, any evidence, any designer, any creator other than humans and a few other species.No cause other than Natural Causes has been presented.As expected. Creationism is DOA and can only be eulogized in the avoidance mediums.No wonder we see few if any Creationists and never see a "Creation Science" mechanism, model, method, process or procedure that can explain anything.

So many other features that are common to things we know are designed simply don't show up in living things we can observe.Some examples:When we look at things we know are designed like architecture, art, pottery, automobiles, airplanes, fountain pens ... we find that innovations tend to spread across versions made by different makers. Automakers adopted many new features (some good some bad) across product lines. Vent widows disappeared regardless of which species of car we are discussing. Generators were replaced by alternators regardless of which species of car we are discussing. Radial tires replaced bias ply tires regardless of which species of car we are discussing. Radios and air conditioning, turn signals, heaters, all appeared almost simultaneously regardless of which species of car we are discussing. Electric systems replaced vacuum systems for door locks and wipers and headlight covers regardless of which species of car we are discussing.Even non-function things similar to sexual display features we see in living things appeared across all makes; all cars had fins, all cars lost the fins, all cars lost running boards, all cars gained LED lights, all cars gained pearlescent paints and it happened across all models and rapidly and just as rapidly changed.Looking at the history of living things shows a long succession of failure, with only a very few ideas that are successful and even those ideas that are not complete failures do not get implemented in the improved form across product lines.We do not see the eyes evolving across species like we saw the changes in sound systems in cars, AM radios adding FM capability and then tape decks and CD players and RCA ports and USB ports and connections to the drivers cell phone and ...It simply doesn't work like that when we come to living things. Humans do not get upgraded to include the wolf's hearing and smell, the added telescopic vision of the eagle, the improved design of the octopus eye...What we see in living things is "Just barely good enough to get by" and only for a little while.Hardly good design and certainly not intelligent design.

Correct. What we see in living (and actually most non-living natural examples) is entirely different than what we see in any examples that are known to be designed. Correct, but falling back on the "we don't know the goals of a designer" argument makes it totally vacuous. If the designer can have any damn goal in mind at any time in history then there is no reason to expect any consistency at all.Yet we do find consistency.We can divide living things into distinct groups, those with an internal skeleton and those with an external skeleton, those with clearly defined limb and those without, those that are mammals and those that aren't.There is a consistency but it happens to be exactly the consistency that would result from evolution instead of design.We can also see that one constant factor has been designs failing and disappearing. Far more critters die before being born than are born and many critters born die even before they reproduce and almost all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.If there is a designer we can say many things about that character; that it is fickle, cruel, not very competent, inept, ignorant, incompetent, capricious, impossible to understand and most important, inconsistant. If that is the case then the designer is of no real importance and so irrelevant to the continued evolving set of knowledge.

Yes, it was fixed but at a pace far beyond anything found in nature, and it was across all of the species; not because of novelty but rather because it was a better solution. The same hold true for all the examples in that paragraph.The second group mentioned, the example of fins and running boards and lighting could be called fad but again, the change was at a scale and a completeness far beyond anything see in nature.There is simply almost no resemblance between design as found in nature and those things we know ere designed.AbE:Let me carry this a little further since I think it is really important.What we see in those things we know to be designed is something we simply never see in living things and that really is Planned Need Driven Change.The change from bias ply tires was not simply chance, it was need driven. There had to be a way to keep the tire tread flat on the surface while the wall of the tire flexed.Further more, it was not a matter of descent with change. It was toss everything and build better. About the only things that remained constant was the general material make up. And it was designed and built outside the species where it functioned. And was built not by one source but many sources. And was applicable not just to descendants of one species but other Orders and even other Kingdoms.Edited by jar, : See AbE:

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.

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?

Why do you continue to post lies Dawn?Particularly, why do you post lies that were dealt with just a few posts earlier?Your question was addressed most recently in Message 308.Get over it.No one but you is claiming science says that there are solely natural causes.Once again, in small words, what everyone has said repeatedly is that no evidence for anything other than natural causes has ever been shown.You have still never presented evidence of anything other than a natural cause.Over three hundred posts in just this thread and in over seven hundred thousand posts here at EvC, no one has ever presented evidence for any cause other than a natural cause.Yes Virginia the conclusion is certainly sustainable and even supportable.Until someone presents some evidence of something other than a natural cause a conclusion that any cause found will turn out to also be natural is not just reasonable but the only reasonable conclusion.

Well once again this thread shows why Creationism is dead and worthless. Over 300 hundred posts, nearly 100 from Dawn Bertot himself as well as hundreds asking for evidence, begging Dawn to provide some evidence and yet not a single hint of there being any evidence for any causes other than natural causes or those causes from known designers that also just happen to be natural.Sure, folk wander in whining about how Evolution is wrong but none have ever presented support for any alternative explanation.

Stop lying Dawn. That is simply not true. What is true is that the Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution extremely well without requiring any causes other than natural ones.I think this has been pointed out to you at least once Dawn. First, even if that were true it is not evidence for anything other than natural causes and since you have still never produced any evidence of any cause other than natural ones the point you try to make is still moot and irrelevant.

Even if Irreducible Complexity actually existed it would not be evidence of anything but the fact that irreducible complexity existed; it would NOT be evidence of design or any designer.Sorry Faith but for something other than natural causes to be considered you need to present evidence there are causes other than natural ones and NO ONE has ever presented any such evidence.

I really doubt that Creationists know what evidence is or how conclusions are really reached despite their avowal that they do know the meanings and processes.But in reality, it's really not very complex and not all that many assumptions are needed.The basics are that if you find a fossil buried and there are no signs of intentional burial (the material around the object similar to the material in the general area) that the critter died at that location and was buried at that location. The corollary to that is that the critter likely was alive in the general area where it was found and that the other fossils found in that area indicate the environment at the time.Second, unless there are clear signs of disturbance a higher layer is younger than a lower layer.Both of these and all the other conclusions reached are based on reality.We see new layers being put down on top of earlier layers.We see things that are living now dying now and being buried in the current layer.We see that intentional burial puts disturbed soil around the burial that can be distinguished from the surrounding undisturbed soil.And everywhere we have looked, in every area of research, in all the different fields of knowledge all that has ever been observed are natural causes.No non-natural cause has EVER been observed.

Well 782,562 posts at EvC and almost 400 posts in just this thread and over a hundred from the person that started the topic of "The Science in Creationism" without a single bit of evidence for any Science in Creationism might be a hint that there simply is no science or facts or reality or model or theory or procedure or process or method in Creationism other than trying to avoid reality, facts, models, theories, procedures, processes or methods.It's hard and in fact may be unreasonable to expect reality, facts, models, theories, procedures, processes or methods in a subject where there is no reality, facts, models, theories, procedures, processes or methods.Can't get blood from a turnip.

So Faith, perhaps you can provide a link to where Creationists hide the model, method, theory, process, procedure, evidence and facts that support Creationism or at least tell us which of the many mutually exclusive stories in the Bible contain the model, method, theory, process, procedure, evidence and facts that support Creationism?

The topic faith is supposed to be "The Science in Creationism".But neither you nor Dawn nor ICANT nor ANY Creationist has ever presented any evidence that there is any Science in Creationism.What is the model, method, process, procedure, theory, explanation, mechanism or even thingamajig that is the Science in Creationism?

If that is the case Faith then what you are doing is not and cannot be science.