ICR Sues Texas

No just the obvious observation of designYour talking about specifics of who designed, I am talking strickly ABOUT DESIGN, by scientific observationMy method of evidential construction could not and is not wrongDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hi Dawn Bertot,I think we're going round and round a bit here because there's so much uncertainty about what it is you're saying, and we could really use some help from you in resolving the confusion.We really can't tell what you're talking about with phrases like "order, laws and rules." Are you talking about the physical laws of the universe, like the speed of light, relativity and so forth? Could you please clarify? We don't know what this even means, and it most certainly is nothing any of us have ever concluded or stated. If you're referring to the origin of the physical laws of the universe, then probably most of us believe that science cannot at present explain how they arose, though there are a number of interesting ideas.So to repeat, please stop asking us to explain how things are "ordered of themselves," because we don't know what this means, and it isn't anything we have said. If you can clearly explain to us what "ordered of themselves" means we can tell you whether it is something we accept.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

But that's what we're trying to tell you. There is no obvious obeservation of design. Literally anything can be said to be designed. Especially since you can't explain how or why it was designed. All you're doing is saying order=design. But I could equally validly say chaos=design. But every observation can be said to support design. It is therefore not reasonable to use it. No matter what is observed, it can alays be said to be designed. Thereofore, unless there is some evidence of design, we use the less parsimonious explanation, which is the one that reequires no designer. Yes it is, it violates parsimony.

Can you please reference where we have observed this supposed designer actually designing organisms? You don't observe probabilities. I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. If you want to claim that a designer is involved then you need to supply those observations. If your argument requires the observation of things that have not been observed then your argument is not worth the pixels it is written in. I also offered testable hypotheses, something that you have failed to supply.So I have observations and hypotheses that follow the scientific method. You do not have any observations and you can not construct any testable hypotheses. Hmm, I wonder who is doing science and who is not? There is no such thing as "absolute" evidence. What we do have are known natural laws, and from those laws we can predict how interactions in the natural world should occur and should NOT occur. We then test those predictions. We find that our predictions are very accurate. For example, we can predict that we should find fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features, but we should not find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features. That prediction has been tested hundreds of times, and every time it passes these tests. So what does ID predict as it relates to the mixture of features in fossils? Anything?As to "ordered of themselves" that is your venacular. It is word salad. Until you define what you mean it doesn't really mean anything.

So science can not look at the origin of a lightning bolt? Are you saying that we have no idea how natural laws, all by themselves, can create these lightning bolts? Are you saying that lightning bolts require a designer? Observing and explaining observations are two different things, putz.

Honestly Percy, you expect me to believe that you dont unerstand what i mean? Since you have not seen the initiation of the process you claim, operates in and of itself, nor can you demonstrate thats its materials are eternal in makeup, you have to assume in the exact way in which we doCan you prove yourprocess of simple evolution by self-initiation.
How would you do this seeing we are dealing with none observed eventsWe follow the same method of establishing evidence of how things are pssibly here to begiin with.I doubt you are having trouble seeingthat simple point. So instead of being evasive, why dont you explain how you would prove that these things in nature operate in and of themselves Im sure you would like ME to stop asking it,but I wont as it is crucial to how anyone establishes evidence. So helpmeout hereDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Im saying that you cannot explain how the materials to make the rainbow came to be in the first place, you have to assume thier origin, the material that is No explaining is simply an detailed observation, but observation, like the desgin peopleis all you have as well, after that (excludingthe word of God) you like me only have assumptionsFor this reason both should be taught in he classroomDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

There have been times when I thought I understood what you meant, but each time I attempted to confirm you said I was wrong. You're going to have to clarify your terms. For example:

• What do mean by "order, laws and rules?" Are you referring to the natural laws of the universe?
  ​
• What do you mean by "ordered by themselves," and why do you think we believe this when it is something we have never said.

Are you talking about evolution? If so, then for the same reason we do not need to observe how the orbits of the planets began in order to plot their course, neither do we need to observe how life began to understand how evolution works. I'm afraid I don't understand what this means. Concerning evolution, why do you believe whether matter and energy are eternal makes a difference? We can observe evolution processes in action. Why do you think "self-initiation" (whatever it is) is a factor in understanding evolution? What non-observed events are you referring to? I don't know what "operate in and of themselves" means, and it's not something I've ever claimed. If you can explain what it means I can tell you whether it is something I accept. I am trying to help you out. If you can define what "ordered of themselves" means, I can tell you whether it is something I accept.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Dawn Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

Yes you are correct, it is circular reasoning AND IT CAN AND ONLY WILL EVER BE circular reasoning., on atleast this question.

---

Then your argument fails. Circular reasoning is a logical error.

quote:

---

It does not matter whether I can GO from order to design, it only matters that that is what the available evidence SUGGEST as does your position.

---

Except it doesn't. The available evidence suggests there is no designer. The marbles are ordered by rules and laws without any designer taking part.Therefore, since we know that order, rules, and laws can and do appear all on their own, why is this specific instance any different?Or is there nothing that happens on its own? Is god required for everything?

quote:

---

You are concluding what you assume

---

Incorrect. I am concluding based upon direct observation. No designer was involved in the marbles coming into order. They got that way on their own.Unless you are suggesting that god came down and deliberately, purposefully, and consciously placed those marbles in the line. Is that what you are suggesting?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

As far as I can see order and complex intricate laws are sufficient to point or suggest design, but I have no way of demonstrating this other than the same way you suggest these things are a product of themselves

---

But I can demonstrate it. I just did. The marbles are in a line even though no designer was involved. Are you suggesting there was? That the invisible hand of god came down and deliberately, purposefully, and consciously put those marbles in a line? Is that what you are suggesting?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Unless you can prove things are a source of thier own self absolutley

---

Huh? Are you saying that there was something else involved? That it wasn't the marbles organizing themselves on their own but rather the hand of god acting deliberately, purposefully, and consciously to place the marbles into a line? Is that what you are suggesting?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

All you have is observation from a very limited perspective

---

I never said otherwise. But do you have any evidence that the observations are insufficient? Why do you insist upon the addition of chocolate sprinkles?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Though Dawn's terminology is not scientifically stated, it appears quite obvious that Dawn is aluding to "not intelligently designed, i.e, ordered." I would appreciate if Dawn would affirm or correct me on that.Lay members sometimes find it difficult to put what we're trying to convey in terminology that you scientifically astute folk consider adequate.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

A side issue of this thread has become and I am glad you and admin has allowed it, was what constiyutes evidence in establishing truths concerning the valifity of what we know concerning the nature of things and why they are here in the first place and how.The real issue has been nonetheless evidence aand how it can be established.Neither of us outside the scriptures or other scriptures can prove the totality of the positions we hold. Mine of design and yours of eternality of matter.We cannot even prove the conclusions of the observations we make concerning design or even the total conclusions of the TOEThe evidence of of both and the demonstration of that evidence is exacally the same, AND BOTH ARE OBVIOUS BUT NOT PROVABLEWhy in the world should design not be included in the science room when it follows the principles For the same reason you say there is no evidence of a designer. Why do y ou believe whether there is a designer makes a difference to observing designDo you see the double standard you are attempting to set up. Your not required to explain the conclusions of your positions but I am The ones that got things started or the non-observed events that prove matter is eternalThese are the things you need to demonstrate that my position is false, your positon is true or that we follow a different rule of evidential adminastrationActually it is the same and should be taught along side evolutionCan you demonstrate it otherwiseDawn Bertot

Buz he knows what I am asking and what I am implicating concerning eivdence, but t doesnt help to answer it directlyYet his or her corgiality more than makes up for the inability to argue a pointDawn Bertot

Because it does not.Dawn, what are you doing? Have you ever trained anyone? Given our common background (you know what I'm talking about), I know that you should know how to train someone. And as such you yourself should know full well that your conduct on this thread has been contrary to the objectives and methodology that you should have been trained in yourself.OK, assume that we are all your trainees and you are trying to train us in recognizing design. You keep spouting pseudo-philosophical claptrap and we keep raising our hands and telling you that we do not understand what you are talking about. So you respond by 1) berating us for being a pack of idiots (as well as insulting us in various other ways) and 2) by just continuing to regurgitate that same incomprehensible pseudo-philosophical claptrap that you were dumping on us in the first place. Is that really how you were trained to train your people? Sorry, but I cannot even begin to accept that any branch could be that screwed up!To be honest, it really looks to me like you actually don't want anyone to be able to understand what you're yammering about. It looks like you're trying to implement what was described in college as, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit." Shouldn't you instead be thinking about how to convince us of the wisdom of your position? Unless you yourself also realize that it's pure bullshit, which is why you are driven to use such tactics.But you still have a chance to convince us otherwise. Let's go back to that one line I quoted: Does it? Really? Could you please demonstrate convincingly that it does? No, really! That is not by any measure a rhetorical question. Demonstrate it!You want design to be included in science? OK, so how do we do it? Now, we already know the methodology of science, but what is the methodology of design? Specifically, how do we objectively detect design? Seriously! How is anybody supposed to look at something and determine objectively that it's the result of design? What is your methodology? Are we just all supposed to ask Dawn because only she can tell? Because so far that's all we've been given. And that is just plain not good enough!What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.

And before then you wrote: But you are wrong. The moment you say it might be a supernatural agent you can't say you're introducing one more possibility. Instead you're introducing a near infinite set of supernatural causes.How can anyone possibly say that God started life on Earth is more evidence based than aliens started life on Earth? We've a lot of evidence for the possibility of aliens.There's some evidence (by the way you seem to use the term) for all manner of possible origins, should they all be taught? It is even possible that I created all life and do not even know that I did, where’s my class? Possible is a poor metric.

What thing can you name that there has never been an argument that God created it?The order argument is silly since Christians can also argue that disorder is proof of Creation. Any perfection in Creation is the Hand of God, any imperfection is the Sin of Man. Once you cannot tell anything from the evidence then the evidence really is of no help.This is ultimately what people are trying to tell you here. Once anyone, including the IRC, adopts the position that everything found fits the claim, no matter what is found, then what is being done is not science.