ICR Sues Texas

You do the same with "Design". Your magic leprechaun is Design. You take all of the observations we have, none of which need a magic leprechaun in order to explain why they occur, and then insert "the Designer did it". No, my story illustrates the difference between reality and fantasy. In reality, we have a defendant whose DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, hair, and fibers match the evidence found at the crime scene. You say we should ignore the evidence of the defendant's guilt and instead put magica . . . err, I mean a supernatural designer on even explanatory ground. You are actually saying that a magica . . . oops, did it again . . . supernatural designer magically poofing things into being without any evidence to support it is on the same ground as mechanisms we observe in reality.Well, sorry chum, it isn't the same.

So you are saying that Design is evidenced by the observed mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection? Then please list for us the observations of this supposed designer actually designing something. That is what we are trying to determine, whether the defendant or the magical leprechaun left the evidence at the crime scene. According to you, since we don't know the origin of DNA we can't use DNA as evidence. We can't use shoe prints because we don't know the origin of the laws that regulate the molecules in the shoe. On and on we have to throw out all of the evidence because of your "you weren't there, so any answer is legit" reasoning.

Dawn Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

No, the argument cannot fail where evidence is inconclusive.

---

But the evidence is not inconclusive. We routinely observe "order, rules, and laws" arising all on their own without any designer. Why is your pet example any different? What specific observation are you referring to that leads you to conclude something different?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Rrhain, to demonstrate your conclusion here and that you follow a different or better method of evidence in this question, you need to prove your above statement, you cant just assume it, or say, the evidence suggest it, that isexcally what I say, who is correct.?

---

I did and I am. The marbles are ordered by rules and laws without any designer taking part as observation shows. Do you have evidence that something else is involved? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude that something else is involved?Be specific.Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Ok, go ahead and prove this. Rrhain its not a matter of what it sugest, ITS A MATTER OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL ALLOW

---

I already did: Observation shows no designer was present. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude that something else is involved?Be specific.Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

No Rrhain, you simply restated what you believe, based on limited information.

---

Incorrect. I stated what was observed: No designer was involved. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude something else is involved?

quote:

---

As much as you want you cant PROVE how YOUR marbles got in that logical order, or thatthey got there without a designer, thats why we are in the same boat called available evidence .

---

Why not? We can observe that no designer is involved. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude something else is involved?Be specific.Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

This also why design is applicable to a science classroom, its one of only two logical probabilities

---

I can think of at least two other possibilities. Why can't you?Now, will you please answer the question?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

This is not only a foolish statement but an ignorant one. Rrhain you were not there It not an example R, thats the point, I cant give you an example of something i did not observe and neither did you This is a relative nonsensical statement like can God make a rock bigge than he can lift. If he designed it then no, if he did not then yes. But we cannot know this outside the scriptures. Its only one of only two logical possibilitesBertot writes

quote:

---

Rrhain, to demonstrate your conclusion here and that you follow a different or better method of evidence in this question, you need to prove your above statement, you cant just assume it, or say, the evidence suggest it, that isexcally what I say, who is correct.?

---

R writesYour so-called observation is limited therefore inapplicable as provable evidnce Just show me the beginning of time or whatever and all the details involved at that specific time and you will have proved your point Your first statement demonstrates the force of my point about evidence. You know you cannot do thatThe other observations are the order itself and it being squarely between the only two logical possibilites.Neither is provable both are demonstratable, both should be taught as scientific applications.The Bertot principle is irrefutable, either logically or from a standpoint of observation and it certainly is demonstratable as evidence