Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center

once again instead of presenting evidence, you claim it has been presented. I cant respond to something that is NOT there.ill give you this simple challenge. provide one piece of "evidence" you say i have not responded to and we will see if what you are saying is true, that is if i have avoided it or that you simply disagree with it Its hard for you understand (tell) because you have not been presented with the information in this manner before. This is recognizable by your frustrationIs it worth the effort to present one point that i have not responded toDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please tell me specifically what "doing it" is, that we have not already done, that does not follow your pattern of the S and M,Do you have any specifics?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

trust me it is not my intention to be evasive, so could you please present the POINTS RASIED, i have falied to addressThis shouldnt be to hard, ehDawn Bertot

Would you like for me to go back and quote the "sincerety" passages, disguised as insult, disgust and contempt?.. I can do that if you wish.Sincerety my arse. You cant even be honest about sinceretyGeeeesDawn Bertot

Two people from two different backgrounds may not understand the way in which a term is being used, such as "predictive."How are you using this term and specifically what do you mean by it.Can you give me an example in your methodology of why this will produce an event that cannot be demonstrated by ID?What exacally does the totality of evolution predict?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Really, thank you. Your impressive.Bertot writes: Ill try this again and see if you try avoiding it again. Answer the questionWhat exacally does the totality of evolution predict that is different than IDs methodology Instead if repeading what I asked you, perhaps you could give me an example that is different than IDs methods. Since the scientific method is superior.So what predictions does evo make and how are its basic scientific methods different than IDs, to make it more acceptableExamples this time, not repetitions of my questions, rewordedThis should be fun to watchDawn Bertot

Ill try and keep this simple so you caan understand. Larni we are looking at cold hard facts, I am not positing the idea of a creator.We are establishing what we can from physical properties. In your case change and natural selection, in mine order and design. That is what the evidence allows us.Since these are the only conclusions the evidence willl allow, and both can be established logically and physically, both are therefore scienctific in there approach Good question and an easy one to answer. Every position dealing with physical reallities needs to poist its initiation source, or atleast attempt to find its source if one is to be completely logical and scientific.Logic and reality only allow two conclusions.Saying one does not need to worry about such a question is both unscientific and illogical.So If I am consistently required to provide a designer, then one would need to provide that matter is eternal for thier conclusion to be completely valid and completely scientific in natureNo TRUE scientific method would disregard its initiation source
Now watch and pay close attention. If neither of us requires such n our arguments then we both have to use only the available evidence. Natural selection is there and so is design and order, there are no toher choices, but both are clearly allowedDisregard conclusion at this point and you will see the Design purposal follows all the same methods and passes all the same testsDawn Bertot

Sorry I did not see this before I finished up Larnis response. As you wish