The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

One might ask the same of Jar's existenceYour a funny guy jar jar, you just cant stay on point can you. You should have said what relevance or worth does reality have in determining a logical approach and conclusion concerning design. what will it allow as far as evidnece goesDawn Bertot

I agree that biological explanations are biological explanations, but when you cite examples of biology as being supportive of your position what else would be a rebuttal to 'biological explanations are not sufficient, an agent is required' but a biological explanation that is argued to be sufficient? Unless you are conceding that the eye isn't evidence of an intelligent designer?Why is this 'nothing more than when {I} started', and why would I want more? Indeed - are you suggesting that the philosophy of science is not philosophical or logical? Since I am not doing science in this thread, just talking about evidence and what it supports or does not support - I am necessarily engaged in a philosophical argument. My present argument is that the design we see is not necessarily the result of an intelligent agent, so any argument that implies otherwise (or even slightly weaker variations) is flawed.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But I did not ask about jar's existence.You had said: And so I asked "What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Arent these explanations disputed. Is there really a trail so fine and detailed that leaves no questions or doubts concerning evos answers and theoriesWhat if we are talking about simply an old earth and no evolution as attempted by Macro-evoIsnt it possible that this theory could be wrong concerning its conclusionsthe only approach in establishing evidence with present information seems to be limited to logic and its physical applicationswhat will logic and present data allow concerning evidence of that which is acceptableDawn Bertot

Dawn Bertot writes:
not necessarily what is, "in my mind", but what logic and physical properties will allowjar writesif you read my comment in its context, it will expalin it to your satisfactionYour a funny guy Jar a funny guy. your last name is not Binks is itnow if you will excuse me, I have to see who my Vikings are playing next week, I think Bret was texting during the game last night, even while he was on the field, that could have been why we lost. its hard to text and throw a ball at the same time. I just dont see how he does it without us seeing the phone in his handsDawn Bertot

I think this time you said: However I still do not understand and I'm not satisfied."What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?"What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any effect, relevance or influence in life we see?Is the answer supposed to be in the following reply found in Message 573?

quote:

---

jar writes:

​

What physical properties of the designer allow it to have any worth or relevance?

​

One might ask the same of Jar's existence

​

Your a funny guy jar jar, you just cant stay on point can you. You should have said what relevance or worth does reality have in determining a logical approach and conclusion concerning design. what will it allow as far as evidnece goes

​

Dawn Bertot

---

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It depends on what evidence supports the dispute. The "evidence" brought forth by creation "scientists" and their stepchildren, IDers, has been refuted time and time again--to no effect.It seems as if the proponents of creationism and ID have no need for evidence to support their beliefs, and will accept no evidence that contradicts those beliefs. There is a lot of evidence for an old earth. Pretty much all of it, in fact. But there is no evidence to suggest that evolution didn't happen. There is only belief and dogma. Isn't it possible that you are wrong?There, I have raised as much doubt concerning your theory as you have concerning evolution. Make of it as you will. Gibberish. More gibberish.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Not in any meaningful way, no. Only crazy people expect there to be no doubt about some things. Yes, it's a quality called 'falsifiable', It is generally considered a meritorious thing. Seems to me, it allows evolution. Of course, it allows unfalsifiable theories too. Is your theory that life/everything was designed unfalsifiable?

Is it not true that you believe that purpose is the result of intent by someone and not the result of natural processes "operating in and of themselves"?--Percy

In your opinion of course, the same way I believe the evidence suggests design, from a logical and physical standpointDoes your comment suggest there is SOME evidence that would dispute your conclusions? hardly since one cannot find support for total macro-evo in the fossil record. One can only imply that such was the casebertot writes:C writes:My point exacally about you Coyote. How can a person that calls what I said above Gibberish, yet still believe that that same person will be objective about design and its applications. You possess no objectivity to begin withDawn Bertot

Purpose IS EITHER the result of design or natural causes, it doesnt matter what I believe,it matters what the evidence will allow to be taught as science.But if you are asking MY opinion, then yes it is probably the result of intent, if enough evidence would suggest such.But the design principle cant stop at just its make-up, it has to proceed logically to its initiation source. If one stays with only what they observe and test, then either conclusion will be acceptableasking where it came from to begin with is yet another scientific examination from a logical standpoint. Why would onestop at a simple examination and not conclude the former.Such an approach would be unscientific. If I may be so boldSorry if I detoured,maybe I missed your point concerning my belief about purpose. If I did then be specific concerning your thoughtDawn Bertot

DB writesMod writes:Ofcourse this will be your opinion. For example, and Ihave always wondered why if all types of primates now exist and numerous races of humans now exist, why and how all forms of hommoinids, (if I am spelling that right) seemed to have fanishedSeems strange that not one example of something not excally primate andnot fully human would not have survived. Hmmmmm?The millions and millions of types of these creatures, but nothing survived except Jar and humans, I mean monkeys and humans. Sorry I get those two mixed up. Just kiddding JarWhen asked why we cant capture a Yetti, we are toldthey are to elusive and cannot be caught, but when we ask why thy didnt survive, they say they got out competed.Wonder which one is trueJust a thought though. Hmmmmm?DawnEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Every theory including the conclusions of evolution are unfalsifiable, because they deal with data and information, no longer available to us.We therefore have to rely on what the infrmation and logic will allow.In my view both should be taught because both conclusions are science and both are logicalin thier conclusions, if onedecides not to accept or invoke the scripturesDawn Bertot

DB writesFor that, you just need to see what happened to Indians in America. And that was "civilized" and christian people doing that. To make the answer short, when two species occupy the same ecological niche (especially one as murderous as humans), one is going to go extinct.

The problem, whether you agree or not, is that Evolution has lots of work behind it, ID doesn't have much beside what you call logic. Did Einstein petitioned public schools to get his theory accepted? Did Niels Bohr do that? Did Georges Lemaitre insist that his theory be taught in shools? Actually, did any scientists ever appealed to the public to get their theories taught in schools? The fact is that all scientific theories that get taught in schools never appealed to the public at large to influence school policy, they always followed the scientific process and became taught when the scientific community accepted it.You can argue that your way is better, but it's certainly not science. Why don't you insist religious and like minded people create their own version of science? If you are right and your method is better, you will get better results by taking into account this designer in about every domain. You already have fundings (all those megachurches) and plenty of motivated people to do this.Edited by Son, : No reason given.