Summations Only

That’s it? That’s your scientific evidence?First, axioms, in philosophies, are statements so evident and well established that they are taken as given without controversy or question. You cannot establish any axiom of purpose since purpose is a human construct and has no established measure free of question and controversy. Something is only purposeful in the eyes of the human and is a matter of opinion. Intricate order is another matter of opinion with no measure, try as creationists may to define one.There is plenty of legitimate controversy, differences of opinion and questions of efficacy to your views of clear purpose and intricate order to such an extent as to make them non-axiomatic.Your insistence that some self-defined clear purpose is an axiom fails.Unless you can show a clear and convincing scale and analysis to measure purpose and order you have nothing of any scientific nature to present. If your creationism is centered on these faulty concepts, these articles of faith without measure, then your creationism fails as a science.The only thing axiomatic here, Dawn, is the clearly evident and well established fact that creationists do not know what science is and how to use it.Edited by AZPaul3, : spelng and puchuaton.

Well, you said something correct. How odd.The problem is that purpose is a construct that has no reality outside human perception, and different people can have different perceptions of what is the purpose of something. You confuse purpose with function. They are not the same.And axioms are not created by any means outside the human mind and require such a compelling set of traits that all other minds agree to its establishment without question.Your "axiom of purpose" is no such thing. It is bogus. Let me be clearer then. Your insistence that some Dawn-defined "clear purpose" is axiomatic fails. It is a bogus assertion without any reality behind the meaning you are trying, unsuccessfully, to impose. And, again, your statement at the top here is correct. Reality and its laws, in this case clearly evident and well established definitions, determine the reality of what is and is not axiomatic.Again, if that is your scientific evidence in support of creationism it is an abject failure as evidence and a badly mangled attempt at science.Edited by AZPaul3, : skru-ups

That is right. An axiom cannot exist outside a human-defined proposition.If a proposition requires a statement that "people exist" then we can all agree that "people exist" is axiomatic requiring no further proof. For the purposes of furthering the proposition it can be taken as a given. That is what an axiom is.An axiom is NOT some kind of universal TRVTH that stands on its own volition.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You use the words, but you have no idea what they mean.

Imagining order and purpose, further, imagining clear and obvious order, is not the issue. The issue, Dawn, is your supposition that such purpose, which you confuse with function, and such order, which you confuse with complexity, are scientific proofs of a designer which you further suppose is your specific brand of god.Bullshit.You jump from purpose and order to design and designer without showing any evidence that this is the only such conclusion. Then you have the damned gall to claim that purpose and order are axiomatic to the design and designer conclusion so that you don't have to bother with showing any evidentiary link between them.And with still more unmitigated gall you insist this leap of your specific faith is to be taken as science.More bullshit.I reject your silly-assed treatment of purpose and order as axioms to your proposition that there is a designer god. Assertions are not evidence.I reject your insistence that your leap of faith from purpose/order to design/designer is science. It is no such thing.The scientific method was devised to obviate just such unevidenced nonsense. Assertions given without evidence are rejected.From your OP: But then you go and give us nothing but your articles of faith that purpose and order are obvious and therefore design and designer (your god) are equally obvious. And you think that by calling these things obvious (axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order) you can escape the scientific requirement for evidence (another concept with which you have grave misunderstandings). All you have demonstrated is that your Creation Science is based on your personal wishful thinking backedup by your insistence that your wishful thinking is science.Typical creationist illogic. Typical creationist assertions without evidence. Typical creationist tripe.Your "axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order" is not evidence, never was evidence, never will be evidence. Hence, your creationism is not science, never was science, never will be science.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I try to lead you out of your semantical hole but you just turn around and jump back in.

No, you can't. You can only observe purpose when you want to force an interpretation of intent behind it. The purpose is in your head not in the object. That is easily done since there is no such as an axiomatic purpose. Nor is there any axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order, other than that which you wish to see for your own evil reasons. Which means your creationism is personal pap and that doesn't even come close to being science.You continue to show that there is no science in creationism. No, not at all. I've been doing this on this site for 10 years and I've been doing this in discussion for 50 years+. You got nothing on me, son. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I knew your head was firmly ensconced up where it shouldn't be but I didn't realize it was up it that far.It's OK though. This points up, again but in a most convincing way, that you have a very twisted perception of the reality around you; that you see your personal perceptions as universal facts.Really great science there. Just like above, it's only in your head, and your head, it appears, is a most inadequate and faulty scientific instrument.Again, you fail to provide any evidence of this "axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order" mechanism you cite as the "science in creationism". What you do provide are more data points for the proposition that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

No one is saying beauty does not exist absent some scientific proof. That is ridiculous.Beauty is a scale. In the middle somewhere, there is plain (normal is a bad word choice with connotations to which you appear insensitive) with gorgeously beautiful to the right and god-awful ugly to the left. When you observe a person, a painting, a symphony, you place that thing on the scale. Your perception of that thing is all the data you need to do the placement. But that IS NOT science. That is personal perception.The African Bushman looks at some, what I would perceive as, beautiful woman and sees ugly because of her straight hair. To them straight hair is considerably less attractive than kinky hair. For hundreds of years Japanese women discolored their teeth black because, in that society during that time, black teeth were a sign of beauty. Today, if someone smiles showing black teeth most people would turn around and run away screaming. Everyone has a different scale.This is all personal perception. It is not science.The same is true for purpose. The trait you perceive is just that; your perception. It is not science.You would say that vehicles have purpose, wouldn’t you? They are intelligently (eh well arguable) designed to move from here to there in a poisonously eco-unfriendly way. To some their purpose is to get you to granny’s house on Sunday afternoon. To others their purpose is to transport loads of watermelon and jars of toilet paper and boxes of rain from here to there. Still others see the purpose as speed and reckless endangerment in street racing. The point is, Dawn, the purpose is not in the thing, it is in the person perceiving the thing.You want to look at the eye and see an intelligent purpose. The seeing is not the purpose but is the function. The purpose actually exists, but it is not in the eye but in the being using the eye to find food, to look for mates, to avoid danger. This is perception and every being perceives purpose differently.To go from I see purpose to god done it is to jump from your personal perception of something to your favorite pre-formed conclusion without showing your perception is even viable let alone correct and without showing each step in the chain from one to the other. This is personal bias not science.Your axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order (your science in the science of creationism) is an un-evidenced personal perception of your own making. It is not axiomatic by any definition or degree and is not some universal fact since it differs from other’s perceptions.This is not science.Unless you have something more than axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order to cite as your evidence then your contention that there is any science in creationism fails.

This was answered before you even posted. See Message 766

No. They're not the only ones reading this thread. Right now there are 290 visitors on this site. We know many of them are searchbots and indexbots but at least some are real bots here with interest to learn something. Can't leave them thinking both Dawn and M'Lady Faith are anything more than loonies with really stupid ideas about the reality of the world around us. They deserve better.

I suppose you could leave EvC to go pursue this mighty battle elsewhere but for five things:1. You probably can't find a creationist site that would allow such a discussion,H. I'd miss you, Tangle,ix. Even if there are only a few real flesh and blood bots lurking in don't you think they deserve the benefit of your experience and knowledge rather than leaving them to the head-exploding inanities of the loonies?h. I forget what the last two things are, but they are important and you would find them very convincing.So, there. I win. EvC stays. You stay. The struggle continues.

If you were honest you would admit that all the evidence ever produced shows quite the opposite.