Summations Only

I believe I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think what you mean is any advancement over what Taq and Coyote have already posted. But let's see what you actually posted? Despite Einstein's theory? Surely that is not a meaningful statement. At best we might say that apples fall without regard for Einstein's existence. Einstein's theory is a description and it is also believed to be an explanation for how reality actually works. I am not sure that we have any better explanation to explain what gravity actually is.Further, gravity extends to situations well beyond apples buildings, and other things you can declare or have bothered to state in theological terms. Whatever are its divine origins, gravity is almost certainly not a proclamation of what should happen to apples and people leaping from buildings. If there is some way to describe some divine law that tells us what gravity actually is, I suspect that it is beyond your capability to describe without simply reciting the same observations about gravity that science uses.I suppose it may seem a quibble to insist on an accurate phrasing. I contend that it such requirements for accuracy are important in a debate about the nature of evidence and proof. In fact, for the purpose of this debate, the fundamentals of Creationist thought, namely that gravity is a design or an purposeful creation of God is in question. Are there in fact underlying laws other than those that are inherent in matter and energy? Maybe, but simply asserting such is cheating.

True, but I think Dawn Bertot has proven one point. Dawn did not stop debating here because he was convinced or because evolution proponents had won. There is no argument, no matter how well supported that Bertot will acknowledge, and no position too mind boggling wrong that Dawn will not hold onto it against all reason.I note that Bertot has already admitted that what science is not big enough to contain the reasoning Bertot uses. Isn't the debate actually over despite the fact that he contains to say that it is not? Hasn't we already seen the concession despite the fact that Bertot continues?For those of you who have forget or never encountered Bertot, I highly reading a few old posts from the archives. Same old stuff as you will find here.

I think you are exaggerating what can be done.Speaking of arrowheads, can you tell the difference between a sharp edge formed by erosion or formed by a chance falling rock smashing against other rocks and a similar rock with a sharp edge formed by deliberate chipping away using tools? How would you do such a thing? Can you be sure of the source of any particular rock arrowhead simply by knowing that somebody affixed the sharp edge to a stick as the tip of an arrow? Jar's claim is that we do so by recognizing tool marks on the arrowhead and not simply by recognizing function. I think he is right. And of course we know what pottery is before we find shards of it at a dig. We can recognized marks showing how it was turned and possibly even an exterior indicating that it was fired or colored. And by so doing are you distinguishing between something designed and something not designed? Is this really the example you mean it to be? Are you saying that one of those two things is not designed? Or are you pointing out the obvious idea that bones are not made out of clay.Dawn claims that science uses indirect evidence, something that is a correct statement, but that we don't allow him to do so, a statement this incorrect. What is not being allowed is to have Dawn just claim that science allows simply asserting that he knows something using neither indirect or direct evidence. The requirement to use science is limitation Dawn has imposed and is the point of this thread.In short, it is beside the question whether you or Dawn can do what you claim. The question is instead whether or not doing so is science. You are right when you say that you'll never be able to prove that living things bear the stamp of design. To the best of my knowledge nobody who has claimed to do this scientifically has managed the task. You've done far better than Dawn. Perhaps with your encouragement he can do better. You've pointed to a key point of dispute.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your statement does not get that problem I have identified. Yes, we can identify most designed objects we encounter, but 99.99% of the time, we do so based on familiarity with objects and the recognition of features after knowing that they are designed. But when we try to extend that beyond our experience, we can fail. When we attempt to extend this 'sense' beyond manufactured objects having features we readily associate with manufacturing to something quite different and we have no feedback system to tell us that we are right. We have absolutely no way of distinguishing between evolved and designed living things, no practical way of testing such a method, and thus simply saying that a living thing looks designed cannot be science. Observed micro eveolution is not the only evidence that life on this planet evolved. Such claims are entirely bogus. The evidence for the evolution of man is in fact indirect and includes many types of evidence and observation from which the final conclusion that even man evolved is drawn.And of course Dawn is free to conduct similar types of science himself. But he does not. His claim that he is being limited in ways that other people are not is completely wrong. So I would have to suggest that you and Dawn are not making the same or even similar points. Beyond that I would suggest that you too are not correct. What obvious "evidences of design in nature"? Do you seriously think it is enough to point to something and say I know that is designed and therefore 'science'? Surely it is obvious why science does not accept such conclusions. I think with this sentence you do manage to agree with Bertot. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I understand that is what you claim to be able to do. But can you? Show me one such extrapolation that you have actually used or could use to show that an object in nature was designed rather than having evolved. You are describing a distinction not an extrapolation. I know that a plant differs from a rock. What I cannot tell, is whether such a difference implies design. I don't believe you can explain how or why it should. It seems that you are simply calling living things designed and then pointing out ways that those thinks differ from a rock or a glass of water.And what is an irreducible complexity? Do you know the meaning of the term you've used twice? That term is supposed to mean a feature that cannot be produced by evolutionary pathway. Which means you are simply begging the question. How do you know an irreducible complexity when you see one? And having made such an identification how can you check your result without identifying a single living thing as designed rather than evolved.And to get to the point, where is the science involved? Faith has spoken. But what you say is not how science works. And I suspect that you know that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Meaning what exactly? That the rest of the evidence does not exist for use in any discussion. That you are free to state that the evidence for evolution is micro evolution and nothing more when such a thing is not true?Perhaps micro evolution is sufficient for some purposes. In some cases people deny that speciation ever occurs. I've certainly seen people like Andy Schlafly attempt to discredit experiments that demonstrate evolution. But clearly your statement that it was the only evidence science uses was wrong. Which makes me wonder what your point was then, and what your point is now?

The terms direct and indirect evidence are terms that already have meaning. Indirect evidence is something that demonstrates the truth using an accepted inference. For example, we can infer that a man has been shot when we remove a bullet from his wound. Saying that scientist use indirect evidence is no real indictment of the scientific method at all.Of course when Dawn uses those terms he means something quite different. His meaning is not clearly stated, and your attempts to make up stuff for him don't produce anything meaningful either.Yes it is the case that the evidence for evolution consists of both direct and indirect evidence. So what? That is how science works. Fortunately there is enough evidence and the inferences made are strong enough so that the conclusion is still reliable.On the other hand, telling us that intricacy implies design when it is easy to cite intricate objects that were not designed, and when you cannot demonstrate that intricacy is not produced by evolutionary processes is simply question begging. Your argument is essentially men can make complicated things (and of course simply things) life is complex, hence it was created by an intelligent designer. The holes in the logic ought to be abundantly clear.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Crystals of various types for example those seen in caverns and in other rock formations (e.g. karst formations in Chongqing). Snowflakes, tree branches, coral reefs. Plenty of intricate designs with no intelligent agent involved.And if I want to do the types of question begging you do, I can point to the anatomy or brain of every evolved creature that ever existed. But really that is the point of the discussion.Futher, even microevolution has been shown to produce complex structures in animals. That alone is sufficient.Now about irreducible complexity. Do you know what that term means.

What is the "Purpose" of the sun, a yellow/white dwarf star that currently provides sunlight to our planet. What is the purpose of the very similar yellow/white dwarf star 61 Ursae Majoris that is barely visible from earth?Assigning a "Purpose" as you do is simply begging the question. Purpose can only assigned after establishing intelligent design exerted for a reason. Function can be determined independently of either intelligence, but purpose cannot. You are simply asserting that evolution cannot produce features you deem to have purpose.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Agree with what? I asked a question? And where is the answer to the question I posed in my post regarding a star with an identical construction to the sun? I thought we were supposed to be having a debate and that a debate including answering questions. What conclusion should I draw about the bona fides of your debate.

No commentary needed...

Apparently you have lost track of the task you set for yourself. Here is a partial reminder... It seems that you have completely given up on making this showing and have substituted gibberish about the meanings of words as a substitute for showing us that there is anything scientific about creationism. No, a word is not the thing itself. We agree on that. But journeying down that rabbit hole does not make any progress on making the showing you have indicated you want to make.Whatever the origin of the word science, it is a label for a specific type of inquiry whose features have been covered extensively in this thread. Pointing out that words are only contrivances does not enable you to expand the definition of a word willy-nilly. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right, so you have claimed that the intricacy of a snowflake can be explained by the structure of a water molecule. The issue with such a claim is that every snowflake is different, and the actual specific structure of any specific snowflake is determined by unintelligent, chaotic (random) forcesSo what you have actually described are natural forces working on existing objects to from a design. Even if we concede that those natural objects, i.e. water molecules were created by God, the result is intricacies formed by nature. I'm willing to accept that such a things is possible and happens routinely. Are you? Actually that is your position in this discussion. The problem is that since intricacy can result from things other than Designer action, then you cannot make the leap that intricacy results from the handiwork of an intelligent designer. Until you've ruled out evolution as a producer of intricacy then your attempt at drawing an inference fails.

Again, this is merely your assertion and not something that you can demonstrate. In fact it is merely a statement of your conclusion and not an argument at all.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right. It is an assertion that you don't bother to support and absolutely no argument at all. No attempt whatsoever to eliminate other possibilities. Simply announcing your conclusion. In short no argument at all. Right. Just about as compelling as the argument that snowflakes are designed.Of course what you repeat here is standard creationism; evolution is just as unscientific as Creationism. The problem for your canard is that the evolution is supported by lots of evidence and that you are targeting on an aspect of evolution that is supported by direct evidence.Even microevolution involves small amounts of intricate design accomplished by nature all supported by direct and indirect evidence. Even those cited exceptions that you admit being unable to dismiss of mutations that result in curly dog/cat ears, or humans gaining persistent lactose intolerance, or bacteria gaining the ability to create nylon are all direct evidence of intricacies produced in living things without an intelligent designer. Complaining that such things are not macroevolution does not prevent those things from being evidence that some features only look designed but aren't.