Summations Only

Except neither you or anyone else has ever presented the models, methods, process, procedures or thingamajigs that explain what is seen while the current theories using natural processes do.And you have already admitted several times what you do is not and cannot be science.

Truth and reality do have a habit of winning it seems. Often fantasy is nice but science actually works and the old earth geology explains what is really seen and the Theory of Evolution explains what is really seen while Creationism and Young Earth never succeed in explaining anything that actually exists.

Of course you can and should unless and until someone actually presents some evidence of the existence of Clear purpose as a result of Intricate order and so far neither you or anyone else has even done that.

Sorry Dawn but you are still simply lying again and again.No one but you has asserted Solely Natural Conclusion and this has been explained to you several times by several people in this very thread.And that is yet another reason there is no Science in Creationism; there seems to be no culture of honesty in Creationism.But I'll repeat what folk other than Creationists actually say. So far no causes have ever been observed or evidenced that were not natural causes; so there is no reason to expect any future causes found to be other than natural.

​

If you, on the other hand, could present evidence for a non-natural cause then there might be some reason to consider other than natural causes.The topic, in case you forgot is "The Science in Creationism" and as usual you have failed totally to show any evidence of any science in creationism.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin ther ----> thereEdited by jar, : appalin spallin so----> show

Reminds me of an old Peggy Lee song. So I guess when it comes to "The Science in Creationism":

And purpose just like an axiom is a human construct. A blind man may still have eyes. A paraplegic still has legs and a Creationist still has fantasy.But Dawn Bertot has still never shown any evidence of The Science in Creationism.

But Faith, Dawn has not shown evidence for design or that design implies a designer. I think the big problem as has been pointed out many times is that neither you nor Dawn nor Creationist including those claiming to be creation scientists really have a clue what evidence is or many other relatively common terms.Order and design are two different things.Purpose and function are two different things.Those differences really do matter.Order can and often must come about from simply natural causes. No designer needed.Purpose is a purely human construct and exists solely in the mind and not in the object.The purpose of the sun is not to produce light. In fact light itself is actually simply a waste product of the function of the very natural process that is the sun. No designer needed.Light itself has no purpose. It does not exist to help us see shit. We, humans, put things to use. We give them the purpose. We use light to see and we can use screwdrivers to turn screws, but also to pry open paint cans and then turn the screw driver around to pound the lid back on the can when finished.But the purpose is not a characteristic of the object, it is a construct of the human.While sloppy thinking and imprecise use of terms is an underlying problem it seems, the real failure in this thread has once again been the total and utter inability of demonstrating The Science in Creationism. At best you and Dawn have shown that The Science in Creationism is not science and can never be science but perhaps something like voodoo or astrology or alchemy or fortune telling.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin not ------> norEdited by jar, : still finding applin spallin the ----> then

And once again, you continue to create straw man arguments and have the nerve to try to assert anyone but Creationists say such stupid things.Why in this very thread that utter nonsense has been dealt with over and over and over again.Is it necessary to add "lack of short term memory" to the list of things seemingly missing in you and Dawn and all other Creationists?Do you keep repeating falsehoods because you forget you have been shown they are false or is there some other reason?What everyone except Creationists say is that no causes other than natural causes have ever been evidenced and until a cause other than a natural cause has been shown to exist there is no reason to expect any future causes discovered to be other than natural.

Again Dawn, learn to actually read what is written.No where did I even mention "evolutionism" whatever that is.And it is also a fact that science always holds conclusions tentatively.I did mention Creationism since I assumed you would be familiar with it as you had used it to title the thread.You stated in the OP "It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation" yet so far you have failed to present any scientific evidence that supports Creation Science.What I posted is instead fact and so far supported by your posts, Faiths posts and in fact all of the output of all of the so called Creation Scientists.You never present any evidence for any cause other than a natural cause.Should you actually present evidence for a cause other than a natural cause then science would happily look into the area of non-natural causes; but again, that never seems to happen. After all science has even investigated ghosts and claims of possession.Like Creationism, no actual evidence of either ghosts or possession have ever been found.There is evidence though of natural causes. In fact every cause that has been examined has turned out to be a natural cause.Lightning has natural causes.Thunder has natural causes.When I clap and the light turns on it is a natural caused event.What you promised to do and what you have utterly failed to do is to provide "the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science".But not just you. No Creationist has ever provided "the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science" or even the actual scientific evidence that support Creation Science.And that is why Creationism is dead, tossed into the trash pile of history, little more than an old worn out joke and not taken seriously for over 100 years.That is why there is no reason to expect we will ever find a non-natural cause or a Creationist who can actually provide evidence of a non-natural cause.Creationism as dead as astrology or numerology or fortune telling or phrenology or ouija boards. Maybe a fun parlor game for little kids at camp but not for anyone past using cootie catchers.Nor do I call myself a "Bright". I am a Christian, a cradle Creedal Christian and an active practicing Christian who was educated in a Christian School.

Is honesty really impossible for Creationists?I have never said I had any conclusion of Solely Natural Causes and that has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people.What I have said is that no one has ever presented any evidence of any non-natural cause.You still have not presented evidence of a non-natural cause.You have never presented any evidence of The Science in Creationism. See, once again reality, truth and honesty are getting in your way. Regardless of your belief the fact is that I am a Christian, an active Christian, raised in a Christian family and educated in a Christian school.The ball is still in your court Dawn.Where is the evidence of The Science in Creationism?Where is the evidence of a non-natural cause?

And it is also always Christians (all of the major denominations) supporting the position that Creationism is NOT science and should not be taught in science classes in public schools.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

It is very likely that there are many deluded Christians, that has never been in doubt. But the topic is The Science in Creationism and the position of the majority of major Christian denominations is that there is no science in Creationism.That is simply more evidence that there is no science in Creationism when not even Christians can be convinced Creationism is even pseudoscience.This thread also supports the fact that there is no science in Creationism and explains why Creationism has been abandoned by all Science for over 100 years and can never be considered science or scientific.Creationism like Flood Geology and Young Earth are simply dead and totally false belief systems.The reason no one has ever presented any evidence of any science in Creationism is simple; there is no science in Creationism.

Dawn regurgitates:

quote:

---

And this is why they are denominations in the first place, because not only have they left the truth taught in scripture, just like you Jar, but they have abandoned all reason

​

Remember these passages, I doubt you do, but the ones that say,

​

"Some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons"

​

And "God will send them strong delusion to believe a lie"

​

"God will gave them over to a reprobate mind"

​

"Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the debater of THIS WORLD. Hath not God made foolish the WISDOM of this world?
For after that in the Wisdom of God (Roman's 1:20), the world by its own wisdom, ("The Scientific Method), discarded God and it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that are believing

​

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"

​

Yes Jar they have not only abandoned scripture but reason about God.

​

So no wonder they don't want it taught as science.

​

Dawn Bertot

---

And once again Dawn simply proves the point made so often in this thread that The Science in Creationism is not science but just religious dogma, and religious dogma from a minority of Christendom at that and is supported not by any evidence including scripture but only by taking scripture out of context; by quote mining and proof texts.What is so sad is that even in a topic Dawn started he has been unable to provide any evidence of The Science in Creationism and constantly falls back on religious dogma instead of reality, honesty or evidence.Creationism is dead and been dead for over 100 years, and all that remains is some zombie caricature whose only function is to whine and claim it is being treated unfairly and all others are blind.Pitiful.

Again, how is it evidence for Creationism and you do understand that what it does do is totally refute any Biblical flood or Young Earth nonsense?How is it evidence for Creationism?If all animals were created at the same time, why are no human fossils or human constructed objects ever found in any of the layers containing dinosaur fossils?What is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains what is seen in reality?Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Again, how is the fossil evidence evidence for Creationism and you do understand that what it does do is totally refute any Biblical flood or Young Earth nonsense?How is the fossil evidence evidence for Creationism?If all animals were created at the same time, why are no human fossils or human constructed objects ever found in any of the layers containing dinosaur fossils? What is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains what is seen in reality?When will any of you provide any evidence of The Science in Creationism?