Summations Only

Hi Dr, By a Female anteater and a male anteater mating. Have you ever seen a anteater that was produced by any method other that by a female anteater and a male anteater mating?God Bless,

And so despite all of Dawns assertions that he is describing science the TRUTH finally slips out.Creationism is NOT Science and there is no Science, revelation to the select few.The Science in Creationism is ancient mythos.

DB - you are conflating function and purpose (as has been pointed out before).To help, consider a lock on a door. Its function is to prevent the door being opened without a key. Its purpose, however, differs, dependent upon whether the door in question is to a safe or a prison cell.In both situations, its function remains constant, regardless of its purpose.If you conflate function and purpose, all you do is to beg your own question, through imprecise language and concepts.Edited by vimesey, : Autocorrect inserting bloody apostrophes !

You're side-stepping the point. Since we know natural selection + random mutation can lead to the appearance of design, there's no such thing as an axiomatic, self-evident "truth of design."

Do you have evidence that the Bible is specific revelation in the form of the word of God?Show me the evidence.

That is too funny. Natural selection does not just happen to be here, it is what IS here. Natural section is "HERE".The question about mutation is even funnier. It is simply errors. Shit happens. And sometimes that is what saves you.

If this was not gibberish, it would probably be a lie.Could you try in future to make posts which are neither lies nor gibberish.

I do not know what distinction you wish to make when you use those terms. Clarity is not your forte. No. Things are still coming about as a result of solely natural causes. It's not like this stopped happening at some point and now when we look around all we see is stuff happening by magic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

See that's your problem. Your stoping short of what the investigation invokes.
You DONT KNOW neither can you establish by direct evidence that sole y natural causes can account for apparent design
Your assuming because some things in a system operate orderly that this how it all started.
You would need direct evidence that all things were brought about in that manner
What is your evidence

What is your evidence that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes
Sho w it to me

No. Have you?

Was the lock on the door designed or did it happen by itself. What is your evidence for why the lock is thereEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And so the Gish Gallop continues on.Dawn, not a single person has said that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes because it is utterly irrelevant.What people have said is that there is ample evidence that only natural causes have ever been found for anything other than those things where we definitely know the designer and that designer be us and that solely natural causes exist to explain all that is seen today and in the few cases remaining where we do not know the cause we can say "We don't yet understand that one. But since no cause other than solely natural ones have ever been seen it is likely that when we do understand that one the cause like all others will turn out to be solely natural."No God need apply.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Your second paragraph here is what makes your position completely silly for several reasons.
Saying it is irrelevant is admitting like us short of specific revelation, like Dr A's mug factory, that you have no Direct evidence for your conclusions
Secondly, my indirect evidence from obvious design is sufficient to establish it as a scientic approach the same way you are assuming indirectly that the evidence establishes the conclusion of natural causes for its existence
Where there is only indirect evidence Jar, there is NOT ample evidence as you suggest for sole y natural causes
That does not mean indirect evidence as all of us use is not evidence
CorrectSo your quote would intimate two things. We are using the same type of evidence and and design coupled with specific revelation is a valid approach as anyother
Correct
Dawn Bertot

If we put two mugs together for a little while, we don't get a bunch of baby mugs. That's what differentiates the two. Biological reproduction is what allows life to produce intricate design through the mechanisms of evolution, and it is something that coffee mugs lack. That is why comparing the two is completely illogical.