Summations Only

No!

Well that's about as silly an answer as I've ever heard. With a bit of jargon and wrangling you managed to avoid answering my clear question.
I said nothing about order, orderly or ordered. I simply ask if there was Purpose as a result of intricate detailed design. I then ask how you would dismiss these as you would any other law?Notice I did not say who or if someone ordered them. Nothing by or from speculation. I'm simply asking if they are laws like gravity and of course they areAnd we determine these laws like the law of gravity by simple scientific observationThe question Dr A is not whether I can prove absolutely whether God ordered these things but only whether I am using a scientific approach like any science to come to my conclusions. You use the same type of evidence that things were a result of soley natural causesThe process is the same the science is the same.Dawn Bertot

Since I can clearly see these things in nature your answer would be the same as if I asked someone if things exist and they answered No
You need to do away with this purpose and order not just imagine they don't exist
Lets see what you can actually do
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Actually, I said yes. Dawn, this is what you wrote. If you don't like the fact that I gave a clear straightforward answer to the question you actually asked, try asking a different one. Though I warn you that my answer to that question might be equally clear and unambiguous. That's an easy question. The answer is no. No: because I use evidence, whereas you just waffle like this when challenged to present any.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nonsense. I have known people that see unicorns and fairies and aliens and miracles. That does not mean that any of those exist. The fact that YOU claim to be able to see something only means you believe you see something, not that there is really anything there. No, you have to do more than simply assert something exists such as order and purpose.Let's see what you can actually do.

You need to find evidence for this purpose, not just assert that you can "clearly see" it.(No-one can "clearly see" purpose. I can clearly see the mug on my desk. It is red and yellow. What color is purpose? Well then.)Do you have any evidence for this purpose of which you speak?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

My good friend please listen to what I a m about to say. Part of debating is Answering direct questions. Based on everything You CAN observe in a scientific way, do things exist? Yes or No. Secondly how did you arrive at your conclusion?Part of establishing whether creationism is Falsifiable, you first have to decide whether it falsifiability is valid and needed in all places and cases. You can't just assume as you are that this principle is valid all the time, thats simply silly.Here is an illustration, in reality we have laws and then we have humanly devised principles. Gravity and existence are two of the actual laws. Falsifiabilty and Parisomony are humanly devised principlesYou can't just assume Your principles are applicable just because you made them up. They may have some application but they are not natural lawsNext, there is no such thing as the metaphysical, there is only reality. Even if there were the question of whether things exist would have nothing to do with the metaphysical, since I can actually test whether things do exist
It's a humanly devised term that refers to nothing with no hope of it being an actual reality much less a natural law.Using terms like metaphysical and physical to avoid answering questions, would be like saying we may not know whether things actually exist or notYou are very correct that Your "science" does not deal with obvious or axiomatic truths and that is painfully clear. But to assume that our science can't be science because I can actually discover an obvious truth only because I haven't applied an over applied principle is both dishonest and intellectually dishonestThe cleaver way you do this is by making extreme distinctions between terms like Math, science and metaphysics. While there is a human distinction between them for use purposes, they don't define reality not do these distinctions you make define what laws and truth actually are, that is decided by Reality itself.But these distinctions do help you fellas avoid admitding any real truth or acknowledge absolutesNow pay very close attention. Saying that science is always changing is exacally the point I'm trying to make with regard to your misunderstanding of how science is establishedMistaking reality, constant unchanging laws and absolute truths for science is making your lack of knowledge of reality the science itselfScience is not what you decide it is, or must be based on your contrived principles. Science is what reality decided it is, not your changing decisions based on faulty present information
You've mistaken yourself and changing faulty principles for actual science. Especially since the word means knowledge. Since knowledge is what it already is, you don't invent it you Just discover itWhen this happens you actually justify yourself ignoring simple obvious truths, with silliest of terms and ideas, falsifiabilty being one of themYou may be able to eliminate faulty theories but that doesn't mean you can disregard obvious truths. Science doesn't change, facts are what they are.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Really
Am I imagining I can see with my eyes or hear with my ear. Did I imagine that purpose
Youve left realjtyJar. Your arguments are as bad as your imagination
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Really
Do things exist Dr Adequate? And how did you come to this conclusion?
If your answer is that things may not exist or don't exist, how did you arrive at this conclusion?Really who told you your mug was on your desk and who told you it was red and yellow? How did you come these conclusions?Is the mug on your desk an obvious truth is it an axiomatic truth or something else please explain.My simple minded friend I don't need to be told eyes and ears have a purpose. It's as clear as the mug that's really not on your desk right
Dawn Bertot

Yes. I've seen things. No-one told me. Observation. No it isn't. This is why you need to provide evidence for this proposition.Do you have any evidence?

Why yes I have evidence. I can define and see with my eyes Purpose, because it allows me to visualize your faulty arguments
I'd say thats clear Purpose wouldn't you agree?Do my ears hear things, do your eyes see things. How would you describe this other than a design with a purpose, regardless of how it came aboutYou see no pun intended, You can't just say purpose doesn't exist you need to demonstrate I can't ACTUALLY SEE things with my designed eyes.But that would be as hard as saying things don't exist. Since you've admitted things do exist. Maybe you can try and demonstrating that eyes don't actually see things and we are just imagining itDo your eyes and ears have a purpose?Dawn Bertot

I'd say that that was incoherent gibberish. As not being a design with a purpose.The question of how it came about is in fact relevant to the question of whether it was purposely designed.Do you have any evidence that this is the result of purposeful design?Show me the evidence. No. I need to challenge you to produce evidence that they were designed, instead of you just claiming that without any proof.Show me the evidence. I don't claim that, so I don't need to demonstrate that.You claim that your eyes were designed. You need to demonstrate that.Show me the evidence. No, just a function. Unless you have some evidence that they have a purpose?Show me the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What are these actual laws you seem so knowledgeable about? Can you state the law of gravity? Can you state the law of existence? How many actual laws are there?

That does not show purpose but only possible function.You need to show that you can see purpose.

Based on what we've seen from you so far, yes. Got any evidence or argumentation the truth is otherwise? Not just repeating your claim of course.No?