Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?

, it was never offered with a simple yes or no, as to wheather Logic constituted a Scientific Method.

It in and of iteself can establish the validity of a designer or the possibility of a designer.

Its included in the dictionary as a Science

Nice response Paulk but as I predicted you offered no other possiblites for Spock to choose from because he chose the only logical possiblites ...

By the way, as someone with some mathematical training (and who teaches mathematics), I don't classify logic as a branch of mathematics; rather mathematics is the pure application of logic.

AGAIN SOMEONE, SAID, 'SCIENCE IS PART OPF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, BUT NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.

Now, narrow it down. There are only three LOGICAL possibilites as to how all things are here. (If you can think of another please let me know). They created themselves, they always exsisted or something created them.

Further, someone said, "no scientific theory can be proven". Of course this depends on wheather you are going to use a dictionary. Some FACT, TRUTH OR EVIDENCE OR KNOWLEDGE once established does not need further testing at times. the truths they estabkish are an axiom. They are truthful and self-evident

You can deduce logically (Science) the existence of designer, not ONLY from OBVIOUS design but from sound premises.

I think I will use that as a signature line for this forum--if you don't mind.

I here you telling me that I am wrong and that as a creationist I have to be wrong about everything.

You guys use the definitions out of the dictionary to set the standards, issue challenges ...

If you dont believe me pick up a dictionary.

To Dr Adequate this one is simple to respond to. You need to go tell everybody else their idiots and you are the only one that understands everything.

you need to write your own dictionary.

I take it you dont like the definitions in the other ones because they do not suit your purposes.

PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK.

To Chiropetra, is no one listening to anything that is being said?

Dr Adequate writes:Logic is part of the scientific method, though it is not itself a science.

Dawn writes:SOMEONE, SAID, 'SCIENCE IS PART OPF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, BUT NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.

Dr Adequate writes:You may be a creationist, but that doesn't mean that you have to be wrong about everything.

Dawn writes:I here you telling me that I am wrong and that as a creationist I have to be wrong about everything.

To CK, You are correct we are going around in circles, and in a moment I will definately show you why. As I began to type my responses last evening, I though OK, I will probably recieve a few responses in the morning. I certainly did not expect to recieve one 2 minutes later, that late in the evenig. GOOD HEAVENS , what do you people do, sit around the computer 24/7 and wait for responses. Unlike yourselves, I live in the real world and am not independantly wealth as some of you appear to be, that allowas you to do that.

Before we all get strung out like someone on crank about the Spock issue, I would like to point out that the only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that you can establish FACTS independant of pysical properties and of course this he did using nothing but premises and valid conclusions. However, it must be pointed out his information was really use;ess to the captain. Kirk, would have been totally justified in turning and saying, "thanks Spock thats a real big help." But the BEAUTY and APPLICATION of his conclusion is the point. He established a TRUTH IN FACT WITHOUT THE USE OF A TEST TUBE OR anyother physical property.

Now that brings us to the point as to why we are having so much trouble here. I understand perfecly what Rationalism and Empericism are and even the definition issue, of what Science and Logic are is still not the issue here. Even though I have demonstrated numerous times now HOW Logic is a science, with many applications, even this is still not the problem. Here's the problem, you guys in the biological science community can take a simple word like FACT and give it a meaning that only applies to your standard and then imply or directly say that it has no application in any other setting of the process of establishing truth.. To demonstrate this, you use expessions like, "science isnt interested in truth"., as if truth and facts cannot be intertwined and the most certainly are, if you are willing to use an EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITON of the word Science and not you monopolized and exclusive one. If however, you are going to blindly assert that the only way to establish FACTS is by using some physical property as dirt or atoms, then we most certainly do have a problem here and we are going to continually go in circles. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, that on this website, you are demonstrating the very point I am making. You are establishing FACTS, now not all of the ones you bring up are valid, but some are. You are demonstrating FACTS by the use of a science called 'deductive and inductive reasoning'. This is a FACT that you are doing that, no pun intended. Wheather you want to believe it or not, FACTS can be FACTS and demonstratable as such, without the use of some physical property or a test tube. You fellas and gals have tried to create a world and definition of SCIENCE that does not allow this principle and you certainly are not warrented in doing this for all the reasons I have pointed out thus far and certainly many others as you will see as we proceed..Now is it clear to you WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?

To Dr. Inadequate. It appears now that you guys are starting to contradict yourselves.

RAZD's definition clearly says it is SCIENCE and he atleast agrees with that much and you appear not to. Maybe you should talk to him.

Have you been here for most of this discussion, when you make a comment like, "Logic can tell us nothing of the real world unless you have some facts about the real world".

Further, your contention in the Spock situation you offered has been answered numerous times.