ICR Sues Texas

More wave of the hand debating. I dont likeit so it aint true.Here is the thing to be taught
DB writesI think you Jar have lost sight of the real issue, which is not that which can be proved absolutley. But that which is reasonable, demonstratable and teachable, based on the natural evidence, concering the theories about the origins of things and tht which should be included in the classroom.Design is not a theory only its a natural observationWord Salad is your way of saying I have no response or answerDawn Bertot

agreed Your respect here is refreshing. But your last comment is laughable. You cannot work twords a goal, when the rules are not the same for evidence.Thanks for the thoghts thoughDawn Bertot

DB writes: Jar writes:I assumed you would actually be able to demonstrate why its neither of the two things you described above, itstead of just asserting it Thats confusing. First you describe it as neither a theory or hypothesis, then pronounce that its what is actually being taught at present? Yes, chemistry and biology explain what you see, presentlly, they do not explain in detail or fact what you did not observe, to proclaim it as fact Why do you continue to put words in my mouth, I am talking about the rules of evidence to establish or determine a conclusion, based on the available evidence, the present condition, which allows us to make a rational decision about the possibiltiy of origins and how that may have happened.Design certainly falls within that category. Evidence is evidence whether you like it or not. Im not saying a designer should be thrown in, Im saying the evidence at present allows sucha valid conclusion If I have failed from your lofty yet unreasonable perspective, then it is no failure at all and you know it.Using a process that science sets out itself and applying that science, to the natural world by observation and experimentation and observing the order and laws nature respects is no failure.The evidence that there is possibly a designer, is the exact same evidence and approach you use to establish, that, EVENTS UNOBSERVED BY YOURSELF, possibly actually happened even if you did not witness them.Show mw how our approach is any different and I dont mean a nonsensical trip through WORD PLAY about Evolution, the theory of evolution, and the such like, all of which, regardless of the terminology are unobserved events, yet you believe them as fact.Please spare me also, the terminology trip about, Hypoth, theories and facts, we all know what we mean by the word factsIf it is a fact that the strata suggests life changed and you determined this by observation of those details, then it would be as factual to determine possible design, in the forms of life in that strata, or in the simpliest living organism at presentAt no point in the observed information by yourself are there half baked unfinished organismswaiting for thier evolutionary perfection to complete a desired task. They are functional and operational to complete even the extrapolated idea of adaptation This part is jargon and unapplicable to the logic of my position. they dont add anything of value in determining rules of evidence Right, what you are also teaching children is that one can know a thing having not observed that event directly. so the EVIDENCE is determined by making an educated judgement from the available data, to form a logical rational conclusion the manipulation as you describe it is in its self sustaining, self supported, independent order that it adheres to in the first place.
It carries out a preprogrammed set of laws and rules.Who in space observing a deep space probe from a distance, would see the immediate manipulation actually and presently of that probe until it is disected, examined and evaluated. Hmmmmm?Im going to bet they thought it was designed on just the available evidence, not having met or seen the designer or ever getting to meet themDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now we are getting somewhere, lets see you explain what you have asserted, if the rules are the same. This should be funDawn Bertot

That depends on what you consider evidence
lets see if we can agree on what constitues evidence before even going down that road. AgreedDawn Bertot

And away we go.I see no real disagreement in the above classification as to what might be reguarded as an evidential process, except for the fact that it is incomplete.It does not include the fact that these events, observations, experimentations are of unobserved events. they do not include observation, of even the conclusion of the alledged process,if there were such a thingWithout playing word games about the theory of a thing or the fact of it, or the hypothosis of it, that which is described as factual and demonstratable as evidence, in this case evolution, assigns itself to incomplete evidence, hence its EVIDENCE is of a certain type, namley unobserved, yet these points are not serious considered when formulating a theory of EVIDENCENow watch, whether evo is true or not is not the issue, the method of evidential adminstration is, and is in question.Thus if evo can be demonstrated as factual, and proclaimed as factual, yet unobserved, it is relying SOLEY on the evidence at hand and assumes its starting source or the fact that it needed a source to begin with. By doing this it sets a standard of evaluation, that has to apply across the board (no pun intended)Now the options are obvious, drop the idea that evo is actually factual, because the process cannot be actually observed. or incluse in and as evidence, that one can know a certain thing based on evidence without having witnessed the event or its originating sourceIn a court of law, with overwhelming evidence that a certain crime had taken place and that certain person had committed that crime, no one would say, well we didnt see him actually commit the crime, so the evidence is no evidence at all.I dont need to demonstrate how the designer changes and manipulates, or even bring the designer into the lab and put him on the table, to demonstrate that evo accepts as factual, event that unobserved designer and proclaims things as factualThus design, yet unobserved by its designer, or the designer himself has enough evidence within itself, to constitue evidence IF THE SAME STANDARDS of evidence ARE APPLIED, in each situation equally. They are not.it is ludicrous to assume asyou have suggested Adequate that evolution succeds, where design fails, using the same rules, when there is not a single piece of that process that is differentSome want to complicate and cloud the issue of what is evidental with alot of details and terminology, but logic will bring it back to its simplicity and demonstrate its not as complicate as it may seem.logic takes over where the DATA stopsIts that simple jar, its really that simple If your subtleies include the fact that these events are considered as factual even though unobserved, then i have spoken to quicklyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DB writesJar writesAs i have tried to instruct you before, we are not talking about evo, design or the designer directly, we are talking about the rules of evidence. those are examples that illustrate how evidence is gathered to formulate a theory of evidenceOnce the theory is agreed upon about unobserved events and the same standards are applied to each, then ofcourse the designer matters as well as would the initiator of the evo processBut if you are satisfied with examining just data as only data and drawing even, restricted conclusions, I would still have to say your evidence was unobserved.So since you have failed in our lengthy debate to answer the question, I have put to you to many times to mention now., Ill ask it againIs it possible know a thing as factual, at present, observing only the present data, having not observed that event. ?. Yes or NoAs an example, Evolution or possibly design. what would be the difference in the evidence process, if the rules of evidence are applied equally to each situationif evolution is true and you are not worried about its source, or this is not an important point, then of course design could be design based upon its properties, laws and order, without worring about brining the designer in, correct?The rule of evidence ashould apply across the board, correct?
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You do understand that assertion and reality are two different things, correct. You did not observe the event of evolution, you evidence is incomplete and the implication is obvious to design, that design is as factual as any rules applied to evo.As I stated before this is not an attack on evolution but the rules you apply to demonstrate it as factualif its all there then you must have witnessed the event first hand. otherwise both your evidence and your logic is silly beyond beief.If your conclusion is true concerning the evidence for evo, then all the evidence I need for desgn is there as well.As I suspected most people havent thought of the logical implications of their contrived scientific method. But I am certainly not saying its not useful only biased and illogical this is an idiotic illustration on how the evidence about how design is observed and evaluated and how it should be processed as evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I meant an unobserved event. I will pick up the discussion on evidence here, Adequate seems to add nothing of debating content or value to the arguments. No offence intendedDawn Bertot

Not in a discussion concerning whether design is evidence or not. The discussion concerns how to estblish evidence, not the rellevance othe designer. Those are illustrations. Im happy to discuss the examples and ilustrations in connection with that concept.Do you see what I am sayingDawn Bertot

DB writes:First let me apologize to Dr A, considering this is his thread, that had slipped my mind. Sorry A.BCIts the same evidence you use to establish an immediate, demonstratable, observable fact, without knowing the source of the measurements you are observing.You observe data and draw tenative immediate conclusions about A PART of a process, the rest of which, including its intiation are not available to yourselfDesign operates in theexact same way, when it observes data to witness its independent and colabrative cooperation with other organisms, its order and laws operating in a logical and consistent fashion, to accomplish a purpose.None of which is determined by its initiation process, nor does that to be expalined for it to be a consistent evaluation of data in the exact same way evo draws its conclusionsGetting to that evidence is an adventure in YOURSELF. lets see if you can see a point that you do not now understand. Lets see if you can see consistency or inconsistency in the application of evidence.The technical verbage created by scientist in the form of the scientific model, blocks up an otherwise clear pipe. the verbage it employs and its over application does not even let it see the inconsistency in itself.evolutionist advise us that evolution is a demonstratable fact. Regardless of the word play, they mean to imply that the entire process happened, as they say it did and they consider it a fact, demonstratable by what they consider evidence to that affect.For that to be true, it requires them to accept as fact, things they did not observe, that is the entire process completely. So thier "evidence", includes the unobservable, the unknowable.If design is allowed and afforded the same courtesy as evidence, then all that is needed is the order and laws which it obeys, to be considered as evidenceAt this point the evo usually retorts, but we didnt see him doing anything or how does he affect change. in otherwords they require out of us something they do not require for themselvesEvo assumes that its initiation is not required to understand its process, which is true. But claiming that it requires no initiation requirements or an initiator, steps across the line of what they require of othersThus the rules for evidence are different. If no initiator is required for evo, i dont need to produce a designer, to know that design is excally that , designwhether by fiat or evo, the design is clearNo person, scientist or scientific method decides what evidence is or is not. Reality and logic assign that definition. Without all the verbage offered by the Model, logic would dictate that one cannot assert as absolute fact that which they had not observedthey are forced to admit that thier estimations and evalustions are based on limited and tenative information. design follows the exact same rule of evidenceBut for all that IS REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE, THAT INFORMATION, derived from limited data, seems to be accurate, in both cases. That is, the ACCURATE and CONSISTENT application of evidence as reality dictates evidence, allows both of the process to be valid atleast tenativelyNeither PROCESS of EVALUATION in design or evo is inacccurate or invalid, IF consistency is observed in its applicationHence design is "scientific", if we wish to throw a shallow word such as that, at realityReality and logic trumps science in a search and definition of EVIDENCE, because science is a relative word to begin withDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Religion is not necessary to demonstrate design, if design is afforded the same rules of evidence it allows for itselfAll that is required is consistency in evaluation and consistency in the conclusions drawn from that date, smattered with logicDawn Bertot

If i didnt know better, i would think you were talking down to me, thats funny.Now given your statement above about evidence, think in terms of what evo ascribes to itself, then turns right around denounces in design.Secondly, in your illustration above the shooter is the initiator of the action to begin with, thus no need to ask how the bullets got there to beginwithBe right backDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I did supply it, it is the obvious interaction of its parts, working harmoniously and in order and operation to accomplish a specific purpose.That is teastable, measurable and evaluatable. My conclusion that you desire is that this is design, others have reviewed it ten trillion times and come to the conclusion that it is a correct postulate.besides this you ignore that even though evolution proclaims to need no intiator, evidence would demand that you also, demonstrate that, even the evo process was NOT designed by a designer to operate in that fashion in the first place I just did, all you need to do from an evidence standpoint is demonstrate why our evaluation process is different than yoursYou couldnt do this if you wanted toDawn Bertot

I dont know where the entire idea of ID came from but DESIGN comes from Reality and Logic. design does not need religion to be demonstrated, hence design is by nature scientific, using only reality, data and logicAny other questions?I already explained it did not come from religion anymore than knowing that it is wrong to steal did not come from reading a passage Wrong, the idea of design is from the observation and reality of nature, which predates any organized religionI would do a much better job in a courtroom, of demonstrating THAT, design comes from logic and reality rather than religion, thus it is science.But science, which is just a word, is trumped by reality and logic Reality and logic dont need science or ID, to demonstrate design.Those decisions were based on incomplete illlogical evidence and evidence of a biased nature.If you insist that science must be adhered to then fine, Reality and logic, demonstrate that design follows EVEN some contrived scientific methodBut the real REALITY OF EVIDENCE and applied LOGIC, trump the so-called scientific method.As a matter of fact science BOWS to Logic and the logic that supports design, when it is applied accuratley and consistently I read your soap opera here it has nothing to do with my position, it doesnt even come closeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.