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.
No it isn't. That's the scientific method. Concise, yes, but it's all there.
Without 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
Demonstrable
by evidence.
, assigns itself to incomplete evidence, hence its EVIDENCE is of a certain type, namley unobserved ...
No it isn't.
Thus if evo can be demonstrated as factual, and proclaimed as factual, yet unobserved, it is relying SOLEY on the evidence at hand ...
Yes, well done.
... and assumes its starting source or the fact that it needed a source to begin with.
That doesn't seem to mean anything.
By doing this it sets a standard of evaluation, that has to apply across the board (no pun intended)
The standard of evaluation is the scientific method.
Whatever pun you didn't intend to make, you have successfully avoided making it.
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 source
In 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.
Quite so.
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 factual
That wasn't English.
Thus 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.
Yes they are. I've explained the method. I was hoping you'd at least
try to apply it to creationism, but it seems that you found yourself unable or unwilling to make the attempt.
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 different
The process
is different.
Suppose John Smith is shot.
We find Fred Blogg's fingerprints on the gun at the scene of the crime, we find gunpowder residue on his hands, we find bloodspatter on his clothing that DNA tests shows to be the blood of John Smith ... and
you have a dream in which an angel tells you that the murder was done by William Brown.
The fact that neither man was observed to commit the crime does not mean that
the same process was used to implicate both men.
Some 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 stops
I can make nothing of your rhetoric.
If your subtleies include the fact that these events are considered as factual even though unobserved, then i have spoken to quickly
Certainly if I
was to write a book on the scientific method, I should give examples of how science can provide us with evidence of things we haven't personally witnessed. But this is already evident from my description of the scientific method.
And, after all, if our initial hypothesis was that
something that we saw happening happened, we should hardly be in need of science.
™ Version 4.2
(1)