ICR Sues Texas

No disagreement here, but can you test and measure where all of these wonderful things came from in the first place, to perform those functions?can you test that these things were not DESIGNED to operate in that manner to begin with?I have no real disagreement with your theory or the evidence you use to demonstrate it. Only that you ascribe to design requirements that you do not to yourself, namely that which I have mentioned aboveNamely that we must provide evidence of the designer outside of design itself, but you yourself need not worry about your initiator of the evolutionary process, because for some strange reason all the RULES change when it comes to your theory YesAgain your jumping the gun assuming I am talking about ID instead of design. design is obvious by all the same test you use, who designed it is another question.Design is measurable and testable by the fact that it operates orderly, and by laws it was designed to perform, to accomplish a specific purpose. Thats testableHow MANY SCIENTIFIC MODEL rules should design follow, if one demonstrates its measurable evidence?Now this is for the people that I have just reponded to. its not a matter of whether either is true, it is a matter of whether both can be evidentually demonstrated f rom a standpoint of data and logic. the answer is yes, both can be demonstratedNow listen up kiddiesThe reason both can be factually demonstrated is because they are the only two demonstratable logical choices for existence, as they have been since time began, knotheadsits a matter of logic, not a scientific method
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DB writesA writesAn actual argument against what i said above would have been desirableIdiocy beyond belief. Simply show that that process is not taking place as I have described above. When you ask me for designs evidence I give it to you, all you need to do is show that it was not designed to complete its complicated functions by a designerWhat? You cant do this simple thing, Im sorry, then its structure, ORGANIZATION and obvious design stands alone as its own proof, until you show me why it does notIt is evidence of design by any reasonable rule of evidenceDB writes:A writesShort but pointless, like most of your responses to my arguments I guess I must return to my original contention that you actually add nothing to the debate. Hey, Adequate, actually respond to what is being saidDawn 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.

Yes you do have evidence for design. At its basic sources and beyond to more complicated organism, it operates independently as organism/s in a coherently, orderly fashion following laws to produce a specific purpose.that is observable, testable and predictableSometimes that purpose is simple organisms operating independently of other organisms, with complicated functions in an orderly and accurate fashion, to produce a desired purpose Why is there a requirement for the implementation by a designer, required for design, but no initiatior required for evo.You dont even seek a source for your initiator, but require evidence of the designer from us Now pay very close attention Percy. HOW do you see those natural processes AT WORK? Do they seem to be operating in a logical, orderly and complicated fashion? And do they OPERATE independent of you and me TO produce a purposeHow do the smallest organisms in the process you describe above, OPERATE? Would you say they operate in a orderly designed fashion to produce even a mutation, or would you say they operate in an illogical unorderly fashion?I know what you are going for in mutation, but I will demonstrate that the mutation is a relative production, but the micro organisms that produce that mutation are complicated, designed little productions and demonstrate BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT DESIGNI/we use the exact same techniches you use to determine whether data is factual and evidential. You just dont like the inferences from our scientific conclusionsSo you pretend its not evidence but never demonstrate why then simply demonstrate that thier organization IS NOT organization. You cant simply dismiss design by ASSERTING that order is not taking place in these organisims, you have to demonstrate itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I cannot speak for others, but MY form of science and I suspect Buzz's is exacally the same form, you just dont like the inferences from our conclusions, which are derived in the exact same way Here is one. Observe an organism, a micro-organism, watch its independent functions of coherently, logical and orderly operation and consistent behavior.Then draw a conclusion after you observe tens of thousands of other organisms, see if they operate in the same orderly, logical fashion, independently and in conjuntion with other organisimsDo thier parts operate in an orderly fashion to make the organism function properly and accurate fashion to achieve its purposeSounds like design to me and all you need is a MICRO scopeHOW MANY TEST do I need to do to know my computer is operating and functioning correctly. Should I keep repeating the test to see if its operating and operating correctly, while its operatingHow many test do I need to do to see that design is designingGive me a breakDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ive already done this numerous times, please read the thread. I cant respond to every single postIf you think I have missed some important point out of your post, point it out briefly and i will respond to itespecially the part concerning logicDawn Bertot

dawn bertot writesHooah writes:Uh oh, I was hoping you would be able to see the difference between and observation or statement and an argument.Mine is not an argument in that instance,its a staetmentits your obligation to point out what test I need to conduct besides the one that makes it obvious as VALID EVIDENCE, as much as evidence can be obtainedGamer and overcloker, what in the world is that and should I take you serious in an argumentation arena? ha haShreeks that is not what I said, go back and re-read it then come to me with an argument against it. Dont start debating using the Adequate method, Nanny nanny boo booDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now that you have made an assertion go ahead and support a line that I have made that is not true, or atleast that which I cannot demonstrate to be valid as a commentMy suggestion is that you stop yapping and complaining and spend more time showing why the design, that operates in an orderly, cohernt, logical fashion, to produce a specific purpose, SHOULD NOT be considered design and why this is not evidence of design and why it should not be considered as evidenceMy guess is that you cannot demonstrate that in a counterfactual fashion, other that silly word games.I believe the ball is in your court, go ahead and demonstrate why it is not organization, coherent and logicalEven Anthony Flew finally saw this simple point. he could no longer deny the obvious. Im guessing he was a bit more educated than yourself, possibly.See, even intellectual giants can see such a simple point about designDawn Bertot

Temper now, try and remain true to the sites rules and present evidence to the contrary, that it is NOT organization in the natural world.Lets see your argument, or should I assume you dont have one This from a man that openly admits to being a gamer. Ouch Ok, what is thatDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Explaining how a computer works is not the same as showing that it was not designedThe above is not an argument it is an observation, I said nothing of a designer. Secondly, you need to show evidence that it is not what it actually is, that is organized, coherent behavior to a purposeLets see you argument. if you have none then Ill consider that I use the same rules of observation to formulate data to make it evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your not paying attention, you are anticipating what you want to hear. I am saying that the coherent, logical and law abiding observable evidence, implies ORDER. That is observable and testable, in the same way the change in strata implies evolution.Both are direct evidence of the fact that a thing has and did take place. One implies definate design and one implies change over long periods of time.Neither is provable absolutley, but the direct evidence for order and law is irrefutable. Now watch and pay close attention. How will you or how could you set out an argument refuting ORDER, CONSISTENCY in living organisms that is visible and demonstratableThe ORDER and the rules it follows is direct evidence of design, in the same way gradual change in strata, is evidence of some form of evolution.This why there have only been the two logical possibilites since time began, they are the only two testable hypothosis This is comical. If order is not what it is, both visible and demonstratable, please explain to me, what it is Of course I do. My position is that if you can explain the order you see in organisms as a PRODUCT OF THEMSELVES, that is, not simply explain how they work, but show that they arose by and of themselves and show that those materials and its orginization have no originator, you will have won the day.My guess is that you cannot. Neither position is provable absolutley, but both derive information from solid scientific evidence , which of course should be included in any science classroom.Organization is DIRECT EVIDENCE of design. Not liking that point is not the same as setting out an argument against its validity Now your getting itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The rules are the same, that is the method I use is the same scientific application as yourself to observe ORDER AND LAW the application of the rules by yourself are what are differentYou say mine is not an applicable or scientific endeavor to obtain information and evidence, but it is because it is observable, testable and predictableNo differentiation is required for observing and testing ORDER, it is obvious by direct observation and testing. In these instances you are using the relative design these things produce, to CONSTITUTE and they do to a certain degree, the real order that is observable and testable is in the micro-organisms that produce these relative designs.As I said I stated before, Im a relative good looking stud designed by microscopic organisms, the relative product which shows order is not AS testable for order as its microscopic designersYour RELATIVE design, as probably a nerd, (as most of the characters on this site)was produced by organisms that display magnificent order, which is direct evidence of design, whether you like it or not.Just kidding about the nerd part. In school and college I was both a nerd abuser and nerd protector. I had many nerd friends, but I also put no small amount of nerds into huge tumble dryers, all the while never actually causing any permenent damage, except mental perhapsLove, DawnEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You seem to me to be a one deminsional character, try to stay focused. The topic is EVIDENCE in a certain direction. Im saying the obvious ORDER, which is observable and testable, by following its functions AND RESULTS is direct evidence FOR PURPOSEI dont need to produce a designer or prove purpose, to demonstrate that ORDER, CONSISTENCY AND LAW are present, which are evidence of the above mentioned items, the same way, change implies but does not prove the entirity of evoltionary processBut on the other hand its easily demonstratable that each organism produces an end result both by itself and in harmony with other organisms, why is that not a purpose?it obviously functions in a logical and orderly fashion to produce an intended purpose, can you show it otherwise?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I am not anti science, neither are any of the other creationists. Logic is the oldest form of science, when we apply simple logic by observation, to the natural world we observe ORDER, TESTABILITY AND PREDICTION, consistency and laws operation in an orderly fashion, that is called science, not all science but science nonetheless.I dont need to keeping doing test on my computer to know its operating in an orderly, designed fashion.How many test do i need to conducted to demonstrate the presence of ORDEREdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not if rules of evidence all followed closely. If there is order as you admit and its the product of matter and energy, what is the product of energy and matter? Energy and matter when broken down demonstrate the same order.Unobserved behavior in this instance creation of these items is no reason to believe that they were not designed.The simple rule of evidence, when applied correctly and across the board is that if i were a gasous form of life never having experienced or seen human life and came across a computer and I observed its functions and operation, the rule of evidence would be to assume because it has order it was designed.And never having ever experincing that form of life, I would have been correct.Evidence is what you can establish as evidence logically, not simply scientifically. this rule of evidence is valid, with no fear of contradiction. thats how evidence worksEvidence is not limited to the so-called scientific method.If some board never gives accreidation to someother group, this does not imply that order is NOT evidence of design. IT IS, BOTH SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLYReality and logic dictate evidence, not some contrived method, even though its basic tenets are valid. theres more to it than that Thats because you have a limited understanding and application of what evidence is actuallyDawn 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.

I did respond to this bantering, so why dont you just put in simple question form what is is I need to do. i dont like to play games,not even cardsDawn Bertot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------