As Percy mentions, you keep talking about some "rules of evidence".
I don't have the foggiest clue what you are jabbering about. So, please define those "rules". And I will probably tell you that those "rules" don't actually exist anywhere else but in your head for your argument.
On all that is reasonable and logical, please tell me you two are playing the dumb card about evidence and rules. My hope is that that is true, its only an act.
Anyone that makes a claim, that there ist presently Not enough evidence to support the idea of a designer, has made a claim using a rule of evidence. They are basing this on some form of reasoning against physical realities, the likes of which are tenative at best, having not wittnessed such events.
So for you to make that claim you need to demonstrate what method of evidence you used to come to that conclusion, when you werent there to observe those events.
Your pronouncing a hard fast conclusion, you need to support that with data, which would require you to know the details of those events.
Since you cannot provide that DIRECT evidence, I have to conclude your evidence is either invalid or incoclusive, or it is possibly true just not absolutley demonstratable.
So since your are being evasive on any rule of evidence perhaps you tell me of the above which it is, that applies to your assertion
How did you come to the conclusion that there is presently not enough evidence
You have derived your conclusion from tenative and limited information, that there is not enough evidence, but you believe your conclusionto be true. Yet when I say that there is enough information to support the concept of a designer, on tenative evidence, you cry foul. Now I wonder why you would do that, Hmmmmmmm?
That is why your argument fails: you assume that which you wish to conclude. There is no way to derive "design" from "complex and ordered".
You were presented with examples that clearly showed complexity and order, yet which are obviously the result of entirely natural processes. You still haven't provided the determination that lets you state that if something is ordered and/or complex, then it was designed.
This is why you dont understand the difference between a failed argument and one that is valid, yet tenative, in demonstrating the very real probability of a designer. This why I provided you with the example of your own conclusions concerning evidence of designer, not being enough at present. How can my argument be a failure, yet your conclusions, concerning evidence be valid, when both of us are workingfrom tentative evidence. Perhaps you could explain thay bit of contradiction.
You see, because you assume that which you wish to conclude, concerning the lack of evidence of a designer. Thats how provability works not actual evidence.
So while you are demonstrating how mine is a failure, you will have to show why your contention is a success, using the same rules of evidence. You will also need to demonstrate using the same method of establishing evidence, how you come to the conclusion that order is the result of entirely natural causes, using limited and tentative data and information. Thinking that they are entirely the result of natural causes and demonstrating it after such a dogmatic assertion is two different things.
I know you dont believe it son but you are bound by the same rules as myself, so you will have to provide the same kind of evidence for your assertions that you require of me. By pointing out detailed and ordered laws, I would say I am way ahead of you. Hous bout we see YOUR evidence, for your assertions
So, now we've got that sorted
hardly, go back a take a closer look
, it appears your argument is actually more like:
IF order and complexity exist THEN they were designed;
IF something was designed THEN there is a designer;
Minor conclusion by transitivity: IF order and complexity exist THEN there is a designer.
Order and complexity exist (fact from nature).
IF order and complexity exist THEN there is a designer.
Major conclusion from modus ponens: There is a designer.
Which, while logically valid, is not applicable to the real world: complexity and order do not imply design or at most they imply that the "designer" is simply the laws of nature, as the examples provided earlier show. Thus your conclusion, while perfectly logical is still not realistic .
Wow, and you were doing so good in your syllogism, you just had to go and add this MADE UP stuff in this last sentence. I assume you are prepared to demonstrate the evidence of the last sentence with some actual evidence, that the laws are a product of themselves. You understand that that is an ASSERTION, not actual evidence, correct?
Of course you would need to show the initiator or the initiation of the source of the materials, wouldnt you? So you can just feel my anticipation right at this point, because we now have an individual that is going to settle the question once and for all.
So hit me with that big evidence of how you KNOW they are simply and soley a product of nature, IM READY.
The truth of the matter is this, you are dead wrong that it is NOT REALISTIC
Here is why
We both derive our conclusions from the only two logical and demonstratable posibilites for things in existence. The reason that both are more than realistic, is both pit themselves against reality, reason and physical properties, this is IN FACT why they are the only two reasonable and demonstratable choices.
Both of which are demonstratable, neither of which is provable. Now watch and pay close attention, because both are valid conclusions and both can be demonstrated to be reasonable alternatives, both design and evolution, both should be taught BECAUSE they both arise out of logic, reason, physical properties, observability, testability and predictability
hence the scientific method
Its that hard and that simple, but its conclusions are irresistable
Dawn Bertot
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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)