ICR Sues Texas

I have already demonstrated why that is not the case to many times to mention. Your conclusiion that it cannot be determined , follows the same evidence trail as does miine.Complex order and laws of an intricate and detailed degree, more than establish the probability of a designer, whether I can witness that designer or not.You have already and I knew you were going to do it, demonstrated it in sylliogistic form. It is more than rational and logical to be valid, but its validity and conclusion proceed FROM THE TENETS OF ITS PREMISES, concerning the detailed order and design nature, to the conclusion of a designerIf I am assuming what I conclude, its because the very valid and irresistiible premesis dictate such a conclusion.But after all of this it is not provable, j ust as anyother event not witnessed is provable in the strctest sense of the word .Logical and physical demonstration of that evidence is however obtainable to be clear evidenceNow you have challenged this evidence of a designer using the very same method of fact finding.You have not simply stated that ther are laws in nature you have insisted by indirect implication that they are a product of themselves or nature itselfHere is where our arguments and contentions become exacally alike.You are assuming what you conclude, that these are a product of nature exclusively. For your contention to be provable in the sense you wish mine to be provable, you need to show the initiation point of said materials and demonstrate that since thier INCEPTION, when ever that was, that they always exisisted and began the process in and of themselves, for your position to be provableNow pay very close attention. This the rule you are holding my position to is the same as you contention or as Percy put it, there is presently no evidence of a designer. they both have to follow the same rule of evidence. since bothy are dealing with events that were not observedNeither position is provable, but both are demonstratable from the present data.Every process NEEDS an initiator, whether evolution (by eternal matter}or design, by a creator that is eternal in characterIt does not matter (no pun intended) which you choose, one or both had to have an intiator.These are the only two logical, physical and observable choices. since neither is provable but both are demonstratable and are logical valid conclusion that pit themselves against natural processes, IE REALITY. Both are scientific in thier approachSince both meet all of these qualifications, both should be taught in any science classroom I just did. Now all you need to do it show why it is not valid.Further when claiming that design does not demonstrate a designer, all you have to do is, demonstrate that it is not order and complex design AND provide evidence that these are a product of themselves from thier inception, AS YOU CLEARLY CLAIM THEY ARE, ATLEAST THAT IS YOUR CLAIM, CORRECT?hOWEVER Any reasoning process and evidence would indicatre that they are AND WERE DESIGNED, atleast that is what the evidence would indicate about thier initiationOur evidence and our method of evidence to a conclusion in this regard, is exacally the same. You will allow it in your conclusions but not in mine. I have to demonstrate the unobserved but you do not, concerning your contentions that they are a product of themselves. I wonder why, hmmmmm?Dawn 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.

If you can't provide one simple explanation of your position without addressing the question raised, then why the fuck are you replying?You were given examples of order and complexity that did not have a designer; they arose only from the laws of nature. Therefore order and complexity do not imply design. Therefore your premise that order and complexity imply design is erroneous at best, and nonsense at worst. It cannot be applied to reality, because reality does not require that order and complexity imply a designer (and the caveat I provided: at best, this designer is only the laws of nature).Your most recent post does nothing to address these examples: you have not shown that these structures are designed, you have not shown that these structures are not ordered or complex, you have not provided any way of determining whether something is complex or orderly enough to justify calling it design. Therefore reality is inconsistent with your premise; your premise is not applicable to reality. Therefore, your conclusion is not applicable to reality.Exactly what part of that process is causing you so much trouble that you are reduced to tangential discussion and rambling?You also continue to assert that you are applying the "same rules of evidence" I/we are, despite being told multiple times that we DO NOT HAVE any fucking rules of evidence! You have never explained your position in any meaningful or consistent way, despite the damndest effort to understand it through the use of one simple question at a time. I'm sorry, but in any real debate your argument would be scored a zero for failing to support your conclusion in reality.

Hi Dawn,I'm afraid that once again I'm unable to follow what you are saying. I understand that you believe that order and complexity imply design and therefore a designer, but given the lack of evidence for any designer and given the examples you were provided of order and complexity generated by nothing more than the laws of nature, I don't see any rational chain of reasoning that connects your evidence to your conclusion.This leaves me with nothing to do except return to the main point. Texas provides accreditation for science programs that teach science. ICR teaches religious apologetics, but they call it science and request accreditation. Texas says religion by any other name is still religion and refuses to provide accreditation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

But how do we go from a probability to reality? What leads us from "complex order and laws" to "the designer did it"?Using your same path of evidence I could claim that rainbows more than establish the probability of unicorns, therefore the observation of rainbows evidences unicorns whether or not I actually observe a unicorn. I have used your same "path of evidence" that you are using to go from complexity to designer.In fact, I can tie any two things together using the same technique. A field of clover establishes the existence of leprechauns. Pollen establishes the existence of fairies. Clouds establish the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How does complexity and order dictate a designer? You haven't shown this. I asked my parents about this. They claim that nothing supernatural went into my construction. In fact, I have yet to come across any observations of any supernatural mechanisms that are required for the production of a new human being. All I can find are very natural mechanisms, and they appear to be sufficient for creating a new human being. Everything from the production of gametes to embryonic development to maturation is all done through natural mechanisms. If you disagree, then please point to the step where we observe the supernatural at work. The difference comes in how one demonstrates the activity of either natural or supernatural mechanisms. For evolution, we can demonstrate the mechanisms through which evolution occurs through the scientific method. This is not so with supernatural mechanisms. Nowhere have you constructed a hypothesis that would demonstrate supernatural mechanisms, and then demonstrated how experiments could test this hypothesis. At the same time, the theory of evolution can be used to construct hypotheses that can be tested experimentally. In fact, there is 150 years worth of science demonstrating this. That's exactly what was done for ice and quartz crystals. They are complex designs that are the result of natural mechanisms alone.

You really dont understand any real principles of reasoning correctly do you?How did you determine they did not have a designer, by observation of immediate material????????I truely dont mean to be cruel or rude here, but nobody can be as ignorant as you seem to be tryingNj neither you or I know the starting point or initiation point of matter to carry on the way that it does in its obvious orderly manner.Now stay with me Eienstien, you and I have made assertions, both of which are based in reality, mine that nature observes order, rules and laws, the logical conclusion of which would and could conclude a designer, with n proofo fear of contradiction.That design is proof of its self, but not exact or direcrt, but proof nonetheless of a possible designerStay with me. You on the other hand do not agree with my conclusion and in a counterfactual manner contest that assertion, with the idea that they APPEAR to be ordered of themselvesNow watch, how at this point we follow the same rule of evidence to support our basic contention and premesis. You could not iif you wanted demonstrate, that they were not designed,, nor could you demonstrate that by simple observation (as you indicate to support your contention), that these things are ordered of themselves.I say without fear of contradiction the complex and detailed order is evidence of itself, without seeing a designer.Your complaining that it does not and your assertion that these things are ordered of themselves, does nothing to remove the clear and obvious evidence of designYour attempt to show that they are ordered of themselves, follows the same pattern and rule of evidence that I do to say they ordered.So if my position is false, then so is yours., because you base your assertion in the same manner and rule of evidence. It may .
be true that they are not ordered of themselves, now watch, UNLESS YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE without fear of contradiction,they were ordered of themselves.Everybody knows you cant do thisNow comes the part where all of this is applicable to the topicEvidence and what should be taught as scienceBoth of our positions fall well within the only two logical explanations of existence, neither of the CONCLUSIONS, on either side, can be proved, both can be asserted and demonstratedBut both are adminstered in a scientific fashion, by observation and testing of natural propertiesScientific endeavors looks and seeks for the initiation process, since neither can proved,both of th lgical conclusions should betaught until one is disprovedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Oh boy. Pot, prepare to meet kettle. We are saying that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A DESIGNER. This is very different from claiming that there is no designer. Please show how order, rules, and laws leads to the conclusion of a designer. You need to show the reasoning. I mean, you do understand what the principles of reasoning are, don't you? But you are going one step further. You are saying that the designer is more than a probability. You are saying that the designer is real. We need evidence for that, other than a designer simply being possible. I can go buy a lottery ticket which makes it possible for me to win the lottery. However, I don't think they will take me very seriously at the lottery department when I try to argue that my possibility of winning entitles me to some cash. We observe that complex crystals do form all by themselves without the input of a designer. If you want to claim that a designer is involved then you need to evidence one. Science proposes an initiation process, and the proposes experiments to test for the outcomes of those processes. For evolution, we test to see if a nested hierarchy exists in order to see if evolution was occuring in the past. At the same time, violations of the nested hierarchy would falsify evolution.So what observations would falsify design? Any? If design is unfalsifiable then it isn't science and should not be taught in science class.

Would it be safe to take this one step further and say that we can see complex LIFE formed all by itself through natural reproduction, no designer involved? Or would that be going a few steps too far? What about stars from gases, no designer involved?

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

The point is that is is not evidence of design only the appearance of design. No the logical conclusion is that it appears to be designed not that it was. This simply mean there could possibly be a designer but in no way shows there is.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

The only pot here is possibly that which you are smoking. Yes I understand the difference, but one implies the other. You do realize that saying there is no evidence of a designer and demonstrating there is no designer, are two differennt things, correct?I am not sayiing that the order IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE product of nature itself, only that thereis no EVIDENCE of that assertion.Yet you use that assumption as a basis for believing there is no designer and that those rules in nature are stricly a product of nature If not for fear of expulsion from admin, I would assume yours as a dumbass question, as would Red on that seveties show. So I cannot call you a dumbass, because it would get me in trouble. Dumbass.Give me an example of something created by man, having never witnessed that person designing it that operates in logical and orderly fashion, observing complexity and order, that I should not assume that it was designed No moron, I said he was a very real probabilty using any real rule of evidence, having never witnessing him You do NOT observe the process that allows this to take place in the first PlaceYou and others have asserted that the order is aproduct of natural causes, exclusively. How would you demonstrate thatNeither ofour positons is provable, both are demonstratable, both followscientific iinvestigative methods methods, both should be taught in the science classroomScience proposes an initiation process, and the proposes experiments to test for the outcomes of those processes. For evolution, we test to see if a nested hierarchy exists in order to see if evolution was occuring in the past. At the same time, violations of the nested hierarchy would falsify evolution.No test will prove thatevolution was a product of itself at its inception. You would need to demonstrate that is wasnot designed to evolve as it did or mignt haveOh yeah just kidding about the moron remark, i just thought we were swapping insultsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How did you arrive at the chain of evidence that allows the conclusion that order and compexityare nothing more than laws of nature. Was it observation?Observation does not explain how or why that process operates in the first placeHence your conclusion of exclusive operation by nature alone is not based in evidence, IOWs no evidence of your assertionSo since neither can be proved but both demonstrated from scientific observation,both it has nothing to do with religionI am willing to let anyone that wishes, demonstrate it otherwisePlease step up to the polemic arena and I will defend this positionin in public or private debateDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

For fuck's sake... For the third time, I have NOT SAID there was NO designer.I have stated that your argument is not applicable to reality, because your assumption is not.You have asserted that order and complexity imply design; I and others have countered that assertion with evidence showing that it doesn't. You must now provide evidence and/or reasoning to counter our evidence, and demonstrate that order and complexity imply design, or your argument fails.Your assumption is not based in reality; mine is. Regardless of how valid, your logic is not applicable to reality, and therefore should not be taught in any science class.It's as simple as that, and for someone who thinks others are trying to be ignorant, you're certainly showing it a lot yourself.

So how will you demonstrate based upon the type of evidence you are asserting, that macro biological evolution and the idea that it is an exclusive product of laws of nature, eclusive to itself?Now remember here we need the exact dogmatic, provable evidence that you require of my positionI dont need and will not accept the appearance of the idea that it is a product of itsel, I need absolute evidence.Did you witness how things are in the first place, did you witness these events, since we are discussing evidence and how it is appliedBe specific now or I cant take you seriousDawn Bertot

You idiot. Yes of course you STATED that my argument is not applicable to REALITY, but you have not shown in any rational wayI have demonstrated more than once now, that order, designor WHATEVER you wish to call it, PITTTTTTTTS itself against the only two logical possibilites of things in existence, HENCE REALITY, because it is demonstratable and observable and testableIt does not matter whether it is absolutley provable, because neither position is provable. Now listen and I will state it slowly You really dont get simple argumentation do you. you have not shown evidence that these are a product of themeselves. What you have demonstrated, from an evidential stand point is that they operate in a certain manner.To demonstrate or provide absolute evidence of your claim, you would need to show how those materials are here in the first place, what there origination point was, whether they are eternal in character or not, etc, etc, etc.Are you not intelligent enough to see that to demonstrate that my point is false and yours is true, you would need the same UNOBTAINABLE evidence that I need to demonstrate my position as absolutly evidentialNow watch, rocket scientist. Youve done nothing but once again as philosophers have for thousands of years, echoed the other only logical possibility of the existence of things.Neither is provable, both are demonstratable from a scientific standpoint, both should be taught in the classroom, it has nothing to dowith magics, superstition or religionIts science Only a person not paying any attention at all, would not see the fact that the evidence for design is as equal to demonstrating the conclusion of evolution or NOW WATCH, that these things are a product of themeselves.I dont need to even prove design to know that it is a very real possibilty equal to anything the other position can demonstrate.its observable and testable, to the point of falling squarley with in only two logical possibilites.Please demonstrate that it is not.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Because we have a perfectly good explanation based on empirical evidence. There is no need to drag in pixies, unicorns, the fairy godmother, or any other explanations for which there is no empirical evidence. Try the bible. It's full of absolute evidence. Of course, a lot of that evidence is self-contradictory or disproved by empirical evidence, but I'm sure that won't bother you.Science does not deal in "absolute evidence" or "proof," as I am sure we have told you before.Rather science deals in explanations, and those explanations (called theories) are the single best explanation for a given set of facts. Further, they must not be contradicted by relevant facts, and they must, to be useful, make predictions that can be researched. The usefulness of a theory lies in how well it explains existing facts and in how good are it's predictions. After that comment it is I who can't take you serious.You are not doing science, nor even logic, you are merely reciting your catechism. You should close each post with "Amen!"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Do you have any idea how funny that statement is?You asking for absolute evidence, like reality or anyone else really cares what you will or will not accept and when you have NEVER provided any evidence of design or a designer. Of course that has nothing to do with what has been said. The point is that there is absolutely no need to introduce design or a designer to explain the life we see. So far everything we have found related to life can be explained just with chemistry and physics, no designer need apply. Of course, no one has asked that of you, only that you provide some evidence in support of your assertions and for you to tell us what rules of evidence you keep claiming you are using.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!