ICR Sues Texas

IBecause it has orders, rules and laws.
My case for design is self-demonstrating, whether it was designed or not. Order implies design as evidence, withoutLaws and detailed complex order are evidence of themself and design, whether I can demonstrate it not. All you need to do is show that they are not order and detailed complexity as they they exist and can be clearly demonstrated as such,Show that even evolution was not designed to operate to design, then you will have demonstrated that mine is not design.
I dont need to demonstrate the obvious any more than you need to prove change has taken place in life here on earth, that is self-demonstratingNeither of us need to prove the obvious, we simply need to refute conclusively the conclusion of the other, using the same type of evidence one requires of the other, correct?Should be no problem, correctDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So orders, rules, and laws are evidence of design because you say so? Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Why are they evidence of design, other than your say so? It is not obvious, which is why I am asking for your reasoning. All you can seem to offer is "because I say so". That is not reasoning.What if I claimed that rainbows are evidence of unicorns, and that my argument is obvious and self-demonstrating? Would you accept it?

You think I'm asking something of you that I'm not asking of myself, but I'm not.The observed and demonstrated processes behind evolution are random mutation and natural selection.Now you do it.The observed and demonstrated processes behind design are ...--Percy

Dawn Bertot responds to Taq:

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Please show how order, rules, and laws leads to the conclusion of a designer."

---

​

Because it has orders, rules and laws.

---

Logical error: Circular reasoning.Suppose there is a piece of paper that is lying between two uprights such that it forms a U-shape between them. Some marbles fall into the U made by the paper.You'll notice that the marbles will soon show order: They're all in a line. Are you saying that a designer came down and personally, deliberately, and consciously put those marbles in a straight line?Time for the question nobody ever answers. Well, Taz has, but I have yet to hear anybody who advocates for creationism answer it:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?It is not "self-demonstrating" that "order, rules, and laws lead to the conclusion of a designer." Instead, we see that order, rules, and laws quite often appear all on their own.So, since we know that order, rules, and laws can and do appear all on their own, why is this specific instance any different?Or is there nothing that happens on its own? Is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I am going to extract out of each of these posts what I believe to be the relevant points, as I am recieving to many to devote enough time to each and every point of every post. If there is some point youve think I ve missed in you post goahead and present it again If it were only a question about life on earth you would be correct, it is not. It is not even a question about life anywhere, its about what is provable and what is demonstratable.Atheism and evolution cannot know the how and why of everything, even if they wanted.There are only two logical explanations and both can be demonstrated, only one is true, but neither can be proved, hence both shoudl be taught as to why anything is here inthe first place.its that hard and that simple You are right, the available evidence "SUGGESTS", BLAH BLAH, BLAH, it does not prove anything. The available evidence also suggests that those things were designed, but I dopnt know outside how they got there to begin with.Evolution wants to be the all in all, its not from any argumentation standpointDawn Bertot

Yes you are correct, it is circular reasoning AND IT CAN AND ONLY WILL EVER BE circular reasoning., on atleast this question.More specifically, its circular speculationNotice how you start with an assumption, "Imagine two pieces of paper", blah, blah, blah. It does not matter whether I can GO from order to design, it only matters that that is what the available evidence SUGGEST as does your position. Neither of us can go any further You are concluding what you assume, as Nrj points out. As far as I can see order and complex intricate laws are sufficient to point or suggest design, but I have no way of demonstrating this other than the same way you suggest these things are a product of themselvesI acknowledge that it is hard for the atheist to acknowledge the reality of this empass in the construction of this reasoning, but it is there nonethelessDamn you reality, damn youAll hail the inanimate carbon rodAs Dr Thomas B Warren points out, the questionof existence can not be demonstrated by sciences but by reason and logic, if even t hat can be done. The best that can be done is to acknowledge the existence of only two logical possibilites, neither of which is provable at present, only demonstratable form a standpoint of logical deduction Unless you can prove things are a source of thier own self absolutley, then God might be required for everything, but I cant prove this, thats why this has been argued by minds through the years greater than your and mine/dAll you have is observation from a very limited perspectiveDawn Bertot----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

order, complex and intricate detailed laws operating in a logical and orderly fashion to accomplish a designed purpose. Atleast that is what the evidence suggestsNow all you need to do is tell me how either of these processes are here to begin withOr are telling me that you cannot prove what you require me to prove,.reality will allow us to do this into infinity"mutation and natural selection" are an explanation for everything, how and why?Dawn Bertot

Great, if neither of us is dealing with ORIGINS, then design or even apperent design is sufficient to explain what is happeningNow watch, when you do not agree with this, you immediatley start extrapolating that my argument of design is not demonstratable or sufficient as an explanation, based simply on observation.Then you turn right around and say or imply that natural order is sufficient to explain the the process and indirectly imply that is the source of its originYou can say all day long that science does not deal with origins but no matter your course it will force you to conlcude that you atttempt, if even by indirect observationMe being "told" something has nothing to do with what reality is actuallyEven if design and a designer is dealt with even briefly in the science classroom, it should be taught because it is science from an observation standpointprejudice doesnt allow itI tell you what will, is that tumble dryer for you straight up Nerds. With those new ones I can get 3 or 4 of your poindexters , (numerous pens in front pocket)in that bad boy"Neeeeeerd" Homer Simpson"weve been gone for two weeks, we had better check our messages" "number of Messages recieved, Zero"Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I was talking about one thing, evolution, and you seem to be talking about the origin of the natural laws of the universe. Let's try again, and this time we'll make sure we're talking about the same thing.The observed and demonstrated processes behind the evolution of life are random mutation and natural selection.The observed and demonstrated processes behind the design of life are ...--Percy

I thought we were talking about how life was designed. This doesn't involve the origin of life. Your argument is based on the unevidenced assertion that complexity, order, and law indicate design. Then we have to ask a pretty simple question. The origin of what? The origin of lightning? Known natural laws explain this quite nicely. The origin of me? Well, my parents seem to think that I came about in a very natural way. The origin of rocks? We understand that just fine to with regard to known and observed natural mechanisms? The origin of species? We understand that just fine through the known and observed mechanisms of evolution.So what is the "ORIGIN" you are speaking of? You need to be specific. Science is not the act of observation. Science is the act of constructing and testing hypotheses. This is why design should not be in science class, because it is incapable of constructing and testing hypotheses. Design is not science because it fails to apply the scientific method.

Not because I say so because that is what is OBSERVED HAPPENING, THAT IS WHAT IS TAKING PLACE.Are you now saying that there is no order, laws and rules, there obviously is such a thing happening. They are direct observation of the very REAL PROBABLITY OF DESIGN. I did not say I could prove they WERE design, YOUR TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTHYour conclusion concerning the idea that the rules are ordered OF THEMESELVES is EXACALLY THE SAMEYou could not if you wanted demonstrate that they are ordered of themselves, the best you can do is conclude (now watch) that they are POSSIBLY ordered of themselvesJust like myself you are lacking the VITAL information of observation of UNOBSERVED events, that which you did not see happen in the beginningHey rocket scientist, that is what makes our positions exacally alike and the only two possibilites for the existence of thingsWhile I admit I know that I can NOT prove these things Are designed, only that they demonstrate that very real probability THROUGH OBSERVATION, I NOTICED you provided no evidence OTHER THAN observation that they are ordered of themselves.Where is your direct and absolute evidence that they are ordered of themselvesDo you mean to tell me that things are ordered of themselves because you say so, youll have to do better than thatLets see it Im ready for it. Now, I will accept your inablity to do this as an admission,that the positions are the only positions and that you can do no better than myself, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE THE DIRECT EVIDENCEHop to it nowDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since the argument can be made for anything to be designed, whether it shows order or not, you can't say that order points to desing since you can equally say chaos points to design.We like to pick the possiblilty that requires the least assumptions. So, since there is no evidence of a designer, we omit him from our explanations as unnecessary.Until you have evidence of a designer, or the processes by which he designs, you have no valid reason for saying things are designed.

The dumb card will not help you. The origin of any and all things. Are you now telling me you can demonstrate absolutley they are eternal in character and that they produce themself, where is your evidence this is so, is it because you say so You arrogant putz, this is another way of explaining observation, it is all either of us CAN AND WILL beable to do. ELABORATE observation is just more observation, we use the same method. What do you have more than immediate observation of current events

Until you have evidence, real evidence that these things are ordered of themselves and that design is not a very real possibility, you have no reason for asserting they are ordered of themselves. There is no evidence of anything you conclude,(thats the point) as a matter of fact entropy and other factors would rule out eternality and thing of that nature An argument CANNOT be made for anything to be designed, but where obvious order exists it is more than warrented. I dont say chaos points to design that would be stupidBack to square one. This why both should be taught, because they are the only two scientific methods. I could not and will never be wrong on this pointDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes we have, it's called parsimony. For you? Yes. The first one is, the second one (by adding unnecessary things), isn't. It could all have been pooped out by a purple three horned hippo, this is because there is order. Should we teach this as well now? Well, you are.