The evidence for design and a designer

See Message 18 for the topic description. --AdminEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Change title.Edited by Admin, : Add comment and hide.

Admonishment writesLarni writesNo coyote, we will start here since Larni has actually addressed an issue that Admin wishes discussed.Every position, teaching, ideology, study concerning physical realities, in this instance, the physical world and its makeup, hav three basic tenets. The evidence that suggests what it is presently, what that evidence suggests abouts its origins and the conclusions as to what it will be or become, once it has exhausted its resources.No position that deals withthe physical world can avoid these logical conclusions and assumptions.The answer to your question is this Larni. Creation science suggests and indicates designby way observation and experimentation, STRICLY from the available evidence. Yet this is not good enough for the scientific method, because it is required to produce a designer or it suggests that we have not seen God designing anything.Yet in the scientific method no requirement is made for the initiation source of the physical realities, or present physical evidence that leads one to the conclusion of the TOE. Even if itis implied or suggested that things have always existed, one would need to provide evidence of the same nature that is required of the theory of design to produce a designer.Hence Larni, you have a requirement for the design camp that one does nto have for themeself.Therefore, all things being equal larni, we can only deal with the present physical evidence. evolution draws its conclusions about Macro change from the present limited evidence. If its going to require a designer designing or indicate that we need to see the designerThen I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place.If neither of us require such conclusions about our respective tenets, then the present physical evidence will support the design principle soley by the available evidenceTo suggest otherwise would be presumpsuous and ILLOGICALDawn BertotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This type of argument avoids the fact and presumes that design is the only position lacking positive and absolute available evidence, concerning the physical world.Its a kind of a side issue, to the main point that needs to be resolved, concerning the available evidence and what it suggests for design and the TOEDawn Bertot

While I understand everything testa is doing here, (and doing a fine job, I might add),if it is not acceptable to you, when where and how can we discuss my original proposition, and tie it in with telsa's commentsSince it is my damn thread to begin with. Just kidding of course, on that partDawn Bertot

No, I am not confused about the meaning of anything. What I am wanting us to do is, discuss what is and should be acceptable from a LOGICAL stndpoint, as evidence, that which is to be believed and taught in the classroom, concerning origins physical reality itselfNow whether, this needs to be discussed in some science forum or cosmology forum ( I really dont see the difference, because both will eventually get to the essential question, what we can really know) I really dont give a rats behind.Just let me know so I can start the thread, with the verbage and ideas that I am trying to advanceif this is concept is not science (in your view), then for heavens sake, let me know where it could be discussedThanksDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Could not agree more. We however can observe the available evidence and coupled with reason make an informed decision, that design is a real possibility.Evolution makes and employes all the same educated guesses as to why it operates the way it does, with conclusions taught from those observationschange, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWSWe are on equal playing field. Only arrogance would assumeone is science and the other is not.Dawn Bertot

And i have evidence of order
Its not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not. You observe change and I observe order, both are scienceWe are are on the same playing field as evidence goes. Ithas nothing to do with religion, so yes it is going just fine.Testa and others are on the right track, they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do

I am usually happy to respond to all posts, I simply dont have enough time.I suggest a one on one debate with the person of your choice, anybody but Jar, someone rationalHow about itDawn Bertot

No a crystalline is the result or design of an already existing order in the form of its substructure, molecules, etcThe kind of law that produces a result that is identifiable, ie, sight, hearing, taste, etc. The individual parts operate in an orderly fashion to produce a usable function. Or they operate in an orderly fashion to produce the clear and evident result, that is visible and observableits the conclusion of such law (however) that I want to demonstrate in a logical fashion, that is really at issue.Whether you believe it is evidence of design is not, is not what is at stake, but rather will the evidence allow it from a logical and philosophical standpoint. It most certainly willIOWs, the evidence supports the conclusion as much as any physical observation will allow, in your case evolution or change, in my case order and designDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Order is always evidence of order and design, whether it actually is or not. We are not talking about what is provable only that which is evidentially acceptable, from a logical standpointNow watch you query in reverse. If order, from a logical perspective, is not evidence of possible design or design, then it would follow that change is not the result of macro evolution exclusively. It could have had another initiator or mechanism, regardless of what the present evidence may or may not suggestNow notice, I said from a logical and evidential perspective, not stricly from a contrived scientific method. There is a difference. The logical one covers all areasDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purposeQuestion, are the definitions you looked up valid as defined and testable against natural properties. IOWs is order identifiable from atleast those definition ?Where do you suppose those authors derived those definitions? Im going to bet reason and natural propertiesRemember our belief as to whether order is order, is not necessary for it to be valid as a logical, natural and verifiableDawn Bertot

Please tell me your overall thinking is atleast better than the question you posed. Every position or belief that attempts to explain physical realities, or even the mechanism itself, is forced to the logical implication of its origin or initiation.Your suppression of this indirect implication, doesnot mean that it does not exist as a logical conclusion of your position on and about evolution.Every position must face such a question when dealing with physical realities, especially when we attempt to explain them to begin withWhether in evolution or design, we are forced by logic and reason to ask where the process came from, thatprovides the mechanismSo, whether evolution "says anything about the eternal existence of matter", is is a logical conclusion of its tenets and cannot be seperated, except by avoidanceDawn Bertot

Your rules are your own, they fly in the face of that which is simply reasonable. "A definition of what is designed and what is not", is primarily determined by logic and observation of order in natural properties. it doesnt need your approval to be reasonable,logical and demonstratable.Your arrogance assumes as much. All I need to do is establish that is orderly, logical and law abiding, for it to be designed, or the possibility of design. it follows the same rules exacally as any explanation of a mechanism or its conclusions, whether direct or indirect Ill skip most of your post, it is nothing more than a irrational and emotional responseIll try and salvage from the above comment.I am pushing reason and reality, not fundy or religionThe evidence actually shows we are on the same playing field and we use the same rules for our conclusions and initial observations. Unless you are prepared to show me where my logic is faultyYour "evidence", and its conclusions are exacally the same as mineUnless you are prepared to show me where
my reasoning is invalidDawn Bertot

You fellas need to get a grip on reality and your emotions. Evolution is what it is. But that is just the point Bluescat, the scientific theory allows both positions to be plausible and atleast demonstratable, without fear of contradiction, presentlyEvos are afraid of design because of its implications. Unfortunatley they cannot do anything abouts is connection to , order, reality, reason and properties, the conclusionof which design is as reasonable and plausable as any conclusions derived by scienceDawn Bertot

No, Bertot is neither in this instance, he is a rational thinker, Deism or ID is not rquired to establish my position, only reality and rational thought applied to physical propertiesIts the simplest of all propositionsI will get to the other post as quickly as I can today, very busy.Dawn Bertot