The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

I agree and I am saying the samething you are from a more basic level. I dont need the conclusions 0f design, evolution, ID and creationism to demonstrate a point so simple it cannot be missed unless one is being deliberately evasive, such as our friends hereThe relative shape a crystal becomes is not DECIDED by a geometric standard, because there is none. Its substructure in the form of molecules can be observed and evaluated in the order of thier performance, which is always the same to produce a RELATIVE shape, BUT the substructure is always the same and that is where you observe the continual and consistent orderDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again this is not an assault on evolution, but an attempt to demonstrate that design follows all the rules any study does, to evaluate the available evidence and show what we can know from such evidence.If for example the available evidence allows for (at present) two very real choices, then those choices should be presented as available evidenceThe tenets of evolution and the conclusions from order, have to examined, initially from a logical and physical perspective, before such 'conclusions" can be accepted as even valid True, because while crystals or snowflakes may always have the same certain amount of points, the shape is always different or relative, with no one standard, such as the order the molecules demonstrate, to consitently produce a crystal or its numerical denomination, which is always the sameThe order is primarily in its consistent substructure. Some design will be obvious on the outside, but it will also exhibit RELATIVE design with no consistent standard, as in the shape of snowflakes There are different types of sight, colored blind, for example, but sight nonetheless. Sight is the design evidence of a substructure order, with relative affects of the same obvious order, which is observable in a consistent patternDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Fortunately, Logic and physical properties are not rhetoric. We only know a certain amount of things concerning the nature of things and thier existenceWhen we break down what we know, there remains only a certain amount of verfiable logical possibilities. But those possibilites are testable against both logic and the natural worldWe have to go with what those properties will allow. No theory or information will controvert the only two logical possibilitesFinally, it is evidence as far as evidence will allow. Design by observation of order, cannot be dismissed simply because you dont like it. It must be demonstrated to be invalid and illogical for it to be discardedDawn Bertot

Wrong Right. and it also explains in a logical and demonstratable fashion the probability of a designer. A designer designing or some Here is your problem. "I can tell it when I see it", is not a substitute for rational and logical observations, the conclusions of which needs to be demonstrated as false. You can do this by SIMPLY showing that your process (whatever that is or is implied by it), is the only logical possibility.Hmmmmm? My guess is that you cannot do thisSince both our positions are unprovable, all thats left is the probable, correct sonThat probabilty however, is rooted, based and centered in all the same methods you use to establish your caseBTW, theres my rule, since you askedDawn

Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faultyShow me specifically what I have 'ignored', Careful, you could be in for quite a rideDawn Bertot

Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see some logic, not verbage.Dawn Bertot

So you say it does have to do with origins, Percy and others say it does not. Let me know when you come to a consensus on this, so i will know which road to takeSince you say it does have to do with origins, can you show me its ultimate initiation point or how those things came to be in the first place? Let me know when they get that "worked out", Ok Since this is not a discussion on evolution, I agree.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Logic and and observable physical properties are as HONEST as it gets. What I can determine from thos aspects, is as Honest as it gets.Creation, ID and evo are conclusions from logical and physical demonstrations. Logic first, conclusions secondDawn Bertot

Sorry, I missed that, Potty mouth is not my first or second language. My mistake potty mouthDawn Bertot

The above comment is idiocy, not worthy of attention.Hold on and let me find, someone with rational commentsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Its still an idiots language that you speakMoron, can you give another alternative besides the two as to the existence of things. There is, it always existed and something eternal in nature created it.it has everything to do with that being discussed. its both a part of the logical conclusion and its there by indirect implicationplease provide me another alternatoive or mechanism Lord in heaven you people are stupid beyond belief.Its not initially about a mechanism, except the mechanism of reality itself. what will it tell us and what will logic allowYour contrived mechanism is not the only approach. reality is the only viable approach to provide answers to the existence of things Not only are you stupid and simplistic your a child to bootDawn Bertot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn Bertot writes: Panda writesIm still waiting for a rebutall in a rational form of my position to begin withill simplify it for you, so you can comprehend.every position concerning physical matter and its examinations have conclusions. evolutionists, like for people to believe that thiers doesnt, to avoid answering simple questionsThey say, oh that belongs to cosmology and nonsensical statements of that naturecall it what you will even evolution, which is nothing more than an explanation of present matter and physical properties, has conclusions which it must addressnow, evolution and design are limited to physical data of a limited natureThe conclusion of which is that both change and order in that material allow for design by logical argument and examination of physical propertiesevolution and its tenets are no more provable than design, but as the only two possibilites, it SHOULD BE TAUGHT AS tenative rational explanationorder and design follow all the same BASIC rules necessary to establish it as a scientific explanation of thingsIf falsifiability is your concern, then evolution does not pass that test either, because we know nothing of its initiation outside present dataDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You have presented only half of my argument. Physical properties in conjunction with logic allow for evidence. the evidence of which suggest design is real , by demonstration and reasonNow if you think that was done by a space alien or God is another argumentInitially however, design is a logical and irresistible conclusion.not liking the obvious order in things isnot the same as removing it in any logical form.You need to remove that reality first. My bet is that you cannotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

One simple way of avoiding issues in a debate is to pretend you do not understand someone.its very understandable that you wish to avoid the indirect implications of evolution and atheism. You insults help you justify your lack of abilityyes i understand what you are saying and I have had it presented in a much more eloquent fashion by better than yourself through the years.Atleast they attempted a response, yours is limited to avoidance, dismisal and sarcasm.Your memory like your inabilty to reason correctly, is poor. The admiistrators at PBS DIRECTED US HERE, you invited no one, atleast not meI noticed no argument here from yourself. Are you afraid to give it a tryAs jaywill once pointed out, you fellas come here thinking to easily dismiss theism and its tenets and when you find out it is not so easily done, you resort to anger and insultLife lessons are good arent theyDawn Bertot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Nobody is this simple. No it allows for a logical testable possibility of a designer. that allBut that is all I need and it is proof enough of design, regardless of who that may be laws and order are the only test that design needs testable for what? that a tree works thusly. it is not testable to tell us anything about its origin, which is a logical conclusion of any position dealing with properties Evolution like design is not FALISIFIABLE, BECAUSE BOTH are testable to the only logical conclusions, both of which are demonstratable not provable.falsifiabilty is a contrived concept used in the exaimation of present and immediate properties.It does not affect the concept of design by an examination of the order of physical properties and the conclusions of those examinationswhile the immediate tents of evolution may be falsifiable, where it began and its initiaion source is notDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.