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

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.

The ONLY people who need an eternal anything are religious folk. There is nothing about the world the rest of us live in that necessitates an eternal anything. Alternative to what, exactly? Design?
Mechanism for what, exactly? Life? Says the person who couldn't formulate a cogent statement to save his life...... Oddly enough, I have yet to provide "my" mechanism for anything. We are still trying to figure out what the fuck you are talking about.... Quite so. Now, I think it's time for you to come back to reality and formulate a coherent argument instead of repeating "logic logic logic logic" over and over again. And you're an imbecilic assclown who sucks cock in hell. Isn't this fun? (thanks for moving this to FFA, Herr Direktor.)

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

I've previously tried to engage you in a battle of wits on the field of reason and found you completely unarmed. I see no reason to repeat the exercise in futility.At a minimum, you'd need to learn basic punctuation skills before I'd even venture an attempt.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

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.

I think that CrazyDiamond7 and Dawn Bertot should have a one-on-one discussion...

In what way are laws and order a "test"? For one thing, DNA can be tested to find related organisms. Your DNA can be tested for whether it was you or your brother that committed the crime. Or maybe it was your cousin or a distant relative on your mother's side. Relatedness is what evolution is all about.So, how can laws and order be similarly tested?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

If the possibility of a designer is all you're after, then so long as there isn't empirical evidence against it, anything remains possible.But the possibility of a designer doesn't result in evidence for a desgner, anymore than the possibility of life existing in Alpha-Centauri result in evidence for life in Alpha-Centauri. It isn't "proof" of anything, it just makes the case for it being possible. Are you saying that a human fossil in the Cambrian era wouldn't falsify the ToE?If I told you that you won't find anything under my bed, and you find something, doesn't that falsify my claim?Likewise if it is stated that you won't find human fossils in the Cambrian era, and you do, doesn't that falsify the claim?- Oni

So why can't Leprechauns be a logical testable possbility? You also need the actual test of design, so you will need to describe the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and the design of the experiment used to test these hypotheses. Where can we find that? Evolution is testable. If we want to test to see if a tree shares ancestry with another tree (their shared origin) then we look for shared characteristics that fall into a nested hierarchy. What test do we do for Design? I just showed that it was. A rabbit in the cambrian would falsify evolution. It is potentially falsifiable. The whole point of testing something is to see if it is true or false.If I found a rabbit in the Cambrian would this falsify Design?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Again, what is it that your are testing for. Are you testing for more present physical properties, that are easily identifiable. Wow ,you past your test, big dealNow conduct a test to show me where those properties came from to begin withthe test and the only test that will work is one of reason against the only known physical propertiesEvo or call it what ever you want, has to have an initiation source. To demonstrate that matter is eternal in character or that atheism is true one needs all information that has ever existed. otherwise it only remains a probability.laws and order are a test because they are testable. The can be observed, evaluated studied and predictions can be applied to see if they follow a patternYou have simply convinced yourself, you rmethodology is the only approach. But when i apply even your rules order passes the test for acceptablityDawn Bertot

As I said in Message 166, you need to test for the physical properties that point to the conclusion that design is real. Nobody here is trying to demonstrate that. No, we're not talking about "my methodology" at all. We're trying to figure out what your methodology is. Kindly show, in detail, how you test "laws and order" in such a way that they point to design.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Dawn: your 'Bertot to English' translator is not working.

finally the voice of marijuana philosophical reason. but reasoning outside testtube mentality, nonethelessdid you say that on your own or did your biological make up make you say that Oni, remember that discussion. Another one you may have lostput your joint down and listen. the espisode with Col Flag was the funniest of the mash series, hands down"Boy I wish you guys came with subtitles", Capt Pierce"cant you just let my people go" henry blake"Anything is not possible", when there are no other possibilites. those limited possibilites however, are limited to the only available information, which is based in emperical evidence, that how we know the are the only possibilites.Think in terms of evidence alone, not the conclusion of the evidence, whjich is not now availlable, if one does not accept the scriptures as an answerHowever, since the available evidence certainly allows both from a scientific approach, both should be taught.order needs to be demonstrated as not being order before any theory of design can be dismissed. Until then it is more than enough logical evidence On the contrary, its evidence that falls squarely within only two logical possibilites.
Why do you think it is one of only two choices, because the evidence suggests design ans well as the etrnality of matter. But hey, evidence nonethelessFor evolution to be true, as you suggest, then it would follow you would need to know all possible information, even its initiation source. so evo is either true or it is not. Think about it logically, you are giving examples of data that can be examined. The finitness or eternality of matter involve information, the likes of which are not now available, therfore they are not falsifiable.the best you can do is draw conclusions from data, examine its nature and then conclude that the eternality of matter or design are its initiation source. Both are valid logical conclusions, therefore both should be taughtEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Physical properties operating in a logical orderly fashion, consitently and repeadleythis is the only test I need for it to be eviidence of order, therefore design.You not liking this is not enough to overthrow its conclusionsAll you need to do is demonstrate that it is not order. can you do thatDawn Bertot writes: Why do you assume you have proven on your side what, I need to demonstrate for you?Simply because I am required to demonstrate in a physical way design or order, does not mean that you are NOT obligated to demonstrate the same, for the possible conclusions of evolution, ie the eternality of matterOne of these positions is true and the other false. certain tenets of evolution, do not necessarily lead to the conclusion, that evolution is a product of matter eternalYou need to demonstrate that to show that my position is falseif this cannot be done, then it follows that the evidence for design by order and law are as valid as anyother. Npot simply becase they have not been falsified, but becase the follow the rule of evidence, wtihin the only two logical postions
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It has been proven many times: laws originates past scripture. But evidence copes around an infrastructure.How does the physicist credit Evolution? The cell receives Design and Evolution chooses before Design.
Evolution pictures every union outside a concept. Yours furthers the bible and design. Why do you elaborate?

You're still not describing any test. What equipment do you use? What samples do you test? What results would lead to the conclusion of design? What results would not lead to a conclusion of design? Details, please. Again, nobody is trying to demonstrate that there's no order. We're trying to figure out how that order points to design.Describe the experiments. Without a connection in reality, all the logic in the world has no value.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi