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

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

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.

On the contrary. the equipment is the same as yours. I would use a microsope to examine microscopic organisms correct? I sample the organisms, smallest to great and back againthe order that I am witnessing in these test would lead me to design, or possible design, but evidence nonethelessNo No, thats your problem, showing that order is not present. Why in the world would I look for disorder, where only order is present. Nice try though if you admit order is present, is it the possible result of a designer, yes or No?if you adnmit order is present, what type of order is it?it would point to design the same way any intelligent order would point to design, by order. Your approval is not necessary for it to be order or the result of design by order.It only needs to be demonstrated logically using physical properties for it to be evidence, as evidence goes.If I wasnt there and a crime was commited, I can never witness that crime, but the evidence on occasion, will leave no doubt, except by liberal activist judges with no sense of justice or reality This is where you are ignoring the force of my argument, probably deliberatley. your connection in reality is the order in reality"Even though God is invisible to us, we can witness his Godhead by the things which are MADE (designed), even his eternal power and Godhead, SO THAT THEY (YOU) ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" Romans 1:20Just like Gay marraige ringo, you are violating simple, simple principles to set aside easily understandable tenetsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since that is not even reasonable as an illustration the question is obviously irrelevent. If you throw one and it lands as you have suggested, please film it beacuse Iwont believe it if you do notDawn Bertot

Yes, because you said SOMEONE threw the coins, that would be a designer of sorts correct?Since that is not even reasonable as an illustration the question is obviously irrelevent. If you throw one and it lands as you have suggested, please film it beacuse Iwont believe it if you do notDawn Bertot

The question is HOW does that order lead you to design? How do you distinguish, by experiment, what is designed from what is not?Experiment is not necessary, where logic dictates, the only possible outcome. Both design or order and eternal matter are supported by the data and logic. I dont need an experiment to determine that order and design are present, or the logicalpossibility of designThe logical proposition and its support is proof of itself, it does not need your contived methodology Tell me plainly, sharon stone infatuated, what does science tell us about the origin of matter, is it eternal or finiteWhat is science RIGHT about in this question of existence. present your evidence. order and physical properties that act orderly are ALWAYS and will always be the result of a valid logical proposition, the refutation of which IS NOT POSSIBLE. In this instance the proposition will always, always, always demonstrate design, by deduction, without the necessity for or the producing of a designer himselfThats what reality allows. Im sorry if that upsets you or that you cannot refute it

Experiment is not necessary, where logic dictates, the only possible outcome. Both design or order and eternal matter are supported by the data and logic. I dont need an experiment to determine that order and design are present, or the logical possibility of designLogic is the experiment against physical realities. No other test is neededThe logical proposition and its support is proof of itself, it does not need your contived methodology, or continual experiments. One is enough in this instance Tell me plainly, sharon stone infatuated, what does science tell us about the origin of matter, is it eternal or finiteWhat is science RIGHT about in this question of existence in and of itself present your evidence. order and physical properties that act orderly are ALWAYS and will always be the result of a valid logical proposition, the refutation of which IS NOT POSSIBLE. In this instance the proposition will always, always, always demonstrate design, by deduction, without the necessity for or the producing of a designer himselfThats what reality allows. Im sorry if that upsets you or that you cannot refute it

Oni,there can never be evidence pointing to the CONTRARY, of a proposition that has reached it logical and physical limits. No information will ever arise that contradicts the two lone possibilitesIt cannot even be imagined, let alone demonstratedhere you are acknowledging what Ringo wil not accept, the validity of design by implication. Ok yes, but that has nothing to do with information that is not available and never will be.Falsifiabilty, has nothing to do with design or the eternality of matter. Its therefore
inapplicable. Its removal does nothing to distrub the poposition of design by orderOr maybe Im missing something your getting atDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

proof is not required where the available evidence, allows a thing to be more than reasonable, acceptable and especially teachablepeople resist the very logical conclusions of design , because they imply the supernatural. there is actually nothing supernatural. It is we as humans that are substandard to Gods very real and natural existenceThere is really no need to fear the propositionof design, especially when it cannot be demonstrated to be false, either physically or logically.there is however, every reason to accept it since it fits squarely within realites limits> Nothing else makes very much sense does it?Dawn Bertot

Your missing the point. it doesnt matter what evolution demonstrates or proves by its testing, it wont get you any closer to the fundamental question of existence.You worship evo,like Ringo worships that baberaham lincoln, S Stone, but I bet looking at her picture wont get you any closer to herEvos tests stop at the same point of designs, designs test are alittle simpler, but just as affective, but both stop due to a lack of further data Dont you see what you are implying here? Your confirming it is a law, your experiment for design is the law itselfYour reasoning for evolution follows the same rule. What experiments do you conduct to test for the eternality of matter/Now watch and pay close attention. You require one more rule for design that you do not ascribe to evolution.you require that we do test for design when order should be sufficient, to that task.However, you do not require of evolution the test for the eternality of matter,which would be required to demonstrate it was not designed the way it isYou assume for youself what you require from me.order is suffiecient enough for design, if only change is required for evolutionOrderly and detailed order is enough to design, what change and detailed change is to evolutionEvolution by itself can only be true to its limits, if you can demonstrate that God did not design it. To do this you need to demonstrate the eternality of matterDawn Bertot

You seem to know what all the PROBLEMS are in your above comment,maybe you can help us with some answersReally, what tests do you do that confirms the eternality of matter? Orwhat test do you do in that connection at all?When you you are finished with your scientific SOUND experiments, what do they tell you about the HOW, WHEN, WHERE and WHY of existence itselfCan you show me some of those experiments with the mighty scientific methodYour arrogance is matched only by your inability to think rationally. IOWs you are full of yourself Well Im all ears Junior, educate me on these things I have been mulling over for nearly forty five years. You seem to think your the man with all the answers.Dawn Bertot

Give me an example of one of those other choices or causes.Now watch folks, he will give everything but another possibilityIt always starts with, "there could be", blah, blah blah Logical propositions against a testable reality are never footnotes. That why they stay around and soundNice try Jar, especially with the verbageDawn BertotDawn Bertot

And I asked you to explain one or all of these in detail. The reason you wont, is because they will fall squarely within the only two possibilitesfeel free to do so, however. lets see what you have Jar you cannot even get passed the logic that postulates order and design, why worry about the designerHis existence however, would mean that the design theory is valid. Producing a designer or his method is not necessary, where the evidence already permits itPlease elaborate on your possible causesDawn Bertot

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.