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

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

I realize English and spelling are not you strong suit but I do find "verbage" hilarious.This is the definition

quote:

---

Verbage: A deliberate misspelling and mispronunciation of verbiage that assimilates it to the word "garbage".

---

verbage from FOLDOCEver hear of spellcheck?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I hate to burst your little self-important whinge-bubble, but there are two reasons why Coyote won't even try to answer your complaints in a positive way:

1. The problems are problems for creationists. Coyote and many like him already have solutions to a lot of the problems which actualy matter to them. You are the one advocating the position with these problems; it is your job to fix them, not the critics'.
2. Matter is not eternal. It can be broken down into energy, and that energy can be dispersed, transformed a multitude of ways. I'm relatively sure somebody has pointed this out to you, so exactly why you continue belabouring it despite being wrong in your complaint is beyond me.

What experiments?
Oh, you mean the ones you want us to provide, to demonstrate support for some stupid strawman bullshit you are the only one believing in?
To quote the esteemed Doctor Evil: "how about no, you crazy Dutch bastard." Funny, most everybody else would have said the same thing about you.Rather than acknowledge that you're wrong, you just continue to restate the same mindless drivel and toss the same word salads that you tried a dozen times before. Rather than explain what you actually mean when no less than three different people have told you it makes no sense, you pack a tantrum about nobody else thinking rationally. Rather than cogitating somebody else's argument about why they conclude a different position to yours, you ignore it completely and whinge about their not being logical, a claim based almost exclusively on the fact that since you believe you are using logic to arrive at your position, any other position cannot be logical at all. Welcome to the world, dipshit, that isn't how logic works. Coyote isn't the one screaming about how science is utterly wrong because they won't accept your "evidence" and "logic" for design.You are the one who wants to show there are problems. You've failed to do this at all. Now, care to try again, with perhaps a little less condescending and a little more attempting to engage in useful discussion?Edited by Admin, : Fix list.

You are implying that multiple people might not have said that same thing.
I defy you to find more than one!

Processes and procedures hypothesied and theorized by secularists purposefully avoid anything that could be attributed to ID, especially when Biblically supportive.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

".....are not you strong......."

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I did give examples of possible causes. You even quoted some.I said that the designer was unimportant and insignificant, irrelevant even. You need to show why the designer if true even deserves a footnote.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

What does that even mean Buz and how is it related to what I posted?What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's all well and good, but my point is only that so long as evidence to the contrary isn't available, anything remains possible.However, you do go further than you should when you claim that we as a human race have reached the limit. The only thing you can say is that you have reached your limit. You can't speak for anyone else. Logic is subjective, even if you think it's the right logical conclusion, it's still based on subjectivity. YOU can't imagine it, you can't speak for anyone elses imagination.And history has shown us that your statement is just wrong. There was a time when it couldn't be imagined how the stars stayed in the sky, how the planets moved, what caused diseases, it couldn't even be imagined how crops grew without sacrifices. The human imagination is limited, so I wouldn't trust it too much.If your argument is that you can't imagine it, then that is a very weak argument. Good, then the ToE can be falsified. If a human fossil is found in the Cambrian era, as you agree, it falsifies the prediction made by the ToE that it wouldn't be found. I wasn't talking about design, just the ToE. Maybe that's what confused you. I only wanted to show you how the ToE would be falsified.- Oni

A geocentric model for the solar system is reasonable, teachable, and once very much accepted as the only model - we now know how wrong that was. Proof is required, not just logic. It has proven time and again to lead to false conclusions.- Oni