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

Then all you have been championing for falls flat on it's face. You see, we can witness life being created with NO need for any designer. That is the logical conclusion (since you don't want to test for the design). Of course you don't....because you have no interest in being taken seriously. Now, on the other hand, if you actually had a clear thought in your head and actually wanted to be taken seriously: yes, you do need experiments. "It looks designed" means nothing because guess what? It doesn't look designed to me. So now your proposition has become highly subjective and yet you fail to even attempt to promote said proposition so as to convince anyone outside of your head to the validity of it. Maybe in the meth induced dream you are living in, but not the real world. Just because there is order, that does not dictate design. There is this thing called nature. Go outside once in a while and witness order that occurs naturally: no designer needed. Oh, but no. You want to claim that there IS a designer needed, but you want to get away with just saying so. It's almost as if you think your designer has his hand in every single event that happens everywhere. Every tree, every koala, every blade of grass.

---

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

You can't figure that out by yourself? You need help in comprehension? ToE involves perceived process and proceedures, does it not?

---

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

No Buz, the Theory of Evolution involves OBSERVED process.And the question remains, "What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed?"Edited by jar, : repeat question

---

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

Logic can not dictate an outcome. Logic has to be tested against reality. You can propose any old logical nonsense but unless the premises are true, the conclusion is worthless. You can show logically how many legs a unicorn must have but until you actually observe a unicorn, the conclusion tells you nothing. Again, nobody's talking about "eternal matter" here. We're not talking about the origin of matter. We're talking about whether or not logic can operate in a vaccuum, with no anchor in reality.Without premises that are true and based on physical observation, logic can not produce conclusions that have any basis is reality.

---

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

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

Experiments are necessary in science. Where are the experiments? You need a method of measurement in order to detect order and eternal matter. This is the same for anything in reality. So what is this method of measurement? What is the experimental set up to detect order and eternal matter? What results would exclude something from being ordered or eternal?Also, you have yet to lay out your premises. If your premises are false then your conclusion is also false.For example, many people pointed to logic in order to conclude that the Sun moved about the Earth. They argued that if the Earth was moving that we would feel that movement just as we feel the horse cart moving as we move about the Earth. Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that the Sun orbits the Earth. Their premise was false, as to was their conclusion.So what are your premises, and how do the support the conclusion? All logical propositions have consequences. Those consequences are what we test for in science. For example, the logical consequence of mass warping spacetime is bent starlight. This allowed scientists to test for this warping during a solar eclipse and thus test the General Theory of Relativity. So what testable consequences does Design have? So how do we determine which logical proposition is valid? Please spell out this proposition. Reality allows for a lot of things, many of which never occur. So how do we determine that Design is real, not just a possibility?

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And as I have explained to which you pay no attention. Your expeiments are good for nothin as concerns the existence of matter.My experiment, the only one that nature, reality will allow, explains the proposition of design. it sets it out, the conclusion of which there is no refutation Order and eternal matter are two different things. What you meant is design and eternal matter. Order is easily recognizable and it sets out a logical and valid demonstration for design.Its the only test there is and the only one needed. The problem here is that the proposition of existence, will only be resolved by death or a discovery of how matter is eternal. Even then, it will not determine that the eternal matter is not a part of an eternal God that created that way.For now design fits all the bills. Experiments are NOT possible or necessary past this proposition, because none will ever be put forward to contovert it Tag its easy to elaborate on specifics within a system. the proposition for existence itself is not as complicated, because we know for a fact, that it cannot go beyond the only 2 possibilites. if you wish to detrmine there is no validy fr design then you you need to demonstrate the etrnality of matterOrder is the test for the probability of design, its needs no other. Its evidence of its self. You aprroval of its tenets and logical conclusion are not necessaryThe consequences of the logical proposition of order for design, is the consistent, logical law abiding properties to produce useful functions. Until such a time it can be demonstated that these things are a product of an eternal self-sustaing process.How will or do you test for that in your precious science. Let me see it set out in logical formDawn Bertot

That's strange being that without scientific experiments and the scientific method we would not even know the characteristics of matter. And that proposition is what? How does order demonstrate design? If you are going to argue that there is a logical argument involved then you need to set out the premises. Where are they?And how did you determine that order can not arise in the absence of a designer? How did you determine that matter is eternal to begin with? In fact, this seems to conflict with what we know of reality. For example, when an atomic bomb goes off some of that matter no longer exists as matter. That matter is turned into energy. Does this falsify your premises, and if not why not?We also know from particle accelerators that pumping energy into a collision produces new matter. It's like smashing two pianos together and getting 3 pianos at the other end. So where did this new matter come from? How did you determine this? What observations, if observed, would contradict design? That is a logical fallacy, a False Dichotomy. It would appear that your argument is illogical. How so?And why can't order arise in the absence of a designer? Only if you can show that order can not arise in the absence of a designer. If you can't show this then it is not the logical consequence.

Logic can dictate an outcome. your not paying attention. watch. Logic pitted against existence itself, dictates that there are only 2 POSSIBLE explanations or possibilitesfor the existence of things.No more information can be added to this proposition, nothing can or will be added to it to change its conclusion. Discoveries will only enhance either.Again. Logic dictates given the above premise that order is present. The proposition of order, is dictated by both logic and physical properties.Hence design is an easy and identifiable conclusion to such a proposition, until such time science controverts its tenetsBut now watch. What tests will science conduct to test for the etrnality of matter. Such a test is not possible, even in the imagination.Therefore design like the posit of matter eternal, are the only logical possibilities and will ever beMy TEST ends up being the same one as yours, only logic against realityThat is unless you can provide me a scientific test for matter eternal, orare just still contemplating Sharon Stone, like the rest of guys. No Im just kidding of courseDawn Bertot

And you will not address the evidence for a designer (a key point if there is design) or show why the designer, even if true, is relevant or of any significance.To claim that there is evidence for some designer you must do more than show that your idea is not excluded. If you wish to see design taught you MUST present evidence that explains what is seen better than any other explanation.

---

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

Wow you really dont get this, do you?. "No need for a designer" is something you assume, not something you can demonstrate in a logical format. To detrmine there is no designer,you need to remove obvious order, otherwise all youve done is assumed his non-existenceOr all you need to do is show me the test that tests for matter eternal.Dont you see that your assuming the nonexistence of something, but allow your conclusions, of matter eternal as being positive, based on the self same reality and physical propertiesYour assuming what you want me to demonstrate using the same material, matter and existence. Why do you get to assume that matter is eternal, but Im required to produce a test for design, other than oder?So order does not demonstrate design?But evolution demonstrates the etrnality of matter?Strange logic you have there sonDawn Bertot

You seem to be the only one saying anything about "eternal matter". Well, when I was banging my ex-wife conceiving my son, there was no "designer" involved...... That is the point I was making. Of course we assume that BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A DESIGNER. You assume that the FSM isn't the designer, why is that? Do you not understand that YOU are the one here making wild ass claims? YOU need to ante up with some tests, not us. This thread is about design. It is YOUR thread and you have provided diddly. YOU are the only one here saying anything about eternal matter. Nope. Have you ever watched a water droplet being dropped onto a pool of water? After it hits the surface and bounces back up, it forms a perfect sphere. Was that water drop designed immediately after it hit the surface of the water?Oooh, now you are going to say that your designer designed the laws that allow for for that perfect sphere, right? Well, if that is your answer, you actually DO have some more to prove..since now we can see natural order occurring, we can LOGICALLY deduce no designer UNTIL YOU PROVIDE A TEST OR EVIDENCE FOR SAID DESIGNER. Savvy that, son?

---

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

Who, other than you, makes a claim that matter is eternal?

---

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

None of this really helps our ability to consistently differentiate between that which is designed and that which is not.How can we objectively tell design from non-design? That is the question being asked here.If "obvious order" is the key then how do we objectively measure "order"? What units could order be measured in?Unless there is a way to objectively measure order any argument for design on the basis of order will be purely subjective."I think this rock is so ordered as to indicate design"
"Well I think the same rock is unordered enough to have arisen via natural processes"Likewise the same conversation could be had about life. But with no objective benchmark with which to evaluate order how can we even possibly begin to decide the point at which an object becomes too ordered to have arisen naturally? It just becomes a contest of words.Is a man made box really more ordered than a snowflake? Subjectively I would say not.If the argument for design rests almost entirely on the concept of order then those who advocate it would be best served by trying to determine a means of measuring order and then going onto show that a certain level of order is unobtainable by natural processes alone.Because all of the observed evidence we have strongly suggests that mindless natural processes are capable of great feats of "order". Whatever exactly that is.