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

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

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

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

I have done this to many times to mention nowThe simplicity in your above statement is simply beyond belief. Anyone holding a position concerning physical matters and thier explanation, is forced to a logical conclusion of thier/its initiation sourcetinkering with immediate and observable materials such as evolution does, does not provide any answer, the same of which is required of the design principle.what test does science do to allow us to know matter is eternal.Now take it slow, simpletonIf order is not evidence of designThen evo is not evidence of eternal matter, For, now pay attention,if design is required to demonstrate design more than order, why is evolution not required to demonstrate theidea that evo "seems to arise in and of itself". As you fellas suggestNow pay even closer attention.You cant just assume that the processes arise of itself, without demonstrating it. If Im required to demonstrate design more than order, then you obligation is to do what you claim for meAgain, order in specific detail, consistent and sustained, with observable principles, is design. all you need to do is simply show that it is not order.if you argree that it is order, then I am not required or obligated to do anymore or less than what is required of your positionLogic and observation demoands that you provide the same rules, you require of me.So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter. Because this is what you would need to demonstrate your position true and mine falsehave funYou fellas really dont know how to reason correctly do you?dawn bertot

You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you?You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion.If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me.now pay even closer attention. If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine.Now, would you like to tie yours into the same type of evidence you require of my positionSo if order is not evidence of design, then neither is it true that these things SEEM TO HAPPEN ON THIER OWNNow tell me which one is valid or which one is incorrect?Have funDawn Bertot

This is an idiotic comment and not worthy of attention funny, I still dont have a test postulated for the eternality of matter. Think that will be coming anytime soon? No moron you cannot explain how the things of existence are here to begin with. Show me your scientific test that proves what. I dont need to go back and read what you restated in weaker fashion Wow, it would be a real pleasure to have someone as simple as yourself in a in person public debate, it would be alot of fun. You cant even understand what i am asking forDawn Bertot

this is comical. better than what? you have nothing except experiments with immediate material, the conclusion of which is nothingCan your precious science please give me a test that measures where the things came from to accomplish evolutionHooah, tells me to take a walk in the wood. Whats your test?dawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Of course you dont, because if you are asked to answer a natural conclusion of your position, gets thrown in the same mix with everybody else. And oh heavens we cant have thatRingo, any theory dealing with physical realities has to concern itself with it origination point and its mechanism of originationMine is obvious order and obvious design as a result of that order. WHAT IS YOURS?Dawn Bertot

Its a natural conclusion of your position, genius. Its something that needs to be addressed.If I am required to show proof of my design, which is obvious order, what is your conclusion of your studies and how in this world do you demonstrate it. Would your claim be matter eternal or what? What would your choice beavoiding this very valid point wont help youOh yeah before I forget, are you going to explain in detail the other possibilites outside the two, Im still waitingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Is that all ntural cereal or what?Where did the material that made it a seed come from and then beyond thatIts not a matter of NEED for a designer ,it is a matter of what the evidence will allow and it strongly points to a design by a designer So after all your bolstering and bluster about experiments, your recommendation is a walk in the park?How will my observations in the park tell what happened before Time zero, is there just more time to infinity, or did it just pop into existence.I need a testDawn BertotBut more importantly, what test do you have for that. A stroll in the universe, perhaps

But you cannot tell me how, when and where the unintelligent mechanism got thier startObvious order and law is what I use to determine an origination point of those unintelligent mechanismsIf yours is not, can you demonstrate matter eternal, OR HECK ANYTHING ETERNALYou need to follow the same rules you set out for me, OK?what is your test to determine why anything is here or where it came fromDawn BertotEdited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Who cares how evolution works, but answering questions about change (Evo), will lead eventually to its natural conclusionDo you see how easy it is to set you fellas on the runSo you are saying, understanding design will help you understand how order works, BUTunderstanding where matter came from wont help you understand evolution.. Your kidding right?Please tell me you are kiddingRingo, try and stay focused. Its not a matter of INTERESTING, its a matter of logical deduction.If I am required to show how order mplies design, the certainly you would need to show that evo does not have a designerYou can do this simply by doing a great scientific test, the kind that you brag about, to determine matters origination sourceYou need to require of yourself, what you say I must demonstrateif knowing the initiation source of design is irrelevant, by any test, then showing how order leads to design is not necessary eitherDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wow this is funny. Ringo, you are rquiring me to show how design is demonstrated by order and then you turn right around and say its not necessary for you t show evos origination source because it doesnt matterRingo that is completely stupidRingo if it doesnt matter, then order is enough to demonstrate design, because just like you observe evolution and its origin doesnt matter, I observe order without knowing its originationso does design matter to order or not? According to your reasoning it does not. It is evidence of itself, even by your admission and illustrationsGeeesssDawn Bertot

Your kidding right, please tell me you are kidding.Oni, order is evidence of order. order is obvious, it is demonstratable, visible and measurable.before one even implies that order does not imply design, he first needs to remove that order exists to begin with, which is impossible. You fellas are jumping the gunSince order implies order and demonstrates it through natural order,it more than establishes design without even going any further, from a logical proposition.a persons approval is not necessary for this to be validYour disortation about my usage of words is irrelevant to this proposition aloneIts not circular reasoning where this definition of order can be observed in physical propertiesDesign is a valid conclusion of not only a word but its application to the natural worldDawn Bertot

Wow,you really dont understand do you?Ringo pay attention, YOU MIXING UP TERMS. Evolution is NOT a conclusion of a physical property, DESIGN IS.Evolution is a mechanism to explain immediate and visible properties, the conclusion of which is its orgination point, ie matter eternal or designOrder is a mechanism like evo I observe, it is not the conclusion, design isRingo science hasnt shown anything about origins and thats what we are after, not how evolution works, who cares how it works, it has nothing to give me about originsShow me how science has demonstrated its origin, or its origination point, then i will be impressedMine is design, yours is _________________________, fill in the blankDawn Bertot