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

Look if your going to change your avatar please dont go from one extreme to the other, I cant handle that ugly freak. Sharon atleast added some comfort to the pain of reading your postsDawn Bertot

Of course it does butDont cream yourself with excitment oni. Order does produce clear and visible purpose, but purpose is a conclusion of order and design.Order can be tested against physical reality because that is what it produces in its properties. The eye functioning is physical and demonstratable order, to which youhave agreed.As I pointed out earlier the purpose is the result of the order, just like matter eternal and design are conclusions of order.One can dispute purpose and find relative reasons or funtions in some designed items. But one cannot realistically dispute the order itself, therfore the conclusion of design remains as valid as ever. You approval is not necessary to demonstrate something that simple and obvious.lastly, you must follow your own rules, if you require someone to prove design, then it would follow that you should demonstrate that chance and matter in motion are all that exist for matter to operate on its ownDesign and eternal matter are conclusions of observed reality. Now which of us can prove our position to he satisfaction of either

Thank you and how did you know it was order, please explainOni, ideas and concepts have to be pitted and tested against physical realites. what you have written above is philosophical jargon, not testable agains reality.Design does not need a purpose, that meets your approval, that is a philosophical conclusion not testable against reality. Now watch, things operating in logical and orderly fashion are reality and testable whether I agree that they are or not.Purpose like the shape of a crystal can be contested as purpose and design because there is no complete objective standard, unlike atoms and molecules and the such like that remain basically the same in thier order and functionTo demonstrate relative design, Im sure you are pretty much a nerd looking dude, not even as well built or good looking as I am, but inside we are the same, one the outside we share some similarites, but the design is relative because no one else looks excally like we doAnd in your case thats probably a good thing,hahahahaha."I say I say son, thats the funny stuff, are you getting any of this, nod If you are getting any of it" Foghorn LeghornDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design.Concluding as you have verbally that they are not on equal footing in verbage and demonstrating that logically is ofcourse, is another. It seems almost arrogance that you could attempt such a featHere is why. Order and purpose are evidential from a physical standpoint. Even if purpose is a conclusion it is demonstratble in the eye. Its functions and results end in a clear and visible purposeThat is positive evidence of purpose, thus design.Now watch pay close attention. While I can test this theory in a positive way, the negative of it, that is not purpose can ONLY be theorized. How will you test a claim where the results are to clear (no pun intended) to miss.Even if one theorizes evo, the purpose of the eye remains in a physical testable way simply by the results of the physical evidenceAll you can do is suggest that it may not be purpose or design, you have no physical way to demonstrate otherwise. How could you possibly demonstrate the clear purpose of the eye is not what it is designed to do, your position seems impossible beyond belief. Have at itThats like saying I know someone is in front of me and Im talking to them and all the evidence points to it, but Idont really believe they are there.You only have ideologies and theories concerning order, purpose and design where I have all of those and physical data as wellPlease demonstrate me wrong concerning thes mattersDawn Bertot

You simplistic comedian. Just like the eye, I provided him with a clear purpose for life, which is testable against reality. objection to reality thus purpose is not an answer tothat evidence, its simply an objection with no testable evidence.The purpose of life are its results, having followed a clear and present order. This is testable because it happens and is visible. The negative that it is not order and PURPOSE, now watch, is not testable, where the result is toeasy to miss.How would you determine that the eye, IS NOT doing what it is actually doing, that seems silly even to approach as an philosopjical idea, much less a practicle oneHow would you demonstrate the result of the eye that provides sight, is not its PURPOSE. The negative claim cannot be tested where the evidence is obvious. The eye sees,that is its order, purpose and designThe negative claim resides in complain, philosophy and ideology, and cannot refute obvious physical observationGeez indeedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why would I ignore it it is what I ahve been begging you to answerDawn Bertot writes:
Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design.Admin writesPlease tell me you are playing this simplistic. Admin or Percy I dont know which you wish, you conclude that these things (nature) are operating in and of thierself, you do realize you cannot prove such a conclusion, correct?Do you see any differnce in the two words now?For you to know such a conclusion concerning nature and its operation, you would need to know things which are not now available, your conclusion is the best you have presently, that doesnt mean you proved itYou just playing the dumb card, right?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You cant be serious, do you honestly believe Oni, that making a play with prepositions will help your cause. Ii thought the operative word was Purpose, only to find out Im being nit picked with prepositions, which only provide you with a strawman and do nothing to remove the REALITY of, for or by purposeYou cant be seriousI dont need a purpose FOR something or BY something to know that it has a purpose. This is why I asked you to demonstrate that the eye did not have a purpose.You know you cannot demonstrate the negative in the any logical, rational or physical fashion, so you make a play with words hoping no will notice how silly that actually isDoes the eye have a purpose, Yes or No?
Does the eye demonstrate order and law in its operation, Yes or No?These answers demonstrate without any fear of contradiction that design is a valid, logical and physical conclusion. My approval of such things is not necessary for it to be thus. Your disapproval does not change any of these facts In the end words dont define reality, only reality defines reality and order and purpose in reality conclude design.prepositional word play doesnt help your difficulty, or provide you a way outDawn Bertot

Lets try it this way, since it appears to me your are skirting an issue.Lets assume for a moment that OJ actually killed these two people. Im not saying he did but lets assume he did AND YOU WITNESSED HIM ACTUALLY DOING IT. You saw him in good enough light and and witnessed the actual stabbing and kiilling of these two people.This would be proof positive ABSOLUTLEY to YOU that he actually commited the crime, there would be no need for you to conclude this on SOMEOTHER INDIRECT YET CONVINCING EVIDENCE, correct?You conclude that the nature of things is that they operate by themselves with no outside influence. So for this to be proved like witnessing a murder, you would have to have seen the initiation source of such mattersThis information is not available to you, to Prove such a conclusion, lkie witnessing the murder, is itNow percy, I find it hard to believe that person of your intellect cannot see such a simple distinctionDawn Bertot

Why is this off topic in a Free for All area? Both of these would be a logical deduction of any position dealing with such questions, depending on who was requiring evidence, why they were requiring it and what they believe to be valid as far as the information will allow.After an examination of said evidence, one would have to decide whether that information was enough to establish it as acceptable to believe it as a valid conclusion, depending on the method one uses for themself Here I gave an illustration in the example of a murder, to which only Ringo replied with a response that made little or no sense, or at best unbelievableSince Ringo attempted a response it should be obvious that people understand what I mean, only that they have no valid responseOne would need all information concerning such conclusions for it to be absolute proofWhat is so hard about that to understand from a logical propositonDawn Bertot

Because the answer was moronic. it assumes that even an eyewitness examination of a specific thing is not proof of a thing, atleast to that person . How do i respond to such a clownish rebutal, which is no rebutal at all.It is simply an evasion to avoid the clear distinction between what we know presently and what we cannot know about some events and facts, no longer available to us Why dont you present this comment in the context it was written and lets see if fits the bill to being an eyewitness, with no visual or mental problemsBUTI suppose I this is all we can say in this conxtext since it would risk, off topic discussionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Its an assumption of the worst form, since I am not talking about a second hand witness not having witnessing the eventWe are not talking about evidence in a situation that is second hand for someone else. We are talking about evidence that is visible and demonstratable to an individual in any given situation. That is proof positive to the individual, when an event occurs in front of that personYour trying to take a simple principle and make it complicated, to assit your argumentIf Iam standing in front of an individual and I watch him kick a football ball, in person, I dont need to conduct tests to see if that is what happened. It is proof positve that it did happen, if it happened only to myselfWitnessing and event first hand, does not need someone elses coroboration or more test for it to be proof a an event or thing immediately, to that personWhen speaking about proof and what is knowable in a given situation, you comments above are simply silly, its a feable attempt to avoid the obvious point that the scientific method is not required, where absolute proof is obvious in a given situation You provided the quote, provide it in contextual scriptRank and File Bertot

fair enough I should have said you "misunderstood" In fairness, I dont see how evolution explains anything, accept how it might work and a possible pattern, but thats a far cry from, "came to be", dont you think?That is if we are going to be completely logical well Im sorry, I think the hang up will always be "explain It". We dont mean the samething when we use this term. You simply mean an explanation of how it works and i mean where it started or where it came fromIf your philosophy whether it be evo or someother ideology, is satisfied with a simple explantion of how it works, then we will always have disagreementDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Argument from design, the way I have explained it could not be explained any better than I have, trust me I have seen all the approaches. The way I have expressed it, is its logical conclusion both from physicality and logic.Someones approval is not necessary for it to be what it is, completely logical in all its partsYour welcome to try and overthrough it if you think you canOh yeah, I almost forgot, however, your limited to jibes and insults. I suppose when you have no actual skills as yourself, you have to resort to what you do haveI understand Dr. perhaps it would help to know what you are actually a Dr of.Dawn Bertot

not necessarily what is, "in my mind", but what logic and physical properties will allowDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I was not avoiding your point and I understood all of Darwins quotes. But a biological explanation for the existence of things will end up being just that, biological explanations, with nothing more than when you startedTo me any answers concerning these issues have to be approached logically and philosophically. Not that you can prove anything outside the scriptures, but what can be logically deduced and what will the evidence and logic allow concerning the origin or designIf I missed someother point then please present it again and i will try and address itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.