But I've already easily demonstrated that casual observation is worthless...here's another one.
No one is contending for casual observations, that is a misrepresentationof my position. I believe I mentioned substructures of all living things correct? What do we see when we examine the substructures, regardless of thier complication?
You CAN'T declare by fiat that something you THINK you have observed MUST be so. You HAVE to use multi-buttressing observational and experimental lines of enquiry.
Once you use this process will you observe order and law in its organization? can you predict that said properties will follow the same pattern of order, when another sample of the samthing is studied?
1. Seasons at poles and successively lower latitudes not matching a 'sun going round earth' scenario.
2. Precession of planets - observed by sudden retrograde motions of the outer planets - this causes huge celestial orbital problems if earth really is at the centre of the system - but not if the sun is!!
3. Ships coming from the horizon look is if they are coming up out of the sea - masts first etc - if the world was flat they should just appear whole and intact - this is evidence of earth curvature.
4. Lunar eclipses. As the moon moves through earth's shadow, every time a shadow is seen - it is round.
See how all these different disciplines multi-buttress and confirm the correct answer - we didn't even need to launch into space for the answer!
These are simplistic misrepresentationsof what I am advocating
You do realise that human senses and our 'common sense' attitude is fitted out to make sense to us in 'middle world'? By that I mean we don't inhabit the world of the very small (atoms and smaller) or the very large (galaxies and larger). It is tempting to think that what you think of as common sense due to human observation can be applied across the full range of existence......well it can't.
The very large gives way to relativity - the warping of space-time and such and is very counter intuitive to common sense. And the very small is even worse. Where photons can be both a particle and a wave - at the same time, where you can measure either position or speed (but never both together) of electrons, where particles can tunnel through solid material and where virtual particles pop up from nothing......you really want to demand that your 'view' of the world has to be correct???
The processes you describe will produce a ordered and lawful world, correct? Identifiable purposes, correct? Regardless of how complicated they may appear or not appear, correct?
Common sense and middle world view points are secondary to the reality of Order and Law. It should be obvious that that which you describe as opposites of the middle world, were created, put in place to produce the identifiable order and law in the middle world.
Admitting this is in no way precludes the idea that such order does not exist in those worlds either
You're on a delusion trip DB - what makes study into the likes of the ToE special is the multi-buttressing of disciplines like that above for the flat earth scenario. You have provided no such multi-buttressing of your ‘ideas’ and if you did you'd find it would lead to the obvious conclusion of a lack of intelligent design - just like the lack of a flat earth.
On the contrary my friend. Until you can demonstrate that Law and order do not exist, when in fact they are demonstratable at every turn, yours is just another investigation to demonstrate that point
Do you not understand that in defining and describing the mechanics of the microscopic world, you have confirmed its properties as law abiding. When the results of the mircoscopic world are actualized, they produce the grandest of order and law, in the middle world, as you describe it
There is so much law, order andpurpose in this so-called world, you confirm this principle in either of the other two
Whether it was by the process of evolution or not, the brain has very intricate and detailed parts, working in harmony and order to a clear purpose. Order doesnt need your approval for it to be order. The brain at its substructure operates and functions from what you desribe as eradict behavior. If it is indeed is eradict as you suggest, it would not produce such detailed order and purpose, now would it
All the whining and whinging from you otherwise changes not a dime. And as the scientists, educators, politicians and lawyers (e.g. the Dover trial) are all saying is "Nope ID is not science and doesn't belong in a science class"
Like Jar my friend, you would need to demonstrate absolutely that the things that do exist, were not designed to operate in that fashion and to follow that course of existence for it to not be science
The fact that only you and a band of creationists think otherwise against that great body of people should tell you something.
Wrong. The investigation has to extend past your immediate or tenative conlcusions of data. If its not absolutely knowable how these came about, it falls to what is demonstratable from the evidence in the form of a logical proposition
The ToE has to have conclusion. Since that conclusion cannot be demonstrated, all logical possibilites that correspond to the evidence have to be demonstrtated not to be science, for them not to be taught as science
Both IDs process of investigation and its conclusion can be demonstrated in the investigation and in any given property in the natural world. Whether it is mircroscopic or granderous, it produces an ordered and law abiding world, correct? It produces identifiable results and purposes, correct?
Dawn Bertot
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.
™ Version 4.2