Summations Only

And all the creationists in the world, and all the gibberish they come up with, won't change that.We have seen many examples where creationists try to change long-standing definitions--because they are inconvenient to creationists' claims.We have seen many examples where creationists try to change how science is done--because science contradicts creationists' claims.But since the Enlightenment, that's getting harder and harder for them to do, especially in the West. We no longer have to kowtow to established religions and their dogma.This has led creationists to try to (falsely) co-opt science through whatever means possible. This thread is but one example.

You don't use them in a scientific manner. If you want to claim that ID/creatoinism is scientific, then you need to use the evidence as part of a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Not correct. You have not produced a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. All you have is the claim that intricate design is produced by a deity. You have nothing but that claim.Just because humans can create intricate design does not mean all intricate designs are created by an intelligence. I would think that would be obvious.

You would not have any principles or terms unless there were Already existing laws for you to definThere are other ways to establish truth besides limited human concepts defined in your so called scienceI've already demonstrated this to many timesOf I don't use the same type of evidence, would you say you use direct or indirect evidence to establish that things are a result of Soley Nature Causes
Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Precisely. They try to disparage science as being myopic or wrong, but then try to claim that ID/creationism is science in order to make it appear more legitimate. Never do you see them claiming that ID/creationism is more legitimate because it is a religious belief instead of a scientific theory. In fact, they try to delegitimize the theory of evolution by claiming it is a religious belief, of all things. I think that is perhaps the most telling strategy of them all.

I doubt that very much. Just to check, can you show me the evidence you're using? Of course I do not deny this. Please do not lie to me about what I mean. Where is your evidence for intricate design in nature?Show me the evidence.

That is completely false. The scientific method didn't exist before, and now it does. We were able to construct the scientific method without those principles or terms already existing. Then why try to claim that ID/creationism is science if it is so limiting?

You mean you developed scientific methods and applied them to something that didn't exist, namely natural lawsYour implying you invented the natural processes by scientific methodsYlive got the Hart before the course
Dawn Bertot

You mean you developed scientific methods and applied them to something that didn't exist, namely natural lawsYour implying you invented the natural processes by scientific methodsYouve got the Hart before the course
Dawn Bertot

Where something is accepted as an axiomatic truth, falsifiability is not an issue. Thus, in mathematics -- for instance -- we deal with various geometric axioms that most U.S. kids learn in high school. These axioms, of course, do not always apply to the whole of mathematics ("The interior sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees" is not utterly true as stated). But falsification isn't much a part of mathematics; instead, faulty theorems are eliminated by beautiful proofs which combine axioms and postulates in a striking, novel arrangement.But mathematics isn't science. Right. Because that process of active discovery is, in part, science. See below image. Apparently, I've convinced a lot of academic websites to use a term I conjured. A.k.a., you're wrong. Well, first of all, I'm not your son and you don't even know my gender. Secondly, it is the act of discovering natural phenomena and building laws and theories to connect observations in a causal fashion that is known as science. So science is socially constructed by humans, inasmuch as mathematics and philosophy and logic are social constructs.Science didn't exist prior to the emergence of Homo sapiens. Science is a systematic approach to studying and explaining natural phenomena. You're attempting to re-define it, which is intellectually ignorant or dishonest. "Laws of nature" isn't science, since science requires the active use of cognitive faculties by humans. These "laws of nature" may be explained and causally linked to other phenomena by scientific theories, but they are not science, because science is a method of investigating the natural world. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

That is not what I am implying. The scientific method is used to derive theories and models, not observations. You are claiming that ID/creationism is a scientific theory. In order to be a scientific theory, ID/creationism needs to meet the criteria for being a scientific theory as defined by the rules that we have made for what is and isn't a scientific theory. Remember what you wrote in the opening post?"It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation"You already stated that you will be using scientific evidence. That means your evidence needs to be empirical.You already stated that you will be adhering to the rules of what constitutes a scientific investigation. That investigation requires the construction of testable and falsifiable hypotheses.If you can't meet these requirements, then now is the time to admit it.

Wow this is amazing. Whether things exist is a truth or it is not.Which is it?Your first statement in your last post is a perfect example of why your method is nonsensical
I can evidence existence not unicorns
Dawn Bertot

Whether you can construct testable and falsifiable hypotheses for ID/creationims is a truth or it is not. Which is it? I was using your non-scientific method to show that rainbows are created by invisible unicorns. Thanks for confirming that your non-scientific method is nonsensical.

Yes the same indirect evidence you use to establish unobserved events
In this case Intricate detailed design and purpose. It's not necessary to see this happening to know it's designWhy is it that the degree of Indirectneas in Evidence only worka in your favor. Since you have no Direct evidence things are a result of Soley Natural Causes should I reject evolution in favor of creation?In an earlier post you intimated that Function and purpose were the same thing. That's why I applauded you for your finally admitting a differenceDo you have any direct evidence for your conclusions of Soleynatural caused being a conclusion oOF evolution
Show me your evidence
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, it isn't the same evidence. The theory of evolution predicts that phylogenies based on morphology should match phylogenies based on DNA sequences. That is what evidences evolution.How does this evidence ID/creationism?

You still didn't answer my queztion. Is it a truth that things exist.
It is true you can test by complete an accurate science whether creation is a truth, yes
Dawn Bertot