Summations Only

Really
If a traffic light can operate in the absense of designer does that mean it wasn't designedYour obligation is to prove they weren't ordered to operate without being designed then show they a result of sole y natural cause in a place you were not
Not operating without the designer present
Two different things

You don't without specific revelation. But in the absence of specific revelation you can use indirect evidence by its design order and purpose
I'm not saying your position is invalid I'm simply saying we use the same evidence and are limited by unobserved events
It doesn't mean our position is not science or untenable
You just don't like it
Dawn Bertot

Nope. That is your burden of proof. You are the one who is claiming that life is designed, so it is up to you to supply evidence that life was designed. That's how the burden of proof works. That's how common sense and reason work.

Now you bring up "specific revelation"? Are you done using evidence?The question is simple. How do you know that a rainbow is created by solely natural causes and not invisible unicorns?The point is this. When all of the evidence is consistent with natural causes, you don't try to claim that there is an undetectable and unevidenced supernatural cause that is really causing the observations. That is what common sense and reason tells us.The phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences are all consistent with the natural mechanisms of evolution. All of it. Therefore, it goes against all common sense and reason to propose that there is a supernatural deity that designed life in such a way that it exactly mimics what those natural mechanisms would produce.We don't have to disprove a supernatural cause when all of the evidence is consistent with natural causes. This silly qualifier of proving that it is solely natural causes goes against all reason.

No see there in lies your huge problem. Its not necessary for me to give evidence of design. Since it clearly is design no proof is necessary of an axiomatic truthYou simply need to provide evidence that I'm not witnessing intricate order
That would be like giving me evidence things do Not actually exist
Can you do either of these. Lets see what you've got
You can't simply dismiss what Obviously exists
But give it a try

Please show me evidence for intricate design. Until then, the question of whether it is orderly is moot.Show me the evidence. I have evidence; you have not explained what you mean by "direct evidence". Do please remember that this is your jargon, not mine: I have never asked you for this "direct evidence" and do not know of what it would consist. If you want to use the phrase, it is incumbent on you to say what it means.

While I have to depart for now
Tell me your meaning of the word Know

Yes it is.Show me the evidence. If it was clearly design, there would be some evidence that it was design. Indeed, if it was clearly design, there would be lots of evidence.Show me the evidence. But there is intricate order in nature.What there is not, is design.If you think there is design in nature, please show me the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This thread has descended into absolute gibberish. Time for me to abandon ship.

There are also many ways to determine whether or not something is designed or evolved. The easiest way is to look on the bottom of the mug where we will find a made by or made in or corporate stamp. We can look at the traffic light and find the part numbers stamped on the components. We can find the tool marks on building blocks, the mortar between bricks, the fact that there are other similar objects made by known designers and creators. We can look at the works of ancient craftsmen and see the evidence of how they assembled objects, where they quarried the materials, trace the origin of different components to show that they did not simply evolve as a unit but rather consist of pieces parts gathered from distant places and then assembled in one location.What Dawn needs to do is convince us that he can show the tool marks, where the component pieces originated, who did the assembly, provide the part numbers, the label, the logo the name of the designer so that others can verify his claims.Simply claiming he can see something or asserting that there are some natural laws will carry no weight or value.

All common sense and reason states that you do have to give evidence. You need to provide evidence that what you call intricate order was produced by a supernatural deity.

Do you guys understand what Dawn is saying? I cannot find any meaning in it. It just seems like he is stringing a bunch of nonsense phrases together with grammatical and spelling mistakes that frankly should have been corrected by the 7th grade.Is it only Coyote and I that think this is nothing but gibberish? You guys are carrying on with perfectly reasonable answers and question as if what he writes is completely understood.

Hmmm? Well let's see. If I have numerous parts working harmoniusly functioning in an orderly fashion in my eye to produce a very specific purpose, sight
Well yeah I'd say thats evidence of design. Nos you can choose to ignore supplant and disagree with what is actually going on
But that's not the same as doing away with it is itOne might as well ignore that things themself don't exist If one is going dismiss this type of orderNo you do not Have Evidence or at least you have failed to produce any evidence as you use the term that things are here sole y by natural processes
Maybe you can produce that again
Dawn Bertot

But you have provided no evidence that your position is correct. Produce it if you think I missed it.My evidence for things is as valid as yours that they are here by natural causesYou conclusions cannot be based on direct evidence but you speak as if they canAgain what was your evidence?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your in a different thinking area sir. You've been trained to ignore simple truths. That's the problem