But creationists can't just point to the obvious evidences of design in nature as sufficient to show the existence of a designer, which to my mind is more than sufficient:
The real problem is that ID/creationism can not explain the evidence we do have. It can't explain why morphology and DNA sequence fall into a nested hierarchy, and the same nested hierarchy at that. It can't explain why we see fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features, but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features. It can't explain the pattern of divergence for DNA sequences. It can't explain the facts.
All ID/Creationism does is make the unsupported claim that what we see in biology was created by a supernatural deity. That's it. Nothing more. It can't make predictions about what we should or shouldn't see in DNA. It can't predict which types of species we should see and shouldn't see. Nothing.
Living things have a coherence that nonliving things don't, they often have an irreducible complexity, they have features without any clear function at all, extravagances of display in birds for instance, incredible expressions of color, beauty etc.
In the fossil record, we can see the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.
So how in the world would IC be evidence for design when we can see IC evolving in the fossil record?
And again, the rejoinders by the evolutionists are also not science in the sense you ask it of creationists. All they can do is point to their own theory and guess at a reason for the appearance of design, they cannot test it, they cannot prove it.
The matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences does prove evolution, beyond any reasonable doubt.
The issue is how evidence is brought to bare on an approach to a So called scientific method
And as we have seen, you refuse to present any evidence.
all seekers use indirect evidence in establishing answers to unobserved events.
Until you define what direct and indirect evidence are, this is a useless statement.
Denying the intricate design in biological systems like that of an eye and insisting it is not real evidence, then insisting that the conclusion of soley natural causes for the source of all things, is using the same type of indirect evidence.
What evidence have you presented that the intricate design in the eye was produced by a designer?
Your second paragraph here is what makes your position completely silly for several reasons.
Well let's look and see if your assertion can be supported. Here is my second paragraph.
quote:Dawn, not a single person has said that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes because it is utterly irrelevant.
Is it a fact that no one has said that things initially happened by Exclusively natural causes?
If so then you are simply objecting to the fact I pointed out that that is irrelevant anyway. So let's read on. In paragraph three I continue:
quote:What people have said is that there is ample evidence that only natural causes have ever been found for anything other than those things where we definitely know the designer and that designer be us and that solely natural causes exist to explain all that is seen today and in the few cases remaining where we do not know the cause we can say "We don't yet understand that one. But since no cause other than solely natural ones have ever been seen it is likely that when we do understand that one the cause like all others will turn out to be solely natural."
Note I point out what people have actually said in the past. Next I point out why the claim of other than natural causes would be irrelevant.
The fact is that natural causes are sufficient to explain what is seen and in the few cases where causes are not yet know the proper answer is "We don't know that answer yet".
BUT, no cause other than a natural cause has ever been observed with the single exception of those examples where we have a known designer.
Until there is evidence of some other than natural cause is presented then there is no reason to imaging those causes we discover in the future will be other than natural.
Case closed. After all Dawn in Message 180 you already admitted that there is no Science in your position but rather some imagined Divine Revelation.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You Dr A. What your Mug factory does for you, specific revelation in the form of the word of God does for us. It supports our existing indirect evidence
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Here's your problem Jar, your fifth paragraph and it's unwarranted assumption. This is what makes your proposition faulty. Natural Causes are not sufficient to support your conclusion of sole y natural cause, your assuming this is this case and proceeding as if you've demonstrated that conclusion Where is your "evidence"
Pointing out that the Why in your opinion is irrelevant is not the same as demonstrating that it is irrelevant It's very necessary.
Your entire post evidences two things as I have indicated before. You are using nothing more than indirect evidence to establish you case. And you demonstrate that indirect evidence is valid to establish facts.
But when we use indirect evidence you say that's not good enough So which is it Jar your not doing science or neither of us are.
I did not say we needed scripture to establish a creator I said it supports obvious conclusions
Natural Causes are not sufficient to support your conclusion of sole y natural cause, your assuming this is this case and proceeding as if you've demonstrated that conclusion Where is your "evidence"
All we need to do is demonstrate that the evidence is consistent with evolution. We don't have to rule out some supernatural cause that produces evidence which exactly mimics natural processes. That's just ludicrous, and it goes against all common sense and reason.
Dr A has already shown you a lock factory. We can show actual evidence for the proposition that much of what humans produce is designed by humans.
It is a logical fallacy to say that because much of what humans produce is designed by humans, therefore must much of what is not produced by humans be designed by someone else.
You are attributing aspects of the sub-set to the whole.
You need evidence - in the absence of evidence, me saying "that's just the way it is" is equally valid.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
But you have not yet presented any evidence Dawn, zero.
And you have said that what you are using is some alleged divine revelation of a particular religion.
That is NOT science.
It is not indirect evidence.
It is not direct evidence of anything but a claim that YOU see some assertion you claim is in a religious text.
Bring a single example of something that has other than a natural cause which is not also something where we know both the cause and the designer?
Show us any evidence of a super-natural cause if you what us to consider super-natural causes?
Also try honesty Dawn. I have not made a claim of solely natural causes; I have said so far there is no evidence of anything other than natural causes except in those instances where we know the cause and designer.
Until you present evidence of something other than a natural cause there is no reason to even suspect anything but a natural cause.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
quote:Now let us turn our attention to a living thing, say an anteater. How are anteaters usually produced? By other organisms reproducing with variation.
You did in Message 172 And that is the reason I asked the question in Message 181"Have you ever seen a anteater that was produced by any method other that by a female anteater and a male anteater mating?"
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2
(1)
