Summations Only

I do have the evidence. It is the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences. You still can't address it.

That is true, it does take some knowledge. Science. To recognize the characteristics we are talking about.

We can see evolution doing things that as yet no genetic engineer is skilled enough to do; and we can see that processes simulating evolution regularly do what a designer can do, and do it better. So yes we do.

No I can't address it but I can say that it is nevertheless indirect evidence and not direct.

Sorry but do you actually have any evidence that is true or is that just another of your unsupported assertions? Really? What about Brahma's dreams or Odin and Ymir or Black Hactcin or Earthmaker or Pan Gu?I haved the same news I have given you before. So far all causes ever found have been natural. We can see natural chemical reactions and some of those form the basics of known living things. Since nothing other than natural causes have ever been evidenced there is no reason to thing life is anything but the result of natural causes.

Well, define these characteristics. Is there something intrinsic that allows us to distinguish the tortoise shell from the bowl --- or do we, as I suggest, just have to know how the two sorts of things are usually produced?Put it another way. Suppose we were to show the two things to an alien from Alpha Centauri who knew nothing of Earth and its life and its human inhabitants. Would that alien be able to distinguish the manufactured object from the one that just grew? If so, how? We know. Because we know how tortoise shells are produced.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Do tell.

So thirteen pages in and Dawn has never come close to providing any science, any evidence, any designer, any creator other than humans and a few other species.No cause other than Natural Causes has been presented.As expected. Creationism is DOA and can only be eulogized in the avoidance mediums.No wonder we see few if any Creationists and never see a "Creation Science" mechanism, model, method, process or procedure that can explain anything.

By what definition?

The terms direct and indirect evidence are terms that already have meaning. Indirect evidence is something that demonstrates the truth using an accepted inference. For example, we can infer that a man has been shot when we remove a bullet from his wound. Saying that scientist use indirect evidence is no real indictment of the scientific method at all.Of course when Dawn uses those terms he means something quite different. His meaning is not clearly stated, and your attempts to make up stuff for him don't produce anything meaningful either.Yes it is the case that the evidence for evolution consists of both direct and indirect evidence. So what? That is how science works. Fortunately there is enough evidence and the inferences made are strong enough so that the conclusion is still reliable.On the other hand, telling us that intricacy implies design when it is easy to cite intricate objects that were not designed, and when you cannot demonstrate that intricacy is not produced by evolutionary processes is simply question begging. Your argument is essentially men can make complicated things (and of course simply things) life is complex, hence it was created by an intelligent designer. The holes in the logic ought to be abundantly clear.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Cite one.

Exceptions and gray areas prove the rule.

Hi DrIn Message 172 you said: You bring up a subject, anteater.
You ask the question how are anteaters usually produced?
You answered your own question with:

quote:

---

"By other organisms reproducing with variation"

---

You did not say they were usually produced by a female anteater and a male ant eater mating.You said they were reproduced by OTHER organisms reproducing with variation.The other organisms is what I asked you the evidence for.
I knew they were reproduced by a male and female anteater mating and gave you the correct answer.I answered your question in Message 181. Why must I produce an example of an anteater being produced any other way?A female and a male anteater mating can cause the female to reproduce a anteater.Them mating will never produce anything but an anteater.
They were designed to reproduce anteaters and that is what they do.But you are claiming that other organisms produced anteaters.I would like for you to present the evidence for that event.God Bless,

Crystals of various types for example those seen in caverns and in other rock formations (e.g. karst formations in Chongqing). Snowflakes, tree branches, coral reefs. Plenty of intricate designs with no intelligent agent involved.And if I want to do the types of question begging you do, I can point to the anatomy or brain of every evolved creature that ever existed. But really that is the point of the discussion.Futher, even microevolution has been shown to produce complex structures in animals. That alone is sufficient.Now about irreducible complexity. Do you know what that term means.

A narwhal.