Summations Only

Exceptions disprove a rule. That's what "exception" means.But you haven't even told us what you think the rule is. I asked, but all you've told me about it is that the fact that it doesn't work proves that its right.

This seems to be good place to restart for myself. Thanks ICANT and Faith you've been doing an excellent job in my absense
Dr A I asked a question earlier. Are we suppose to assume you do not understand the difference between direct and indirect evidence?I 've read all of the skeptics post since and not a single on has addressed the actual issuesThe presumption of Athiesm and it's conclusion of sole y natural causes as evidence, needs to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. I set out a simple proposition and it has not been addressedDr A knows the difference between direct and indirect evidence but he plays the dumb card to avoid answering the questionHere's the argument again.We deduce evidence of a creator from intricate design in nature
One cannot simply dismiss the harmonious relationship of the detailed parts working together to form a useful purpose.
One must demonstrate this is not happening and I cannot see the intricacySince it clearly exists, its an axiomatic truth that this is happening, one is more than warranted to conclude a designer
Now my deduction is one of indirect evidence because I did not
witnesse how the whole process started
But this qualifies as evidence nonetheless.Since the SFH claims to follow a scientific method when deciphering things in nature
And of course a natural Conclusion of any investigation is its conclusionThis conclusion for the theory of evolution is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes.
But they have no method of supporting this conclusion besides Indirect evidence.So the conclusion of this argument is that if they can only deduce Soley Natural Causes only in an indirect, evidential manner, then we all must be doing science or neither of us is doing science, to come to our conclusionsLets see if they will address this argument, that haven't yet. Watch pay very close attention too see if they actually address and answer the argument.
This is the crux of the matter and the theme of this threadDawn BertotEdited 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.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Taq
What Faith is trying to tell you is you have evidence of things in closed system. These examples you provide explain nothing about Or provide direct evidence of its origin.
For this you need indirect evidence.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes the aliens would know the difference and which one to eat out of, because we would explain it to them the same way we help you understand the difference between direct and indirect evidence

Since I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean by these terms, and because I am not telepathic, that would be a safe assumption. That would be an excellent topic for another thread. I'm still not telepathic. Why don't you just tell us what you mean by these terms?... you do know what you mean, don't you? Where is the evidence that there is intricate design in nature?Show me the evidence. No, one must ask you for evidence that it is a product of design.Show me the evidence. What a strange lie.

Then that would not be "an alien from Alpha Centauri who knew nothing of Earth and its life and its human inhabitants". That's something you haven't done. For some reason you've chosen to dribble out disingenuous crap instead.

Remember me telling the audience to watch and see if you would actually address the argument I had set outThe reason I warned them is I knew you would side step simply doing that
And surprise surprise you didOk let's play along. But pay attention kiddies to see if he actually responds to the heart of the argumentDirect evidence could be described in terms of what I actually witnessed, actually was present for an actual event verses indirect evidence, not being presentIf course there are degrees of these categories but these will sufficeDo you have direct evidence that all things in existence are a result of soley natural causesIf you do what is it?If I'm lying please show me the argument that responds to my argumentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What a fucking liar you are, to be sure. So one has "direct evidence" for a thing if and only if one has witnessed it oneself?Thank you. Of course not. Why would you even ask such a question? Are you insane?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If I am an f-in liar produce the argument that is counterfactual to mineYes that's as good a definition for direct evidence as anySo if you have no Direct evidence for the conclusion that natural causes are the explanation and source for all things You must be using indirect evidence, not doing science or maybe something else you guys made upDawn Bertot

You rest your argument on the claim that there is design in nature but have produced no evidence for this. What a nutty thing to say. Science is obviously dependent on the use of indirect evidence. No-one has ever seen an atom, or gravity, or the weak nuclear force, or the Earth's core, or a living pterodactyl, or the fusion reaction at the heart of the sun. If it comes to that, no-one has seen any general law, only particular instances of them. If science consisted exclusively of a list of things that people have seen, it would be so simple that a creationist could do it, and so useless that no-one would bother.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So here we are 265 posts and still not a sign of science in creationism.A bunch of incoherent ravings about some caricature of science and incoherent demands for something, something about indirect and direct evidence, and some smug posturing about all your opponents ducking the hard questions, but where's the beef?We thought you were going to show us some creation science, but all you seem to have is gibberish about your opponents.Are you ever going to teach us about the science in creationism?

Now notice class
I predicted that Dr A would not attempt an answer at that argument I set out in post 257. Instead he spoke about indirect evidence.
There must be some reason he won't respond directly to the argument.Secondly Ihe called me a f-in liar, so I asked him to produce the actual argument that is counterfactual to the argument in 257.
He didn't do that eitherNext after much anticipation he agrees with my definition of evidence. FinallyBut for some reason and I know why, he won't tie that acceptance of indirect evidence with his natural Conclusion of sole y natural causes.Here's why. If he does that he will be admitting that his evidence for the why's of everything are like our evidence for a designer. That's why he won't attempt a straight forward tackle of my argumentSecondly, he will be admitting that our indirect evidential approach is actually doing investigative scienceSure it's not as involved as all the principles of science, but science nonethelessUnless he's prepared to admit neither of us is doing scienceWell let's see what Mr witicism does next kiddies. Lets see if he can sarcasm his way out of this oneDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Tany
Surely even you can see that to show evidence you have to establish the nature of evidence, What it is and how it's establishedThe beef you ask for is in my argument in 257. Perhaps you would make an attempt at answering itDawn Bertot

I did respond directly to the argument, you fucking liar. Yes I did, you fucking liar. If by that you mean I finally got you to define your terms, then yes I did. I practically had to beat it out of you, but I did finally get you to say what you mean in a reasonable approximation to the English language as it is spoken. This is gibberish. No, that's not why I don't do the nonsensical things you describe in a gibberish made-up language, you driveling loony.The actual reason that I don't "admit" that is that I am neither a liar nor completely batshit crazy.Now, do you have any evidence for design in nature? I have asked you several times now.Also, I believe I asked you to make posts that do not consist of lies and gibberish.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Except God of course, and isn't that what we are talking about? There is design implied in all those things you list although the most intricate in the living things.But I already considered all that anyway, and the nonliving things are not anywhere near the intricacy and complexity of living things, which would include trees and corals, that are made up of separate systems all working together to power the functioning organism. And the intricacy of the brain too of course also implies a Designer. And that IS the point of the discussion. The intricacy implies design, that's the point, not evolution. Of course, because the DNA, the entire reproductive system of any creature, has been designed to produce such complex structures. It's built in. Oh yes, and I've seen lots of the claims that there are creatures that possess all the separate steps, which supposedly proves that the complexity is not irreducible and a designer is not needed.But as usual these apologetics all rely on homologies, claiming that the existence anywhere in the whole range of living things of any one of the "stages" of a complex design, proves that that complex design must have evolved. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.