Summations Only

If the evidence is so good, why won't you show us the evidence? Namely?

You assume science has to be elaborate in all cases.
Can't somethings just be simple and have valid conclusions without huge involved processes
Nearly everything we do everyday Involves science simple to great

No we are not.
We are talking about 'The Science in Creationism'. Evolution is just a benchmark to compare how you are doing. Badly, by your own admission. Well if you want to claim that astrology is science my options area) Deny this.
b) Accept itI started with a) but you simply won't advance the discussion there, so fine, I conceded that astrology is science.But I need a new word to describe a particular kind of science that I was referring to with the word previously. The stuff that involves lots of maths, strict rules about evidence and inferrence. Statistical tests, falsififiability. All that stuff. The stuff missing from astrology.So if you are going to steal the word 'science' and use it to mean whatever you want and won't bend in any discussion on this, then fine. I'll bend. I'll give you science, but I'm taking superscience. As far as explaining the Why of Things? Yes. What does this mean? This is not an apology.

There is no such thing as astrology, it's a product of the mind it does not involve actual propertiesBy using the conclusion evolution posits, by any investigative standard, I am showing the science of design in creation.Now design can stand on its own merit, but by comparison evolution posits a conclusion using a method called indirect evidence.So since we use the same method it must be scienceIt's as good as an apology I can give if you are going to stand by your statementEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It doesn't matter. Astrology employs empirical reasoning. You said 'All empirical reasoning is science'. Astrology, therefore, is science. According to you. You have asserted it, you have yet to show it. You don't use the same methods.'Indirect evidence' is not a method that makes something scientific. If it is....astrology is science. I claim 'superscience' and you are back to square one for credibility. What statement? I've made many.

No astrology is not science because the word has to have meaning against something in reality. It's a made up word. Design corresponds to something in reality, It's meaning can be testedYou see that's your problem, you can't extricate yourself from the FACT that the conclusion of evolution IS Sole y natural causes. Saying it's irelevant or that your not saying that doesn't helpSo it must be established some way and the way is indirect evidence. Its your baggage deal with itDawn Bertot

It is an endeavour that makes inferrences based on empirical observations. By your definition this is science. If you want to provide a new definition of science, let's hear it. All words are. So do the planets and human behaviour. Then I reject evolution.I accept superevolution. Superevolution says the same things about biology that evolution does, but it does not constrain the nature of future evidence. I have no problem with indirect evidence.Neither do you.What is there to deal with?

Well that was almost an attempt at my argument. So in an evasive way you don't deny you can't extricate yourself from the logical conclusion of Soley Natural cause. I'll take that as an admission of defeat at least in that point.Superevolution doesn't exist and it doesn't help your doctrine.Astrologys conclusions are not testable by empirical evidence even by indirect evidence, unlike the theory of a designerAnother thing that amuses me about you fellas is that You walk around implying that we made up that the conclusion of evolution is soley natural causes, them get mad at us for brining it upBut it is Simply what it itEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So, you're not going to show us the evidence or tell us what your methodology is?

Dawn, I agree with you that the intricacies in nature show intelligent design and just saying that should be enough to point people to that fact, but can't you also try describing that intricacy since everybody is screaming at you to do so? They'll just say evolution can account for it of course, but they can't prove it, they have no evidence that it's possible, they'll just say it anyway. Meanwhile what's wrong with pointing to, say "irreducible complexity" in living things as evidence that they were designed?

If evolution is something you insist has the logical conclusion of 'Solely Natural Causes' then I don't accept it.I do accept something, and that something doesn't conclude 'Solely Natural Causes'. So tell me what I should call that something if 'superevolution' doesn't work for you. Are you saying that in order to be science the conclusions need to be testable?OK, then.Let's see your tests for the design theory. Why is amusing that we are irritated that you are making thing up and repeating them ad nauseum?

Because irreducible complexity, as defined by Behe in 1996 (and later publications), isn't in and of itself a reliable indicator of rational design. Neo-Darwinian processes can account for the origin of irreducibly complex systems, through scaffolding of parts and other mechanisms. So IC cannot be taken to be in itself evidence for design; the proposition that an IC system was designed must be bolstered by other lines of evidence.So, no, pointing to IC systems doesn't in itself help your position. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

So far the methods you have presented that you claim to be the same method that science uses amount to this "logical" progression:1) Things exist
2) They look designed
3) Evolution postulates soley natural causes
4) From these evidences we can conclude that there is a designerThat is sooooo far from the scientific method it is laughable. That things "look" designed is NOT evidence, at best it is an observation - albeit a rather vague, subjective observation.Your whole argument is based on the idea that both evolution and your design conclusions use the same method, namely indirect evidence. However, your concept of indirect evidence is seriously flawed. To say that anything "looks designed" is not evidence, indirect or otherwise. I don't think you understand the significance of indirect evidence and how science using indirect evidence is different than what you are inferring.If I said "the moon looks like it is made of Swiss cheese" is that evidence that the moon is indeed made of Swiss cheese? Based on your responses to Mod, I would guess your response is that the moon being made from Swiss cheese has no basis in reality so it would not be evidence. But the whole point of evidence is to determine if our observations do have a basis in reality, so this line of reasoning is 'begging the question.'We have two statements that are equivalent in their observational power:1) living organisms look like they are designed
2) the moon looks like it is made of Swiss cheeseWhat we want to do is determine if either or both of those statements have a basis in reality. How do we do that using indirect evidence?I also need to point out that evidence needs to be taken in the context of answering a research question. Observations are fine, but without the context of a hypothesis they are just observations, not evidence. If this needs more clarification from me, I will expand on this idea some more.So, our research hypothesis would be
H₁: The moon is made of Swiss cheeseand our null hypothesis would be:
H₀: The moon is not made of Swiss cheeseWe could measure the wavelengths of light that are reflected from a piece of Swiss cheese and see if the same wavelengths are being reflected from the moon. These measurements are based on what we know about reflected and absorbed light.We could calculate the mass of the moon if it was made of cheese and determine if it would be massive enough to remain in a stable shape and orbit. These calculations are based on what we know about gravity and massive objects.We could use the information we have about how Swiss cheese is made and determine if there is a possible mechanism for producing Swiss cheese in the volume needed to make up the moon and to put that mass of cheese into orbit around the earth. If we can determine a mechanism by which this could occur, it would lend support to the observation.No mechanism by which it could occur and failure of the other tests to support the observation would lead us to the conclusion that we fail to reject the null hypothesis that "the moon is NOT made of Swiss cheese."Here, I need to point out that failure to reject the null hypothesis is not evidence that the null hypothesis is true. If we then hypothesized that the moon was made of rock and we found evidence that supported that hypothesis so that we could say "the moon is made of rock" we could then, in fact say that the moon is NOT made of cheese, since the two premises would be mutually exclusive. But failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the null hypothesis true.Now its your turn...H₁: Living organisms are designed
H₀: Living organism are not designedWhat tests do you propose that would yield evidence that would support your hypothesis?People have been asking you for evidence over and over on this thread, and it appears to me you don't really understand what they are asking for since you think you have presented the evidence. But in fact, you have only presented1) your subjective observations
2) your logic for asking the research question and
3) your conclusion of the matter.You have missed the evidence part. It should go between 2) and 3)Now you know what is being asked of you. Let's see the evidence.HBD

Which of course is what one would expect you to say. Perhaps we should go with this a ways? What do you mean by "neo-Darwinian" for instance? And what does "scaffolding of parts" refer to?Usually the argument involves collecting examples of different forms of say, the eye, from a wide range of unrelated creatures throughout the Linnaean system, identifying them as different "stages" of the formation of the human eye and then declaring that as evidence that the human eye evolved by those stages.Or to answer Behe's famous example of the rotating system on I forget what creature, finding supposed stages of that system in other similar creatures for the same purpose of proving that what Behe called the irreducible complexity of that rotating system isn't really irreducible and that all those different designs prove that the rotating system could have evolved, therefore DID evolve. (theory to fact in one fell swoop as usual)Is that what you mean? I'm all for accumulating as much evidence as possible, but IC really ought to be counted as evidence in itself.

Well, the fact that scientists have directly observed it evolving would be one thing that's wrong with it. The fact that we can see in the fossil record (what looks exactly like) successive stages of it evolving would be another.Before you can claim that an egg is evidence of a dragon, you need to disprove the existence of everything else that might lay eggs. This you have not done.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.