Summations Only

Faith thanks much for your support. You are an excellent polemist and your knowledge is very extensive. I've been doing this for a lot of years now and you have to understand, these fellas are not going to ever see design because they have been taught that truth does not really exist and that absolute truth certainly does notThey also have learned a way of understanding evidence that is contrary to any thinking person and reasonThis is why I have pushed the obvious contradiction in the evolutionary theory, of its conclusionYou've noticed Thierry answers, It doesn't matter, I don't care, its irelevant, etc.By demonstrating these issues you identify where the real problem existsEvolution by solely natural causes is not something they can ignore, it's an unavoidable conclusion of their "evidence".It demonstrates that the evidence that supports design, is the same type as thiers. But they will wrangle every way to get out of this as you have seenBut please continue your side it reinforces the main argumentDawn Bertot

... Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I not only insist on it , it is an irresistible conclusion. There is no such thing as superevo, it's just an investigation called science. Your problem would be the same, if you rename it Modulous. When you test properties in the natural world, you are not testing it's source. So to brag about your experiments and how complicated they are, only demonstrates how it works not where it came from or how it started. I can test my hypothesis of design by examining detailed intricate order in nature, you just get all it'll more involved, but it doesn't prove your conclusion.For this you need the same type of evidence of a designer, indirect evidence. I can test design the same way you examine the world.You have no superior standard for determine evidence.If I'm making things up please demonstrateDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What a curious lie. Are you by any chance insane? It's called "science" and many thinking people are rather in favor of it. Perhaps next you could tell us what this "obvious contradiction" is. Show me the evidence.

Yeah not a problem. Your so-called science does not test it's conclusion, but it has a conclusion, Soley Nature Causes. What is your direct evidence for your conclusion. When you can extricate yourself from this problem or let me know what type of evidence you used for this necessary conclusion, it may cease to be a contradictionLast time I'll point it out to you, unless you have a solution

What the freak is a "Soley"?Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

With your science you don't test the conclusion of evolution, which is Soley Natural causes, you test only what is going on. To test it conclusion you would need indirect evidence like usSo your doing the right thing, or your not doing science. Which is itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yeah sorry
Solely

This insane gibberish does not identify a contradiction in science.A contradiction in science would be where science maintains two mutually incompatible things.If you think you have found an instance of this, please say what the two things are.I might add that as google produces no hits for the phrase "Soley Nature Causes" this is probably not a conclusion that anyone has ever come to. It is probably not a conclusion anyone ever will come to, since it is apparently completely meaningless.

But you are talking about how the system works once it is in place. The system itself is what is designed but once it is functioning it simply follows the pattern it was designed to follow. You infer the design from the fact of the functioning system and from the facts of the physical coherence of the antieater, all its parts working together to do anteater things. Design is more recognized than proved. As for your mugs that was a very entertaining video of the porcelain factory, but I think you are missing the point about demonstrating design. Yes you can demonstrate it by knowing how a particular mug is made but design is something inferred from the form of the thing itself, intricacy being one of the attributes looked for as proof of design in some human designs and in living systems but intricacy may not always be present. Your mug is too perfectly shaped to be a nonliving natural object and it has a nice smooth attachment on it that a nonliving natural object won't have in such perfect form. Your turtle "bowl" is obviously designed too but not by human hands -- and I think we can tell that from the material it is made of. If we can't, as I said there are always gray areas we won't be able to determine but most of the examples we consider should be easy enough to identify. Intricacy, material if identifiable, symmetry or other very orderly form, coherence, functional working parts that do something as a unit, like all those machnes in the porcelain factory that are designed to do something in particular with each piece of pottery; or the body of an anteater that unifies a whole lot of complex cells into a whole lot of complex organs that do particular things like enable it to see ants, maybe smell ants, catch ants, digest ants, turn the ants into chemicals that provide fuel for the anteater's body, and so on and so forth. The porcelain factory is recognizable as a human design, the anteater ought to be recognizable as a design as well, beyond the means of a random system like evolution to produce.In the comparison of bones to pottery, although a pile of bones doesn't show design the bones themselves do and I should have included them as having the marks of design as well. They aren't incoherent shapeless masses but shapes that appear to have a function, which of course anyone who knows anatomy would recognize particularly clearly for their specific functions if they are intact enough for that. But they are natural things which we ought to be able to distinguish from the clay vessels made by human beings, by their material at least.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The conclusion of evolution is that organisms change over time due to natural selection acting on random mutations and that these changes lead to the divergence in species that we have on earth today. A conclusion that there are ONLY natural causes is not the conclusion that science itself reaches and it is certainly not MY conclusion. Which is exactly the goal of scientific endeavors... to test what is going on. However, you have yet to reveal any of these so called tests that lead to your conclusions. You have mentioned a couple observations, but no tests or results that support the conclusions about those observations. The observation is not the test or the evidence of itself. I have no idea what this means...When you get sick, like when you get a cold, do you look for supernatural causes? Or do you except the germ theory of disease? When you get the stomach flu, do you think it is a demon inflicting sickness on you? Or do you think maybe you ate some bad fish? I expect that you recognize the germ theory of disease as a valid explanation of the natural causes behind disease. Is this the same thing as "Soley Natural Causes?"Accepting the germ theory of disease is not the same as accepting "Soley Natural Causes" just as accepting evolution is not accepting "Soley Natural Causes."HBD

Well, that remains to be shown. My point was simply that the creationist has a different task from the mugologist. With the mug, we can appeal to a rule established empirically. The creationist wants to argue that a rule established empirically had, at one point, an exception which we did not observe. If this was true (and sorry about that) then this might not be impossible to prove, but it would naturally be harder. Well, I was asked how I knew how my mug was produced. That is how I know. I don't need to appeal to more difficult lines of reasoning. Someone must have explained to you at some point that evolution is not a "random system". As to its alleged limits, you have yet to demonstrate them.Without something along those lines, you're merely begging the question. Yes, if I grant you the premise that all complex things (including living things) have a designer, then you can draw the conclusion that all living things have a designer. Also, if I grant you the premise that all complex things (including living things) are made out of metal, then you can draw the conclusion that all living things are made out of metal. Whoop-de-doo.

I resist it. What do you call what I believe, which does not conclude with the 'solely natural causes' conclusion you insist is irresistible. So far, you have met the same standard as astrology. If you call what you are doing science, you are calling astrology science. And what evolution scientists are doing is different. So if you want to call astrology science, I want a new word for what scientists are currently doing. You don't like my words? Choose your own. I lack the problem you insist I have, and you have not demonstrated I have this problem. Just repeatedly asserted it. Either you are incapable of so doing, or you are respecting the scope of the topic. I suspect the former. I'm asking you to test your theory, or rather show and/or describe the tests to your theory. I'm not asking you about testing properties in the natural world. OK, but I haven't done this, so can you get over your self esteem issues and describe the tests for your theory? If you cannot, then you have not differentiated Creationism from astrology. OK, let's do that.Marsupial mice exist (direct evidence).
Placental mice exist
They look very similar to one another
Yet they are more genetically different from one another than Humans and Cows are.All of this is observed and documented.Evolution's explanation is well known and public knowledge.
What's yours? We can compare it to the evolutionary answer to see which theory handles it with the least amount of ad hoc explanations, taking account the most evidence, not just the listed evidence above. Let's put your ideas to a real test. Yes you do. Feel free to present it. Then let's do it already. Let's compare my evolutionary method with your design method in the marsupial problem posted above, then we'll have something new to discuss AND it advances the discussion. I have done so as you have done so, I felt organising it that way would be easier.

But this only gets you to where we were 2,000 years ago. We need an explanation for the recognized design.Evolution has a pretty darn good one. Creationism has done a less stellar job. "Well various people in history said God did it. So....that's the theory".

Don't you see the contradiction here? Evolution also has mountains of evidence shared by thousands of researchers who are qualified to assess the evidence and there is no doubt that it is coherent, objective and consilient (meaning multiple lines of evidence converge to the same result). To you it is just people making up stories, and we have the popular media to blame for some of that. Many popular stories about evolution and the history of the earth are highly dramatized and are designed to capture the imagination of the reader. But that is not the stuff of the scientific literature. The stuff you're reading is devoid of the experiments, the data and the details that researchers used to reach their conclusions. You are getting the layman's version. I see what you are objecting to, but disagree with your assessment of the nature of evidence. In the past you have called this "historic evidence" or something like that, and that is actually a better description of what you object to than indirect evidence. As I have said a couple of times in this thread, the strength of evidence relies on the question that it is intended to answer. Indirect evidence is powerful when the test is designed to answer the question properly.I would suggest that geology and paleontology are not as hypothesis driven as some of the what you call "hard sciences" and perhaps this is what you are talking about. Geology and paleontology are mostly descriptive sciences where the data they generate is descriptive of physical phenomenon. Of course, both disciplines do use hypothesis based testing, it is just not as prevalent as in other disciplines. I think this may be the differences you are talking about. This is not true. It is not demanded of creationists to produce direct evidence. Any evidence would be good. "It looks designed" is NOT evidence, it is a subjective observation. I would leave out the idea of a "very simple physical fact" as that is hardly the case. Also, no conclusion is inevitable in science. What I mean is, someone could come along tomorrow and show that our whole understanding of the double helix is wrong. Data always needs to be interpreted and there is often differences in opinion as to how to interpret a given data set even in the "hard sciences." In addition, I don't think you realize the arguing that goes on behind the scenes about these inevitable conclusions. Sometimes it take years or decades to hash it out and for scientists to come to a consensus. Figuring out how a new piece of evidence fits into the whole puzzle can be difficult. I don't want to "smack you down." I want to discuss the science of creationism or the lack thereof. I see the whole creation science movement as deceptive and completely devoid of substance. I actually believed their nonsense for a while, but as I investigated the facts, I realized I had been lied to. Anyone who wants to be a creationist and believe the earth is 6,000 years old that's fine - no problem with me. But claiming it's science... well it's not. And I am discussing that issue here.HBD