Summations Only

Sorry Dawn but you are still simply lying again and again.No one but you has asserted Solely Natural Conclusion and this has been explained to you several times by several people in this very thread.And that is yet another reason there is no Science in Creationism; there seems to be no culture of honesty in Creationism.But I'll repeat what folk other than Creationists actually say. So far no causes have ever been observed or evidenced that were not natural causes; so there is no reason to expect any future causes found to be other than natural.

​

If you, on the other hand, could present evidence for a non-natural cause then there might be some reason to consider other than natural causes.The topic, in case you forgot is "The Science in Creationism" and as usual you have failed totally to show any evidence of any science in creationism.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin ther ----> thereEdited by jar, : appalin spallin so----> show

The question is 'do you have anything else?' It is a 'Yes' or 'No' question. That is not why I brought them up. The Purpose for my posting them should be Clear and you cannot ignore it. Just read what I actually said, and what I was saying it in response to. If you can't infer purposes from a conversation you are having, you disqualify yourself from discussing this subject. So again, I ask youWhy did I present you with those quotes from Darwin?

That’s it? That’s your scientific evidence?First, axioms, in philosophies, are statements so evident and well established that they are taken as given without controversy or question. You cannot establish any axiom of purpose since purpose is a human construct and has no established measure free of question and controversy. Something is only purposeful in the eyes of the human and is a matter of opinion. Intricate order is another matter of opinion with no measure, try as creationists may to define one.There is plenty of legitimate controversy, differences of opinion and questions of efficacy to your views of clear purpose and intricate order to such an extent as to make them non-axiomatic.Your insistence that some self-defined clear purpose is an axiom fails.Unless you can show a clear and convincing scale and analysis to measure purpose and order you have nothing of any scientific nature to present. If your creationism is centered on these faulty concepts, these articles of faith without measure, then your creationism fails as a science.The only thing axiomatic here, Dawn, is the clearly evident and well established fact that creationists do not know what science is and how to use it.Edited by AZPaul3, : spelng and puchuaton.

If what you are claiming is true, why can you not produce any evidence for it when challenged to do so?Show us the evidence.

Reminds me of an old Peggy Lee song. So I guess when it comes to "The Science in Creationism":

Well no its not a yes or no question, because of what you are inferring from it and the manner you are asking the question.If I asked you, Do you enjoy being a wife beater? Then asked you to answer the question with just a yes or no what would be your response and what would be my implication from the question.I have have answered your question in detail, then you make it sound as if my responses are inadequate or not extensive enough because they don't meet your jack ass Scientific Method approach, which I have demonstrated to many times to mention doesnt ANSWER ANY CONCLUSIONS ON EITHER SIDE WITH ABSOLUTE PROOF.I don't need a complicated approach to demonstrate the natural conclusion of a designer, as I have demonstrated by my process, you just don't like the conclusion it reaches and you cry fowl. Well if you could demonstrate ABSOLUTELY why my conclusion or process is invalid, then your above question would make senseBut because you can't, you dodge by asking , is that all I have?, implying maybe it's not complicated enough. Well it's all I need unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Trust me your purpose is not clear to me why you posted them and I I am not intentionally ignoring what you are implying. If you could just put it in a straight forward Statement or question and not couch it in riddles, then I am sure I can respond to it. Do you remember this statement above
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well that's just silly. Reality and it's laws dictate reality, not human construct or perspectives. An axiom is determined by reality not you. Since there is intricate order it would exist without any kind of perception.That's what makes it axiomatic, duhThe eye would still have a clear purpose even if a human were not around to describe or perceive it. You've got reality ass backwards That's a self defeating comment and reality is what makes your comment nonsensical. Science is just an investigation, simple or involved.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Facts are determined by reality; axioms are chosen by people.

That's not "old Peggy Lee", but rather from later in her career (in 1969).A more appropriate song that she sang (in 1942) would be "Why don't you do right?". Now that is something I have never seen a creationist do.

Really so it's not an axiom that things exist, until people decided it

Well, you said something correct. How odd.The problem is that purpose is a construct that has no reality outside human perception, and different people can have different perceptions of what is the purpose of something. You confuse purpose with function. They are not the same.And axioms are not created by any means outside the human mind and require such a compelling set of traits that all other minds agree to its establishment without question.Your "axiom of purpose" is no such thing. It is bogus. Let me be clearer then. Your insistence that some Dawn-defined "clear purpose" is axiomatic fails. It is a bogus assertion without any reality behind the meaning you are trying, unsuccessfully, to impose. And, again, your statement at the top here is correct. Reality and its laws, in this case clearly evident and well established definitions, determine the reality of what is and is not axiomatic.Again, if that is your scientific evidence in support of creationism it is an abject failure as evidence and a badly mangled attempt at science.Edited by AZPaul3, : skru-ups

Wrong again. The only thing I need to do to demonstrate that axioms are not a human construct or perception is to point out that things exist and they would exist without human perspective or constructsOR are you seriously going to argue that things can only exist if humans perceive that they exists?Your above comments are exactly why the Socalled Scientific method is extremist and silly in certain situationsImagining that order and purpose and clear and obvious order don't exist, as you have, is not the same as actually dismissing itYou'll have to do better than that. Or am I wrong that things existDawn Bertot

That is right. An axiom cannot exist outside a human-defined proposition.If a proposition requires a statement that "people exist" then we can all agree that "people exist" is axiomatic requiring no further proof. For the purposes of furthering the proposition it can be taken as a given. That is what an axiom is.An axiom is NOT some kind of universal TRVTH that stands on its own volition.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You use the words, but you have no idea what they mean.

Imagining order and purpose, further, imagining clear and obvious order, is not the issue. The issue, Dawn, is your supposition that such purpose, which you confuse with function, and such order, which you confuse with complexity, are scientific proofs of a designer which you further suppose is your specific brand of god.Bullshit.You jump from purpose and order to design and designer without showing any evidence that this is the only such conclusion. Then you have the damned gall to claim that purpose and order are axiomatic to the design and designer conclusion so that you don't have to bother with showing any evidentiary link between them.And with still more unmitigated gall you insist this leap of your specific faith is to be taken as science.More bullshit.I reject your silly-assed treatment of purpose and order as axioms to your proposition that there is a designer god. Assertions are not evidence.I reject your insistence that your leap of faith from purpose/order to design/designer is science. It is no such thing.The scientific method was devised to obviate just such unevidenced nonsense. Assertions given without evidence are rejected.From your OP: But then you go and give us nothing but your articles of faith that purpose and order are obvious and therefore design and designer (your god) are equally obvious. And you think that by calling these things obvious (axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order) you can escape the scientific requirement for evidence (another concept with which you have grave misunderstandings). All you have demonstrated is that your Creation Science is based on your personal wishful thinking backedup by your insistence that your wishful thinking is science.Typical creationist illogic. Typical creationist assertions without evidence. Typical creationist tripe.Your "axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order" is not evidence, never was evidence, never will be evidence. Hence, your creationism is not science, never was science, never will be science.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.