Summations Only

And once again, you continue to create straw man arguments and have the nerve to try to assert anyone but Creationists say such stupid things.Why in this very thread that utter nonsense has been dealt with over and over and over again.Is it necessary to add "lack of short term memory" to the list of things seemingly missing in you and Dawn and all other Creationists?Do you keep repeating falsehoods because you forget you have been shown they are false or is there some other reason?What everyone except Creationists say is that no causes other than natural causes have ever been evidenced and until a cause other than a natural cause has been shown to exist there is no reason to expect any future causes discovered to be other than natural.

And you keep not reading my posts when I say that I agree that design does imply a designer. That's the leap of reasoning that has been missing from this thread. If you can provide it, that would move things forward. Sure there is. A non-intelligent designer. I'm not. You are the one that said Creationism is mostly about disproving evolution.I'm the one saying it is about God.But if you want to go from 'a designer' through 'an intelligent designer' up to 'a divine designer' evidence and reasoning is required for each step. This doesn't seem unfair, and it doesn't define Creationism into oblivion. It insists on what creationism actually is. I don't. I am happy to take mid 19th Century science, I'd even take 18th or 17th Century science. They are different beasts from one another. I'm giving as big a target as possible. I've even conceded, for the sake of the argument but still, that inferring design is science.I am conceding as much as possible. Can you please stop including me in complaints about things I am not doing? I literally can't. I have no control over what science is. If you can show my understanding of science is in error, I'll concede on whatever points I need. Indeed, there is no ONE TRUE SCIENCE. You can define what Dawn is doing as 'science' if you like, but so far Dawn has produced less 'science' than Astrology. So you are calling Astrology science. You are calling reading tea leaves science. If that's what you want, that's fine - but if you insist I concede ground rather than the other way, then physics, biology, chemistry, psychology et al are going to make a new word. Let us call it Wissenschaft. German creationists might have a hard time of it, but that's a small price to pay.In this case, Creationism would be Science, along with Astrology. But evolution would be wissenschaft, along with astronomy.All I am asking for is a series of causes and their effects in a chain of causality - it doesn't need to be exact details of every thing ever, I would accept as a start 'The creator used nuclear fusion to formulate the elements and then employed magnets to bring the parts of the first life forms together from ferrous clay.' All of the things here are, in principle evidenced, except the creator itself. But it's a start. And all I am asking is to start with the Designer and show me the reasoning to a Creator. You can use words to mean what you like, as long as I understand you it doesn't matter.But you still have to draw the lines between the designer and the creator, whatever words you call things. I don't care. A rose by any other name. Words don't prove things exist. The important thing is what can we learn about stuff? So far I've not learned anything from Dawn or you about life. I can hardly be said to have gained any knowledge. And thus, science seems a daft word to use. Wissenschaft means 'knowledge-work' in German.We could use Gnosis if you'd like.So whatever words you like. Let us start with the first question of epistemology (episteme, another Greek word for knowledge), 'How do you know?''The designer implies intelligence'
'How do you know that?' Whenever you'd like to. If you want to call this 'the knowledge of creationism' I'm happy to do so.How do you know whatever you claim to know about creationism? Are you proposing I change this quote to"But IDers and YECers love to do this..." No. I don't start with the premise that the ToE says anything, that would be circular though - as you observe. I'm happy to start, like Darwin, with the observation that 'Under domestication we see much variability. ', and build my case from there. No, that's not evolution. Evolution is about variation in species over generations. It can be used to explain design as adaptation, explaining the key steps in the process. Most educated people agree that the proposed causes are sufficient to explain enough about how life changes that can be used to investigate further in a quest to learn more.That those proposed causes all fall under the umbrella term of 'natural' or 'blindly material' or whatever is just a fact. Had a supernatural cause turned up during investigations maybe it would be included, but so far it hasn't and we materialists or whatever can hardly be blamed for conspiring to make this happen. I can show you the proposed causes.
I can show you that they are natural, by any common meaning of the term.I can't make you believe they are sufficient enough to explain everything I think it does, but I can provision arguments to support this case.You can't show the proposed causes.
You can't say anything about whether they are natural or notYou can't make me believe a cause we've never seen was responsible for anything. You can't provide any chain of causation from the causer to the caused. You have no way of determining the truth about it's natural or supernaturalness. Why should I call this empty series of implied causes 'knowledge'? Evolution is explicit. Ah no, sorry, I was kind of just using it as a springboard/segue back to the general topic as it allowed for the opportunity to say something in a novel way. Sorry if that was confusing. The point being that reason you can't invoke whatever you like (in the practice of science) is because you need to be able to demonstrate causation from the invoked. That you can invoke whatever you like in creationism, it fails fundamentally as science.

No, you can't. You can only observe purpose when you want to force an interpretation of intent behind it. The purpose is in your head not in the object. That is easily done since there is no such as an axiomatic purpose. Nor is there any axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order, other than that which you wish to see for your own evil reasons. Which means your creationism is personal pap and that doesn't even come close to being science.You continue to show that there is no science in creationism. No, not at all. I've been doing this on this site for 10 years and I've been doing this in discussion for 50 years+. You got nothing on me, son. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I don't know, maybe it was because you said Unless you think that the goal is simply to silence creationists. I can pretty much guess the response will be one or more of the following:- My arguments are too difficult to understand
- None of this has any relevance to your argument
- I'm being a pedantic nitpicker
- It's my personality that's the problemI'll respond here to the pedantic nitpicker rebuttal. The nature of evidence is at the core of the disagreements on this thread. What can be considered evidence?Consider a statement I made in my last post: "I believe that the purpose of human beings is to represent God on this earth." Now someone could ask me what my evidence is for that statement. I could then cite some scriptures and some commentaries and whatever else I fell supports my statements. The quality of my evidence is then judged by its ability to persuade others of my argument.However, as soon as I make it a statement of fact or claim that the premise has been scientifically derived, the criteria for evidence change. Now, evidence must meet the rigors mentioned in my last post:1) It must support or contradict a given hypothesis.
2) It must be derived from objective data (independent and repeatable).
3) Data must be analyzed according to a known (or at least specified) standard.
4) Should be reviewed by scientific peers.Evidence that doesn't fit this criteria is no longer acceptable to support the premise.If the statement was "I look at nature and see evidence of design and I am convinced there is a designer. I believe that the God of the Bible is the creator and that he created the earth 6,000 years ago." That would be perfectly fine. Anything believed to support that position offered as evidence would be fine. Most may not find it very convincing, but the statement represents your personal beliefs and opinion and that is difficult to argue against. The rigors of evidence are greatly relaxed... it becomes just about anything that supports your premise.But that's not what you and Dawn are doing... you are making that statement out to be a scientific statement. But creationism is essentially bereft of science. I have been duped by creationists claims of "scientific evidence" many times, and I no longer have any trust in them as sources of anything scientific. One case that sticks in my mind is a headline that read : "Stomach contents of T-Rex proves earth is not millions of years old." I am thinking wow, maybe they found a modern mammal in the T-Rex stomach, or a human. But their "proof" was that this dinosaur had eaten another dinosaur and since there was no death before the fall this could not have happened more than 6,000 years ago. I mean really!!! That's their "proof???" That is "scientific creationism" for you though... completely void of science.HBD

Sorry, Mod, I do keep imputing the arguments to you that you've conceded. But when you say there is such a thing as a nonintelligent designer all you've done is make all those arguments in purest form anyway, because the point of all of it is that "designer" implies intelligence. There isn't a series involved, there are no steps in reasoning required, it's a simple equation. We keep saying design implies a designer, and there's no other definition of designer than Intelligent Designer. There is no such thing as design by purely physical processes, no way for a watch to be built by unintelligent processes. It's asserted because the ToE depends on it, but it cannot be proved.You don't have to show me the route taken by attempts to prove it, they are well known and it's all imaginative constructs, conjecture, wouldacouldas.I agree that Intelligent Design resolves out to the Creator, but YEC generally focuses on the scientific questions. Yes of course the whole point is to refute evolution, of course, but it's by attacking the scientific claims that support it, showing that the evidence used in their support can be interpreted to support YEC instead.The fact is that this debate truly IS futile, all of it. The evidence doesn't lead to any kind of proof on either side, the bickering is endless, unresolvable. So unless you insist that I address some particular point, I don't see any point in continuing. I'm happy to say you win but only because I don't want to argue any more.

Actually, I agree with Faith. In the English language as she is spoke, a designer does have intelligence and purpose, and so the question is whether there was a designer, not whether the designer was intelligent.

Can you show us any evidence for this purpose of which you speak?

In a certain sense I do I suppose, or the goal of some of the participants anyway.I just wanted to end the discussion, the futility was getting to me and I don't want to lose my temper again. I don't think I will, I think that reaction is over with, but I also just don't want to keep arguing when it's clear there can't be any resolution. I was willing to lose the argument in the sense of giving you all the last word and just not fighting it any more. You all win by consensus at least. I don't want to say anything insulting any more if it's at all possible to avoid it. Your arguments are often opaque to me for whatever reason, and if I can't see their relevance and can't answer them as a result, what can I do but throw in the towel and admit defeat as I did with Genomicus? I came back to give an answer to her apparent misunderstanding of the YEC position, but so far I don't have an answer to your arguments because I don't understand them -- and they DO seem irrelevant but if I can't understand them how would I know for sure? I don't see the purpose of such careful definition in this debate, and don't want to participate in it. If you define science in such a way that I can't use it to describe the creationist effort to reinterpret the known evidence that is currently used to support evolution, if you are going to insist on it I'll throw in the towel on that argument too even if I think it's wrong in this context.Your statement of faith isn't something I've been doing and I don't think it describes the argument from design either, which isn't a statement of faith but a series of statements that ultimately lead to the conclusion that an Intelligence is required to explain design. I don't think you can just define away this argument, but you can still insist that intelligence is NOT required for design, and then you have the job of proving it, which so far has completely failed all attempts. But that is not an accurate description of the Argument from Design, which is the statement "Design implies (an intelligent) Designer." That's it, that's that particular argument. The usual YEC approach is to tackle the claimed scientific support for the ToE. It's not a statement of faith at all. We believe that it is scientific, all the efforts to define it away notwithstanding. But as I said, if you insist, I will give up just because such an argument isn't winnable even if I think you're wrong, but even so, I do not concede that any of this comes down to a statement of faith of the sort you made.ABE: I just read ahead and saw this statement of Dawn's: I agree completely. Science is an investigation into the natural world such that it would be logically impossible for a creationist not to be doing science when our objective is the explanation of the natural world. (But again if you are going to insist on a more rigorous definition I don't feel like arguing it further). /ABE That particular argument is pretty sad, I agree, but that's not the sort of argument made by most creationists and it's really not fair of you to try to make it represent creationism in general.I'll end by saying the same thing to you I said to Modulous: I'd like to leave the argument at this point unless there is something in particular you want me to address. I want to say "you win" and leave, meaning that you win in the sense that I can't defeat your argument even if you haven't defeated me either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add the ABE about Dawn's postEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I thought your were stating these in a general sense
1. An investigation into the physical world to explore how it works and what might be it's source
2. An investigation into the physical world to explore how it works and what might be it's sourceWhat is Evolusionism? But you see thats the problem you Didnt, discuss your conclusion, that things are here as a result of Solely by Natural Causes, neither did you provide any evidence or proof of that conclusionDo you have any evidence for your conclusion? I mean the type of evidence you require of my conclusion. If you do present it and we will take a look at itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Truth be told these words don't exist, there is just an investigation into the natural world. It would be logically impossible for me not to be doing science. Unless you show why it's more than an investigation. I'm confident you cant Then you are not doing science, because you can't show a connection,between what you invoke and what you are trying to explain, namely provide evidence things are here as a result of Solely Natural CausesIt's really that simple fellas, you fellas can complicate it all you want. You try to avoid this problem with a lot verbose complicated explanations, but you own words confound and contradict you, not to mention to mention you have no evidence of your conclusion Simply put you are a liar, since I have not invoked God once to support my conclusion or processes.My simple friend you can't use physical causes to explain anything that really matters, your process doesn't explain your conclusionIt's really that simpleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Really? What is the scientific approach that you know things exist, give me the elaborate drawn out Scientific Method and what it would involve. Let me see your predictions, hypothesis, etc.Or is it something as simple an a direct simple observation. Or do things not really exist? Or do you know things exist simply because it is a self evident truth, ie, axiomatic.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Yes believe it or not, the above statement is as stupid as it sounds. A nice Convient way of saying he has no evidence for the conclusion of EvolusionismSince he requires evidence of your conclusion by its process, he is naturally excluded because he has no evidence, because his scientific method has excluded that necessity.Remember Jar it's not what you can imagine as obligatory, it what can be logically demonstrated. Your can't avoid your conclusion by imagining it awayBut remember friends these fellas call themselves the "Brights"Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Can you give me a series of causes and thiers effects in a chain of causality, to demonstrate that things exist, or can you know that things exist simply by observation and deduction.Since I can know this truth without your involved scientific method, it must be true I can know other things by the same simple
Process or evidential approachHence science,but it's not rocket science correct..Since your evolutionism doesn't provide you with any evidence of evolutionisms conclusion, how will it help me with any necessary conclusion, causes and effects, in a chain of causalityOR are you suggesting your chain of causality has come up with some answersDawn Bertot

As I suspected your can't actually get rid of the purpose I personally witness by watching someone avoid stepping in a hole, u can only imagine it away.Well let's try it another way. Let's take beauty as an example. Even if it's within species only I can witness beauty as opposed to unatractiveness, independent of its function. It's a thing that actually exists, not, just in the eyes of the beholder.The standard is not an imagination of the mind, or human construct, it actually exists. If something is deformed, heaven forbid, but if it is we say it's not normal. But normality is not an imagination, it's a standard of reality, AT BARE MINIMUM ITS NOT A HUMAN CONSTRUCTDeformed means, not formed to normality, but this cannot be a construct of the mind to know what normal is or is notWhile there may be degrees, there is a standard, independent of human construct, or we would not have degreesThat's not even to mention, emotions, thoughts and consciousness, etcConsciousness can't be explained by human constructs, but it is a realityEven if you can imagine that purpose is only an imagination, it is evidenced by its function and a very valid deduction of function or its process. In other words, its a warranted conclusion, in the form of a scientific approach.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Crikey Dawn - you're really not doing your position any favours at all with this one.Beauty quite clearly can only exist as a perception. There are no features or elements of beauty which do not rely upon the object being perceived by someone.Not only that, but concepts of beauty vary - from person to person, from age to age. Personally, I'm not a fan of Julia Roberts - I don't see the beauty which a lot of people do. (Give me Emmanuelle Beart every day of the week). This alone should give pause to your notion that beauty exists outside of the eye of the beholder.And to suggest that there can be no beauty in deformity is ludicrous. Picasso would have been out of a job; people with physical disabilities would never be desired; and Keith Richards would never have gotten as much action as he has !And as well, you can take the most perfect, un-deformed example of a spider, and there's just no way that I am going to find it beautiful. I'll acknowledge it's a fabulous specimen, but I ain't kissing it !You're equating purpose with beauty, to try to demonstrate that they can both exist independently of human perception. You've chosen a bad comparison for that purpose.