Summations Only

I knew your head was firmly ensconced up where it shouldn't be but I didn't realize it was up it that far.It's OK though. This points up, again but in a most convincing way, that you have a very twisted perception of the reality around you; that you see your personal perceptions as universal facts.Really great science there. Just like above, it's only in your head, and your head, it appears, is a most inadequate and faulty scientific instrument.Again, you fail to provide any evidence of this "axiomatic truth of Clear purpose, as a result of Intricate order" mechanism you cite as the "science in creationism". What you do provide are more data points for the proposition that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

That's actually a fairly good apology. Thank you. I understand it can be difficult with multiple opponents and I don't hold it too strongly against you. OK, but asserting something is not science. If you want to call it science, can we agree it differs from, say, Cancer Research - which has all this stuff about oncogenes and regulation and a series of causes that is painstakingly proven. That's the dispute. You don't get to assert this in the premises of your argument unless you want to hear me tell you that you are begging the question. The ToE does not depend on it. The ToE could survive if a deity was involvedThat's how theistic evolutionists (eg most western Christians) go about their lives. It's not my case to make, so if you don't want to make it I can't make you.
If everybody fails to make the case, the case is not made.
That's where we are now. It just seems I am trying to have a discussion about how we know things, and what knowledge creationists claim and what systems they use to determine their conclusions. But they keep complaining about the debate and not engaging in it. Feel free to actually debate the topic.

You two can have a semantic argument if you want, but I think Faith recognizes that this is a pointless semantic point.My statements are language neutral. Hearts and brains differ from rocks. Rocks don't do anything, and no properties of a rock is used to further any ends the rock, or the rock formation can conceivably be working towards.This needs to be explained.You can call this difference 'design', 'plan', 'adaption' or 'wibble' I don't care. This is Dawn's argument, the word of choice is design. Dawn wants to say something obvious, 'an explanation is demanded' and equivocate using the ambiguities and intentional stances built into the English language. I am pointing out the leap in logic that requires the equivocation by regarding these words neutrally. Only using them as can be logically inferred from within the context of the argument that is using them.Naturally whatever responsible for the wibble can, in the English language we are communicating in, be suffixed with '-er' or just '-r' if the word ends in a vowel. In this case we are calling the explanation for this thing that demands an explanation, the wibbler.There's no intrinsic reason a wibbler has to be intelligent.The wind sculpts the landscape is decent enough English, but it is not intended to communicate that the wind has a chisel and an a finished product in mind.

Again Dawn, learn to actually read what is written.No where did I even mention "evolutionism" whatever that is.And it is also a fact that science always holds conclusions tentatively.I did mention Creationism since I assumed you would be familiar with it as you had used it to title the thread.You stated in the OP "It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation" yet so far you have failed to present any scientific evidence that supports Creation Science.What I posted is instead fact and so far supported by your posts, Faiths posts and in fact all of the output of all of the so called Creation Scientists.You never present any evidence for any cause other than a natural cause.Should you actually present evidence for a cause other than a natural cause then science would happily look into the area of non-natural causes; but again, that never seems to happen. After all science has even investigated ghosts and claims of possession.Like Creationism, no actual evidence of either ghosts or possession have ever been found.There is evidence though of natural causes. In fact every cause that has been examined has turned out to be a natural cause.Lightning has natural causes.Thunder has natural causes.When I clap and the light turns on it is a natural caused event.What you promised to do and what you have utterly failed to do is to provide "the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science".But not just you. No Creationist has ever provided "the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science" or even the actual scientific evidence that support Creation Science.And that is why Creationism is dead, tossed into the trash pile of history, little more than an old worn out joke and not taken seriously for over 100 years.That is why there is no reason to expect we will ever find a non-natural cause or a Creationist who can actually provide evidence of a non-natural cause.Creationism as dead as astrology or numerology or fortune telling or phrenology or ouija boards. Maybe a fun parlor game for little kids at camp but not for anyone past using cootie catchers.Nor do I call myself a "Bright". I am a Christian, a cradle Creedal Christian and an active practicing Christian who was educated in a Christian School.

Vim, try to keep the whole argument in perspective. Remember me asking Modulous to show me the Scientific Method and involved process for Knowing how things exist, the cause and effects and the chain of causality, to know how things exist.The point being, you don't need that type of science to know some things, they are simply knowable by simple observation and experience.For beauty to exist there has to be some standard of what is normal, to know what is not attractive or normal. This is why I specified,if only within a species.But that was not my main point. My point was that some things don't need a lot of explanation to know that they exist. If it's beauty, emotions, thoughts, awareness, consciousness, etc.The Scientific method has no explanation for consciousness or awareness, even with a study of the human mind, yet this property exists.I don't need to do an involved investigation to know awareness is a reality.If something Serves a purpose, and I can be AWARE of that purpose, and see that purpose, then it would depend on how intricate the design of the thing that caused that purpose, ie, the mind. Hence I can form a conclusion in a valid way, the thing that caused that purpose was probably designed, as opposed to some random act in nature that causes what seem to ONLY be a purpose.That simple distinction, is what makes the science of what I am saying valid or invalid. In other words there is nothing wrong with the reasoning I am advancing You miss the point that is not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying you couldn't recognize the deformity, it there weren't a recognizable standard of normal.Secondly, there is no involved science to know this is true. It simply obvious by examination.If something serves a purpose, it would depend on how intricate the thing was that brought about that purpose, to make a valid observation, of if it were designed, ie the brain, verses a pile of rocks that happens to fall in a moment on a bear,that kill him and saves me from him. Clearly that's random verses, something that displays intricate order function, harmony and eventually a designed purpose.No need for an involved process for some things. If there is, then show me the INVOLVED PROCESS, that is necessary, to know things exist, or that awareness is a reality.It's really that simpleEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You simply don't understandJar, or your are purposely ignoring your responsibility, you cant just assert your conclusion, you need to show the cause and affect, the chain of causality, that your conclusion is valid, for an event you did not witnessThere's a difference in asserting it and demonstrating it.Ghosts and possession have no starting point in reality, therefore it's not the same.Where is your logically set out argument and evidence for the conclusion of Solely Natural Causes, other than saying I just see that.You see I get in trouble for that, right. Not by any biblical your standard, your notEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Is honesty really impossible for Creationists?I have never said I had any conclusion of Solely Natural Causes and that has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people.What I have said is that no one has ever presented any evidence of any non-natural cause.You still have not presented evidence of a non-natural cause.You have never presented any evidence of The Science in Creationism. See, once again reality, truth and honesty are getting in your way. Regardless of your belief the fact is that I am a Christian, an active Christian, raised in a Christian family and educated in a Christian school.The ball is still in your court Dawn.Where is the evidence of The Science in Creationism?Where is the evidence of a non-natural cause?

Where has that been concluded?

Well, no, not at all, and I thought I said "designer" always implies intelligence. Dr. A agreed and added "purpose" -- he so rarely agrees with anything I say I want to acknowledge it when he does.

Rubbish. What I find beautiful is not measured against some standard - it's entirely down to my perceptions. No doubt I will share some views as to beauty with other people, but I will differ from them too. There is no absolute standard of beauty. And may I add, that for you to try to define beauty by reference to "normality" smacks of some extremely distasteful views as to the value of those people in our society, who you might see as "not normal".

In response to this, I will say that your arguments are better than most and really can't be effectively argued against using just superficial arguments; they require exploration at a deeper level. You have done a good job of explaining much of the superficial facts surrounding these issues. But if you want your ideas to withstand scrutiny, they need to be able withstand scrutiny at a much deeper level than you are willing to go. The distinction between science and pseudoscience is very important to this discussion. How do we distinguish between those two categories? How do we determine that astrology, perpetual motion, numerology, aromatherapy, colon cleansing, and homeopathy are pseudoscience? None of these things necessarily invoke the supernatural, so in that way they are trying to understand the natural world, so why then are they not science?You may say it is because they have no basis in reality... but that is the point! How do we know that? In fact, the above listed pseudosciences might be right... aromatherapy may actually work, but it is still pseudoscience because of the way it is practiced - not based on the rightness or wrongness of the results. (Science is designed in such a way that it should weed out bad science, but that is not a prerequisite). Yes, and that is bogus. Even if the ToE is proved wrong, that doesn't lend support to creationism. In order for creationism to be supported scientifically it needs to stand on its own merits. No,that is not enough. Other pseudosciences also try to understand the natural world. There needs to be something more to the methodology. It is not a matter of me trying to define creationism out of science, it is recognizing the rigors that science requires in order to ensure that results are trustworthy. It was Ken Ham. Although I looked for the link and couldn't find it. I have seen many similar arguments from him. If he isn't the face of creationism, who is? I don't want it to be an argument, I want it to be a discussion. I have raised some honest concerns about the legitimacy of creationism as a science. I have asked how can we determine if an investigation of the natural world (a "science") is science or pseudoscience. That is what I would like to discuss and would like a response to. I say we can tell the difference because of the rigorous requirements that science has in regards to evidence, you believe it is something else. What is that something else?HBD

OK so this is going to sound esoteric perhaps, but are you saying 'an investigation' is science, Or are you saying science is an investigation ....Because there are many ways to investigate the physical world., Astrology for example. Does that make Astrology science? Can you define science to include your ideas but exclude astrology's? Again, I get that's what Creationism is, but surely these qualities are not sufficient to qualify something to be called Creationism, right? I am looking for something that separates Creationism from say, Evolution or Cancer Research or Astrology. Can you provide me with such a definition? I'm not looking for a general description, but a specific one. What makes an idea a Creationist idea, or what makes a set of ideas part of the endeavour of Creation Science. If you don't know whether something is creation science or nuclear energy generation, there's a significant communications problem here. The book is available freely online and was written 150 years ago and is the most famous work on the topic of evolution. But I'll skip to the end just for you:

quote:

---

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

---

See previous selection of Darwin quotes.

So astrology is a science. If you are happy to concede this, the discussion comes to its conclusion. I agree that arguing that things are here as a result of Solely Natural Causes is not science, and is philosophy.Which must settle the matter, yes? I am not doing science by trying to explain how we got here by Solely Natural Causes, and you are not doing science by trying to explain how Other Than Natural Causes must be involved. Good, glad we could settle things. Dawn, you stupid cunt, if you are going to turn this potentially civil philosophical discussion into a pointless name calling, at least pick the right words. Incidentally since you have decided to ignore my attempts to repair our relationship, I will be subsequently being impolite in exchange for yours. I will also attempt to pay dividends.Here is why I am not a liar, The thing you quoted me as saying just then? It was not me making statements about you. So I can't be lying about you. I was talking about an intellectual framework which includes a deity that can do anything.Would you now like to return to a civil discussion about the world with someone who takes a different stance than you, you miserable worm? I'm not your friend you pathetic illiterate lunatic. You broke up with me by impugning my honour and integrity repeatedly.

Just deduction:If a deducer exists, something exists
This deduction is being deduced by a deducer
Therefore something exists.That's Descartes' philosophy. You should read it. He actually puts in a decent attempt to go from here to God. It falls over, but maybe you have improvements.

quote:

---

But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature

---

That's the simple argument in English. More formally:1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I have an idea of supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. Necessary existence is a perfection.
4. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.That takes you up the 17th Century thinking, though the arguments have long been abandoned as unworkable - some of the ideas in the full argument he lays out still come up in discussions today. Science is that which is 'true'? How would we determine what is true? I mean beyond the trivial case that is your entire case. It doesn't explain everything, but it does explain the design we both see when we look at living things.

Sorry for giving you credit for recognizing a semantic argument...?Fair enough. We clearly see patterns that conform to regularities that seem to be arranged so as to complete goals. We recognize there is something significant in need of an explainer.You give it the word 'design'
I'll use the word 'adaptation'Design is the action of an intelligence, therefore intelligence designed the design.
Adaptation is....erm...the action of an adaptationer? Erm, that's not even a word, so it can't imply an intelligence or agency.I can go on, you call it a design, I'll call it a layout. A layout implies a layouter. I don't feel any teleology from that word, therefore no intelligence?You call it a design, I'll call it a 'form'. Form implies former. Therefore it used to be something else, but it changed through some evolutionary process.You call it a design, I'll call it a 'altimet'. Altimet implies an altimeter. Therefore the responsible party was high.Wow, I guess this whole argument hinges on word choice. Almost like it is a semantic argument that relies on a set of equivocations. But maybe I'm wrong. Thougher thater woulder implier you'er wronger.