Summations Only

Apparently you have lost track of the task you set for yourself. Here is a partial reminder... It seems that you have completely given up on making this showing and have substituted gibberish about the meanings of words as a substitute for showing us that there is anything scientific about creationism. No, a word is not the thing itself. We agree on that. But journeying down that rabbit hole does not make any progress on making the showing you have indicated you want to make.Whatever the origin of the word science, it is a label for a specific type of inquiry whose features have been covered extensively in this thread. Pointing out that words are only contrivances does not enable you to expand the definition of a word willy-nilly. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

OK, so what you mean to say is

The Investigation in Investigation

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause investigation to fail as investigation and fail to qualify for any serious investigative investigationIt was further intimated that investigation cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered investigation in the way the term investigation is currently definedAnd lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that investigation could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theoryFrom this it was concluded that many investigators had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideologyIt is these issues that I purpose discussing in some detail to demonstrate that Secular Fundamental Humanists conclusion and the specifics I have mentioned, that alledgedly support thier assertions, are simply not the caseIt is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual investigation evidence that supports investigation investigation, it will be demonstrated that investigation investigation very much passes a investigation investigation

---

This is what you meant to say? Astrology is as supported in reality as Creationism because Astrology is an investigation.Unless you can tell me how would something go about finding 'support in reality'? Bare in mind there are obvious truths in astrology (human affairs exist, there must be something that gives rise to human affairs...is the same type of argument you have given)

No worries. Thank you for finally admitting you aren't doing science. If you think that it would be MORE appropriate to call you the C word if you were a woman, then you ARE a C word.

This was answered before you even posted. See Message 766

It is possible to deduce that one thing exists by deduction. Whether or not something exists is part of the study of ontology. No, it is inferred from the evidence, not deduced.Deductive logic cannot provision us with much that can be called knowledge, as all of the information exists within the premises. The sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it true?
Can you deduce it using terms you have deduced?

In the context in which you are using the phrase "real thing", you believe incorrectly.Beauty is not a "real thing", in the sense of an independent, objective feature. This is because (a) it is a subjective perception, an interpretation, of an object's features; and (b) because different people think different things are beautiful.It is a "real thing", in the sense that it is a generally shared concept amongst sentient humans, which we can describe to and recognise with each other. But it is not an aspect of an object which exists outside of our perceptions.And to steer back to topic, this is where we are with function and purpose. An eye has a function - it focuses and differentiates certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, and reacts in ways which our brain interprets to build a picture of our surroundings. It has evolved to have that function, because it's a rather useful survival trait. If we use the word "purpose", that presupposes an intelligent intent, and we have no evidence for such an intent - we just have evidence of function.

Right, so you have claimed that the intricacy of a snowflake can be explained by the structure of a water molecule. The issue with such a claim is that every snowflake is different, and the actual specific structure of any specific snowflake is determined by unintelligent, chaotic (random) forcesSo what you have actually described are natural forces working on existing objects to from a design. Even if we concede that those natural objects, i.e. water molecules were created by God, the result is intricacies formed by nature. I'm willing to accept that such a things is possible and happens routinely. Are you? Actually that is your position in this discussion. The problem is that since intricacy can result from things other than Designer action, then you cannot make the leap that intricacy results from the handiwork of an intelligent designer. Until you've ruled out evolution as a producer of intricacy then your attempt at drawing an inference fails.

Snowflakes and crystals have an orderliness that I'd impute to natural forces alone, but that's about the extent of it. The natural forces themselves may imply a designer, however, as you say, the shape of the molecules that are responsible for the design, though the design is the automatic result of the shape of the molecule, and in that case the natural intricacies nature can produce are His work too.But the argument from design is about living things where it is most apparent, most intricate, many systems working together to produce and maintain life. Complexity way beyond mere intricacy. Even here there are systems that once designed and functional just do their thing naturally, such as microevolution, but that design required a Designer. Once the airplane is designed and functional, it functions without human involvement except to put the whole thing into motion. Intricacy isn't the only factor in design, certainly not of living things. No, evolution can't produce design, or even intricacy for that matter; design implies a Designer. It takes an intelligence to put living things together, the way it takes intelligence to produce an airplane.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, this is merely your assertion and not something that you can demonstrate. In fact it is merely a statement of your conclusion and not an argument at all.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's really all there is to the argument from design: Design requires a Designer, period, the watch implies a watchmaker. The ToE is similarly a mere assertion that can't be demonstrated, though it has no compelling logic like the argument from design does. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evolution can be demonstrated by reference to the evidence; and petitio principii is hardly "logic".Stop writing stupid words. It's a beautiful day, go and do something that isn't completely pointless.

Right. It is an assertion that you don't bother to support and absolutely no argument at all. No attempt whatsoever to eliminate other possibilities. Simply announcing your conclusion. In short no argument at all. Right. Just about as compelling as the argument that snowflakes are designed.Of course what you repeat here is standard creationism; evolution is just as unscientific as Creationism. The problem for your canard is that the evolution is supported by lots of evidence and that you are targeting on an aspect of evolution that is supported by direct evidence.Even microevolution involves small amounts of intricate design accomplished by nature all supported by direct and indirect evidence. Even those cited exceptions that you admit being unable to dismiss of mutations that result in curly dog/cat ears, or humans gaining persistent lactose intolerance, or bacteria gaining the ability to create nylon are all direct evidence of intricacies produced in living things without an intelligent designer. Complaining that such things are not macroevolution does not prevent those things from being evidence that some features only look designed but aren't.

I'm with Faith on this one. (Those words may not have been said before)It's always puzzled me why believers give a toss for scientific or even philosophical argument. All they need to say is that it's God's work and he can do anything. It's what they believe why try for more? It's almost as if it isn't a good enough explanation even for them.It's highly likely that man will never be able to figure out the something instead of nothing question and if he does, it's going to be in a mathematical form that will be beyond the comprehension of all but a few. Language ceases to be useful with concepts such as 'nothing', people just tie themselves in semantic knots - as you can see here in this discussion.

... I think you think you're commenting on a different thread.

Are there different threads?