Summations Only

Well no your wrong again, here's why. Notice the very Suttle slight differences in a females features in her face, that give the reality of feminine features versus masculine. Those, so very slight differences not only cause a feminine affect, the also create beauty. Not always, but they are noticable when the standard is exemplified. It's real not imaginedNow thone differences I don't imagine and they are not a human construct, but they do give us a standard, to distinguish it from those features in a women that are less attractive.Sure there's a scale so to speak, but there are standards that distinguish it, that are not a perception or construct When something serves a purpose, then the intricate design of that purpose, serves as a very good evidence to believe it was designed.In other words the search or investigation or science to the conclusion of design in that instance, is a valid approach. It doesn't need to be complicated or involved to be accurate, valid or science. It simply isPurpose like design doesn't need your approval to be reality. Other things that exist by observation and deduction are facts, truth, emotions, and awareness and consciousness.Since evolution can explain natural processess, then perhaps you could show the cause and affect,the chain of causality from the brain to the reality of consciousness.Or am I just imagining consciousness, is it just a human constructEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

At least Modulous has the integrity, to admit he has no evidence for the necessary conclusion of evolution. Your comments speak for themself about you.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And this is why they are denominations in the first place, because not only have they left the truth taught in scripture, just like you Jar, but they have abandoned all reasonRemember these passages, I doubt you do, but the ones that say,"Some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons"And "God will send them strong delusion to believe a lie""God will gave them over to a reprobate mind""Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the debater of THIS WORLD. Hath not God made foolish the WISDOM of this world?
For after that in the Wisdom of God (Roman's 1:20), the world by its own wisdom, ("The Scientific Method), discarded God and it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that are believing"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE DESIGNED, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"Yes Jar they have not only abandoned scripture but reason about God.So no wonder they don't want it taught as science.Dawn Bertot

Evolution is an investigation into the natural world. It has a process and a necessary conclusion of how these things got here in the first place.It's conclusion is that things are here by Solely Natural causes. Since you did not witness this event, it follows you could have no direct evidence of your conclusion.

But your assumption is wrong. ID, does start with abductive reasoning, we work from the inside out. It doesn't start with a general idea, then try to find that in things. It sees design and purpose from the internal working parts, we don't imagine itBut see thats the silliness of getting caught up in all these specifications of words, validity and soundness are enough to establish evidence, whether deductive, inductive or abductive.Falsifiability is not necessary or useful where obvious truths exist., ie the existence of things, the existence of consciousness, and design and purpose. Whether those things are real or not, actual or truthful, is not determined by whether they can be falsified, they are actual and real simply by observation and deduction. No qualifications or definitions of reasoning, ie, abductive, inductive, etc, are necessary to know this in truth .More twisting and confusion of my words, no pun intended. Well this could not possibly be true, if I am Assigning only one meaning to a word. If you wish to call an investigation something else, then you have to show by reality itself that can mean something else.You can't just ascribe a word like science another meaning, other than an investigation, which it truly what it is, then hope that meaning will you give it, will conform to realityYes I understand the difference in inductive, abductive, and deductive but I error designations are not so strict that thier meaning would change thee nature of evidence.Your goal was to show it meant anything more than an investigation in reality. But you have not done this Well this is not true. I have said from the start it is simply an investigation. I have added nothing, If so point it out.Thank you for admitting I have excluded Astrology as NOT being the same thing as Creationism and and ID. If you want to discuss these other two items, feel free to do so. Not really, since I have demonstrated it is aligned and supports, one of the only two logical possibilities of how and why things are in existence in the first place, ie,they always existed or something that always existed created those things.Wow I'd say that not only a lot more than Astrology, it is a very good indication of evidence by any standardDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You mean to tell me that when my whole argument was from the design argument, you couldn't figure out i was doing abductive reasoning.My further point was that you were menacing words to confuse these so Suttle distinctions. They don't matter they are a smoke screen in this proposition. Deduction, inductive and abductive. These have a small application in semantics but they don't affect the overall point of what involves an investigation Well of course, all of these things matter, connection to reality, chain of causation and types of reasoning, if we don't play the word game. If we let reality define words, if we don't put special rules on our investigation, if we don't dismiss actual evidence that is evidence, because we decided to call it Ontology and say Ontology, doesn't come under the heading of science since it doesn't follow our made up rules, so it doesn't matterI keep giving the example of chain of causality from the brain to consciousness, because it points up a truth and how evidence is established.All the elements are there, the brain, it's functions, mechanisms and consciousness. But if you can't show the chain of causality, are you now NOT doing science?Well of course you are, it's just a different aspect of science or investigation.It would be better to say what makes design, design and how can I identify it. Well the same way i can identify purpose or consciousnessSimply because my "science" is simple doesn't mean it's not evidence, the same way, much in the same way I would establish any other obvious truth, like those I've mentioned above.You ask, "what makes something science and only science"? Well, reality is what makes science science. How involved it is, will be determined by what you are doing. Not much "science", is necessary to know some Truths, unless we invent wayso to exclude obvious things, then say it is not science Both, any investigation into the natural world is science, yours mine or thiers. The distinction between Astrology and ID, is one of degree and how my investigation can conform to reality.No I am not saying to be science it must only involve the search for the how and why of things. But that distinction is what makes it Cleary distinguishable from Astrology. That's not thier goal or purpose. Thier looking for direction from inanimate objects, not gods. Oh, so by Human Affairs, you mean the intricate design we find in the human brain or eye or the intricate design in nature over all, and the corroborating evidence that supports specific revelation, in the scriptures, correct? OK, well, if Astrology can tout that kind of science, I'd say that's science.. but its not even close. But I doubt this is what you or they mean by Human Affairs. But at bare minimum it's Evidence of the process, even if the conclusion can't be proved. Much like the process and conclusion of evolution, correct Perhaps you could inform me how this would affect my propositionThe proposition is not whether I can prove my conclusion absolutely, the proposition is, does it qualify as science in its process, the answer is simply yes. It could not be otherwise, reality won't allow itNow if Astrology can tout other evidence for its conclusion, the way creation can in the form of the scriptures, we might take another look at its process and conclusion. Since it cannot, there's no reason to give it serious consideration.But to keep things in perspective, design and purpose are as easy to recognize as consciousness, existence and other obvious truths. The process by which we recognize these truths need not be complicated and indeed they are not.But these things clearly and obviously exist, dont they? So science, if you wish to call it that, can involve nothing more that simple observations.So my first proposition in this thread is established, without any real effort. Now if you would like to test our conclusion against what evolutions Conclusion posits, verses what the Bible' conclusion posits, concerning creation, as evidence and truth, that would be another topic and another discussion, which I am happy to engage.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No I was intimating that you are using these terms, to confuse and distinguish science with investigation, trying to make a distinction, that does not exist.You still need to demonstrate by reality, not by words, that science is nothing more than an investigation. Since you have already conceded this, it would follow that I don't need to demonstrate better science for it to be science, abductive reasoning not withstanding Not necessary here,since all I need to do is show that my procees in Creationism is science, since I have done that by any definition of the word, I've established my proposition.Unless your prepared to show how deduction is not science.The chain of causality is by deduction and indirect evidence, the same way i know consciousness exists I have no inclusions or exclusions. I don't decide what science is or is not, reality does, not you. Asking for an explanation outside what reality allows is nonsense.How's that for something that doesn't exist What a person want or imagines he needs, is not the same as the reality that can be witnessed in intricate design in the human eye or brain. One is real the other are imagination. Process to process. The laws or motion are what they are, they have nothing to do with someone's imagination of what they might be doing for,them. Hardly comparable to design Pay close attention Modulous, my "observations" are not what support Intelligent Design, the design in realty,which would exist even if I didn't observe them are what support design. They are realityWhat most people would call creationism, is not what demonstrates creationism. Thier perceptions are not reality. Principles that exist in reality, ie, existence and in this instance design, exist independent of our ability to observe it. It's just nice that we can. There are no word games, there is only reality,you are ignoring it and how it establishes what you Call science. If you want IT to MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU, then pay attention to realityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I'm saying both, that is science initially and primarily overall an investigation and secondly that the the science in creationism or creation is the intricate design detected by simple observation.It's like observing consciousness or beauty or awareness or detecting thought by knowing im hearing my own thoughts.Since these things Cleary exist, no complicated science to know that, it follows that it would depend on you to demonstrate I am not witnessing what I can observe.You need to show not just assert I'm not seeing these things. But how would you do that, it's impossible Never said words didn't have meanings, I said reality gives words thier meaning. Secondly I said when the definitions ascribed by man given to words, try to contradict or ignore simple observable truths, then those meanings need to be discardedI have a simple choice I can ignore axioms or simple observable truths or I can imagine that some word or subdivision of a word has discarded that truth, misused in argument form. Which one do you think a reasonable person will acceptDesign is simply and easily detectable, just like existence, consciousness, but when we start ignoring the simple with words or word divisions, then it is clear your not being reasonable You can show what science is in two ways. By making your word science conform to reality and not to some definition of science that ignores simple obvious truthsHere is what I mean. If your definition of science needs cause and affect and a chain of causality to be science, then I know your definition is not correct, because you CANNOT show the chain of causality from the brain to consciousness. If you could,you would have already done it.So any tyro could see that the definition you have chosen for science neither conforms to reality or your not doing science, or there may be other simpler definitions of science that demonstrate truthsMy science in creationism doesn't need my conclusion to be categorized as science, it just needs to conform to reality and be understood as evidence by simple observation in designThe clear and obvious evidence in design doesn't need your brand of science to be science. It's really that simple. Right, but if the word doesn't conform to reality or ignores reality, then it is the meaning ascribe to the word that is wrong, not reality.Cheese is a word, but we know the moon is not made of cheese. Sorry no. Social matters are a creation of the mind, with no relation to the natural world. In other words they don't start in natural processes. Even if we say they do they are a by product, not like design which is separate from human reasoning. It would be what it is, even if I weren't around to observe it And neither can I Observe the conclusion of the ToE, that things are here by Solely Natural Causes. There you go again, asking me to give you direct evidence for my conclusion, assuming your direct evidence of just your process is the same type of evidence, to demonstrate mu conclusion, it's notNow the question is, does science need to be as involved as the the SM, to observe absolute truth? Answer, as I have now demonstrated is no. Since I only need to demonstrate the science of my process, which is clear observable intricate design, then there is science in the proposition of creationism. At least my conclusion is warranted with no fear of contradiction But that's the point Modulous, you are erring on the side of common usage, EVEN IF, the the common does not conform to reality. You saying let's stick with the meaning of the word, no matter what?When words, phrases, ideas "arguments" or whatever conflict with reality, we have to abandon those. If design is,detectable simply by observation, then it does not matter if I'm using, decdutive, inductive abductive reasoning, or if it falls within any of those words or noneIf science is the best word you can find for what you are doing make sure it's definition conform and you are not ignoring simple truths in favor of your teachers definitionsthings exist Sorry when I copied this this is what it came out as. No matter.Do any of these symbols in logic, or all of them demonstrate in reality, that design is not design, or that I can not easily observe design. If they don't then they have no purpose to realityNo special pleading here, other than begging you will pay attention to reality."For, the invisible things of him are clearly SEEN, being UNDERSTOOD (reasoned science),
being understood by the things that are DESIGNED, (natural observable truth)even his eternal power and Godhead,
SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE"Roman's 1:20Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And my point being, that since all the elements are there, the brain, the mechanism and the process, you should be able to see a chain of causality, using your very involved scientific method. I mean is something missing for you to NOT do this?If you can't and you should be able to, what would you say is the source of this simple observable thing called consciousness?If consciousness is easily detectable by simple observation and I don't need a very involved process to identify it's existence in reality, would this be considered science? I mean since it's not involved, necessarily Oh I think you do,ive,stated it 1000 times now. It's the science of investigation by observation of simple undeniable truths, that don't need involved processess. These help me establish my conclusion of a designer or creatorWhen you can demonstrate my processes needs to be involved to support my conclusion, then you will have,won the discussion Creationism can be detected in many ways. The only question before us is there science in my process. The answer is yes. Design is as easily detectable as awareness or consciousness. So if you don't have a scientific theory or causal link for consciousness, can you still know that it exists and are you doing science when you detect it's reality.While, I'm not using an involved processess to detect design, but we can see that it exist, is there any thing really wrong with my conclusion, that follows from this processess, or do you not like it personally The SUPPORT of my proposition is my process, presently.Because something is written down, doesn't mean that is its only and primary support. If those words were never written in that passage, design and a designer would still be true, correct?The passage only indicates what is detectable in natural processessAgain, what would be be your educated guess, at what the source would be of consciousness. Is there even the smallest link you can identify using the scientific method. If you can't what do you think is going onDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Everything you do is nitpiking.Anyone that knows your pattern knows that you troll along behind a few of your cronies actual arguments, then come in behind them like, some sort of cheerleader, only to follow,it up with insults, jibes and rudnessYour are to argumentation what an allergy is to the eyes or nose, an irritant, with no real purpose other than to annoyDawe Bertot

After nearly 1000 posts , not all by our side of course, not a single argument, illustration or observation has been advance to demonstrate that any kind of investigation is not science, by the common usage if the wordThat if that investigation is applied to the study of natural processes and it follows a reasoned, logical way of thinking and investigation, how could it be anything but science.The secular fundamental humanist thinks he has actually dismissed this as science by arguing that it doesn't follow an involved process, ie the scientific method. Since, it is possible to actually know several things in fact by simple observation and deduction
The SFH, imagines that the simple is not science and that these are not actually truthOf course there is no way for him or her to demonstrate this in reality, he can only imagine that it is not science and that truths dont actually exist.Thus the science in creationismism, ID, or investigation, what ever you wish to call it, is not and need not be complicated. It is as warranted as any conclusion, that is sustained by even that type of evidenceBecause the SFH, in reality rejects that any kind of actual truths exist , and these by simple observation, they assume they have likewise dismissed any evidence concerning the evidence in design and a designer.So the science that supports creationism can't be reasoned away or imagined away, it must be demonstrated, it is actually less than any common usage of the word. Of course, That is an impossibilityMany simple truths exist. Consciousness, thought, existence, beauty, reality, design. They cannot be imagined or argued away.It's hard to imagine how besides a select group of people called Secular fundamental Humanists, all other people can see these truths and realities. The vast majority of people have no need to reason away, that which is obvious.So once again the SFH must imagines that they don't exist, he has no way to do it in reality howeverSo we have established that investigation is science, it need not be complicated to be true and that the intricacy in design is as obvious as any self evident truthThe SFH lives and dies by the scientific method, but when asked to provide a link of causality be tween the brain and consciousness, he says we have none. Is this because there is none or because the scientific is lacking as scienceHe tells us that if the brain ceases to function, that consciousness ceases, but this is only showing a chain of causality, like that akin to design and a designer. So did the SFH do science here or is his observation enough to count as science, because he has still not shown how the brain actually produces consciousness?Even after demonstrating simple obvious truths do indeed exists and these truths are evidence,we are then required to show a chain of causality between the design and the designer. Yet the SFH cannot show us the first step in the chain of causality between the brain and causality and this is alledgedly all natural processes.In other words all the elements are there in this Solely Natural process, so what's the problem in providing us this chain of causality it demands of everyone else?No special pleading here however, just pointing to what constitutes evidence. Consciousness exists, yet no chain of causality, so should I believe it doesn't exist because there is no link of causality, or accept it as a fact and evidence Because it does existDesign is of the same sort of evidence, it exists, yet it must not exist because I can't show a chain of causality. Who indeed is actually doing special pleading? Well if we follow the SFH line of reasoning, it's them.We are told that to just SEE design is not enough, this makes my argument a human perspectuve. But that's not the argument is it?.100 people can look at any given item in nature and give nearly 100 different answers as to its possible design or the fact that it was not designed.So what is necessary is not to pay attention to human perspective, but to what is ACTUALLY taking place in REALITY. In this instance, purposeful, intricate order working harmoniously, down to the most minute detail, the like of which, is such that no human invention can rival designs characteristics.We don't just imagine it, we don't just "SEE" it, it's actually there. So that there is actually a big difference in perception and realityIt's only when we MUST use some extremist uses of the word science, that design and purpose get illiminated as scienceThe science in creationism is demonstrated by both simple and involved investigation and from the type of evidence that establish simple truths. What else do we need?Creationism begins and ends with simple truths. The science that is involved in ID or creationism, will never change, because it is a fixed, axiomatic truth that, has no possibility of contradiction.One might as well imagine THINGS don't actually existSo is there anything wrong with the Scientific Method as prescribed by these fellas, we'll frankly yes. It is extremist, it ignores evidence and it does not follow it's own rules, as we have clearly demonstrated, in the examples I have given.The reason the SFH cannot find a link between the brain and consciousness, the brain and thought, natural processes and beauty and all the other things that should be EASILY detectable using the so-called scientific method, is that these observable truths are ditinguisable from strictly natural processes"SECURE IS LIFE (consciousness, thought, awareness, beauty, etc) FROM MORTAL MIND, (the Scidentific Method)
GOD HOLDS THAT GERM WITH IN HIS HAND, THOUGH MEN MAY SEARCH THEY CANNOT FIND, FOR GOD ALONE DOES UNDERSTAND"Even though this is only a small sentiment from a song, doesn't it reflect, that which is in REALITY, and quite clearly the limitations of the Scientific Method and how one establishes truth and evidence?For the Theist, the Christian and the believer, the consciouness, is a perfect example of a process that while functioning in harmony with the mechanism of the brain, it is itself quite clearly seperate from it's function. If it were it's link would be easily recognizable.It is therefore proof positive that the consciouness can quite clearly survive death and even continue to exist.Design and consciousnes are very simple observable truths that provide us clear evidence, of the existence of other than natural processesIts not just that the SFH hasn't figured out how consciousness works or discovered its mechanism, it's simply that there is no link for them to work with from the startProof positive that truth exists independent of so called Scientific methodsThe easily observable truth in design shows us and demonstrates to us that a designer exists, specific revelation in the form of God's Word tells us what science can't, that consciousness is a product and creation of This same designer"And God The Lord God formed (designed) man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of LIFE (consciouness) and man became a LIVING (awareness and rationality) Soul"But reality had already revealed this in the form of design and consciousness before it was ever put in written words, didn't it?Genesis 2:7Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

In a last summary note, it must be observed that there are two sad ironies that Secular Fundamental Humanists have missed.Firstly, if this were 1000 years ago, we might be able to buy the idea that consciousness is in fact, a product of the mechanical functions of the brain. Simply because there would not have been a way to test that conclusionIf it were, 500, 200, or 100 years ago, they may have been able to make that same claim. But we now have all the technics and methods to study the brain and yet they STILL have no way to show that link, between the brain and consciousness.Certainly this is a sad iorny, that demonstrates that the so-called Scientific Method is either lacking or unnecessary at times to observe simple truth, since we AWARE and CONSCIOUS of the fact that it exists and the SM cant explain how it worksFunny stuffSecondly, if consciousness is only a production of brain function and the Scientific Method can't identify it's link and chain of causality, this would imply that the brain is so complex in DESIGN that the chances that blind causes brought it about would be astronomicalIt would imply that Natural Causes are more intelligent, than the brain trying to FIGURE out how it works or produces awarenessFunny stuff eh? Are you smarter than a monkey? Or are you willing to admit consciousness is a truth that exists separate from brain function?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So then you can provide a chain of causality from the brain to consciouness, correct? If not then you did not read what I wrote.So provide the scientific method that shows us the link and chain of causality, please, I'm all earsDawn Bertot

I know this is technically out of order, but please bare with me Modulous.I know you are fully convinced there will be no judgement at the end of this life and I am aware you ACTUALLY believe that.But do me a favor. If it happens that you are wrong, please bring the above explanation for not believing with you and I'll bring Romans 1:20. Not to prove I was right, for in even in that moment the Lord will be loving tword you, as he always is in any situation.Not that I won't have several things to answer for as well, but to see the expression on his face and the resulting smile that well up on his face as you give your very in depth "evidential explanation", as to why you did not believe in his existence as compared to Roman's 1:20Just a thought, but please reconsider why and how what you believe before that timeThanks a bunchDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Then you were not paying attention during the actual debate.What I said to Modulous was just a side noteBut if you'd like to show me the chain of causality from the brain to consciousness, I'm all earsAnd besides this you make religious belief sound dirty. Was that your intention indirectlyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.