The evidence for design and a designer

While we will certainly repeat and I hope so, some of the points we had previously discussed, it is my intention to set out here what is actually involved in the term evidenceSecondly to demonstrate that evidence is not always demonstrated by groups claiming said evidence and that what is required of others is not required of that same groupThirdly, to demonstrate that conclusions, of EVEN undetermined probabilities are a natural, logical and necessary part of evidence. they follow out of those probabilties.Finally of course, to show how said evidence demonstrates the design probability, AS STRICLY EVIDENCE, without simple contemplation of, or producing a designer. IOW, its not required of either of those, to demonstrate DESIGN as evidenceIll start the ball rolling in a few hours with more specific points in relation to the above illustrations, as an addition to this postBack in a fewDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Change title.

Hi Dawn Bertot,Your proposal uses much the same terminology and phrasing that people were having so much difficulty understanding. Is there a website you could reference that you think expresses the same ideas?Also, your syntax is sometimes a bit tough to untangle. Here's an attempted rewrite of your opening post, please give me your feedback:

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Perhaps there is but Iam not aware of it, its simply pure reason Not a problem, Ill try andbe as simple as possible. But verbage is necessary somethimes to get a deeperpoint acroos, especially when you are speaking different languages yesIt is expected that we will repeat some of the points we had previously discussed. perhaps we could say we will try to arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of evidence No that thier definition of evidence and its application is different Correct Sure that is very simpleI will demonstrate that CONCLUSIONS of undetermined, yet probable alternatives, are a natural, logical and necessary part of evidence No. I will demonstrate that even in the ABSENSE of a designer,or watching a designer design, that evidence as stricly evidence, confirms design. If the same rules of evidence are applied,correctly and evenly for both partiesI am going to be off the grid for a while, i will return to it this evening--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Forgot to mention, the title needs to change, too. How about "The evidence for design and a designer"? Are you saying English is a second language for you?Here's a 2nd attempt at your list of areas of discussion: About this next one: You first described it as "undetermined probabilities," and now you're describing it as "undetermined yet probable alternatives." Those two phrases are not synonyms, not even close, so I'm going to attempt another rewrite: I'm concerned about this: You need to clearly define what rules of evidence you're referring to. "Rules of evidence" is a legal term. It's used in courtrooms, not laboratories.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Well, what I was hoping for was to discuss the definition and nature of EVIDENCE, then design as an illustration to that fact
Hence if I could, I would like to leave it titled,The design of evidence, in reality, with application to the design principle."Is that acceptable? It has to be deep, insightful and witty like myself. Just kidding about this part These are fine Any rules that are valid to establish a demonstratable fact. Im not looking for definitions necessarily, but evidence in a logical fashion, tested against realityPeople will be welcome to present any rule they deem as valid, whether scientific or legal, or otherwiseI dont make those distinctions about evidence, its either evidence or its not. Can we see how that develops?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The "in reality" part is unnecessary. All the science forums deal with reality.About the rest, most native English language speakers would find this title confusing, for a couple reasons.First, most would interpret "the design of evidence" as meaning that you're referring to actually designing evidence. I think what you really mean is the "evidence for design."Second, most will have no clear idea of what you mean by "design principle."And that title makes no sense at all after you say this: In that case the title should be "Design as an illustration of the definition and nature of evidence," and I wouldn't agree to that title because design is what you're trying to find evidence for. We already know "how it develops." It was clearly illustrated in the other thread. If you're going to use claims about the "rules of evidence" as frequently as you did there, then you need a clear definition of what you mean before I'll allow that line of argument in a new thread.And you still need to make clear how point 4 bears on the topic: You didn't say whether English is your native language, so I'm going to assume that it isn't. And you also said that your ideas do not come from any other source but are your own. The concerns that I now have are that you are for some reason insisting that English phrases that make sense to no native English language speakers do indeed make sense, and that ideas that are solely your own and that have never been vetted anywhere also do indeed make sense and are in fact inevitable and incontrovertible facts, and that you're willing to maintain this position across hundreds of posts while refusing to offer explanations or clarifications.In other words, the work we're doing now is intended to avoid a repeat of what happened over at the ICR Sues Texas thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Im anxious to get started, so we will go with whatever title you choose and any of the revised points you have mandated, if you will go ahead and set out on each point and what you want to see.Dawn Bertot

I think it's important that we agree what the thread is about before it is promoted.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Understood. I wish this to be a thread that is primarily about evidence, how it is established commonly and then explore whether the two sides of evolution and theism and the design proponents can come to an agreement of what is applicable in these areas as evidenceDawn Bertot

In that case I can direct you to the thread What is Evidence?.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think if you give my suggested thread a chance it will delvelope and you will get the participation it requiresDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sorry, no. I'll close this proposal, you can post a note to Thread Reopen Requests 2 if you decide you'd like to work with me on developing an acceptable proposal.

Hi Dawn,My first concern is this one: I think the definition and nature of evidence is an independent topic from the evidence for design, and that it could be discussed over at the What is Evidence? thread. Agreement about evidence is a prerequisite for any discussion about the evidence for design.If you'd like to skip the discussion of evidence then you have to accept my definition. Evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly.I think the title of this thread should be "The evidence for design and a designer."If you intend to talk about the "rules of evidence" in the thread then you need to clearly define it here. If you don't define it in the opening post then it will be off-limits in the discussion.If you intend to assert that evolutionists believe that things are "ordered of themselves" or anything remotely similar then in the opening post you need to clearly explain what it means, and you must demonstrate that it is actually something evolutionists believe. Otherwise it will be off-limits in the discussion.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Im fine with this definition of evidence, although I dont understand you last comment there, you must have been "baked" when you wrote that part, ha ha ,That is fine I dont care as long as its starts the ball rolling Ok Ok thats fine. Are you a professor some where? Getting a loan to buy a company wasnt this hard, Ha HaDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Think of a meat thermometer, or an outdoor thermometer installed just outside one of your windows, or a steam temperature gauge, etc. You've got all my alarm bells going off because of the amount of time people spent trying to understand what you were saying in the ICR Sues Texas thread while you took the position that if people didn't understand you it was either their own fault or they were being purposefully thick. I'm going to promote this thread soon, and then I'm going to serve as moderator to make sure that everyone's discussion points are clear.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director