ICR Sues Texas

Coyote has several times mentioned the counterexample of the complex order of the snowflake (among other things). What is the train of logic that leads you to conclude it is not designed?--Percy

Where is the order? You see order, I see chaos.The Universe, numerous galaxies randomly spaced, of different kinds and sizes where is the order?The solar system planets revolving around a star not in circular orbits bur elliptical and with different eccentricities where is the order?The earth rotates not with its axis not perpendicular to the plane of rotation but ~23 degrees from the plane. The revolution does not have an equal number of rotations where is the order?Life required nourishment to survive, it takes in food and converts this into tissue but also into energy much of which is wasted as heat, it also requires energy to break down the food (catabolism) and built up the tissue (anabolism). where is the order?all chaos.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I had some arrogant little turds like you in the service , you wont stop until you get your wayOk I responded to your other thread and I dont think you are going to like it. I CANNOT believe you actually made a comment orconclusion like that in post 7. That is hands down the funniestthing I have ever heardDawn Bertot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I will try and do better, Im typing without my reading glassesC writes: Percy writes: Ill answer both at the same time. I have now several times addressed this issue. That which is a result of the mechanism or in this case organisms and molecules, which arethe more complex order, is a relative representation of the visible order of the living orderely organism.the shape of the snowflake is relative, to the living ordered organism. the order of the organism is not relative, the shape it produces isDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but that is gibberish.Just tell me, is the snowflake designed? Are the soda straws that we sometimes find in caves designed?And how do you know?Do you have a set of rules that can differentiate complex shapes that are designed from those that are natural?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I can't make any sense out of this. Let me try to list and distill down what appear to be the statements of fact, followed by my questions.

1. The result of the "mechanism" is a relative representation of the order in life.
   ​
   (What is the mechanism?)
   ​
2. The shape of the snowflake is relative to the order in life.
   ​
   (I don't know what this means. Can you say more?)
   ​
3. The order in an organism is not relative.
   ​
   (Relative to what?)
   ​
4. The shape of an organism is relative.
   ​
   (Relative to what?)

--Percy

xEdited by Admin, : Hide content of duplicate post.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wow I was hoping for more than your inability to respond to an argument. Ill accept this as your inability to respond to the argument Bad form Coyote where I am obligated through badgering to respond to all of your questions,, but with a wave of the hand your able to simply state, "This is Gibberish"Take a lesson from Percys approach and you might learn manners and how to debate correctlyFor the fourth or fifth time now, the shape you see in the snowflake is a RELATIVE shape, it can have no design where the is nothing else to compare it with, UNLIKE THE ORGANISMS AND MOLECULES that make its shape, which are ordered, designed and comparative to others that do exist.Im tired of answering the same question over and over, its time for you to respond to my argument. Quit runningDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this either. I'll break it down like I did before as best I can:

1. The snowflake is a relative shape.
   ​
   (Relative to what?)
   ​
2. The snowflake can have no design because there is nothing else to compare it with.
   ​
   (So things that have nothing to compare with are not designed? If I have that right, how do you arrive at this conclusion?)
   ​
   (If there's nothing to compare a snowflake with then how can its shape be relative to something?)
   ​
3. The snowflake's shape is made up of organisms and molecules.
   ​
   (The makeup of a snowflake's shape includes organisms?)
   ​
4. Organisms and molecules are ordered.
   ​
   (No problem with this.)
   ​
5. Organisms and molecules are designed.
   ​
   (Isn't this just a declaration of your conclusion?)

--Percy

Isnt relative self explanatory. it cant be relative to something else if its relative. No design because it is not comparable to anything else, if all snowflakes are different, correct? I didnt say there was nothing to compare a snowflake with, I said there is nothing to compare its shape to, because no snowflake is shaped the same, correct?The basic structure of the snowflake, that which is its makeup, the molecules and the such like are comparable to others in a different place and are testable to be the same order of another snowflake, even if the other produces a different relative shape Now you are starting to get it. While the shape is different that which makes up the snowflake is the same ordered organism and molecules, testable and comparable in another place No. this is a declaration of the testable and observable order, using a rule of evidence, the conclusionof which is demonstratable and irrefutable, but not absolutley provableDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What are the "among other things", he mentioned, I dont remember anyother examples besides the straws anad snoflakesDawn Bertot

In Message 160 I presented snowflakes, quartz crystals, stalactites, and the aurora as examples.If you don't like snowflakes because each is different, perhaps quartz crystals would be a better example, as those follow a regular pattern.Are they designed or not? And more importantly, how can you tell?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

My message 326 answers all of this in detail, all you need do is respond to it. That is if your are bound by the same rules that that I am in this forumHave at itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sorry, I can't make heads or tails out of your argument.You claimed snowflakes aren't designed because each is different so I provided you with the example of quartz crystals where each is essentially the same.But somehow your argument has morphed.Are you now saying that only living things are designed, and that natural objects are not?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.