Summations Only

Would you care to support this claim with evidence, or are you just going to repeat it a lot?

If you mean ordered rather than orderly, then the answer is yes, those things which are ordered rather than merely orderly are by definition ordered according to some purpose.Ordered Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comNow all you would need to do is provide scientific evidence that living organisms were in fact ordered by someone, and you would have done what no-one else has and put some science into creationism.Do you have any such evidence?

Actually, I said yes. Dawn, this is what you wrote. If you don't like the fact that I gave a clear straightforward answer to the question you actually asked, try asking a different one. Though I warn you that my answer to that question might be equally clear and unambiguous. That's an easy question. The answer is no. No: because I use evidence, whereas you just waffle like this when challenged to present any.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You need to find evidence for this purpose, not just assert that you can "clearly see" it.(No-one can "clearly see" purpose. I can clearly see the mug on my desk. It is red and yellow. What color is purpose? Well then.)Do you have any evidence for this purpose of which you speak?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes. I've seen things. No-one told me. Observation. No it isn't. This is why you need to provide evidence for this proposition.Do you have any evidence?

I'd say that that was incoherent gibberish. As not being a design with a purpose.The question of how it came about is in fact relevant to the question of whether it was purposely designed.Do you have any evidence that this is the result of purposeful design?Show me the evidence. No. I need to challenge you to produce evidence that they were designed, instead of you just claiming that without any proof.Show me the evidence. I don't claim that, so I don't need to demonstrate that.You claim that your eyes were designed. You need to demonstrate that.Show me the evidence. No, just a function. Unless you have some evidence that they have a purpose?Show me the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The thing is that we use "law" to refer to our attempted summaries of the real tendencies of nature, rather than to those tendencies themselves. Still, disputing with Dawn over this relatively trivial point seems a waste of time when he's so lavishly and copiously wrong about everything else.

Actually, I say that this "clear design" cannot be known as a truth because you can't find any evidence for it.Show me the evidence.

That was kind of my point. We see that eyes have a function: allowing me to see, keeping me out of ditches, etc. Then along comes a creationist and commits what you describe as "idiocy". No, hearing and seeing are the function of my sensory organs. To demonstrate that they are also their purposedesigned.Show me the evidence. And there is abundant evidence for that. But this thread is for you to demonstrate that creationism is scientific.Show me the evidence. It goes like this. Whenever we know how some mug came into existence, we find that humans were involved in its design and construction. We generalize this into a general rule which we shall take to be true until we find evidence for a counterexample(the defining feature of science). Then given a mug where we have no direct knowledge of its origin, we interpret the mug according to the general rule.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You didn't ask; and there is insufficient data to know. Of course.

This is gibberish.Also, do not tell me what I want. If you were right, it would be superfluous; as you are not, it is dishonest. I have told you that. Did you miss it? Post #71. Have a look. Things which are designed must necessarily have a purpose. (Using the term rather loosely.)Do you have any evidence that organisms were designed or have a purpose?Show me the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since I just told you that, and I quote "Things which are designed must necessarily have a purpose." I am baffled to know why you are challenging me to produce a counterexample to my own claim. Are you by any chance barking mad? All design has a purpose. This is not an assumption, it is true simply by definition. That would indeed be OK, if only you had any.Show me the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Whereas when I ask you for evidence, what I mean is evidence. As you are talking to me rather than to the imaginary people who live in your head, perhaps what I mean is more relevant to our discussion.Now, do you have any evidence? If so, please show me the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I doubt that very much. Just to check, can you show me the evidence you're using? Of course I do not deny this. Please do not lie to me about what I mean. Where is your evidence for intricate design in nature?Show me the evidence.

I doubt that very much. But just to check, can you please show me this evidence? But it is necessary to have evidence for design and purpose.Please show me the evidence. No I did not. Please do not tell stupid lies. You have not explained what you mean by "direct evidence", and the phrase "Soleynatural caused being a conclusion oOF evolution" is not written in the English language. If you will ask me a clear question I will answer it.