Summations Only

Don't know how Dawn will answer you but I think it's the difference between a reality and a verbal formulation. That is, apples continue to fall to the ground despite Einstein's theory, if you jump off a building you will probably die, and so on and so forth. That remains a physical reality, a divine law if you will, even if a more precise understanding would put it differently.I think that's the part that's law as Dawn put it, divinely given reality. Falsifiability and parsimony and Newton's Laws are the humanly devised principles formulated to explain the divinely given realities. Those realities never change, but the principles to define them will change with more sophisticated understanding.

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.

Seems to me it does help discussion if it's possible to find a way to make distinctions like that. There is such a thing as a "law of nature" although probably not in scientific circles. How about "divine law" or "natural law" versus "humanly formulated law" or something like that.

I believe I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think what you mean is any advancement over what Taq and Coyote have already posted. But let's see what you actually posted? Despite Einstein's theory? Surely that is not a meaningful statement. At best we might say that apples fall without regard for Einstein's existence. Einstein's theory is a description and it is also believed to be an explanation for how reality actually works. I am not sure that we have any better explanation to explain what gravity actually is.Further, gravity extends to situations well beyond apples buildings, and other things you can declare or have bothered to state in theological terms. Whatever are its divine origins, gravity is almost certainly not a proclamation of what should happen to apples and people leaping from buildings. If there is some way to describe some divine law that tells us what gravity actually is, I suspect that it is beyond your capability to describe without simply reciting the same observations about gravity that science uses.I suppose it may seem a quibble to insist on an accurate phrasing. I contend that it such requirements for accuracy are important in a debate about the nature of evidence and proof. In fact, for the purpose of this debate, the fundamentals of Creationist thought, namely that gravity is a design or an purposeful creation of God is in question. Are there in fact underlying laws other than those that are inherent in matter and energy? Maybe, but simply asserting such is cheating.

I'm for whatever phrasing most clearly gets across the distinction.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As usual Dr Adequate, wrong. It's idiocy to confuse function with purpose. Function would be it's operation. What it provides as a result of that function is called you not walking into a ditch
Dont mean to be insulting but your observation is silly and ignorantWhat you trying to avoid compounds the idiocy. The purpose remains, its called hearing and seeing. These are different than function. Sound waves are not a part of the ears function by themselfNow we come to the crux of, what is science and are creationist doing science? If the natural Conclusion which it is, that existence is a result is Soleynatural causes, which is implied and at times directly stated by Naturalism, you would need exact evidence to demonstrate that tenetIf you cannot then you are not doing science or you are imposing standards on us that don't apply y to yourselfOr your so-called science is nothing of the sort.The mug on your desk Dr Adequate, did you see that particular mug designed? Explain how you know it was designed. What is that evidential process
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

To answer your question, I'll ask a question. Do things exist or not?
This is a natural law. Or are you prepared to demonstrate things don't existReally you want me to state the law of existence. Ok, it IS
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Right
that's the law of science in nature and that is precisely what I've been stating. But its not the laws of the SM. Here's why. When we say that existence and clear design are recurring facts in nature, they say this cannot be known as a truth, because it cannot be falsified. Yet the Obvious law in nature is constant, observable and at times axiomaticBut because we are not allowed to apply faulty scientific methods we are told it's not a truthReally you invented natural laws, your terms keep them in motion
Can any of you fellas be rational for even a moment
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.

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 not the totality of my argument and you didn't tell me how your particular mug was designedWas your mug designed
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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.

As I suspected you use indirect evidence based on its design to determine that something as uncomplicated as a mug was designed
But you want us to provide absolute evidence not indirect evidence for something as complicated and intricate as the human brainSo where is your evidence your particular mug was designedOn purpose. Can you give me an example of something humans have designed that doesn't have a function and purpose.This should help you see the difference.Take your time Dr A
Dawn Bertot

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.

Oh, good grief. So you really are just making up a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.Cyanide flavored bubblegum does not exist. Is the banana loud or steep?The penalty for breaking the 1st law of existence is uncontrolled laughter and unaligned molecubes.