Summations Only

Things are getting tough aren't they Dr A. Please give me and example of something a human designed that does not have a purpose
If you can't I'll need to assume correctly that intricate design has a purpose.
Since you get to use indirect evidence for simple apparent unobserved design, I suppose I'm ok using indirect evidence for intricate design.
My other reason for asking that question was to show a clear distinction between Function and purpose.
This was accomplished
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So is your response intended to imply that existence is not a law or that things do Not exists.Actually I'm trying to demonstrate the lengths you fellas will go to avoid simple truth.
I think you can see the problems Dr. A is having
Dawn Bertot

Here's the problem Dr A. When a secular fundamental humanist asks us for Evidence, they mean direct absolute evidence. When you ask them for Evidence they provide you with indirect evidence, especially for the evidence of thingsAs per your example, no matter how you twist it it is indirect evidence.
Dawn Bertot

It is the verbal formulation that has to be open to testing and falsifiability. For example . . . How is the claim of divinity open to testing and falsifiable?

Unless they're irrelevant. Obviously. Sure, based on what I can see around me. Photons hit rhodopsins in my eyes, neurons fired and I was like, "There's stuff around me." Falsifiability is not needed in religion and theology.Falsifiability is not needed in number theory and geometry.Falsifiability is not needed in metaphysical notions.Falsifiability IS needed for something to be considered a proper scientific theory, hypothesis, or model. You titled this thread "The Science in Creationism." So unless you can demonstrate that creationism is indeed falsifiable, it is not science. It can be religion, or metaphysics, but it's not science. It's really that simple. Umm, scientific laws (such as those governing thermodynamics) are humanly devised principles. Umm, did you look up the definition of "metaphysics" as it is commonly accepted in philosophy circles? Or is this more arm-chair pseudo-philosophy you're weaving? It isn't, actually, painful because the success of science lies in its non-metaphysical nature. You don't get to define what "science" is. The philosophy of science -- that is, what constitutes science -- has over the course of centuries yielded a few basic principles that determine whether something qualifies as science. One of the linchpin criteria for something to be scientific is falsifiability. If you disagree, then you're just making up your own definitions. Which is intellectually dishonest, by the way. Science is a social construct. And there is a consensus among philosophers, scientists, and other intelligentsia of what constitutes science. One of the key criteria is falsifiability, based on the revolutionary work of Karl Popper and others. Study the history of science; it will do you good. Science is what social reality decided it to be.Science is a systematic approach to studying the interplay among the phenomena of the natural world. Thus, by virtue of the fact that it is a systematic approach to studying natural phenomena, it inherently requires the existence of a species that can think, combine thoughts, and articulate and convey these thoughts. Before the rise of Homo sapiens -- and perhaps our cephalopod and Cetacean cousins -- there was no such thing as "science." It didn't exist, because no biological species was studying nature in the systematic way that defines science.That you don't know the very basic meaning of science is at once telling and somewhat saddening. If science doesn't change, why do we no longer accept caloric theory? Your attempt to re-define science is rather typical of creationists who think they can define terms to mean whatever they want it to mean.

If ID/creationism is to be scientific, then the claim of design needs to be testable and falsifiable. If ID/creationism is not scientific, then now would be the time to say so before the thread continues.If you want to claim that ID/creationism is scientific then you have to demonstrate that it meets the criteria of being scientific. A good analogy would be baseball. If you are playing baseball then you have agreed to play by the rules. You can't decide halfway through a game that a run is scored by simply getting to first base because you are having difficulty making it all the way to home. You can't redefine what science is simply because ID/creationism can't meet the already existent definition.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The rules of science require empirical evidence. If your evidence isn't empirical, then ID/creationism isn't scientific.

Humans make ice in freezers. We find ice at the North Pole. Therefore, the ice at the North Pole was made by humans in freezers.Does that make sense?

You need to demonstrate a question I've asked is irrelevantYou see How You avoid answering. Do things exist. Yes or noRemarkably falsifiabiltyis not necessary where absolutes exist. Things exist
No possible chance of it being falsified
So your term is faultyThermodynamics is a term. You did not invent natural processes you discovered and named themThe term metaphysics doesn't exist you made it up. For the purposes of the science of creation Design and purpose do not exist outside The natural world. There observable and testable and obvious truthsSaying science is what science is a social construc is like saying you designed the law of nature. No son you discovered these rules the built principles around themIf I'm trying to redefine what science is or is not, then by all means show me how you yourself formed the laws in natureYour arrogance and simplicity is what is saddeningDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Whether a thing exists is irrelevant to the question of a claim being scientific.Rainbows exist. The claim that invisible unicorns create rainbows is not testable and not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. You can't evidence invisible unicorns simply by pointing to rainbows.

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.

But my simple friend I'm showing you you don't get to make the rules as to what constitutes science, that is decided by laws in nature. Your application of these laws and the terms, need to confirm to natural laws
You can't assume your methods are valid then say, well your just wrong
The claims of creationism are testable if we go by the laws of nature and the same indirect evidence you use to establish that things are a result of soley natural causesIs the theory of Soley Natural Causes falsifiable?

Scientists make the rules as to what is and isn't science. The rules are already in place, and they require a hypothesis to be both testable and falsifiable.

Of course
I use the same indirect evidence you use to establish that things are here by soley natural causes
Do you deny your evidence of an unobserved event or cause is one of indirect evidence
No, what You mean by evidence is something different
Now that we have established per my question about human design that purpose is clearly different than function, am I justified and reasonable concluding that the intricate design at least indirectly supports Creation, correct?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.