ICR Sues Texas

And design has nothing to do with ORIGINS. It is a simple observation from known evidence, that which has already been stated to many times to mention, that allows a tenative conclusion, about the possible explanations of life on earth.It is evidenced by the same laws, rules and test applied to evolution, both of which are not provableAll one needs to do to demonstrate that the design principle does not follow the same basic tenets of observation and fact gathering, is to, demonstrate that we do not follow the same rules of evidential proceedure and processessNone of the conclusions of even the TOE can be proved, just demonstrated using the same methods. we all use the same rules of evidence toarrive at our conclusions, you simply like tothink yours are better, they ARE NOTDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things.That is what reality and the evidence suggests. that is what you need to deal with in this connectionWhy does a demonstratable theoryneed to bedetailed and complicated to be validDawn Bertot

You excitement here has nothing to do with what is logical, demonstratable and evidenctial. The design principle is useful in demonstrating that it is applicable to both reality and reason and applies to only two logical explanations of the nature of things.That is what reality and the evidence suggests. that is what you need to deal with in this connectionWhy does a demonstratable theory need to be detailed and complicated to be valid?Dawn Bertot

As I suspected you no little or nothing about debating, what you actually need to do to demostrate that you understand evidence and debating is go back to post 443 and respond to that for which you asked me in the first place. I set out these simple rules of evidence, instead of answering what you asked for, you make jokesif you cant answer the questions or you dont know how to respond simply say so. I will take it as your inability to respond to what youasked me for in the first place

You asked for simple rules of evidence I gave examples in 443. I would suggest you go there and deal with them, istead of complaining. If you cannot or will not, I will accepte that as defeatAny rule of evidence can be any demonstratable fact. I have done that there, have at it Did you expect me to believe you would agree with me. Your wasting your time complaining when you could actually be responding to those simple rules of observation. Hop to itDawn Bertot

Lets start with something simple for you, you asked for examples of rules of evidence I provided it
I am starting to assume all you can do is talk about why something is invalid, I suggest actually going and quoting them then showing why. My guess is that you dont have a clueof how to do this

Take it slow and I will break it down for you. Again you are assuming I am talking about design, DIRECTLY, I am not. Observing the designer is not possible, but this does not mean that from an evidential standpoint by observation of the obeyed laws in nature that it is not possible, it most certainly isObserving the entirity and totality of evolution as it is described and hypothsized is not possible, but this does not mean from an observable and evidental standpoint that is DID NOT happen as described, you simply dont have all the information you need to prove it absolutleyObserving the entirity and totality of the design principle is not possible absolutley, but this does not mean from an observable and evidential standpoint one cannot see the harmonious, orderly and coherent set of laws set in motion somehow, operatingneither theory, even the TOE is provable absolutley but both are clearly demonstratabletry and think of another theory that will allow such conclusions from both reality, reason and physical data, there ARE NO OTHERSYou draw your conclusions of change, natural selcection and mutation from observable dataI draw my conclusions from the same source, by simple observation of these same materialsBoth of these conclusions are provable, but the source is not. Since both change and laws ore provable and there is no other choices, both should be taught inthe science classroomDawn Bertot

Rule 1. the concept of order and laws in nature is obtainable the exact same way the concept of change and natural selection are obtainedRule 2 Neither the TOE or design can be proved absolutley from these observations, but the same rules are used to obtain that informationRule 3 the information, the rules, the evidence and the conclusions of each, while not provable is demonstrable from, the method of extraction, the observable evidence and (Now watch), the only two logical, physical and possible explanations as to the HOW of things, are here in the first placeRule 4. Since all of the above are demonstratable rules of evidence concerning these matters and both use the same method, both should be taught in the science classroom"lets remedy this here and now", thats funnyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Finally some daylight, for you at the end of your narrow tunnel. If it does teach this then it teaches design, by indirect implication.Now pay close attention. Designs conclusion or the idea of design is not derived from a conjecture of anything at all. It is not derived by even the idea of design.It is derived from the observable order that is demonstratable, hence design is established not by conjecture, but by evidence which you now admit.. I dont need to speculate about anything for that to be nearly direct evidence as evidence goes No conjecture is required to establish what is demonstratable as evidential. I dont need to conjecture design, when reality does it for me. Your mixing up design with a supernatural being. You have just proved my point. Thank youDawn Bertot

Since this is not even close to what I am saying, it follows that I am not whining or complaining about anythingDawn Bertot

You simply dont understand the road of reason and evidence, direct and indirect implication and the such like. If you did you would not ask sucha silly questionDawn Bertot

Your statement is a testament to the fact that you are wearing blinders, which were given to you by people as limited in understanding of evidence as yourselfAs funny as it sounds, design (as a concept) doesnt make anything, from an evidential standpoint. However, nature, matter and the rules it follows makes testable predictions, and you can test those predictions, which is evidence of design as simply design as evidence, not a supernatural beingAll that is needed to establish design as evidential, is the obdervable, testable and predictable orderDawn Bertot

You do realize the way we establish evidence is that we use the same mechanism, correct I can observe the mechanism in action and what it produces COMPLEX ORDER Why would you imply that my positon is unevidenced and absurd, seeing that I have gone to such great lenghts to demonstrate it is not So No to the first one and Yes to the second question A simple question here to remove the inaplicabilty of your whole illustration and show how it is not valid as an analogy.Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential realityHis illustration in the story over shoots what is actually available to us in our reality, concerning reality and matter. All that is KNOWN is that there is change and order, both are observable evidence of only two logical possibilitesBut both are observableDawn Bertot

Understood