The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

percy, stating that the eye does not have purpose is not the same as showing it does not have purpose. Since reality clearly demonstrates it does, where does that leave your assertion? Hmmmmmm?If I am missing a point please present it.Sand is ordered in its substructure, where the design is the same, as in nearly all living thingsOr did you already forget that point from a previous postYou can only plug in eternality of matter and design into my deductions and that is the point, both of which are logical , scientific approaches to the question and both have the same limitations and rely on the self same evidence and informationBoth should be advocated and taught in the classroom, because both arrive at thier conclusion in the same manner and both are testable aginst realityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Which question, in what post. I run from nothing because the position is solid as any position could beDawn Bertot

You fellas really cant go any deeper that your own methodology can you. Neither design or evolution have any more going for it, than the other, THAT IS THE POINT. Both are allowable in the available evidence, both use the same methodology for its conclusions, neither of which is provable, yet both are demonstratableThere are no other alternatives besides these two, but both follow the same principle in thier application and conclusionsBoth should be taught, there is simply no way around that point, OTHER THAN the SIMPLE, "I DONT LIKE IT", approachDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You trip me out to the max, Jar.neither of these two questions have physical realities that we can observe, they are therfore irrelevant to THIS discussionThey have no application to or desrtoy my position on designAsk something related or usefulDawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sorry I did not see the admin post,so I edited this oneDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Post 627 is a clear response to a post of mine, after being told not to respond to anyother postsdo I get a response or is there going to be further special treatment, for only the favored children. Really percy you should atleast try and be honest and upfront with your dealingsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It has only recently dawned on me that even the professed intellectuals here really do not understand, the basics of the reasoning processThere is another alternative to my wonderment however, and that could be that they are either playing the dumb card or have no actual answer. It is hard at times to decide which, depending on which person is respondingThe principle of design, in a logical and physical methodology is so easy to understand, that one wonders what card the opposition is actually playingWhat my opponents have missed, is that order and purpose are automatically indications of design. Nothing in any logical form was EVER offered to counter this simple fact and that is what the whole argument, since time began, has rested uponThe most important thing or item that my opponents missed, is that
Ones disapproval or ones approval of design, is not necessary for it to be obvious and true in both a logical and physical representationWhile purpose is obvious in a physical manifestation, it is also obvious that a complaint that, it is not purpose, cannot be demonstrated in ANY PHYSICAL FASHION, if the result of the item, such as the eye can be demonstrated as producing sight.Complaints in a negative, would need to show that such are not the result of the eye, for its complaint to make any sense. they have missed this simple pointMy opponents have also mistaken complaint and assertion for arguments against such a simple conclusion, which is both irrefutable and completeNo actual, formal argument was ever offered to refute its conclusionsMy opponents have asked for tests in an area where tests are not required, outside of a simple experimentation and observation. After design passes this obvious test, they say, Oh but we need more tests.Further, the tests they require cannot be conducted past a certain point. And in the meantime and at the same time, they ignore the fact that the scientific method and evolution, cannot be subjected to the same tests they require, because that information (the origin of its source), no longer existsYet, these simple people cannot see that they require of Iders, what they do not require of themselves, specifically direct evidence, linking the clear purpose of and reality of design, to a designerWhile all the time, moronically claiming that there is no need to know if matter is eternal to demonstrate the factual nature of evolution, in ITS conclusions and presumptionsIf one position requires ultimate answers, then of course the same would be required of the other sideThe fact of the matter is, that evolution has conclusions and derives its limited and tentative factual data from the same source as does the design argument, present limited data.While the scientific method has certain applications, it falls well short of any answers concerning origins. In its arrogance, along with exponents, it ignores its obvious limitations and shortcomings. Perhaps this fault is by those that employ it and not the method itselfThe oppositions willful and deliberate ignoring of the fact that even evolutions has conclusions, the likes of which, are, the origin of its components, demonstrates that the opposition in no way intends to be objective concerning these mattersIn this debate I was specifically ordered to not invoke such issues concerning the conclusions of evolution and the fact that matter, that if it was not designed, had to be a result of itself. These issues of course are vital to such a discussion.Limiting their usage, as I was instructed was probably a deliberate attempt to quiet the force of the argumentPurposely demanding that such issues not be discussed and pretending to not to understand their import, is a weakness in both the position and the person. It is also amazingly bad formCan any person be honest with themselves and pretend to not know what the terminology eternality of matter means. I doubt itDesign and a designer, stands as it always has by simple observation, and experimentation of complex and simple organisms, completed mechanisms and purposeful usages of such itemsAttempts by a few to make that which is very simple, very complicated, may work within a closed nonsensical methodology, but it does nothing to remove what is clear and obvious to rational personsDesign is now and has always been on a par with any ideology suggesting to know anything concerning the nature and order of thingsOnly a tyro in reason would demand that design be on a par with evolution, since design is a conclusion as is the etrnality of matter, neither of which are provable, both of which are demonstratableDesign would be a logical conclusion of evolution, as design would be a conclusion of order, they are not equivalent, therfore they do not need to be on the same parIt is 'order' and 'law abiding natual processes', that needs to be on a par with evolution and most certainly they are.This is why I have repeadly stated that evolution offers nothing in the design argument or to the question of origins, because even if it were true, it would not dethrone the design principleBut if evolution is used as a counter example of design, even mistakenly as evolutionist do, it must past the same tests, it requires of design, to demonstrate its conclusions, beginning and endYou cant eat your cake and have itDawn 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.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn explains everywhere and in every place why order evidences design. the best place is in the fact that the oppositon is simply to simple minded to realize, that the PURPOSE must be demonstrated to not have the results it exhibits.These fellas simply dont understand that a complaint, is not the same as removing the result of the functioning process. This is excally what needs to be done, to demonstrate that such is not purpose and purpose with logical intentComplaints and disagreements are not demonstrations. My simple minded opponents cannot distinguish between the twoOnly a moron would suggest that Dawn needs to explain why order cannot arise through unintelligent processess, when I am the one claiming that such cannot be accomplished even in the case of design. IOWs I dont need to demonstrate the opposite position when I dont think it can be proved in design and when i think order and change are on the same level, given the amount of evidence we haveTherefore, order is based on the lone physical process and logical deductions, the same as any conclusions derived from evolutionBoth positions follow the same pattern of evidence, to establish it as evidence.Only someone that has no understanding of reason could not see this simple pointOnly a tyro would assume that IDers start with a conclusion concerning design, given the amount of examples I have presented in this threadObservable order and its mechanisms are what IDers start with and then and only then, is design concludedThe likes of which cannot be presented to be false or inapplicableDesign and its components could not be more scientific in its application and usage"I dont like it", is not a logical and physical demonstration, in the form of a response and these fellas know itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.