Does ID follow the scientific method?

Im sorry observation of microscopic organisms in not an argument. evaluating and studying thier pattern of logical and orderly progression to produce another organism is not weighing leavesUntil you can demonstrate why such actions are not science in action and why the order is clearly not there and why i am imagining it, It will be considered by any thinking person as science and evidence of design or even probable designUntil you address the example I provided I cant take your responses seriouslyHow many test do i need to conduct to know it is order and harmony?Dawn Bertot

Dont worry your not disappointing me, because you are wrong.regardless of your weary observations, there is order in the smallest to the greatest partsvisible, demonstratable and observable orderSince there is order all you need to do is demonstrate why it is not evidence the same way you draw a conclusion of change and especially Macro-evolutionYour mistake is in assuming you system is somehow better or more superior, but no one has demonstrated why, from the basics to the detailed Would you say that the micro organisms perform this in an orderly and rational fashion if we were to observe thier little behavior. Ofcours they do and of course you would Instead of bragging on him, could you show why his was more scientific and why we dont follow the same rules to the specific details of Order and Harmony Ideas and assumptions can change given enough evidence, that is why the priciple of design has not changed, because no one can demonstrate that law and order do not existAnd because they do and I can study them from a scientific approach, they demonstrate probable designDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If thats you in the picture, sorry doll face, yes we are talking about order and harmonyThings like change and natural selection are all that can be deduced by scientific observationDesign is a conclusion, like nature being the sole mechanism for the existence of things. those are conclusions not provable. Whats left is logic by deduction If what I provided is not a test could you give me an example of test that involves different and better principlesShow me your method, describe the steps Im sorry to be rude but the above is so funny and indicative of the science mind. it actually believes and cannot distinguish between what is rational and what is neededRingo a test does not need to be complicated or detailed to be a test, or scienceYes science conducts detailed test to and FOR information concerning present information.. that does not mean its conclusions concerning details and events, that are no longer available are as accurate and detailed concerning information and events presentlySorry I had to change that last sentenceWhy cant you see that distinctionBoth you and i test for what information can be deduced presently, thats all we can do.Your methods and your conclusions are no better. think about it logicallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Thank you, atleast that is a start I love the science mind it is so funny. ironically it is void of logical deduction, the very thing it needs the mostC, all information, not at present and not now available is void of reliable conclusions, but it is not void of logical probabilitiesAny information derived by the SM, about information not now available or conclusions of the same is at best speculative, but that deosnt mean it is wrong or inaccurate, just not demonstratableSo, now listen, pay close attention. The SM, unless it is dealing with present visible information and conclusion that can presently be proved, suffers the same fate as any test or theoryYour methods and conclusions are no better, than the IDMs, science approach we use in the conclusions concerning, order, law and harmonyIt amazes me that you believe I actually need to keep conducting tests to see if order actually is order Why do you assume my test needs to be complicated to be valid. thats funnyDawn Bertot

While I dont like the language, that is funny as crap. "You stupid bitch". bastard would be more accurate, I have a pair. You know a guy named sue sort of thing yeah I know that, I watched it again this very day on ION, for about the 10th time. I was hoping ringo was actually Sharon. well you know what they say, poop in one hand and wish in the other and watch which one fills up the fastestOfcourse no one is faster than Will Mannon (steve forrest) episode of Gunsmoke, where he guns down five bad guys in about 2 seconds, with festus left wityh his mouth haning openThe actual quick draws of today are even more impressive. I would hate to get on the bad side of one of those dudesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, again, design is a conclusion of observed evidence. It doesnt mean design is the source, it means it is a logical conclusion of the available evidence of obvious order.I dont need to, nor can I or you produce tests to demonstrate the actual evidence of events that are no longer available. Those are called conclusions Dr A As eloquent as your speech sounds, they do not detect change or evolution as the SOURCE of order found in anything. Nice try though.The source of the order is an event no longer detectable, outside revelation)What they detect is simply change and what we detect is orderYou are free to believe that natural sources soley, are the cause of order and change or evolution. Demonstrating it in reality, or the physical world, is another thingSo when the dust settles and the smoke clears, all we are left with are two logical possibilites, both of whcih are testable in physical propertiesBoth of which are and use the same exact methodologyBoth of which are scienceAnd those are the facts I have already done this and the conclusion of your statement is a misrepresentation of my positionAs a matter of fact i have stated numerous times its not about design, initially and directlyDawn Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I value his comments concerning the subject greatly and While i agree with his conclusion as well, I do not think that is initially how the design argument is established, but i personally agree with the majority of its tenetsDawn Bertot

To demonstrate you do not Actually understand what you are saying, one simply needs to point out that you have no knowledge of how events started to begin withSo claiming that order can start on its own and demonstrating it are two different thingsUntil you can prove that order and all order is and can start on its own, order most certainly points to designperhaps you could conduct one of those complicated, very involved in depth SM test to prove to us that order is not designed and that it in every place starts on its own. especially the beginning of thingsbecause we already know the SM is superior to all other forms of investigation and it can answer all questions, even the ones where the direct evidence is no longer available, correctdawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

At another time i asked you not to lecture me on Military protocol. While you were learning how to not, to dangle your modifiers, I was learning how to scale and not dangle from constantina wireIn my stint I actually participated in events, in the line of duty, that would make you pukeSo if i happen to split an infinative, I think I have already accomplished more in there than you will ever have in the NCO academyso take your regs and pressed shirt and impress someone else with that crapolaPipe down junior absolutley D, look at this very eloquent and complicated explanation and see if it really involves anymore than i have already indicated. What you have described is nothing more than a commonsense investigation, the likes of which anyone would use and employThe only part other than that is the reference to the supernatural, which is not necessary to formulate the ID supposition, initially that isDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again I ask. Does a test need to be complicated to be vaild and useful in determning truth or even possible truths, Yes or No?Dawn Bertot

I did not say that chance and order are opposites, they are demonstratable conclusions of the available evidence. Your illustratuion about a 50:50 scenerio has nothing to do with what can be demonstrated LOGICALLY from available evidenceOrder as displayed in the physical properties and the harmony is displays is evidence of itself. Disagreeing that it is not order is not the same as demonstratiing that it is not actually order, anymore than me saying Macro-evolution did not take place is not the same as demonstrating that it did not. I simply believe the evidence for that subject is not as good as that of order and designBut both are demonstratable from a logical and rational standpoint and those are the only two choicesThe point is frako neither position can be demonstrated false or falsified, because they deal with information not now availableAs it stands, only a fool would not acknowledge that there is order and Harmony in that order to the making of very complicated organisms and lifeformsYour missing the big picture Frako, its not a matter of what can be proved, its a matter of what can be logically demonstrated. No one has demonstrated on this thread why the IDM, is not science, why the the tests that Behe are not scientific tests and why its conclusions are not eacally the same as any test by the SMThe conclusions that he draws from his tests and the one I have demonstrated demonstrate that the conclusions from those tests are as valid as any conclusions drawn by the SM and those testsThe fact that no one will directly address this issue, is indicative of the fact that within themselves, they know that logical position cannot be overthrown You consistently deal with and ask the wrong questions. We have already established that evidence for events not now available, is a non-issueWhat is it that the available evidence will allow and teach us? It is, that order is indeed order and harmonious, whether you beliee it was designed or not. You approval of of it as order is not necessary for it to conduct itself in the way it does. It will happen anyway. it is what can be resonable and logically deducedLet me try this one more time. None of the conclusions of the SM can be proven or even absolutley demonstrated, because they deal with evidence about events no longer presently visible to us.So the only questions left are, does the the IDM follow the same pattersn and methods in its application of investigation that the so-called, SM? Are the conclusions from the same method science and demonstratable in he same way, from the methods and the physical evidence. The answer is a overwhelming yesAll anyone has done to this point, is complain that we do not conduct enough tests and that they are not complicated enough to to establish said facts. But no one has demonstrated why for example that the clear observation and study of physical properties, watching its harmony and consistency, to produce living things is not a valid testThere have been no examples of experiments of the SM, presented THAT are so much more involved, that manifest themselves superior to reach any better conclusions.Upon examination of the examples that are offered, they are nothing more than simple experimentation and observation (dressed up eloquently) and with no better results than those provided by a SIMPLE scientific experiment, conducted that comes to the conclusion, of order and design, verses, change and evolutionIf I am wrong please repeate the experiment you provided, that is NOT as I desribed above and is better as science in its application and conclusionsNow watch and play close attention This is why my simple friend, it becomes a matter of reason and what can be logically deduced. You statement above and its implications involve nothing more than assertion. So what is left of what can be set out as probable. Your NEED for a designer is not the same as, what can be logically deduced and set outThe SM for all its complicated methodology is limited in character at this point to provide any answers past what is logically presentable This is exacally my point your assertion of evidence provides no answers up to and after a certain point. The evidence of order and design and its scientific tests are the same and offer the same valid conclusions, based on the same evidence.If not I defy you to demonstrate that logically. But it must be set out in a rational argument, you cant just say I dont like it.Dawn Bertot

this would be interesting to see in logical form, that is you demonstrating something that would be an impossibility, logically. But then I am sure you know very little about actual critical thinkingBertot writes: DA writesSome simplicity is cute in individuals, but as old as you are I am sure it is as ugly as sin. DA, actual evidence for an event not witnessed, because that time has past, hence it is in the past, is an impossibilty. what you evaluate, like ourselves, is present day evidence to establish theories of the past Science nonetheless, correct, and even a SM, not to involved to provide support of a fact. So the cavemen had a SM, but we do not?bertot writes: DA writes:Pay closer attention DA, I said they do not detect the SOURCE of change, not change itself, that part is possible, just like the gazelle. but evolution or change does not tell you where the materials that made the gazelle came fromBertot writes:And herein lies the nonesenseof the people that employ the scientific method. they actually believe they have a monopoly on simple investigation, they actually believe that thier method is superior or better than anyone elses equivolent methodsThis needs to be demonstrated in a logical form or argumentation. Point me to the post, statement, line or argument that makes the SM, better at detecting evidence of evolution by soley natural causes, verse order by designBut after numerous post no one will demonstrate in logical form why the SM is better at detecting information, of past events, different than order and design. They just keep repeating that is conlcusions are superior, but wont explain why they give better answers to questions of originsThey are not smart enough to see that only order and change are the only things identifiable from the available evidencethey are not smart enough to understand or will not demonstrate it, that the SM method offers no better conclusions or explanation of the origin of matter in the first placeBertot wtiedDA writes: Ill tell you what when you start that thread, Ill be happy and more than interested to see that set out in logical form. If you believe that has been done, it is the worst form of speculation in existence. If you believe that has been DONE, it will close the door on my speculation, about you understanding nothing about critical thinkingBertot writes: You are very proficient at claiming that something is not a SM, but because you understand nothing about actual argumentation, you do not understand that you need to break down the example I gave you, of the IDM, in its parts, and then show why it fails as science or a SM . As of yet you have not done that and SHOUTING at an example is not the same as demonstrating it as false or invalidIts interesting that you provide and state that the caveman had a science of investigation. But when I provide a test where we examine in great and specific detail the molecular structure, of any organism, with all its intricate parts working in harmony, to produce another more complicated organism and then ultimately a living thingAnd that i can witness this same order, over and over again, that that is not a scientific test or a SMPlease demonstrate using the definition of science why that is not a perfect example of order and an example of any SMDo you notice that I have never stated or indicated the the examples you provide for a SM are not exacally that, a SM? Because I am smart enough to recognize it as science and your are just prejudice enough to denounce the example I provided as not scientific, because you dont like what it indicates.All you need to do is set out in logical form why the example I provided is not a SM
You do realize that complaining that it is not, is not an argument , correct?bertot writes:[qs]I have already done this and the conclusion of your statement is a misrepresentation of my position
As a matter of fact i have stated numerous times its not about design, initially and directlyDA writes: Did you notice the words Intially and Directly? Those words qualify the meaning of my statementThe conclusion of design, like the conclusion of evolution depend on the evidecne at hand. Since the evidence order and change are present, both design and evolution are logical and demonstratable conclusions and the only ones that can be demonstrated.Outside of the scriptures, they hold equal validity and both should be taught as a science in whatever classroom one choosesDawn Bertot

Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. its interesting that you give this example, I too often experience this very problem with my conputer after an outageMy experiment involved simply unpluging the computer from the wall and plugging it back into the same outlet, that is before trying to simply turn it back onNow the point is this, while I was conducting my scientific experiment, I stopped short in any further investigation because the methods that I employed were sufficienct to come to a conclusion that was valid and solve the problemDoes this mean my investigation was not a SM, becuase it did not display every single on of the methods advocted by yourselves? Absolutley not?When at an earlier date I said the IDM is the Same as the SM, I did not mean that it was only valid, if followed every single step of that process. You have demonstrated here that hat is not logically necessary if a conclusion can be reached short of thatThe IDM, conducts enough of a test in the examination of the physical world to come to a more than valid and reachable conclusion concering designThe conclusion of those tests is not and cannot be demonstrated to be invalid in any sense of the word Thank you and this is my point exacally. The hypothesis of order is to repeadly watch and test the results of the observable harmony and consistency in its intricate parts to produce another logically functioning organism, then a muti-facited organism. So on and so forthNumerous test can be concducted but the results will be the same. Thats why the hypothesis does not need to be repeatedly tested if the redults are obvious and clearDo I need to repeat the tests that demonstrate the law of gravity. How many times od I need to do it to know it is validDawn Bertot

Those findings are not what I am representing and Behes initial process seems to be different than mine. So address my process and my conclusions, not it or hisDawn Bertot

You simply dont understand how reason works. My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner, pitted against and determined by physical realities.My personal preference of design or yours of soley natural causes, is circumvented by logical deduction. That is, it is preceeded by those detemining factors, the conclusions do make them valid, if the method you employed produces enough evidence to warrent its acceptanceIf you disagree with the conlcusion of design from these logical steps you need to set out in logical form why the conclusions is invalid and acceptable as an answer to the origin of thingsThe IDM sets out a test and hypothesis that is detemined by the only means possible, deductive reasoning, which is ofcourse the basis of any scientific process Its counterfactual hypothesis must demonstrate it as invalid in the very same way.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.