Summations Only

These are assertions that need to be demonstrated in a rational way, not just boldly stated as if they were fact.Investigations are just investigations, complete or incomplete. Especially when examining the natural worldUsing terms like philosophy or science to redesribe what is simply a valid or invalid discussion, does not change the reality of an examination. Because that is what it is, just an examinationIf you want to call an investigation or examination a grocery cart, it will not change what it is or whether it is complete or valid in its approachIt could even be Silicon Aftar, the crystline entity or the Immortal Dowd, but that would not change its propertiesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Its funny to watch somoene like yourself, that is simply parroting things that they have heard. Jar is not countering my claim about God. He is actually implying indirectly that there is actual evidence of soley natural causes. As i pointed out his assertion in is both invalid and illogical. My assertion is not necessary to make his intimation both dishonest and illogical Only a nitwit would agree with someone (like Jar) that says there is only evidences of natural causes, then not be able to understand that that is not actually true, or see the glaring, logical incocnsistencey that they have actually involved themself in. Are you a nitwit, like Jar, Droso?Only a nitwit would make a claim that there is not evidence of order, law and purpose and thus possibly design, when that same person cannot provide evidence that it is a product of soley natural causes. Only a nitwit would not include the only other logical and demonstratable, possiblity of the existence of things into his investigative process, when that conclusion can be established from any logical standpoint against the natural worldOnly a nitwit would ignore the fact that even the SM and the TOE, necessarily involve a conclusion. In this case , Soley natural causes. Only a nitwit would ignore that while this is a natural conclusion of the TOE, there no requirement to teach it, or claim it is not necessaryThat makes your method incomplete and invalid as an investigation Thats interesting, one minute you say it doesnt, the next you say it does. I have some of your cohorts saying it does, others saying it doesnt need to.Oh, I do agree it tries to deal with why, but when it realizes it cant deal with, why, it quickly retreats to "That doesnt matter in the process of investigation" Or since we dont know why really Who said it wasnt, I only affirmed that the Process of ID follows the same approach and comes to very demonstratable and valid conclusion, concerning things we can see and know, ie, order, law and purpose. I believe you said order was easy, correct Yeah thats called an investigation and experiment, big deal. It was either valid or invalid. IDs procees does the samething and it is valid. You really dont see the utter stupidity of what you just said and did, do you? First you claimed you didnt do something, then you turn right around and do it. My simplistic friend, again you are asking me to provide evidence of my conclusion, God, when you have no way to provide evidence of soley natural causes. Your asking me to compare your process with my conclusion. Now if we compare fossil distribution or geo strata, with, order, law and purpose, we see are doing exacally the samething, correctBefore you dispense with your conclusion or mine, you need to deal with out process. Im expecting that at some point in this debate you will do that I believe you said, order was easy to see, correct?. The only thing that is imaginary is your attempt to require me to demonstrate my conclusion, while you ramble on about your process.Before I go on,do you understand the difference between a process and a conclusion? Its not necessary for me to rewrite it. Its only necessary that you and the other Secular fundamentalist atheists and evolutionist, not conflate it or make it something more than it isYou really dont understand much about debating do you son. Repeating something doesnt make it true. When you can show that the SM is something more than an investigation valid or invalid, or that it is better than IDs methods, you will have answered my contention. All you have done this far is confirm my methods are the same as yours That is if you dont make that same stupid mistake of comparing my conclusion with your process. I do believe you said Order was easy to identify, correct? There are some good books on debating you can pick up here and there Won just about every debating title, one could win. But thats bragging and we shouldnt do that. What you have just described concerning philosophy is just another investigation, that, like the SM, cannot answer the same question. At bare minimum neither can provide evidence. Both are just investigations, valid or invalid. You really should think for yourself Droso. Try it and see what happens That probably, the most ignorant analogy I have ever entertained or had the opportunity to see. A fifth grader would not insult himself to respond to such a simple mistake. There are some good debating books out there you can pick upYour insults and language do not change the fact that you cannot demonstrate why both or one are not simple investigations into the natural world. It does not change the fact that you cannot demonstrate IDs method as not a valid investigation or as science. Jut do that and you will have proved your point. remember simpleton, we are not talking about my conclusion,just my process. Think for yourself. TFY, hereafter, since you like that gameIm not interested in purchasing your books Richard. But wait a minute, you said earlier that the SM does investigate why. So which is it.. So provide me a word that is better or more, than Investigation, valid or invalid, that desribes the SM, philosophy or the ID process Have at it junior Wrong as usual
An investigation, valid or invalid. Any other silly questions? Can you demonstrate even if it is very involved or complicated in its applications that it is more or better than an investigationDawn Bertot

Droso, the reason you will never see, Law Order and purpose as real world evidence of the ID process, hereafter referred to as the ToLO&P,is simply because you are making a very fundamental error is your basic reasoning and your approach to evidence and scienceEarlier you said that, the SM and theToE studies what can be evidenced. But that is only partly true and this is whyNow pay close attention. The ToE is not just a theory, because a bunch of simpleminded creationist dont understand the word theory, or because it has things it cannot explain in some of its processes, ITS BECAUSE, it cant EVIDENCE the only thing that matters, its conclusionAnd yes every investigation, especially one into the natural world, needs a conclusion. No one is faulting it for not doing what it cannot do.The ToE and the ToLO&P are theories because they both cannot demonstrate thier conclusions. But it doesnt mean either is invalid, unless one of the two ignores its limitationsOnce however, it is realized that neither position can demonstrate its conclusion, it becomes abundantly clear that the SM does not have a leg to stand on to demonstrate that the things discovered by the ID camp are anyless useful, than those discovered by the ToEIt should also become abundantly clear that Law, order and purpose are on a equal footing with change, natural selection, survival of the fittest. Because if the ToE is going to stand by its natural conclusion, of soley natural causes. It must must Demonstrate in a logical way why, Law Order and purpose are not established in the same mannerIOWs I need in no uncertain terms and explanations what the ToE or the SM, does different, that would qualify it more than an investigation, like IDs processUntil it is established in some rational form, it should be clear these two processes are on equal footingThe SM needs to abandon its claim of evidenced conclusions, or include investigations that are of the types of the SM When you understand and can respond to the above points I have made, you will realize that we have already given this information to you thousands of time. But until you understand your error in reasoning, you wont be able to see anything but your process, which is actually the same as IDsHere is a simple mistake you make. You insist that we start with a conclusion. That is not logically possible. If the investigation we start with, is objective and valid, it follows I cant have already discovered what I am searching for, in a logical rational way. Especially when I cant even evidence the conclusion in the endOnce you stop making this and other fallacious observations and look at the Process we follow, it will present itself as nothing less than a Scientfic investigation or MethodInstead of giving me examples of the SM, show me why the process of investigation is better and more helpful, if you only arrive at tenative conclusions, such as Natural Selection, Change, etc. I could discover any of these things using IDs processesHow do your simple findings enhance an existing investigation, where the only thing that needs to be evidenced cannot and has not beenIn essence I am not saying the SM, is not science, Im saying once you remove your prejudices concerning creationism and ID, youll see the ID process as science, using no different terms or ideas that the SMWhat Im asking for is a tenet of your process, that is above and beyond another form of investigation and observation, that would make us jump and exclaim, "Well thier process is much different and better"What might that beDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Instead of grandstanding and making speeches, just show me where my errors are and why my beliefs are getting in the way of my thinking.I believe this is a debate site, correct?How is this for speeches"The path is straight and the children are on the straight path. They will see its straighty straigtness, and they will be straightened our"Robert, Everybody Loves RaymondDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well I guess you knew I was going to have a field day with this scenerio. So your goal here is to compare your Process with my Conclusion, not compare your Process with my Process.So right off the bat we have etablished a prejudice in the kids minds that shouldnt eixst.So the first 15 minutes should be spent explaining to the class the difference between a process and a conclusion. That if we want to be exact. You do want to be exact as a science teacher, correct Droso? Sounds like a real snooze fest, Id give up the ToE, just on the basis that it may get me beat up at some point on the campus,but Ok.So I do agree however, youve got you a process, that yields tenative and immediate results in the form of data. Ageed Study the Process of, the To.L.O&P, (Law, Order and Purpose) as exhibited in the natural world. An analysis of detailed plant, animal and nearly every other form of life should reveal an intricate form of order, consistency and harmony, to produce desired, practical and useful purposes, to maintain, conduct and sustain life.We are going to start this class by a detailed and comprehensive examination of the substructure of several life forms. This will give us a basis to see if the foundations, or reciept for life, is the same, and at the samtime consistent, across many and varied life forms.From there we can branch out to individual, classes and types to see if we observe the same, order, harmony, law and design, in life as a wholeFrom there we can study or predict to see if this same pattern of harmonious law will be exitended and produced in future generations, animal and plant life and the natural world in general Fights back about what.? You do realize that it does not matter if Evo were true, for what I have just established to be valid, true and factual. Have you learned nothing in our discussion, Droso. If you want to be consistent in the classroom, compare process with process and conclusion with conclusion. Hence, Designer, with Soley Natural Causes, for conclusions Is the above good enough? Or are you prepared to demonstrate that your process, which is nothing better or worse than mine, is simply an investigation. What are the words you will use to describe your procees, as anything more than an investigation. Speaking of what words someone should use, provide me with those words Ok. Have I done that? Where and how will you demonstrate that my process of investigation and science is less than yours? Did not each of our processes, find evidence of the respective camps?Ill wait your reply on what I have given you thus far. Was that piggy (Whole hog)enough for you?I find it interesting that you need to present it as a contest to your class verses an investigation, that yields, valid or invalid results. You dont have any prejudices, do you DrosoAs a science teacher you are completley objective, correct? Intially they should study, even as a precursor in the science classroom, methods of correct reasoning, evidence and how it is established. Methods of investigation and what investigations entail.Then and only then, they may proceed to an investigation into the natural worldAs i have demonstrated to many times to mention now, ID and creationism, which ever you choose to call it, is a simple, calculated, investigation of natural process. The results, data or evidence will be revealed as what it it, not what we want it to be. If order and detailed law or there you will see it. If change and selection are there you will see itThe conclusions will stand or fall as the information and investgation indicate. Since both processes, seem to validate thier conclusions and since both follow a pattern of scientific investigation, then there is no valid reason why both should not be taught as a science in science classroom.IOWs, IDs process violates no rules of investigation, as set out by the SM. What are they if it does? But be consistent with what I have already established concerning Processes and Conclusions in your response. Dont confuse the twoWhat should be presented firstIntially however, the Goals and method of investigative processNext to show that the tenative results from each process can be demonstrated and verifiedNext to show that the results of both of the two processes will both lead to and involve only two logical conclusionsFinally, once it is established that the process you have employed demonstrates the evidence in the form of factual data, there is no need to keep testing things over and over to see if its still trueDawn 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.

That which you have described in the form of order and law is either there or it is not. It clearly is, therefore someones ambitions have nothing to do with what is real or not realIf there is order and law, it validates itself without my motives or ambitions Dont confuse reality, with "little more than words". its there I didnt make it up with verboseness Not a single person has offered one valid argument to demonstrate thier process, as being different than anyohter investigation. The SM community, just keeps saying its better and different, cant youjust see itAnother way they could do it, is to demonstrate a type of physical evidence different and better, than that produced by the ID process. Of course they cantTell me what it is How do you think I did?Dawn Bertot

Not a problem. I was simply responding to Drosp's request to put into words what we IDs need to teach in the classroom. Ill be happy to discuss Conclusions when he is readyDawn Bertot

Yes I know. I will get to it as quickly as I canDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not really, I was just adding a little commedy to an otherwise tense situation . I have no doubt you are a very eductaed man, with very fine credentials. I am sure you are a fine educator. Yet, that has little or nothing to do with whether you have addressed the issue at hand Not only did you get a straight answer, you got several questions, and a process which you ignored and reduced to word salad. Then you again avoided answering and replaced them with a inadvertant transposition of two distinct ideas. Dros, forget for a moment this compulsion you have to set in opposition the ToE with ID. Focus intially and primarily on IDs process. Do this by simply examining it. You can review a process without comparing it to the ToE, correctUse your scientificy methodology, to point to the point in the process I presented to you and say, Ah there it is, there is the point in his process that is not scientificy enough. Or there is something he left out While I am sure you an excellent and experienced educator, you seem to be at best an adequate, if not less than adequate polemist. Not only have you avoided related questions, you have now contradicted yourself in two paragraphs
The two hypos are the same investigation into the same material with the same results. Or at best, a collection of results, all defined and demonstrated by basically the same approach. Remember what we learned Droso, terms dont define reality. The reality is that it is just an investigationPoint to the thing in that which I presented you and say, not "Word Salad", but there is the thing according to the SM, that makes his process not an investigation
Once again and for your benifit, the two processes are not conclusions and they cannot be mutually exclusive, unless you can show how the specifics of the process/s yield something differnt, than Natural Selection and Order
Here is one of the points you have continued to avoid. Even if evo were true, it would not affect whether something was designed to operate in that manner. Your viewing creationism as a religous concept, it is not. When we get to that point you can try and show why if the ToE were true,it would invalidate that it was designed to operate in that fashion This does not affect whether IDs process is science, nor does it demonstrate that IDs conclusion is false, because you can identify certain aspects of change in the ToE
What specifically in IDs process, that I set out, does not qualify as either science or an investigation?
While you are correct that there is no third alternative, you need to demonstrate Presently, that IDs process and its tenative conclusions are mutually exclusive to and data found in the so-called SM, not its conclusionYou have been fighting an imaginary version of creationism and ID for so long you dont know how to distinguish between what is real and what is not I will now entertain this with full knowledge that you have not in the least touch any of the propositions that I had set out. What is science? why the ID process does not qualify as science?, etc, etc, etc. You have not addressed direct questions either. Do you agree that even if the ToE were true, it would not mean that it was not designed or created to exist and thrive in the enviornment you are witnessing. Or atleast from a logical format show why that does not follow, concerning the two propositionsNow to your contention
Assuming that a designer exists, and that is what your argument implies, it would also make no sense, or at best it would not make sense to us, to create a physical enviornment, when a spiritual one was alraedy in existence and was much superior to that of a physical one.Again trying to show how a designed system should work according to your principles, has nothing to do with whether IDs process qualifies as an investigation, whether it is science or not, or whether if the ToE were true, that it was not created, then left alone to proceed in that manner. Since it follows that the Id process of investigation violates none of the above principles, you would agree that ID qualifies as science, since its methodology identifies, definate principles of Law, order and purpose, correct?That is the point at hand, for you to demonstrate why the process is not valid, not to compare two competing theories Very impressive and I mean that honestly. However, did you notice that you used the words investigation, examination, deductive, reasoning, all in the same vien and in the same context to mean excally the samthing. That alone, should clue you in Droso, show that the tenetsof the processes are mutually exclusive, not the finnding of the methods, or the conclusions. Then you will have started on a process that demonstrates IDs process as invalid and non-scientificYou can start this by dismissing this obsession you have that the positions are mutually exclusive. After all, processes are just processes, correct? First things firstDawn Bertot

Ill give it a shot, its not always easy I cannot speak to others motivations or intentios. I was not,. nor have ever been aware of these groups or thier agendas. I proceed from a standpoint of pure reason and reality.I can easily see the mental and logical errors, made by those that think there is a differnece between creationinsm and ID, those that think there is a connection with the ToE and a creator, those that honestly think there is difference between philosophy and the word science, those that think there is difference in a valid method of investigation, verses the same method of investigation that follows the same rulesI would defy anyone to show in any logical fashion, how, there is or could be any difference in ID or creatioism. You see that is oneof the simple logical and mental errors commited on both sides, that sets things moving in the wrong direction.In contrast however it can be demonstrated in a logical way, why, even if the ToE were true it would not preclude a creator or designer. Great, so in some logical fashion you can prove, that say the Diest position is not valid. You do realize in your above comment you have made an absolute statment. Your not just claiming one position offsets another. So lets see how you will proceed to prove that point Unfortunately that is not what is meant by the two alternatives, when we speak of, "the only two possibilites". Your proposition is misguided when you use the expressions, "Life has progressed", "Life has been guided". How it proceeds is not the same as How it started.By mixing these two concepts up you have missed the point altogether. You have to know the rules before you throw your boulder. I explain that in a moment No, only that you have missed the point and now misdirected the understanding of the only logical explanations for existence You speak of unguided as if you have demonstrated, that, law order and purpose dont exist in the process. My friend, this is what you would need to alleviate to demonstrate that your single proposition of unguided were true to begin withSince both propositions are demonstratable, from the available evidence, leading to only two logical explanations, then it would follow that either are acceptable as evidence as to the explanation of existence in the first place. Wouldnt you agree? Again, unguided process as you call it, could only be used up to a certain point. One is then forced to look at the Law, order and purpose that does exist in the process as wellYour problem Droso, is a simple one. You can never alleviate your proposition from the responsibility it has concerning the fact that the available evidence, clearly demonstrates a guiding hand in the process by the qualites I have mentioned aboveOf course this again is not the underlying problem, is it? The problem is that certain ones in the science community have taken it upon themselves to redefine the word science in such a way that it excludes any rational explanation but thier ownBut a logical explanation of the word science demonstrates clearly that that approach is invalid. From a scientifc (investigative)standpoint and all the available evidence, there is included the demonstratable propsition of a designer, even if you dont personally approveRemember Droso, it is what is demonstratable from a logical and evidential standpoint, that is important, where the exact information does not allow us to prove what happened one way or another. If indeed Jar has actual Evidence of natural causes, he would be able to explain and solve all the problems. Clearly he does notSoley natural causes is a conclusion of the ToE. Designer is a natural conclusion of the ToL.O.&PHow will you proceed to demonstrate that either process is not valid as science, valid as factual, that the information and data it gathers, is not valid and its approach is not science. Your task is insurmountable. If you can do this, you will be the first in history to accomplish such a featI believe you spoke earlier of Cavemen, and the TWATD. Do you remember the movie 'Cavemen', with Ringo Star, Dennis Quade and Barbara BachLyle Alsadoe (an ex-football player) a mountain of a man,was playing the bad caveman. In one scene he is chasing Ringo and Dennis and he decides to throw a rock at them. Well, he is a caveman and doesnt know whats involved in throwing a rock, because he has never had occasion to do it.So he picks up this massive boulder and begins to throw it. Not knowing the rules or knowing he needs to let go of it, he holds on to it and goes with it. One of the funniest scenes in a commedy I ever seen.He is passing everyone on the way down and lands on his head and the rockWhats the point Droso? You have to know whats involved in setting out a proposition before you set it out to sea. You dont understand your proposition in this instance or what it lacks or does not involve. You have to know what is what,before you throw your rockOh well all is not lost, Barbara or Kathy Bach, is in the moive( Im not sure which one, like that matters) and that is worth the price of admissionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I do know about the ID movement, its just an investigation into the natural world. What I am advocating in this thread, is that it is fit for the classroom, wouldnt you agree?. If not show me why from my position, not someone elses ID is creationism because they mean the samething. That has nothing to with the fact that they are not religion, even if they mean the samething, that they are not, Not a valid as an investigation into the real world. That is your task here to demonstrate otherwise There you go, your starting to get it now Law, order and purpose do exists correct and if they do they are evidence, correct. If not why not Sure it is. In the absenseof that which is abosolutely knowable, it serves as the best evidence, based on and in a scientific manner. Until it can be demonstrated otherwise, correct? If not why not? Please show why the evidence of Natural selection and change gathered by the ToE, is different than the data of Order, Law and purpose are different than that gathered by the ToLO&P. Then show why the the same type of investigation used by the SM, is different than that used by any IDst.We are are saking why it is not science if it produces the same results that are are identifiable, tenatively and immediatleyIm not worried at present about the conclusion of ID or the ToE. We can demonstrate that later the same way you conclude Soley Nature CausesSo if my method of investigationis not science, just show me why.Ive already given you your task, I have now demostrated mine to be valid. Your only task is to show otherwise. My guess is that you cannotIf and when you cannot, is there any reason to suggest it should not be taught in a science classroom or as science.Why dose a simple investigation that identifies cetain things such as Law and Order, need to be designated as religion, it is notSo as you can see and in keeping with this thread Agent and the system jumped the gun or atleast they threw out the baby with the bath water. Neither was necessary, as you can seeWe need another court date. He ccme the judge, here come the judgeDawn 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.

Have you been on this planet very long. Of course I am not the only one that holds this view Your not paying atttention to what is written in this debate Is there evidence of Law order and Purpose in the Natural world, why yes there is. If the the ToE is true because it can demonstrate Natural selection and Change, wouldnt it be true the ToLO&P was true, if it can demonstrate Law, order and purpose Ive done this with Dros, with only the promise he would pick it apart. Only to watch him avoid doing that very thing. The FSM, is not identifiable like the law and order in the natural world. Woulndt you agree I provided the type of investigation that ID uses to Droso. The Law and Order in the natural world can be demonstrated in any given physical property. Starting with its substructure in the form of atoms and molecules, to larger and more complicated things like the brain, heart and eyes.Its only a secret if you have your eyes, ears and mouth covered. Your not a chimp are you trixie?Are you so ignorant that you would deny the complex order that exist in the things I have mentioned All you need to do is demonstrate why an investigation into the natural world, like that of Francis Collins and other scientist is not science. What methods does he or I use that are invalid that would and donot establish that Law order and purpose.When and how and where will you demonstrate that these properties do not exist in the natural world. Provide me with an exampleof why the method of investigation into the natrual World I employ, by observation and experimentation of lesser and greater properties fails as an investigationDroso gave up immediately on this challenge because he knew what it entailed and realized his task was insurmountable Your above comment is an ignorant and dishonest representation of what I have been presenting. In the first place I dont need the ToE to be false, for my position to be valid. Trixie, atleast try and sound objective and intelligent To demonstrate that I have done this many times now, all one needs to do is simply present any point of the SM, to demonstrate that a scientist labeled as an IDs, uses the same methods and principles of investigation. There are no pointsof the SM, that an IDst does not employHave you been paying any attention to this debate at all, or are you just playing ignorant?By the very nature of the case, your method of investigation and mine could not differ, if they are both any kind of valid inquiryTo demonstrate this point beyond any doubt, describe and explain any detail of the SM, that is not a simple investigative procees of an experimentation into the natural world.Secular fundamental evolutionist and atheist like to pretend that they employ different and better methods, for better results or data. The very idea of such a notion is idiocy of the highest orderIf that is not true, what is it about thier method of investigation that is superior. What results do they gather more evidential or better than that of Law order and purpose?
trixie you and your position cant even get out of the gate to formulate an argument against the metod of ID, muchless its data and conclusionsDawn Bertot

It appears you have only casually looked at what is being discussed and debated. We are discussing processes, not conclusions.
. Instead of taking sides or misapplying and confusing processes with conclusions, think in strict rational and logical terms.we are comparing investigative processes. we are looking at the results of those processes. We are seeing if the results of those processes are verifiableIf the process and the results of those processes are valid, why should they not be taught as a scientific method to the explanation of the existence of things, in the science classroom. To this point no one has even addressed the method i set out to Droso Prepratory to me answering your questions, it is customary for you to atleast address the points I have raisedBut since you asked. I guess before we even ask why the sky is blue we should explore the reasons that made it that way. Is there any REASON to understand how it is, that it is blue. Is there an ordered process? Why, yes there isSome purposes are more evident than others. Isnt it interesting that you didnt ask, what is the purpose of the eyes. Or what is the purpose of the brain. Lets assume for a moment that God does exist. The purpose of the moon, not only to control the tides, was to provide a type of light. So if the sky being blue is a result of atmospheric proceses, then it could also serve as a pleasant view for man to observe, much like a sunet or a rainbow How did I do so far. Are you prepared to demonstrate it otherwiseDawn Bertot

Prepratory to any questions and related concerns, you might have, it is usually customary in any debate to address and respond in argument form to the proposition I have set outSo to continue in the same vein, I would ask you to demonstrate why what I set out to Droso, is not a scientific investigation or method.To answer your question however, you do realize that the rational, valid investigive method has been around much longer, than any so called SMYou also realize that observable Law and order has been demonstratable and was a fact of investigation, before anyone decided to look for the tenets of the ToE. You also that it is not necessary to repeadley confirm that which is know to be trueIf you believe that the tenets of the ToE are confirmed and valid, is there any need to keep confirming thier validitythe peer review you request has been available in investigative and rational form, since anyone was able to thinkI dont need someone to agree with my proposition, I simply need someone anyone to show why the investigation, is not an investigation. Why its tenets as I have set them out, are not demonstratable by the process. Why the tenetsof its process are not the same as those demonstrated by the ToEDawn Bertot

That would not be true, even if that is what we were talking about at this point, it is not. We are discussing process, data gathered and methodologies. Since we are not discussing that which you have misapplied presently, as usual, your comment makes no sense at allPlease try and to stay up with the conversation or avoid moronic comments such as yours aboveDawn Bertot