Summations Only

No Dawn, you don't understand.When I wrote that I knew I was writing a bullshit echo of what you have been writing all through this thread. I know my point in utter bullshit and you say they are both valid?I really don't know what to say. Again. A parrotting of your position that you seem to think is as valid as mine.Edited by Larni, : saving post numbers, edit by edit.Edited by Larni, : 'yours' to 'mine', last sentence. Hey, a real edit comment. Oops, ruined.

Hi Trixie.I think Dawn snuck in a double negative, there.

As far as I can see the only way for this 'hypothesis' to be falsified is if Dawn decided that she could not see Law, Order and Purpose.In a sense, if Dawn believes it is true, it must be.

Dawn, you position seems to be that you can see Law, Order and Purpose. I imagine you also see harmony.You go on to assert that that because you saw these things that one can infer ID.The only thing I don't understand is how you can tell Law, Order and Purpose mean ID.Well that's not quite true: I can see how you would see order in the hexaform of a bee's honey comes or the arrangement of carbon atoms in diamond.I can see how a rock falling down when dropped is pretty much a law. In a gravity field of 1G the rock with always fall at the same rate in vacuum.Purpose needs an intelligent initiator and this is where you go wrong. You have decided that because you see purpose it must be from an intelligent initiator.I guess I can see that.But only Purpose needs an initiator. Chaotic water beomes ordered ice due to natural forces. Things doing the same thing all the time under the same conditions is pretty lawful but the conditions must be the same. Ice will form at negative centigrate only if the conditions are right.With both Law and Order no non unnaturalistic entities are required.So you 'theory' boils down to you thinking every thing has a purpose.And this can only be true if one assumes an intelligent initiator a priori because purpose requires agency.You're not using a scientific method of investigation at all: you are putting the cart before the horse.

Dawn, you do know that for a hypothesis to be falsifiable there must be some possible evidence that would rule the hypothesis out, don't you?So for ToE: finding a rabit in strata dated as Carboniferous.It seems you are using the word falsification in a different way. When you say ToE cannot be falsified, what exactly do you think you mean?Edited by Larni, : shhh!

Sigh.You don't attempt to falsify a conclusion, you must be able attempt to falsify a hypothesis.Sigh.The main tennet of ToE is not that there are here by 'Soley Natural' causes. ToE makes no mention of why things are here: it could be magic pixies for all ToE states on the matter.You confuse abiogenesis with ToE. As many uninformed creos do.I'm now quite interested in what you mean when you say falsification. The example of the Carboniferous Rabit works.ToE has many predictions and if we found a carboniferous rabit those predictions would not be born out.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Okay so we know that you think a conlcusion needs to be falsified? You're an idiot.

That would be a conclusion.Did you study any science subjects at school? Dawn, you fool: there is no such thing as an 'end hypo'. You are confusing a hypothesis with a conclusion; cementing many people's thoughts that you do not know of what you speak.Edited by Larni, : exasperationEdited by Larni, : No reason given.

While Dawn did stick her face and arse where they were not required it was a tour de force of arrogant ignorance for all the lurkers to behold and shrink away from in dismay.Surely, Dawn puts the cause of Yecism (nice neologism, Trix) back even further into the brown age.