Summations Only

So you can't with the Scientific Method show a chain of causality from the brain to consciousness. There should be some chain we can point to that shows even a couple of links, since all the elements are there for us to examine.So until you can come up with some reality that shows its a result of just natural causes, I'll have to go with the reality that it is not a part of simply natural processesScripture also tells us it is from a designer. Do you have a better explanation of consciousness? Im all ears I'm not attacking science, I'm telling you what it is actually. It's an investigation of the human mind into natural processes.I don't need to attack the Scientific Method to know that, I only point out its flaws because it IGNORES simple obvious truths set out in realityFor example, do I need to falsify the fact of consciousness to demonstrate that consciousness is an actual reality or can I know that by the simple observation of simple science?If I don't need to then I guess the next thing we need to do is find some chain of causality. But when I do that the scientific method won't work either.SO WHAT NEXT, IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD SHOULD WE TRYEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well no that's not what I'm saying Sharon. I'm saying that if the Scientific Method can't identify or provide a causality link between the brain and causality, it has not provided that which it calls evidence, which it should be able to do, since all the necessary elements exist.
But at the the same time we know it ACTUALLY exists. So from an evidential standpoint, we now know we can know things that are outside the scope of the So called Scientific Method.
As your analogy failingly tries to imply, the purpose of the thread was NOT to prove absolutely the existence of a designer.But it was for the purpose of demonstrating that truth can be known above and beyond the extremist scientific method.Hence, this would constitute science even if it is not complicated. And how could anyone demonstrate other wiseThe intricacy of the mechanism called the brain is so detailed complex and harmonious, that the Scientific Method can't explain it nearlyNow if that is not indirect evidence of design I don't know what might be. design is a reality just like consciousness or thoughtSo yes there is science in the process of creationism or ID.It's really that simple, unless you would like to demonstrate otherwiseOur goa Sharon, in this thread was to provide evidence that Our PROCESS involved science, not prove absolutely the conclusion to your satifactionNow how hard was it to accomplish, it was no trouble at all.
Child's playDawn Bertot

XEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ah but you miss the point my simple friend, the thread was the science in crearionism. Since I have clearly demonstrated what I am doing by investigation is science, I need NOT do anything else to demonstrate my proposition. You can say I'm being simplistic or tricky if you wish, but it is science to establish the the existence of a designer.You have not yet brought forth evidence that what I am doing is not science. As a matter of fact I believe you admitted that it was science even Ifor it was simpleIt's really that simple. Design is obvious as evidence, the same way we establish the existence of things, simple observationBut you miss the point, if you cant show a link of causality from the brain to consciousness, then one of two things follows, either your not doing science or both of us are, because I can see it exists by simple observationSee how easy this is ModulousIt's really that simple my simple friend. Luckly, I don't need most people's eyes to determine what reality is or is not. If I can know consciousness exists by simple observation, yet your Scientific Method cannot show the link, then, I must still be doing science by observationSee how simple that is Modulous?. See how easy it is to establish the science in creationism by observable design But the moment you say consciousness is best explained by Natural Causes but can NOT provide not even the smallest link, when all the elements are there, all the technics are there, you are no longer doing science, which means the scientific method has failed, or is not scienceSo am I doing science by observation to understand simple observable axiomatic truthsTake your time answering, think it out This is where you are letting your perceptions and definitions of science trump reality. Really no need to do that at all, all I need to do for it to be evidence or science, is KNOW, as I do, that by any definition of design standards ,the eye is so intricate and harmonious, you can't even explain in a small way how it produces consciousness.So let's see, you with your brain can't figure out how your brain produces consciousness, but we are to believe blind chance got it rightOh wait, did you figure that yet?So unless you can come up with a way of explaining, what you cannot explain, including design, I'll stick with this:"And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the earth
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, (uh consciousness)
and man be came a living soul", (uh aware and responsible)Genesis 2:7This is why the soul or spirit or consciousness, while not a part of the brain directly, can move on after deathOh and by the way, I really enjoyed the discussion with you guys and gals and especially you Modulous, you are one tough nut to crack.. enjoyed it anyway, even if your wrong., hahaDawn 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.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.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

We have demonstrated that any valid investigation is science by any NORMAL defifinition of the word.We have demonstrated that science is NOT determined by a select few, with contrived ideas about the word science.We have demonstrated that reality not language determines the definition of scienceWe have demonstrated that truths obvious truths can be determined by simple observation.We have proven that these simple truths, determined by observation are indeed scienceWe have proven that the opposition cannot in reality, demonstrate these truths and how they are obtained are not science.Hence, we have demonstrated that in the PROCESS of investigation of creationism or ID, there is very much a scientific approach.Next we demonstrated and proved that by any definition of the word design, design is clearly obvious.Intricate, harmonious and so involved complexity, that it rivals any design man has brought forth.We have demonstrated that for design to be design, it DOES NOT, need my or any other man's approval.We have demonstrated that this obvious truth of design cannot be reasoned away or argued awayWe have shown that for this design in natural processes, to not be actual and real, it must be demonstrated to ACTUALLY not taking place. Since it is taking place, how could one in ACTUALLITY, imagine or reason it away.We have demonstrated that Purpose, that is a result of Intricate design, lends further proof of the fact that it was designed.Hence, we have demonstrated, that for the skeptic, to get rid of design, he will need to do more than just imagine that it doesn't exist.He will need to demonstrate to any thinking and observing person, what is ACTUALLY taking place, is not. But how could he ever do this.We have demonstrated that comparing ID and creationism to Astrology is nothing more than a smokescreen, in an attempt to discredit the method creationism uses to establish it's processWe have demonstrated that anyone can conduct a valid investigation into the natural processes in nature and thier initial investigation, is as scientific as any otherWe demonstrated that Astrology does NOT seek nor is it interested in the WHY and HOW of things are here.We demonstrated that Astrology only seeks answers to vague question that involve human perceptions and human affairsWe demonstrated that Astrology does not allign itself with the only two logical possibilities of how and why things are hereWe have demonstrated that unlike Astrology, creationism from start to finish, uses the natural world to begin it's investigation.We have demonstrated that creationism does NOT start with a preconceived idea and work inward.We have demonstrated that there is a difference in our PROCESS and our CONCLUSION.We do not need to prove our conclusion for our process to be valid.We demonstrated that if if creationism is like Astrology, then so must be the ToE, because it has no link of causality to its conclusionWe demonstrated that NOT proving your conclusion absolutely, is not the same as NOT having evidence for your process that leads to that same conclusionWe have demonstrated that EVERY investigation MUST of necessity INVOLVE a conclusion. Hence, when the ToE, concludes this is not necessary to its proposition, it's quite doing science or it is just unreasonable in its approachWe have demonstrated that the USE and MANEUVERING of words will not make this problem go away for the SFH.We have demonstrated that reality defines the relationship between words and thier meaning, not contrived ideas that ignore realityWe have demonstrated that the ToE CANNOT show a chain of causality from its process to it conclusion of Solely Natural CausesHence, it is either not doing science as it demands science to be, or we are both doing science and they just won't admit itWe have been told repeatedly that our process MUST show a chain of causality between our process and conclusion, yet the scientific method does not provide for its conclusion what it demands of usWe have demonstrated that, as an example, consciousness exists, but they cannot even show a chain in this PROCESS muchless it's conclusion to SOLELY NATURAL CAUSES. Why is this if that is what is necessary to science?We have demonstrated that that consciouness should be identifiable, by using the scientific method, but since, it cannot even show a small link of causality, does this mean the scientific method is invalid, not necessary in all situations, or that I can use simple observation called science to KNOW that it exists but seems to not be directly related to NATURAL CAUSESHence, we have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it's not ABSOLUTELY necessary to show a COMPLETE chain of causality from the process to the conclusion, for it it to be SCIENCE or for it to be evidence of a DESIGNER.Secular Fundamental Humanists and those that tout the Scientific Method, insist on these rules and regulations which they AN NOT and DO NOT follow themselves, to exclude anything they don't like or that may prove a point otherwise.We do not point this out to work our theory in, I can can do this by simple reasoning. We point this out to,show the general public what a phony bill of goods is being presented to themThose that insist and tout the Scientific Method remind US of one of those commercials you seeon television that blindside you with a lot of noise and demonstration, but I'd you look closely enough you'll see some VERY SMALL print usually in the bottom or corner.These are called exclusions and disclaimers, but this is so small you can't see it to read it and you certainly don't have time in one minute.There required to disclose it it but don't want you to really know it.Hmmmmmm? Sounds a lot like the Scientific Method when you take a closer lookDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.