Summations Only

A very good suggestion GDR, it might even get him on his way back home.He is young and impressionable, which means there is still time to shape his thinkingHis first step is to make a distinction between fundamentalism and a strict YEC position. Its appears like yourself he has thown out the baby with the bath waterIt proves one thing, not having a solid foundation in these matters allows a person to be easily swayedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The young man acted to hastily. His problem is simple, he has confused evolution with creationism, they have nothing do with eachother directly and are therefore unrelatedNot thinking things through to there logical conclusion will always result in hasty and unwise choices.Its a matter of simple logic and reasoning, not someones opinionsI know therefore he has not examined the 'Evidence' Since creationism is an evaluation of the real world concerning its origin and derives all its conclusions in a scientific manner, it follows that your above request is an absurdityThat would be like saying can anyone point me to a scientist who has turned away from science to demonstrate his conclusionsYour question is non-sensical and illogicalDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well an actual argument in response to what i had argued, would have been better, but if this is all you have Ill understandIts not majic, its science, all reasoning to proper conclusions is science, unless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwiseI guess you have nothing better than the aboveDawn BertotEdited by AdminModulous, : added carriage returns to the HHAA section to avoid formatting issues.

No Agent, creationism is a simple logical proposition derived from the ONLY two logical possibilites, of the existence of things, and the only two that existence will allows us, as an explanation.Both of which are derived from a scientific evaluation of physical properties and then conclusions of those evaluationsThe Bible is an illustration of a greater proposition, which states that it is very much possible, given the only two possibilites of things in existence, that things were created or madeThat very much acceptable proposition is not derived JUST from scripture, but observation and reason initiallyDont confuse the Process of evolution, which is only an explantion of how things WORK, with creationism, the explanation of the origin of things, from only two logical propositionsEvolution has nothing to with the ultimate origin of things, it is only a possible explanation of how things work, not an explantion for the existence of things as a wholeMost of these fellas here will try and lump the two together and try to make people believe they have offered an explantion for the origin of things, by explaining evolution. They haventAgain, creationism is at its heart a logical proposition about the origin of anything. But it derives its conclusions from the very existence of things, in the same way a conclusion of soley natural clauses, derives it conclusionsNeither is provable, but both are logical and demonstratable. these are the kind of facts they dont want you to hear, AgentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writesNow see Agent, did this man offer an argument in contrast to what I said, or only sarcasm an insult. Thats all they have in this connectionWatch and see if anything of an argument is offered. They know that the proposition is solid and cannot be touched. Lets see if they have anything AgentDawn Bertot

Jar likes to play with words. He likes to leave the very mistaken impression that there is 'evidence' of the cause for the things in existenceThe actual fact is, that there are things in existence, thats all we actually know outside and disregarding the scripture and other texts explaining existences causesFor Jars intimation to be taken seriously as evidence, of the ultimate causes, he would actually have to provide the actual source of these properties, like quarks and other particles, that seem come into existence from nowhere or from another source as yet unknownSo no Jar, there is not "Evidence" of the causes of things, as you are trying to imply, there is only evidence that things are in existence. There is big difference between what the facts actually are and what you are intimatingOutside of scripture and other texts, we are all in the same boat about the why and how of thingsThat being the case, causation falls to a simple logical proposition of possiblities, of which Id and creation are very much a part of those considerationsBoth should be taught in the science classroomWe have been over all of this to many times to mention
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

We have been through all of this, over the years,that is not my implication at all. Yes I know they believe what you have stated, it is not what they practice

For once inyour life Subbie try and go deeper, before it is explained why I dont believe what you stated aboveI know they dont believe that Subbie, but it is not what is practived in the media, televison or the classroomTry to show atleast some intelligence, Subbie

Yeah I agree, but fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion.No one starts an investigation of any type WITHOUT considering the causes of the processAn investigation that excludes the how and why of the process would make no senseSince outside of religious texts, we can not prove how things got here, it falls to the art of investgation, in the form of logical propositions coupled with our understanding of the physical worldThis leads us to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites, the likes of which are derived by a scientific evaluation called investigationBoth of these possibilites can be demonstrated to be atleast logical explanations, leaving no other possibilitesSince ID is not religion and is one of only two logical possibilites, determined by investigation, even scientific investigation, it follows that both should be taught in the science arenaDo any think they can refute this proposition?Dawn Bertot

The case for creationism was not correctly represented, it may be that it was represented as religion, which is not the caseIf you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existenceScience is simply a valid investigation of any property in existencehence the term Criminal Science Investigation. Without knowing or having been present for or at the crime, they use an investigative process, scientifc in nature, to deduce the possible causes of the crime that was not witnessedCreationism and ID follow the same premise, religion asideDawn Bertot

Notice that no one in the repsponses adressed even my based contentions and observations, namely that any investigation where you dont already know the conclusion is scientific in natureYou cannot staat with a conclusion, when the the answer to the unknown question is what you are seeking. You may have a perception, but that is not a conclusion, if it has not yet been establishedEven atheisim and those that percieve things here by soley natural causes, have the perception of possibilites of how and why, but that is not a conclusion. You cant have a conclusion in the strictest sense of the word, because that is the answer that you are seekingNo one addressed the other main point that without either side actually knowing or being able to find the answer, it falls to a simple logical proposition, pitted against what we can know and investigate in the natural worldEven after the strictiest investigations, it still leaves us with only two logical possibilites, both of which is demonstrateable and both of which are logical conclusions against the natural worldAgain creationism is not religion, ID is not religion. It is a simple evaluation and investigation, that follows the same methods of any other investigation, but comes to the same conclusion in this instanceInstead of repeating that ID does not use a scientific method simply show why it does not.If it is not science and the SM is science, why has it not provided any answers for the conclusion of how and why things are here?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Actually yes I am very good at this. The purpose of a crime scene is not only who, but how and why.Do you have anyother silly commentsEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Abstract observations by a judge are not reponses to the arguments I have set out. If you think the judge and his findings have adressed in argument form anything I have said, pull it out and demonstrate whyEvery investigation in this context has to start with the idea of how and why. No investigation of this nature can start with a conclusion, as that is the answer you are seeking. perception is not a conclusion. Even if it were percieved as a conclusion, it is not a logically set out conclusion An this is why you will never understand reason or evidence. Every proposition concerning the how and why of things, starts with the proposition of how and why. Even the TOE must involve itself in this aspect of the investigation. Its necessary conclusion is that it is by soley natural causes and it teaches this in principle when taught side by side with the TOEThe evidence that you seek for ID as science is demonstrated in the exact same way the conclusion of soley natural causes is established, by an investigation of the physical worldNeither conclusion can render a definate provable answer, but that isfar from saying ID is religion or that it does not follow the same methods for the established conclusionUntil you can demonstrate why either of the above two points are not valid froma logical standpoint, it follows that they are and should be taught as very reasonable conclusions, as any indirect conclusions, taught by the TOE in the classroomDo you think there is a student out there any where that would listen to the whole TOE, then not ask the logical and investigative question, "Well ok, but where idid all come from to get started'Its a natural part of any investigation and its tenets should and can be taught independent of religionDawn Bertot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your free to address any argument I have set out. Until then I cannot take you comments as seriousJaywill also has I believe a 2 something rating, that should tell you something about thier rating systemDawn Bertot

That is not possible, where the answer to that question of how and why are what you seek. You are confusing a perception with a logically set out conclusion.Even if it were true that that is what we do (it is not), it would not change the fact every investigation of the how and why has to follow the same methodThese fellas like to convince people they have something different and better, they dont, as you are seeing in the reponses.Refuting thier points is like shooting fish in a barrelDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.