tactile sensory units, 2

[justlookinla]

Apparently, justlookinla has to change my words in order to address them.

Apparently you haven't noticed the question mark?

Designed evolution? We observe elements of design.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm asking....you're evading.

Designed evolution? We observe elements of design.

I already gave you the answer multiple times.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually, I am challenging the conclusions you derive from them. You do not observe design, you observe tactile sensory units and hands. That is the observation.

Yes, elements of design in tactile sensory units are observed.

The objects' existing is something I am not contesting, but I contest that EITHER are conclusively designed based on your flawed reasoning, which btw, leads one to conclude hammers aren't designed. If it makes an incorrect conclusion about hammers, why should I think that method being correct in any example is anything besides random luck? Why should I care what your reasoning says when it is wrong most of the time, thus is demonstrably right none of the time?

Why aren't observed elements of design in the tactile sensory units evidence of design?

No, I am stating that your method is so bad, that half the time it mislabels designed things as "not designed". Why then should I think that the "designed" designations are more accurate with the same method? I obviously don't use the same method you do, so I don't agree with your conclusions on the principle that a right answer is wrong when derived from an invalid method. You might as well be saying "2+4 = 5, therefore calculators do math".

I'm not understanding.

Exactly, again, you keep up with that premise of design, and yet your method from which you derive it has not been verified. I do not have to contest an invalid premise.

Not only a premise but an observation.

How do you know it is a design? What qualifies as a design?

I've answered this question from lots of folks dozens of times now. But, once again.

Complexity, functionality, purpose, elements of design as seen in the circuitry interconnected for a purpose, programming and bi-directional information exchange.

I am addressing the topic, just not in a way you like. Probably because I am challenging your ability to distinguish design.

I've distinguished, and observed, elements of design in tactile sensory units.

Because the conclusion that what you observed was design is flawed. Your method for determining that has been shown not to work consistently enough to rely on it for anything.

I've observed complexity, functionality, purpose, elements of design as seen in the circuitry interconnected for a purpose, programming and bi-directional information exchange. What's the problem?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, elements of design in tactile sensory units are observed.

DNA is an element of evolution, not design.

 

[justlookinla]

I already gave you the answer multiple times.

Well, now I'll ask for it again, and you'll respond with something which will evade answering and the question will remain. This doesn't mean the question is going away, you know.

Designed evolution? We observe elements of design.

 

[justlookinla]

DNA is an element of evolution, not design.

How is that related to tactile sensory units?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, now I'll ask for it again, and you'll respond with something which will evade answering and the question will remain. This doesn't mean the question is going away, you know.

Designed evolution? We observe elements of design.

We observe elements of evolution, not design. DNA proves it.

 

[justlookinla]

We observe elements of evolution, not design. DNA proves it.

LOL!

 

[Loudmouth]

How is that related to tactile sensory units?

DNA is observed in this tactile sensory unit.

This proves that it evolved and was not designed since DNA is an element of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL!

That's all you have? We have the proof since we observe the elements of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

DNA is observed in this tactile sensory unit.

This proves that it evolved and was not designed since DNA is an element of evolution.

We observe elements of design in tactile sensory units.

 

[justlookinla]

That's all you have? We have the proof since we observe the elements of evolution.

You have proof that tactile sensory units aren't designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

We observe elements of design in tactile sensory units.

DNA is not a element of design. It is an element of evolution. The tactile sensory units prove it.

 

[justlookinla]

DNA is not a element of design. It is an element of evolution. The tactile sensory units prove it.

We observe the elements of design in tactile sensory units.

 

[Loudmouth]

We observe the elements of design in tactile sensory units.

Already disproven by DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

Already disproven by DNA.

How is actual observation of elements of design of tactile sensory units disproven by DNA?

 

[Loudmouth]

How is actual observation of elements of design of tactile sensory units disproven by DNA?

Tactile sensory units.

 

[justlookinla]

How is actual observation of elements of design of tactile sensory units disproven by DNA?

Tactile sensory units.

Please answer the question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please answer the question.

The elements of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

How is actual observation of elements of design of tactile sensory units disproven by DNA?

Tactile sensory units.

The elements of evolution.

You going to answer the question? I think not.