• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I made no assumption, you have demonstrated your shortcomings yourself. Why do you refuse to even try to learn what scientific evidence is? Debating you would be more interesting if you could make a valid point.

And please, ease up on the personal attacks.
Constant sarcastic, smug accusations of ignorance or sheer stupidity are personal attacks.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Because your criteria evidently find intelligent design where ours do not, and you have accused us of changing ours when necessary to avoid detecting ID in situations where your criteria would do so. That is, you claim we use your criteria except where they would point to an ID for natural phenomena, but since we don't know exactly what your criteria are, it is not possible to answer the accusation.
If your criteria doesn't reveal an ID in nature then it isn't the one which you normally logically employ for everything else unrelated to an ID and you are being inconsistent. Subjectivity is totally inconsistent with the scientific approach. The scientific approach demands an objectivity which doesn't suddenly place reasoning ability on hold whenever deemed convenient. As for the claim of not knowing my criteria? Watching the videos posted alone clearly reveals what my criteria is. So your claim of being totally unaware of what my criteria is despite the videos posted comes across as selective blindness. In fact, no need to watch at all since the mere titles of my videos indicate what my criteria is. So please spare me the typical "Ï caint see!" excuse for supposedly not knowing what is obviously plain to see.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
If your criteria doesn't reveal an ID in nature then it isn't the one which you normally logically employ for everything else unrelated to an ID and you are being inconsistent.
LOL! No, I always use the same criteria and it doesn't reveal ID in nature. My criteria have nothing to do with irreducible complexity, complex specified information or any of those other Discovery Institute fantasies.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Constant sarcastic, smug accusations of ignorance or sheer stupidity are personal attacks.

That is correct. Luckily I have not done what you have done. I have merely pointed out your errors politely to you and offered to help you to understand where you went wrong.

Are you ready to discuss why you do not have any evidence yet? Others besides me have made this point more than clear to you. By denying the obvious you do invite others to attack you. Most of us realize that you can't help this and have almost infinite patience with you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Theistic evolutionists find absolutely no reason to conclude that the ID is attempting to deceive via the fossil record.

Like Fruminous, I'd be interested to know what you are actually proposing when you talk about ID. Obviously you believe that an intelligent 'agent' had some hand in the process of populating our planet with a diverse range of species but other than that it's hard to know to what your getting at. Do you accept any of the Theory of Evolution? Do you think evolution is set on a pre-determined path? Micro-managed in some way?

I'm sure it would make for a more productive discussion in all your threads if you would actually set out your position.

Edit: It was actually TagliatelliMonster, not Frumious
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why would it cancel out whatever criteria it is that you're using?

Because evolution accurately explains the designs of living systems that replicate with variation. And it does so in a testable fashion.

There is no need to assume the existance of undemonstrable, indefensible, unsupportable, unfalsifiable "designers".

And even lacking any such solid and well-evidenced explanations like evolution, that still doesn't get you any closer to a "designer" which is not in evidence.

You don't support your model by showing another model to be wrong.
You need actual evidence FOR your model to do that.

Having said that, are you about ready to share us your method for detecting design in testable ways? How many times have I asked for that now? A couple dozen?
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The scientific approach demands an objectivity which doesn't suddenly place reasoning ability on hold whenever deemed convenient

Ok. So.... in what objective way can unnatural design be detected and tested for?

As for the claim of not knowing my criteria? Watching the videos posted alone clearly reveals what my criteria is. So your claim of being totally unaware of what my criteria is despite the videos posted comes across as selective blindness.

Don't tell us to go watch a video and just answer the question.


So please spare me the typical "Ï caint see!" excuse for supposedly not knowing what is obviously plain to see.

Obviously, it is not "obvious", or we wouldn't all be here (atheist AND theists) asking you what these mysterious criteria are that you keep referring to.

This is a debate forum. It is entirely within reason to ask you to explain yourself and to support your claims using your own words.
In fact, strictly speak, the forum rules actually require you to do so.

So when are you going to?
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That is correct. Luckily I have not done what you have done. I have merely pointed out your errors politely to you and offered to help you to understand where you went wrong.

Are you ready to discuss why you do not have any evidence yet? Others besides me have made this point more than clear to you. By denying the obvious you do invite others to attack you. Most of us realize that you can't help this and have almost infinite patience with you.
That's like urinating on a person's boot and calling it rain ad then dumping a bucket of horse manure on the person's head as a parting shot.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Like Fruminous, I'd be interested to know what you are actually proposing when you talk about ID. Obviously you believe that an intelligent 'agent' had some hand in the process of populating our planet with a diverse range of species but other than that it's hard to know to what your getting at. Do you accept any of the Theory of Evolution? Do you think evolution is set on a pre-determined path? Micro-managed in some way?

I'm sure it would make for a more productive discussion in all your threads if you would actually set out your position.

Edit: It was actually TagliatelliMonster, not Frumious
Please explain what it is about the concept of an ID which you find puzzling and I will clarify. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Please explain what it is about the concept of an ID which you find puzzling and I will clarify. Thank you.

I can't speak for Jimmy D, but what I personally find puzzling is what the objective criteria are exactly by which one can identify unnatural design in a testable manner.

So please clarify.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Please explain what it is about the concept of an ID which you find puzzling and I will clarify. Thank you.

Thanks.

As I said before... Obviously you believe that an intelligent 'agent' had some hand in the process of populating our planet with a diverse range of species but other than that it's hard to know to what your getting at. Do you accept any of the Theory of Evolution? Do you think evolution is set on a pre-determined path? Managed in some way? Do you believe that different species were 'created' separately? How were they created?

I'm sorry if you've explained this before, I know it's boring having to repeat yourself but I don't really understand your position.

I can't speak for Jimmy D, but what I personally find puzzling is what the objective criteria are exactly by which one can identify unnatural design in a testable manner.

There's that too, but at this point I've realized that I've read many of Radbrooks posts and still don't understand his position, apart from the fact that an intelligent agency has a hand in proceedings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Thanks.

As I said before... Obviously you believe that an intelligent 'agent' had some hand in the process of populating our planet with a diverse range of species but other than that it's hard to know to what your getting at. Do you accept any of the Theory of Evolution? Do you think evolution is set on a pre-determined path? Managed in some way? Do you believe that different species were 'created' separately? How were they created?

I'm sorry if you've explained this before, I know it's boring having to repeat yourself but I don't really understand your position.



There's that too, but at this point I've realized that I've read many of Radbrooks posts and still don't understand his position, apart from the fact that an intelligent agency has a hand in proceedings.


I think that the reason for the confusion is perhaps that I am expected to delve into other side issues that I consider irrelevant to the ID discussion per se. Such as the ID's personality, powers, origin when all I that's relevant from my viewpoint is whether the universe indicates an ID or not.

You see, whether or not I personally believe that evolution was employed by the ID or not is totally irrelevant. As long as it is an ID who employed any particular method to design and create life then I will not feel a need to contradict it since it doesn't contradict my premise which is that nature manifests ID.

In short, when discussing ID on a thread dedicated to discussing an ID, I try to keep the subject as focused on the ID premise as possible in order to avoid getting sidetracked by various irrelevant religious side issues. That's the reason why I strive to keep answers to questions within the boundaries of those parameters.

BTW
There is a certain viewpoint which postulates a type of abiogenesis in rather roundabout fashion where the ID simply plops some chemicals and retreats into useless obscurity. From my standpoint. That's just another sly roundabout way of casting serious doubt on the essential need for an ID via making mindless abiogenesis seem feasible..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think that the reason for the confusion is perhaps that I am expected to delve into other side issues that I consider irrelevant to the ID discussion per se. Such as the ID's personality, powers, origin when all I that's relevant from my viewpoint is whether the universe indicates an ID or not.

If you can't even explain what you mean by an ID then it seems premature to say that there's evidence for or against it.

But I see this approach a lot - pretend evidence for ID is obvious and then when asked about it pretend that we shouldn't even be talking about what an ID is supposed to be. I think we all know why.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think that the reason for the confusion is perhaps that I am expected to delve into other side issues that I consider irrelevant to the ID discussion per se. Such as the ID's personality, powers, origin when all I that's relevant from my viewpoint is whether the universe indicates an ID or not.

You see, whether or not I personally believe that evolution was employed by the ID or not is totally irrelevant. As long as it is an ID who employed any particular method to design and create life then I will not feel a need to contradict it since it doesn't contradict my premise which is that nature manifests ID.

In short, when discussing ID on a thread dedicated to discussing an ID, I try to keep the subject as focused on the ID premise as possible in order to avoid getting sidetracked by various irrelevant religious side issues. That's the reason why I strive to keep answers to questions within the boundaries of those parameters.

BTW
There is a certain viewpoint which postulates a type of abiogenesis in rather roundabout fashion where the ID simply plops some chemicals and retreats into useless obscurity. From my standpoint. That's just another sly roundabout way of casting serious doubt on the essential need for an ID via making mindless abiogenesis seem feasible..

Well, I appreciate the fact you took the time to respond, but you didn't really answer the question, I'm certainly none the wiser.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well, I appreciate the fact you took the time to respond, but you didn't really answer the question, I'm certainly none the wiser.
Well, I did address all the concerns you mentioned. So I have absolutely no idea what could be possibly baffling to you at this point.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You see, whether or not I personally believe that evolution was employed by the ID or not is totally irrelevant. As long as it is an ID who employed any particular method to design and create life then I will not feel a need to contradict it since it doesn't contradict my premise which is that nature manifests ID.

So your premise is your conclusion?
There's a name for that. It's called "assumed conclusion".



Anyhow.... how about finally answering my question?

By what method can we detect unnatural design and how is it testable?
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
t
I can't speak for Jimmy D, but what I personally find puzzling is what the objective criteria are exactly by which one can identify unnatural design in a testable manner.

So please clarify.



Organization of diverse components towards a purpose or specific goal indicates ID.

That’s how you reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed.

That is the same reason why we reach the same conclusion about the heart.

All the parts of the heart are specifically designed to pump deoxygenated blood to the lungs where it is oxygenated and distributed to the rest of the body in order to oxygenate the cells. It is circulatory in order to assure a continuous oxygenation. The veins have valves which prevent backflow. In short, it is a machine and a machine demands we conclude ID just as we would do with another system which displays organization of individual parts towards a purpose.

You speak of testing? We determine ID because it passes the TEST of logic which employs inductive reasoning leading to a justifiable inductive leap. So it isn't accepted blindly or thoughtlessly-it is evaluated and tested to see if it meets a certain criterion which is organization of parts towards a goal or purpose.

BTW
There is really no logically justifiable reason to routinely accept that criteria for everything else and then to the suddenly and inconsistently quibble when the criteria is met in nature.

Now comes the responses of "Ï caint see!""
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,725
USA
Visit site
✟150,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So your premise is your conclusion?
There's a name for that. It's called "assumed conclusion".



Anyhow.... how about finally answering my question?

By what method can we detect unnatural design and how is it testable?

You are free to interpret it in whatever conveniently illogical fashion you wish as you are equally free to continue to drone that you can't see.

BTW
I gain absolutely NOTHING from convincing you one way or the other.
In fact, I would not even provide additional info unless requested to. So it is out of courtesy that I invest precious time to respond to inquiries which are obviously made in order to post a quick disagreement which offer the constant inability to reason nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
t



Organization of diverse components towards a purpose or specific goal indicates ID.

That’s how you reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed.

That is the same reason why we reach the same conclusion about the heart.

All the parts of the heart are specifically designed to pump deoxygenated blood to the lungs where it is oxygenated and distributed to the rest of the body in order to oxygenate the cells. It is circulatory in order to assure a continuous oxygenation. The veins have valves which prevent backflow. In short, it is a machine and a machine demands we conclude ID just as we would do with another system which displays organization of individual parts towards a purpose.

You speak of testing? We determine ID because it passes the TEST of logic which employs inductive reasoning leading to a justifiable inductive leap. So it isn't accepted blindly or thoughtlessly-it is evaluated and tested to see if it meets a certain criterion which is organization of parts towards a goal or purpose.

BTW
There is really no logically justifiable reason to routinely accept that criteria for everything else and then to the suddenly and inconsistently quibble when the criteria is met in nature.

Now comes the responses of "Ï caint see!""
No, functional organization is how you reach the conclusion that the water pump is designed. The rest of us require something more. In order to conclude intentional organization--intelligent design--directly from nothing but functional organization you must have already decided that functional organization cannot arise without an ID. Thus your "inductive leap" is nothing more than circular logic.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Organization of diverse components towards a purpose or specific goal indicates ID.

Great! Now we're getting somewhere...
First of all, I have an issue with the bolded part. That seems like a loaded term. It implies "intention", while that is exactly the thing that needs to be determined here.
So instead, let's swap that word with mere "function".

Let's put that definition to the test, shall we?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that you took no issue with the idea of "adaption" to an environment, correct?

Let's take the example of bears and polar bears.
You agree that a polar bear's white fur is the result of adaption to a white background for hunting purposes, yes?

So, the function of white fur in the polar bear would be better camouflage while hunting, correct?

But wait, this was the result of a natural process....
It seems that your definition thus does not hold up, as written.

So, what is missing?

That’s how you reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed.

No, actually. I reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed, not by what it does, but by what it looks like and the materials it is made from.

That is the same reason why we reach the same conclusion about the heart.

But apparantly, the same can not be said about the "purpose" / "function" of white fur in a polar bear..........

All the parts of the heart are specifically designed to pump deoxygenated blood to the lungs where it is oxygenated and distributed to the rest of the body in order to oxygenate the cells. It is circulatory in order to assure a continuous oxygenation. The veins have valves which prevent backflow. In short, it is a machine and a machine demands we conclude ID just as we would do with another system which displays organization of individual parts towards a purpose.

Equivocation error.

You speak of testing? We determine ID because it passes the TEST of logic which employs inductive reasoning leading to a justifiable inductive leap.

Except that the exact same logic doesn't work for the white fur of the polar bear......

So it isn't accepted blindly or thoughtlessly-it is evaluated and tested

I'm not seeing any test...... I'm seeing a mere claim.
I'm seeing you simply claim that the heart is a machine that was manufactured.
You haven't given us anything here by which it can be verified if this is actually the case.

And in fact, if we apply your method to something else, like the white fur of bears, then suddenly it doesn't work anymore. So clearly your method needs a little work.

There is really no logically justifiable reason to routinely accept that criteria for everything else and then to the suddenly and inconsistently quibble when the criteria is met in nature.

You mean like... with the white fur of polar bears?

Now comes the responses of "Ï caint see!""

Nope. The actual response is: your method as explained here, doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.