Does science actually admit "design"?

[tas8831]

Doesn't embryology link us to tadpoles, or is it chickens? (That might explain these urges to cross the road.)

There is a demonstration of that relevant knowledge again!

 

[tas8831]

That's their problem.

It is obvious to many of us that you have no business discussing evolution as you seem to be nearly totally ignorant of any relevant scientific issues.

If that is not obvious to you that is your problem.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure - design in anatomy is obvious to an economist.


Wonder why that is...

I'm not an economist (although I could offer some pretty good advice about it), I design stuff, so I know design when I see it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is a demonstration of that relevant knowledge again!

I thought it was pretty funny (I have a great sense of humor).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

AGAIN: just because something is obvious to you, does not mean that it is obvious to everyone else. Hence why people ask you for evidence for your claims.

The evidence is subject to interpretation, as is the evidence for evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some people, are lazy.

Thoughtless, is a better term.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really - recall that you have actually admitted ignorance of biology, and your continual assertions that reek of simple-mindedness ('anatomy reveals design') and a lack of relevant knowledge back-fill any holes left.

Believe it or not, nobody is impressed with the condescending hubris of know-nothing creationists with inflated ego issues.

Many find it comical that such folk find their mere opinions to suffice in arguments in which evidence is required.

Since your first foray onto this forum (at least as of late), you have revealed a near total lack of knowledge on the subjects you discuss and a total inability to provide even circumstantial evidence for ANY of your science-related claims.

No, I think I am in a grand position to judge your knowlege on these issues.

How does admitted ignorance of biology translate to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You've got a massive ego, you know that, right?
And it looks like I was repeating false information. They don't chew through the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. But given the size of the pups they birth, which can weigh up to 1.5 kilos per pup, with between two and four pups each litter, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] ruptures and cane take weeks to heal.
How's that for design?

My "expert" comment was (humorously) directed at tas8831.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really - recall that you have actually admitted ignorance of biology, and your continual assertions that reek of simple-mindedness ('anatomy reveals design') and a lack of relevant knowledge back-fill any holes left.

Believe it or not, nobody is impressed with the condescending hubris of know-nothing creationists with inflated ego issues.

Many find it comical that such folk find their mere opinions to suffice in arguments in which evidence is required.

Since your first foray onto this forum (at least as of late), you have revealed a near total lack of knowledge on the subjects you discuss and a total inability to provide even circumstantial evidence for ANY of your science-related claims.

No, I think I am in a grand position to judge your knowlege on these issues.

I think you are taking this topic, and yourself, way too seriously.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is so cool how you actually seem to believe that the mere repetition of unsupported, simple-minded mantras make them true!

Prove that it doesn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That does not make any sense and is a very clearly and very poor ad hoc attempt at explaining away something that doesn't fit your beliefs.

It fits nicely within my beliefs.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The evidence is subject to interpretation, as is the evidence for evolution.

AGAIN: just because something is obvious to you, does not mean that it is obvious to everyone else. Hence why people ask you for evidence for your claims.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My "expert" comment was (humorously) directed at tas8831.

Still an example of a big ego.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It fits nicely within my beliefs.

No, it's quite bad. The act that you have to resort to saying that the spotted hyena female giving birth through their vagina that is also a pseudo-penis is a 'metaphor' for Lucifer or whatever else you think it is, shows a VERY poor grasp on reality. And religion for that matter.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Prove that it doesn't.

I can't believe you said that!
For an example, let's suppose A is in deep denial about having cancer, but doctors say he does.
Does his/her denial suddenly remove the unrestrained cell division in his body?

 

[bhsmte]

Thoughtless, is a better term.

Wouldnt let it ruin your day.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not an economist (although I could offer some pretty good advice about it),

My mistake. Odd then that your 'home page' is an economics blog of some sort.

I design stuff, so I know design when I see it.

You've designed living things?

Cool! Let's see your stuff!


Just kidding - I think it is hilarious how many 'engineer' creationist types seem to think that their experience 'designing things' makes them experts on things that they have already admitted ignorance of.

It is weird - I would never dream of telling engineers that they are wrong about everything by virtue of my not being an engineer. I guess some people are just to prideful and egocentric to recognize their limitations. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

 

[tas8831]

I thought it was pretty funny (I have a great sense of humor).

Yup - it is especially funny how you think that because you design things you can see design in nature! Knee-slapping goofiness!

 

[tas8831]

How does admitted ignorance of biology translate to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

You continue to pontificate on it. Do you not?

You think that your mere unsupported opinions ('anatomy shows design') trump actual anatomical reality. That is, you don't let your acknowledged ignorance keep you from claiming that you are correct. It is an outlier in the world if the D-K effect, as most such folk are too ignorant to realize how ignorant they are. But it is on the spectrum, to be sure.

 

[tas8831]

I think you are taking this topic, and yourself, way too seriously.

Ah yes - antic 3 in the creationist-caught-blabbering-above-their-paygrade bag of face-saving tricks - it was all just jokes!