Amazing Biological Nanotechnology

[bhsmte]

Testing isn't necessary in order to make a justifiable inductive leap.
If testing were necessary for everything that we readily detect is true then you would be testing all day long. Furthermore passing the crucial criteria of logic or cogent reasoning itself is a test and intelligent design passes it via flying colors. What doesn't pass it is abiogenesis since there is absolutely no basis for an inductive leap since no observable pattern is evident whatsoever.

Demonstrate this logical thinking.

 

[Loudmouth]

Testing isn't necessary in order to make a justifiable inductive leap.

Yet another faith based belief backed by zero evidence.

Furthermore passing the crucial criteria of logic or cogent reasoning itself is a test and intelligent design passes it via flying colors.

Yet another assertion without anything to back it up.

What doesn't pass it is abiogenesis since there is absolutely no basis for an inductive leap since no observable pattern is evident whatsoever.

Then why do you accept abiogenesis?

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence forces an ID inference.

What evidence?

Avoiding the inference is illogical and unscientific.

I'm not avoiding it. I am pleading with you to present it.

 

[Radrook]

Pleading for evidence to be presented in order to claim inability to see? That is a very tiresome game my friend.
You seem to find it very entertaining but I don't.

 

[Radrook]

Just a reminder:

 

[Loudmouth]

Pleading for evidence to be presented in order to claim inability to see? That is a very tiresome game my friend.
You seem to find it very entertaining but I don't.

You can't point to a single post where we have refused to see evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just a reminder:

And? How is this evidence for intelligent design?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Testing isn't necessary in order to make a justifiable inductive leap.

It is, if you wish to be accurate in your leap.

Time being a constant rergardless of speed or observers, was once a "justifiable inductive leap".
The sun orbitting the earth, was once a "justifiable inductive leap".

That didn't make it true, now did it?
"justifiable inductive leap" is just fancy words for "common sense" or "intuition".

Neither of which are reliable tools to venture into the unknown.

If testing were necessary for everything that we readily detect is true then you would be testing all day long

Is "readily detect" another way of refering to your "methodology" which seem to consist of pointing at something, making a claim about it and justifying that claim with "it's obvious!"?

Furthermore passing the crucial criteria of logic or cogent reasoning itself is a test and intelligent design passes it via flying colors

You can't even properly define what intelligent design is... how could it pass anything?

What doesn't pass it is abiogenesis since there is absolutely no basis for an inductive leap since no observable pattern is evident whatsoever.

It's called the frontier of scientific knowledge.
Intellectual lazyness is not the best tool to wield when crossing that border.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pleading for evidence to be presented in order to claim inability to see? That is a very tiresome game my friend.
You seem to find it very entertaining but I don't.

And once again, juvenile excuses are given instead of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just a reminder:

So, is it your position that the flagellum could not have evolved?

We've been trying to get you to answer that question for over a week.

 

[bhsmte]

It is, if you wish to be accurate in your leap.

Time being a constant rergardless of speed or observers, was once a "justifiable inductive leap".
The sun orbitting the earth, was once a "justifiable inductive leap".

That didn't make it true, now did it?
"justifiable inductive leap" is just fancy words for "common sense" or "intuition".

Neither of which are reliable tools to venture into the unknown.



Is "readily detect" another way of refering to your "methodology" which seem to consist of pointing at something, making a claim about it and justifying that claim with "it's obvious!"?




You can't even properly define what intelligent design is... how could it pass anything?




It's called the frontier of scientific knowledge.
Intellectual lazyness is not the best tool to wield when crossing that border.

It is, if you wish to be accurate in your leap.

Time being a constant rergardless of speed or observers, was once a "justifiable inductive leap".
The sun orbitting the earth, was once a "justifiable inductive leap".

That didn't make it true, now did it?
"justifiable inductive leap" is just fancy words for "common sense" or "intuition".

Neither of which are reliable tools to venture into the unknown.



Is "readily detect" another way of refering to your "methodology" which seem to consist of pointing at something, making a claim about it and justifying that claim with "it's obvious!"?




You can't even properly define what intelligent design is... how could it pass anything?




It's called the frontier of scientific knowledge.
Intellectual lazyness is not the best tool to wield when crossing that border.

With some, comfort takes priority, over accuracy.

 

[Radrook]

You can't point to a single post where we have refused to see evidence.

No, you just tag it as non-evidence and proceed to demand to see evidence again.

 

[Radrook]

So, is it your position that the flagellum could not have evolved?

We've been trying to get you to answer that question for over a week.

I have repeatedly responded to that question and you folks claim that you can't see it.

 

[Radrook]

And? How is this evidence for intelligent design?

Well, if you can't see then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you just tag it as non-evidence and proceed to demand to see evidence again.

Yet another childish refusal to present evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, if you can't see then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

If you can't present the evidence, then there is no evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have repeatedly responded to that question and you folks claim that you can't see it.

You have given us two different contradictory answers. We are trying to get some clarification.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can't present the evidence, then there is no evidence.

Presenting creates exposure. Best to talk about so called evidence and never present any.

 

[Radrook]

You have given us two different contradictory answers. We are trying to get some clarification.

Describe the two contradictory answers.

 

[Radrook]

Presenting creates exposure. Best to talk about so called evidence and never present any.

I haven't seen any of my evidence exposed in any way manner or form. Circumvented? Yes! Exposed? No!