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.
Demonstrate this logical thinking.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.
Testing isn't necessary in order to make a justifiable inductive leap.
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.
The evidence forces an ID inference.
Avoiding the inference is illogical and unscientific.
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.
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.
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.
So, is it your position that the flagellum could not have evolved?Just a reminder:
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.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.
No, you just tag it as non-evidence and proceed to demand to see evidence again.You can't point to a single post where we have refused to see evidence.
I have repeatedly responded to that question and you folks claim that you can't see it.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.
Well, if you can't see then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.And? How is this evidence for intelligent design?
No, you just tag it as non-evidence and proceed to demand to see evidence again.
Well, if you can't see then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I have repeatedly responded to that question and you folks claim that you can't see it.
Describe the two contradictory answers.You have given us two different contradictory answers. We are trying to get some clarification.
I haven't seen any of my evidence exposed in any way manner or form. Circumvented? Yes! Exposed? No!Presenting creates exposure. Best to talk about so called evidence and never present any.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?