Christian Scientists of the past

[Loudmouth]

The one that is depending on magic is you.

Please point to the specific processes that I supposedly depend on, and explain how they are magic.

 

[Skreeper]

Then I guess we differ in opinion.

It would seem that your proposed tool is not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[Radrook]

It would seem that your proposed tool is not a reliable pathway to truth.

So how is that of any significant import in your life?

 

[Skreeper]

So how is that of any significant import in your life?

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
Since your method/tool can not reliably confirm that something was intelligently designed we have to use something else. And I gave you an explanation of how humans recognize design.

 

[Radrook]

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
Since your method/tool can not reliably confirm that something was intelligently designed we have to use something else. And I gave you an explanation of how humans recognize design.

Then I guess that is your decision.

 

[Speedwell]

I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
Since your method/tool can not reliably confirm that something was intelligently designed we have to use something else. And I gave you an explanation of how humans recognize design.

That won't do at all. Radrook's whole line of argument depends on proving that you use his standard of detecting design except when facing a situation where it may lead to the conclusion of intelligent design in a natural object, whereupon you hypocritically switch to a different standard which will not lead to such a conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would like to oblige but I don't have the time nor the patience to backtrack through piles of posts in that way.

In that case, I'll just reject your claim at face value.
As you not being willing to support your claims is quite indistinguishable from your claims being false.

That, coupled with the fact that I followed most of your threads this past month and don't remember encountering any such posts, allows only for the conclusion that your accusations are false.

However, what specifically is it that you supposedly don't understand about my saying that I see intelligent design in nature?

It's not about not understanding. It's about you making bare assertions and never explained how you concluded those things.

We have repeatedly asked you to provide us with how design can be objectively tested. You never answered that question.

After all, I have posted videos on threads which have clearly and meticulously explained the empirical basis for my conclusion and which you have unceremoniously tagged as non-evidence.

None of those videos did any such thing. Instead, those videos just make the same baseless assertions and the little argumentation provided is exactly the same as the many PRATT's that have been refuted time and time again for more then 2 decades now.

Just look at the links in your signature... It's the same old discovery institute nonsense that's been exposed as being nonsense a long time ago.

Your link about the "predictions" by ID has been addressed in Loudmouth's "introns, etc" thread and you completely ignored that post. Several posts later, you even simply reposted that same link, as if it was never addressed. Then people pointed it out to you, including myself, that that link has already been addressed and that it was explained in detail, point by point, how those predictions don't work and how they aren't even predictions in the first place. In detail, not just with "i can't see", like you so confidently accuse people of.

And then you proceeded ignoring all those posts as well.

Now you emerge here claiming that I have never offered anything at all as an explanation?

That is correct.

When you offer something that is supposed to be an explanation, after which it gets exposed, again: in detail, on how it's fallacious nonsense and already refuted plenty of times over.... then you've never provided an actual explanation.

At best, you provided a fallacious explanation.

That seems a bit odd!

It's not odd at all. It is what it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The same tool you apply to determine that anything else is intelligently designed.

Why don't you humour us and explain to us the methodology by which one determines if anything is intelligently designed.

Why is it so hard for you to answer that question?