Yes. You aren't aware that electrical engineering is not really related with genetics?
How about that....
Anything that smacks of intelligent design is imagined from an atheist point of view.
The
theists and world-famous biologists Ken Miller and Francis Collins, disagree.
Assuming insufficient knowledge to make an analogous comparison?
No need to assume. The guy is an electrical engineer. Why would you assume that the guy understands genetics like a geneticist?
The default is that the guy is knowledgeable about electrical engineering. Nothing else.
You need to prove that the specific person making using the analogy lacks the specifics you are demanding first.
No, that's backwards. It's you who needs to prove that he DOES have that required knowledge. As I said, the
default of a guy with qualifications X is that he has NO expertise in field Y.
I'm a software engineer.
By default, I can be expected to know quite a bit about software engineering, but not so much about chemistry.
Even more importantly, you definitely need to show exactly how the analogy doesn't apply in order to prove it false regardless of the person who is using it.
No. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the one making the actual claim.
Once again, the
default is
not that whatever you (or that other guys) say, is correct....
In short, the analogy stands or falls on its own merit and is independent od the qualifications of the person employing it.
Sure.
But when a guy
without qualifications in field X, makes an argument that completely flies in the face of the consensus among people WITH qualifications in field X....
It's that same old story again... when 100 oncologists tell you that you have a cancer and your car mechanic tells you it is just a zit and not a tumor.... Why would you take the word of that mechanic over that of the consensus of oncologists?
It smells like confirmation bias again...
Up to this point, atheists on this forum have not provided any compelling reason why we should dismiss intelligent design
It's upto
cdesign proponentsists to make their case. You, and along with you all other
cdesign proponentsists, have failed to do that.
as totally unfeasible and conclude that mindlessness is involved in reference to nano-biological machines instead.
Biological evolution is one of the most supported, well-evidenced theories in all of science. No matter what electrical engineers have to say.
Peer review can be extremely biased as I explain in my previous post.
I thought you were so into being scientific?
Peer review is a very important part of that process...
I get that you feel the need to argue against it though... As the nonsense of
cdesign proponentsists can't stand upto that scrutiny. But you don't get to blame the peer review for that.
It's not faith and it certainly isn't "unquestioned".
In fact, it's the exact opposite. Peer review is part of the scientific process
precisely to prevent ideas to remain "unquestioned". That's what peers do during reviews... They question the ideas, they question the methods used, they question the results, they question everything. They turn it inside out and see if it still holds up.
cdesign proponentsists' nonsense doesn't stay standing during that process.
Again, that's not something you can blame on the peer review process.
in peer review is equally as naïve as your unquestioning faith in your mindless billions of infinitely improbable happy accidents abiogenesis.
Another strawman.
You claim that genetics doesn't allow the conclusion of an intelligent designer? Exactly how does that idea work?
Science doesn't allow untestable conclusions for which there is no valid evidence.
There is no conclusion that science "doesn't allow". What matters is how you reach those conclusions and how testable/verifiable they are.
Again, don't blame science for the failure of the ID model.