Does science actually admit "design"?

[Jjmcubbin]

I meant prove that ID is false.

I can't but I don't have to.
Burden of proof. You made the claim, you prove it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Seeing as how it appears that your standards of proof are that 'you know it when i see it', can we simply say 'we don't see design, so it is obviously false' and you will accept that?

And isn't it odd that someone with a 130 IQ doesn't understand the concept of burden of proof?

This is why I keep asking creationists for evidence for creation instead of their usually flailing and failing against evolution.

135 IQ. And yes, I am arguing from incredulity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can't but I don't have to.
Burden of proof. You made the claim, you prove it.

I retreat to my OP.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I retreat to my OP.

Your OP doesn't even have a leg to stand on. You misread a scientific paper, nothing more.

 

[tas8831]

135 IQ. And yes, I am arguing from incredulity.

That is not a legitimate position to argue from.

Your merely not accepting something is 100% irrelevant.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You don't know what is on your own member page?

OldWiseGuy

I don't have a blog, and I'm not an economist. Where did you get that idea?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you're the one making claims that you clearly cannot support, yet think all should accept because you are an "alpha male" with a 130 IQ who thinks tissues are molecules.

Retired Alpha Male. Isn't everything made of molecules, atoms? Houses are made of 'lumber' which is made of 'trees'. Same thought.

 

[pshun2404]

You seem to feel that you know more about my own and other peoples.


Yeah, here's the main nub of your comment: you have to show that there is a plan for their to be design.
Just saying "Hey, look! Everything is designed!" does not cut it. At all.

Wake up! I did NOT say "Hey, look! Everything is designed!" Nor did I even imply such a baseless statement. I gave a specific example that simple observation demonstrates (in the consistent results), that can be tested (do as many tests as you want to show that a human embryo will not produce these specific HUMAN results, or that a gibbon embryo will not produce specifically gibbon results).

 

[tas8831]

I don't have a blog, and I'm not an economist. Where did you get that idea?

You don't know what blue letters mean?

It is a link.

In that case, a link your own member page, on which there is a link to an economics website.

Silly me, I put 2 and 2 together.


Meanwhile, I am still waiting for something other than "i see design in anatomy' as evidence of design in anatomy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is not a legitimate position to argue from.

Your merely not accepting something is 100% irrelevant.

The basis of my incredulity is the utter improbability of evolution, and the 100 percent certainty of purposeful design.

I once told my son to stop doing something or he was going to get hurt. He persisted, and got hurt. He looked at me in utter disbelief that I had accurately predicted the result of his activity. Pretty smart, eh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wake up! I did NOT say "Hey, look! Everything is designed!" Nor did I even imply such a baseless statement. I gave a specific example that simple observation demonstrates (in the consistent results), that can be tested (do as many tests as you want to show that a human embryo will not produce these specific HUMAN results, or that a gibbon embryo will not produce specifically gibbon results).

How can we test for design though? Your 'test' is simply going backwards from the facts and going "Hey look! Design!". That's all you're doing.

 

[tas8831]

Retired Alpha Male. Isn't everything made of molecules, atoms? Houses are made of 'lumber' which is made of 'trees'. Same thought.

Silly thought.

Nobody says "Come on to my assemblage of trees and ore and have dinner!'

Why is admitting even trivial errors so difficult for creationists?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You don't know what blue letters mean?

It is a link.

In that case, a link your own member page, on which there is a link to an economics website.

Silly me, I put 2 and 2 together.


Meanwhile, I am still waiting for something other than "i see design in anatomy' as evidence of design in anatomy.

I have no idea where that link came from. I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and I deleted it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Silly thought.

Nobody says "Come on to my assemblage of trees and ore and have dinner!'

Why is admitting even trivial errors so difficult for creationists?

If tissue isn't made of atoms and molecules what is it made of?

 

[tas8831]

The basis of my incredulity is the utter improbability of evolution, and the 100 percent certainty of purposeful design.

Unsupported assertions supporting other unsupported assertions - impressive!


How about you show us your work on the "utter improbability of evolution"?

And then tell us all about " the 100 percent certainty of purposeful design"? I shouldn't have to, but I must make clear - Intelligent Design IN NATURE. Because you see, I have been bitten in the past asking for evidence of Intelligent Design and being told about computers and the like, which is sad and dihonest given the context of the discussions...

And when I write "show us" and "tell us about", I definitely do NOT mean 'why don't you re-state your 100% unsupported question begging assertions with more of the same?, as you've done here.

I mean, demonstrate that evolution is "utterly improbable" - complete with definitions of your variables, how you determined the values of your variables, why you chose those variables, etc.

I mean show us some verifiable evidence that "purposeful design IN NATURE" is true - retreating to bible verses will not cut it; mere assertions will be considered concessions.

Additionally, if you choose to present the claims of other creationists/IDCs, please explain how it is that their claims have merit, and how YOU know this.

I once told my son to stop doing something or he was going to get hurt. He persisted, and got hurt. He looked at me in utter disbelief that I had accurately predicted the result of his activity. Pretty smart, eh?

Super clever.

Is this foreshadowing of your failure to actually support your assertions?

Funny thing - when I was perusing Mark Kennedy's old threads, I came across a couple of posts from you from I think it was 2015 or 2016.

You did the same thing then that you are doing now - toss out out some pseudo-clever one liners or some question begging assertions, and never went beyond that. Again, like you are doing now.


It is one thing to toss out a one-liner in defense of your beliefs and to leave it at that. It is another to toss out a one-liner, imply that it has some major relevant impetus, then defend that when asked for expansion by doing the same thing over and over.

It is pretty boring, really. You whine about 'ad homs' (which you seem to misrepresent) but all you do is troll and annoy people. If you cannot hang, you shouldn't have come.

 

[tas8831]

If tissue isn't made of atoms and molecules what is it made of?

If churches are not made of trees and ore, what are they made of?

'Hey - you coming to Worship in that collection of trees and ore on Sunday?'

Sounds totally reasonable and not at all like the act of someone desperate to try to save face even over trivial nonsense.

And here I sit typing on some silicon and plastic. You know - silicon and plastic?

 

[tas8831]

I have no idea where that link came from. I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and I deleted it.

Interesting.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Unsupported assertions supporting other unsupported assertions - impressive!


How about you show us your work on the "utter improbability of evolution"?

And then tell us all about " the 100 percent certainty of purposeful design"? I shouldn't have to, but I must make clear - Intelligent Design IN NATURE. Because you see, I have been bitten in the past asking for evidence of Intelligent Design and being told about computers and the like, which is sad and dihonest given the context of the discussions...

And when I write "show us" and "tell us about", I definitely do NOT mean 'why don't you re-state your 100% unsupported question begging assertions with more of the same?, as you've done here.

I mean, demonstrate that evolution is "utterly improbable" - complete with definitions of your variables, how you determined the values of your variables, why you chose those variables, etc.

I mean show us some verifiable evidence that "purposeful design IN NATURE" is true - retreating to bible verses will not cut it; mere assertions will be considered concessions.

Additionally, if you choose to present the claims of other creationists/IDCs, please explain how it is that their claims have merit, and how YOU know this.



Super clever.

Is this foreshadowing of your failure to actually support your assertions?

Funny thing - when I was perusing Mark Kennedy's old threads, I came across a couple of posts from you from I think it was 2015 or 2016.

You did the same thing then that you are doing now - toss out out some pseudo-clever one liners or some question begging assertions, and never went beyond that. Again, like you are doing now.


It is one thing to toss out a one-liner in defense of your beliefs and to leave it at that. It is another to toss out a one-liner, imply that it has some major relevant impetus, then defend that when asked for expansion by doing the same thing over and over.

It is pretty boring, really. You whine about 'ad homs' (which you seem to misrepresent) but all you do is troll and annoy people. If you cannot hang, you shouldn't have come.

My thread. If you don't like it, leave.

 

[tas8831]

I also tinker with the designs of professional engineers, to make them work better. I reconfigured the very dangerous control switch on my splitter. The engineer's design required two-handed operation which requires the operator needing to be too close while splitting wood, not allowing a 'free hand' to protect from 'flying' firewood. My design allows one-handed operation and allows the operator to stand well away while operating it. I could install a longer handle to make it even safer.

View attachment 225775

One of the problems that engineers face is that they are not able to operate their designs in all the conditions that the users do, so they are limited in the total effectiveness of their designs.

Nice irrelevant diversions.

Concession accepted. Any further ranting from you on "design" will be considered trolling.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I have no idea where that link came from. I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and I deleted it.

Nope, it is still there. Maybe your profile page :gasp: evolved that link by itself?