The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[KCfromNC]

That isn't what the dictionary definition of communication tells us under the subheading of biology. So I will just stick with the dictionary definition and you stick to your personal one. OK?

How many biologists agree with your creationist version of biology?

 

[KCfromNC]

That they are doing so requires that they be programmed to do so by a mind.

Citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

I keep explaining that the similarity is that if SETI receives coded info it concludes intelligent source

Which SETI researchers have concluded that DNA is scientific evidence for your version of god? Please be specific here.

 

[Radrook]

No. You don't seem to be comprehending. What you call "programming", is exactly what the natural process of evolution does.

Not that I need to "defend" anything against such bare assertions, however.



It is not, because machines aren't natural biological organisms, subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry.




Indeed, I wouldn't. So why you think it is relevant, is a mystery.


So, when are you going to drop that silly argument that has been shown to be false countless times in the past few days alone?

Proven false? Not by a long shot. But of course you are fully entitled to your delusion.

We don't understand? Nope! Wrong again! We are comprehending quite well. You folks are proposing a mindless process resulting in mimicking a brilliant creative mind. Sure! We understand you perfectly. We simply refuse to accept such a ludicrous idea.

You also have a knack for pompously using a faulty premise as if it were irrefutably logical.

An example is your incessantly demanding to see the designer in person or else pronouncing something not designed. Well, that's similar to visiting the a machine shop and assuming that the machines designed themselves because the designer isn't present. Sorry but acceptance of such a ludicrous concept requires we permit an intellectual frontal lobotomy which we aren't willing to undergo.

BTW
You also suggest that we abandon our perspective because you choose to tag it as silly? Well, I'm afraid that will prove impossible since our arguments are non-negotiable. Why? Well, you see, we consider abandoning our rational arguments, as you suggest, as comparable to divesting ourselves of formal attire, such as a bowtie and tuxedo and donning the gaudy garbs of a Barnum and Baily circus clowns while strutting around blabbering insanities. So sorry but that's not going to transpire any time soon.

 

[Loudmouth]

We aren't talking about physical laws per se. We are talking about logic. Claims can be made concerning nature which are inherently irrational and demand either blind faith or a drastic suspension of disbelief.

How so? How so should come naturally as a consequence of observation and logical conclusion.

I see lots of claims, but nothing to back it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't understand? Nope! Wrong again! We are comprehending quite well. You folks are proposing a mindless process resulting in mimicking a brilliant creative mind. Sure! We understand you perfectly. We simply refuse to accept such a ludicrous idea.

That would be an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. You are the one using illogical arguments.

An example is your incessantly demanding to see the designer in person or else pronouncing something not designed. Well, that's similar to visiting the a machine shop and assuming that the machines designed themselves because the designer isn't present. Sorry but acceptance of such a ludicrous concept requires we permit an intellectual frontal lobotomy which we aren't willing to undergo.

We don't see daddy machine and mommy machine making baby machines. That's the difference.

We don't see a 3 billion year fossil record of machines on Earth that, in combination with living species, produce a nested hierarchy.

Perhaps you should actually look at the evidence of why we conclude that species evolved before just rejecting it out of hand.

 

[Loudmouth]

That isn't what the dictionary definition of communication tells us under the subheading of biology. So I will just stick with the dictionary definition and you stick to your personal one. OK?

Equivocation fallacy.

 

[Radrook]

Equivocation fallacy.

Dictionaries are useful for word definitions.

 

[Radrook]

That would be an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. You are the one using illogical arguments.



We don't see daddy machine and mommy machine making baby machines. That's the difference.

We don't see a 3 billion year fossil record of machines on Earth that, in combination with living species, produce a nested hierarchy.

Perhaps you should actually look at the evidence of why we conclude that species evolved before just rejecting it out of hand.

I don't base my belief in an intelligent designer based on my disbelief in your ideas.
I am not challenging theistic evolution. [for the hundredth time!]
A similarity in self replication isn't necessary to infer intelligent design.
Neither is it necessary for machines to display a fossil record in order to make a comparison between the twain.

False premise. Straw man.

 

[Radrook]

I see lots of claims, but nothing to back it up.

Your inability to see has already been noted.
No need for reminders.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your inability to see has already been noted.
No need for reminders.

Yet another post with no evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't base my belief in an intelligent designer based on my disbelief in your ideas.

Your posts say otherwise. Whenever asked for evidence that supports ID you point to the supposed impossibility of natural processes producing life.

I am not challenging theistic evolution. [for the hundredth time!]

Theistic evolution disproves ID/creationism.

A similarity in self replication isn't necessary to infer intelligent design.

I didn't claim there was a "similarity in self replication". I said that there was a nested hierarchy. This is the evidence that points to natural processes instead of intelligent design.

Neither is it necessary for machines to display a fossil record in order to make a comparison between the twain.

The fossil record does exist and it is evidence. Machines do not have a 3 billion year fossil record. It is the 3 billion year fossil record for life that is part of the evidence pointing away from intelligent design and towards natural processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dictionaries are useful for word definitions.

Equivocation is not useful for arguments.

 

[Radrook]

Equivocation is not useful for arguments.

Neither are false accusations of equivocation.

 

[Radrook]

Your posts say otherwise. Whenever asked for evidence that supports ID you point to the supposed impossibility of natural processes producing life.



Theistic evolution disproves ID/creationism.



I didn't claim there was a "similarity in self replication". I said that there was a nested hierarchy. This is the evidence that points to natural processes instead of intelligent design.



The fossil record does exist and it is evidence. Machines do not have a 3 billion year fossil record. It is the 3 billion year fossil record for life that is part of the evidence pointing away from intelligent design and towards natural processes.

We see no reason to disqualify intelligent design simply because the intelligent designer created in a way that we humans consider slow. Time is relative-remember?

You should look up the meaning of ""theistic evolution" so that you will not drastically limit it in that fashion.

Theistic Evolution

QUESTION: What is theistic evolution?

ANSWER:

Theistic evolution is the belief that life on earth began and developed as described by modern evolution theory, directed by God. Rather than random mutation producing change, theistic evolution claims that God guided the process of natural selection. In some religious circles, theistic evolution is an increasingly popular theory.
Theistic Evolution

You mean this?
Nested Hierarchy - EvoWiki

We see that simply as the intelligent designer's way of organizing his creation.

 

[KCfromNC]

We see that simply as the intelligent designer's way of organizing his creation.

So the intelligent designer is trying to mislead us into thinking it was natural processes of evolution which are responsible for the diversity of life. Interesting how ID turns from bad science to bad theology so quickly.

 

[Loudmouth]

We see no reason to disqualify intelligent design simply because the intelligent designer created in a way that we humans consider slow.

Burden of proof fallacy. We don't have to disqualify that which you haven't proven.

You should look up the meaning of ""theistic evolution" so that you will not drastically limit it in that fashion.

You first.

You mean this?
Nested Hierarchy - EvoWiki

We see that simply as the intelligent designer's way of organizing his creation.

You are assuming your conclusion, another logical fallacy.

 

[Radrook]

Burden of proof fallacy. We don't have to disqualify that which you haven't proven.



You first.


You are assuming your conclusion, another logical fallacy.

Disqualification of an idea has to be that of a proven idea? LOL!

Me first?
Ummm, I already posted the definition of theistic evolution twice along with a link and you ignore it.

Assuming?
No, I am not merely assuming. I am observing and justifiably concluding.
YOU are assuming since you have absolutely NOTHING to observe in nature and yet you assume mindless, million-happy-accidents abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

Disqualification of an idea has to be that of a proven idea?

I thought you claimed to have taken logic classes. Is this not the case?

When someone makes a claim it is up to the person making the claim to supply evidence for that claim. It is called the burden of proof. It isn't up to skeptics to disprove an idea that has no evidence to support it. That's Logic 101.

Me first?
Ummm, I already posted the definition of theistic evolution twice along with a link and you ignore it.

That definition states that life evolves through natural processes, the exact opposite of intelligent design.

Assuming?
No, I am not merely assuming. I am observing and justifiably concluding.

Where is your justification that an intelligent designer would necessarily produce designs that fit into a nested hierarchy?

YOU are assuming since you have absolutely NOTHING to observe in nature and yet you assume mindless, million-happy-accidents abiogenesis.

I just gave you the observation. It is the nested hierarchy, the very observation we should see if evolution is true. Since evolution is supported, ID is disproven.

 

[Radrook]

I thought you claimed to have taken logic classes. Is this not the case?

When someone makes a claim it is up to the person making the claim to supply evidence for that claim. It is called the burden of proof. It isn't up to skeptics to disprove an idea that has no evidence to support it. That's Logic 101.


That definition states that life evolves through natural processes, the exact opposite of intelligent design.



Where is your justification that an intelligent designer would necessarily produce designs that fit into a nested hierarchy?



I just gave you the observation. It is the nested hierarchy, the very observation we should see if evolution is true. Since evolution is supported, ID is disproven.

Evolution disproves what?

Apparently you aren't familiar with theistic evolution are you? theistic evolution has God using evolution to create living things. It isn't an ID proposition since ID merely postulates intelligent design without making deistic claims.
You need to get your definitions straight!

Burden proof?

Of course I know about burden of proof. But the way you phrased the statement seems to make no sense. That's what seemed weird.

Necessarily?

I 'said that it can be interpreted or understood as a creator choosing to assemble his creation in that particular way. That's what theistic evolution is all about. It seems as if your atheist presupposition prevents that posibility.