The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

What on earth are you proposing then? The same rules apply to ID where the designer has to be demonstrated to exist.

For the millionth time-I am proposing an intelligent designer.

BTW
I never claimed that different rules apply.

 

[Radrook]

But that is exactly what you are doing: you are claiming that (sorry if I do not quote your exact words) "coded information must be designed"... and therefore when you see "coded information" (or what you identify as that), you call it designed.

First, I don't identify it as coded information-scientists identify it as coded information. So if I apply the same criteria to it as all other coded information, then I am within logical parameters and you are the one being irrational by deviating from those parameters.

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.
Genetic code - Wikipedia

 

[Skreeper]

You are placing the cart before the horse. That's like saying that we are assuming that a bow and arrow are designed and therefore when we see a bow and arrow we call it designed. No one is assuming anything before concluding. We are concluding an intelligent designer after observations which lead us to that justifiable inference.

The problem is that it is not a JUSTIFIABLE inference. You make the mistake of taking for example the cell and saying "This kinda looks like a machine and we know machines are designed and made by humans therefore cells were also designed". As I already pointed out to you in other threads: Design has to be demonstrated.

 

[Skreeper]

For the millionth time-I am proposing an intelligent designer.

BTW
I never claimed that different rules apply.

You have not shown that your proposed designer exists.

 

[Radrook]

You have not shown that your proposed designer exists.

To you.

 

[Radrook]

The problem is that it is not a JUSTIFIABLE inference. You make the mistake of taking for example the cell and saying "This kinda looks like a machine and we know machines are designed and made by humans therefore cells were also designed". As I already pointed out to you in other threads: Design has to be demonstrated.

And as I have pointed out to you in other threads, your modus operandi prohibits that kind of demonstration.

 

[Freodin]

First, I don't identify it as coded information-scientists identify it as coded information. So if I apply the same criteria to it as all other coded information, then I am within logical parameters and you are the one being irrational by deviating from those parameters.

It seems you forgot the "second".

But fine, let's say it is always and exclusively "scientists" who identify "coded information". Then you should accept that it is also those same scientists who disagree with your assertion that this coded information has to be "intelligently designed".

And that still doesn't change that fact that you do indeed assert that "coded information must be intelligently designed, therefore when we see coded information, we can conclude an intelligent designed".
I guess you were to adress that in your "second" point. I hope you were, at least.

 

[Skreeper]

And as I have pointed out to you in other threads, your modus operandi prohibits that kind of demonstration.

False. Instead of repeating every time that something prohibits a demonstration: Just DEMONSTRATE it.

 

[Skreeper]

To you.

Correction: To the scientific community.

 

[Radrook]

Correction: To the scientific community.

Bandwagon!

 

[Radrook]

False. Instead of repeating every time that something prohibits a demonstration: Just DEMONSTRATE it.

That's like repeatedly attempting to show a person who keeps claiming to be blind the same thing over and over. Doesn't make any logical sense.

 

[Skreeper]

Bandwagon!

In areas I am no expert in, I tend to agree with the experts who have shown why they are experts in their field of study.
This has nothing to to with "Bandwagon".

 

[Skreeper]

That's like repeatedly attempting to show a person who keeps claiming to be blind the same thing over and over. Doesn't make any logical sense.

Maybe you didn't read what I posted: Instead of repeating every time that something prohibits a demonstration: Just DEMONSTRATE it.

 

[Radrook]

In areas I am no expert in, I tend to agree with the experts who have shown why they are experts in their field of study.
This has nothing to to with "Bandwagon".

It isn't a 100% agreement.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe you didn't read what I posted: Instead of repeating every time that something prohibits a demonstration: Just DEMONSTRATE it.

Yes I did read what you posted. But that is an exercise in futility when those involved claim inability to see what should be obvious, have a modus operandi which prohibits any deviation whatsoever and who prefer to assume the supernatural when no supernatural is necessary in order to reject.

 

[Freodin]

It isn't a 100% agreement.

So... we are justified to discard the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis, because "it isn't a 100% agreement"?

Realize that it is you who constantly wants to point out that it is the "modus operandi", the a priori assumptions and the "materialistic worldview" of... atheists... that makes them unable to see the undeniable truth of "Intelligent Design".

But somehow you think your side is immune from such biases.

 

[Skreeper]

It isn't a 100% agreement.

There is not 1 thing on this planet where everyone agrees on it. In some cases it is wise to trust the majority.
There isn't even 100% agreement on the shape of our planet. Does that mean we shouldn't trust the majority or the experts in that field?

 

[Radrook]

So... we are justified to discard the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis, because "it isn't a 100% agreement"?

Realize that it is you who constantly wants to point out that it is the "modus operandi", the a priori assumptions and the "materialistic worldview" of... atheists... that makes them unable to see the undeniable truth of "Intelligent Design".

But somehow you think your side is immune from such biases.

No, I didn't mean that it justifies a rejection of the majority view when there isn't a 100% agreement. I meant that he seems to think it is a 100% agreement when it isn't and so I pointed it out. Bias is a human tendency that crops up among all groups regardless of race, nationality, education, religious or philosophical persuasion. So I am not restricting it to any one group.

 

[Freodin]

Yes I did read what you posted. But that is an exercise in futility when those involved claim inability to see what should be obvious, have a modus operandi which prohibits any deviation whatsoever and who prefer to assume the supernatural when no supernatural is necessary in order to reject.

There is your problem. You don't want to "demonstrate", because you cannot demonstrate, beyond claiming "it is obvious".

If it was obvious, you shouldn't have no problems demonstrating it.

But it isn't obvious. There are legitimate doubts, there are legitimate alternatives.

 

[Radrook]

There is not 1 thing on this planet where everyone agrees on it. In some cases it is wise to trust the majority.
There isn't even 100% agreement on the shape of our planet. Does that mean we shouldn't trust the majority or the experts in that field?

True, there are many opinions, some more reasonable than others. Please note that experts in the field are not infallible and have been known to make very serious mistakes. So a 100% trust based on expertise alone can lead to the entertainment of illogical ideas such as the geocentric model of our universe which experts of those times supported. Or the expert conclusion that the Milky Way contained all the stars in the universe. Or the former expert idea that the universe had always existed in its present form. These were concepts' which the majority of scientists upheld as undeniable truths until they were proven to be bogus. So an appeal to expertise has value only to a certain degree because humans are fallible and make mistakes.