So if the evidence begins to point to evolution as being false, then you will follow it?
Off course, why wouldn't I?
Okay, then try to watch this video as objectively as possible and see if you don't begin to think that dinosaurs could possibly be only thousands of years old.
I don't like to waste my time with such nonsense.
Instead, I'll ask you this question: why is this posted on youtube and not front page news in every life science journal?
Why don't you direct me to an actual publication in an actual professional journal?
Things like "dino's are only a couple thousand years old" isn't just about biology. It's also about physics (it would mean that we don't know how atoms work, decay specifically). And a few other fields as well.
Things like this turn plenty of fields in science upside down. Why didn't this happen?
I know in advance what the answer is though.... Because the vid has a religious agenda and is filled with the usual creationist nonsense: misrepresentations of science, unjustified assumptions, pseudo-science disguised as real science and other such drivel.
If the information contained in the clip is based on actual sound data and is not the usual mumbo-jumbo, then you wouldn't need to point me to this youtube video to bring it to my attention. You wouldn't even have to point me
anywhere to bring it to my attention. I would already know about it. Because it would be
front page news. It would be bigger then E=mc². It would be bigger news then the work of Einstein, Faraday and Newton combined.
Instead though, what happened is literally
nothing.
The answer to the OP is that one must consciously deny the extremely apparent intentional design behind everything in the universe.
You are just restating your claims here, with different words.
Please try to answer the question.....
How does one objectively detect artificial design?
"It
appears designed" is the opposite of
objective.
Just requires some deep honest thought.
I gave it some deep honest thought and drew a different conclusion.
Now what?
Again, please stop dancing around and just detail step by step how one can objectively determine if "artificial design" is present or not.
Why is this so hard?
There comes a point when one has to realize they can't be perfectly objective and at some point we just have to rely on what makes sense and what is most logical.
Please stop making up excuses and dancing around the issue...
Please explain how one can objectively detect artificial design in a system.
If you are presented with a thing and are asked if it is designed, what steps do you go through to formulate your answer? What specifications must it have? What specifications can't it have? What is the null hypothesis?
If "ID" is to be seen as science and not religion, then those questions must be answered.
I'm just trying to understand here....
ID'ers consistenly ramble on about how "design is present", yet nobody seems to be able to explain how they detect this "design". Which leads me to conclude that it's no more or less then confirmation bias. Based on a priori religious beliefs and logical fallacies.
Show me wrong. Explain how one can objectively detect this "design".
If you're honestly objective with the evidence and with yourself, then you'll realize what's really going on in this universe.
I tried and didn't conclude what you concluded.
So please explain step by step how you came to your conclusion.
We also know that humans would not exist if the universe wasn't finely tuned in the way that it is.
Yes, if things were different then things would be different.
Are you surprised to live in a universe in which you can actually exist?
Also, since you don't consider atheism to be a belief system then you should be more than willing to consider some information that would show how atheism is wrong.
How can a thing that is NOT a belief system be "wrong"?
There are no claims in atheism. There is nothing in atheism to be wrong about...
Being an atheist just means that one is not convinced that the claims of theism are correct. I can't be wrong about "not being convinced".
Again when watching this video try to remain honestly objective.
Please try to make your own arguments here. I'm in a discussion with YOU, not with a youtube clip.
I feel the reasons/evidence to at least begin seriously considering that the universe was intelligently designed are obvious and clear. I'll leave it up to you to make your own honest judgments.
I'm still waiting on a proper methodology to detect artificial design in a system...
So far, the only things you have given me were:
- it's "obvious"
- it "appears" to be the case
Try a real reason.
Also try to stay on topic. This thread is not a debate thread on evolution.
This thread is just a simple question for
cdesign proponentsists: how does one objectively detect "artificial design"? How does one go about differentiating it from "non-design"? What is the null hypothesis? How can "artificial design" be falsified?
If there is no working methodology on how to detect design... what does that say about the claims of ID?