RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2007,22:20   

I almost missed this lame post about a guy who was an expert in determining whether stacks of stones are man-made or not.  Says DaveScot:    
Itís a good example of how the design inference has been employed for practical matters.

Actually, it's a good example of how design is inferred without using the bogus methods propounded by the DI fellows.  And why do IDers always say "the design inference" when, in fact, all kinds of different design inferences are drawn all the time?

Says Jehu:    
The argument that design cannot be detected is such a pathetic lie that it I am amazed at how brazenly it is made by the opponents of ID.

The only pathetic lie is Jehu's assertion that opponents of ID argue that design can't be detected.

(Jehu is one of the many who now stick to censored blogs like UD after finding out that they can't handle level playing fields like or Alan Fox's blog.)

"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]