Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,11:40)|
We have shown that agency is required.
As I predicted. Grandiose claims, but not actual information presented. As we say in Texas... all hat, no cattle. IOW, you ain't got shit and you know it.
OTOH your position has nothing.
and you are an expert on positions that have nothing.
However, I'd just like to remind you that you continually misrepresent my position anyway. So whatever you think my position is, you are wrong.
My position (and that of all competent biologists, the world over) has plenty of support.
And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole.
That's right, when I gave the links to a IDist who did say that, you were too scared to come and argue with him. Why was that?
It was Amazon.com, one of the review threads for Signature in the Cell.
And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it.
Nope, that what you THINK is required, because you are still attacking a strawman.
IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position.
Remind me again, with your significant knowledge of science and logic, how that works.
Explain in detail how supporting an opposing position automatically refutes a position.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
But that's not the big question you keep running away from. You claim that ID is not anti-evolution, yet all I have to do to refute ID is support evolution.
Can we count the logical fallacies and outright contradictions in this?
But that's OK. Keep on trucking dude.
Why don't YOU do all the things you ask of me but for your position?
Yoiu need to focus on youir position and that will take care of ID as the way to the design inference is through your position.[/quote]
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.