Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 08 2012,16:07) | | Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,15:46) | | Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 08 2012,10:18) | | Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,08:49) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 08 2012,08:17) | | Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 08 2012,08:08) | Dumbas evoTARDS still ignoring the obvious:
1- Forensics says it can determine design from nature, operating freely
2- Archaeology claims it can determine design from nature, operating freely
3- evotards claim they can determine design from nature, operating freely
Yet kevin "thinks" his strawman of a challenge only applies to ID-
talk about retarded... |
1- Forensics says it can determine HUMAN design from nature, operating freely
2- Archaeology claims it can determine HUMAN design from nature, operating freely
3- evotards claim they can determine HUMAN design from nature, operating freely
We can determine HUMAN design only because we have prior knowledge of HUMAN DESIGNERS and the processes they use to compare against.
Why do you keep ignoring that obvious point Joe? |
Wow, nice ignorance there-
Forensics doesn't know if it was a human or not until they follow the EVIDENCE
Archaeology- well they can only speculate "humans didit"
evoTARDS say that living organisms aren't designed, dumbass, so they claim they can tell even if it wasn't a human.
We can determine design from nature, operating freely due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And to refute ANY design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it. |
No, archaeologists can prove humans did it. Over and above that archaeologist use those artifacts to make inferences about the designers of those artifacts - something ID refuses to do - such as about subsistence behavior, social organization, political integration and religious ideology, to name a few. One thing an archaeologist would not do, however, is extrapolate from human agency and our ability to detect human design to an agency capable of, say, fine tuning the universe and creating life as we know it. |
How can anyone prove a human didit wrt ancient events?
ID just makes the who and how separate questions
And again you can always step up and refute ID by demonstrating necessity and chance are good enough... |
There are a number of techniques one can use to determine whether an artifact was made by humans, such as, but not limited to the way the item was manufactured, microscopic examination of the use wear on the artifact, if any, and the resulting staining. An archaeologist does not need to actually witness an artifact being made to infer human design. | Quote | | And, hello, ID is not about the designer and it is obvious that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. |
That is my point. Where ID refuses to make any inference about the designer, archaeologists have developed a rather large body of theory to allow them to do what ID is incapable of doing, which is making inferences about the designer(s) of the artifacts found in the archaeological record. If archaeology just limited itself to identifying whether a given item was a human made artifact or the result of natural processes, as ID does, it wouldn't be science it would be little better than stamp collecting. |
BTW, ID does NOT prevent anyone from making an inference about the designer, nor the process- however, as I said, there is only one way to go about that, scientifically.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Â Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
