Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 15 2012,11:33) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,10:54) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,09:48) | Jammer, are you an ID expert? Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.
If you have some knowledge of ID, then I would appreciate answers. I would hope that you have some knowledge of ID, since it is obvious that you have no knowledge of evolution... or tact for that matter.
But nonetheless I would like to discuss this notion that is ID. Just let me know when you are ready.
kthks |
Hi Kevin,
1- You don't know anything about Intelligent Design so you cannot form a relevant question
2- You don't know anything about evolution so you cannot answer.
But anyway- just for you:
Yup <a href=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-distinguish-human-v-natural-excavations/comment-page-1/#comment-415423><b>Kevin is at it again</b></a>, this time he thinks he has devised a test that will show that archaeology, forensic science, SETI, Intelligent Design, insurance fraud and more are all baseless and without merit.
Of course all he does is erect a strawman because he is an ignorant asshole and that is all he is good for.
I will say it AGAIN Kevin- Intelligent Design, archaeology, forensics, insurance fraud all say they can determine what happens by chance and/ or necessity with what requires agency involvement. And that means, as I have told you but you ignored, context is everything.
The funniest part about Kevin's test- it also renders his position moot as his position also requires the ability to determine between design and not.
Way to go dumbass... |
Hi Joe,
As I have been asking for years. Instead of insulting me, why don't you actually answer the questions I'm asking. I can read, even multiple sentences, so if you would like to explain, then I'm open to it.
You see, unlike you, I don't reject material just because it doesn't mesh with my beliefs. I am perfectly taking in new evidence and comparing results.
So, why don't you show us. Use the principles of Intelligent Design to show us the agency in anything.
I maintain, and not a single ID proponent has even attempted to disprove, that the "I" part of "ID" isn't even required. You are really interested in design. Other than the fact that you claim design must be caused by an intelligence, there is nothing in anything YOU HAVE TOLD ME about ID that requires intelligence.
Design is all around us in the real world and very, very little of it requires an intelligence to create. Tell us Joe, what intelligence designed you? Cause you might want to discuss a refund... or at least some warranty work. All those problems you keep complaining about (hurt back, knees, etc).
Now, you have two choices here, you can say that not everything requires direct intelligent design. And that's fine, but why aren't you pushing that on the ID proponents who do believe that every single event and system in the universe was directly designed?
If you do think that every single thing was directly designed, then a) what evidence do you offer that an intelligence is required and b) why don't you take this evidence to people like Behe who do not think that every single thing is designed.
Let's face it Joe, you either like to pretend to be a martyr are you just like to argue in places where there is no danger to you. You don't have a horse in this race.
Let me ask a final question. How do you show that ID is right? Not "show me ID is right". How would you even begin the process?
Start from basic principles and work your way forward. I'm offering you the chance to make a real impact on ID research Joe. Anytime you say anything, back it up with peer-reviewed research and start from the basics. What if there is a designer? What does that imply about the known universe? What data would support or contradict this? What if it was a different kind of designer? What would that imply? What data would support or contradict that? Has any of this data been found? By who? When? Why can't natural processes account for it (not because 'it's too hard), but show mathematically, why there is a 500 bit limit. What not 501 bits? Why not a 1000 bits? What does this imply about the designer? Why?
etc. etc. etc.
This is a process called 'science'. You might have heard of it, even though you don't seem to understand it.
And if you say "it's been done", then point me to a link, with quotes from that link to support your position. I will ask many questions about that link. You can answer them or not. It's your choice.
We all know that you will never, ever do this. Because, regardless of what you and anyone else says, ID is religion and has no bearing on any form of science. It, by definition, is not science. And we both know it... you're just too scared to admit it.
So, get cracking on that research Joe. |
Kevin,
We have shown that agency is required.
OTOH your position has nothing.
And no- no IDists says that everything is directly designed- you are an asshole.
And again to refute any given design inference all YOU have to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it.
IOW you need to step up and present positive evidence for your position.
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.
--------------
"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
|
