(May 31, 2014 at 7:55 pm)Heywood Wrote:(May 31, 2014 at 7:37 pm)rasetsu Wrote: All you've done is circle back to the same flawed inference. I've already explained why this doesn't work. If all you can do is repeat yourself, then I'm done.
I don't think my way of differentiating designed from undersigned is flawed. You haven't made a convincing counter argument to me that it is. My way of differentiating certainly does not require I know the details of every intellect who might create a thing I come across. I only need to know that intellects create these things....and that nature does not. How do I know intellects create these things....by observing intellects creating them. How do I know that nature does not create these things? By observing nature and seeing that it does not. Now I could be wrong....nature could do things when I am not observing or in a position to observe...so my judgments are not 100% reliable...but nevertheless it is good way to make judgments about the world.
Show me that nature produces new lineages of life and my argument crumbles.
The root problem of your argument is that you are adding a factor for which there is no demonstrated need or evidence. Apply Ockham's razor.
The annoyingly dishonest part is your continually trying to sneak the phrase 'intelligent design' in where 'design' suffices and your dishonestly applying the label 'irreducible complexity' to things made by humans.
Those terms are not applicable to things created by people.
Your continued misuse of those terms will confirm your dishonesty and/or stupidity.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
