It's an incorrect reversal of an "implies" logical operator.

A=>B does not mean B=>A

"Things that are designed look designed" does not mean "Things that look designed are designed".

As an analogy, all cars made at a particular garage are green.

Therefor, every green car was made at that garage.

Wrong. Faulty logic.

(February 21, 2016 at 8:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Things that are designed look designed =/= Things that look designed are designed

As an analogy, all cars made at a particular garage are green.

Therefor, every green car was made at that garage.

Wrong. Faulty logic.

Indeed. My dog has 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog.

Indeed!

I mean, there isn't even any science involved there. It's just logic. And if your logic is wrong, you're screwed. The evidence, or lack of it, is irrelevant.

I shouldn't be surprised. Theistic arguments are made out of logical fallacies like houses are made out of bricks.

"My understanding of the theory of evolution doesn't make sense, and it's wrong."

[Correct.]

"So the theory of evolution is incorrect."

[Wrong. Strawman fallacy.]

"Therefor life was designed."

[Wrong. False dichotomy.]

"Since everything needs a cause..."

[Unsupported assumption]

"...and the universe came into existence..."

[Unsupported assumption]

"...then it had to have a cause."

[Correct conclusion, but based on unfounded assumptions]

"The cause had to be intelligent..."

[Unsupported assumption]

"...and it must be a god."

[Either a tautology of definition, or a term too vague to mean anything scientifically, which is also unsupported]

"And since some parts of my holy book are true, all of it is true."

[Fallacy of composiiton]

"Therefor that God is my god."

[Jesus pickled christ!]

(February 21, 2016 at 8:23 am)robvalue Wrote: I shouldn't be surprised. Theistic arguments are made out of logical fallacies like houses are made out of bricks.

"My understanding of the theory of evolution doesn't make sense, and it's wrong."

[Correct.]

"So the theory of evolution is incorrect."

[Wrong. Strawman fallacy.]

"Therefor life was designed."

[Wrong. False dichotomy.]

"Since everything needs a cause..."

[Unsupported assumption]

"...and the universe came into existence..."

[Unsupported assumption]

"...then it had to have a cause."

[Correct conclusion, but based on unfounded assumptions]

"The cause had to be intelligent..."

[Unsupported assumption]

"...and it must be a god."

[Either a tautology of definition, or a term too vague to mean anything scientifically, which is also unsupported]

"And since some parts of my holy book are true, all of it is true."

[Fallacy of composiiton]

"Therefor that God is my god."

[Jesus pickled christ!]

(February 21, 2016 at 6:44 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 9:56 pm)AAA Wrote: Sequential information in cells and molecular mediums that allow information to be transferred between molecules seem like designed features. It can easily be interpreted as evidence of design, especially when we see intelligently created technologies that resemble it, yet we never see non-living systems mimic it.

Bolded the one honest word you've said on this matter, and the most important word. Seems is not the same as is, just because something looks designed to you doesn't make it designed, especially as you've amply demonstrated that you've a woeful grasp of biology and what evidence is in general.

Underlined the second most important section. Yes, appearances can be interpreted as evidence, but unfortunately for you, they are not evidence. When you conflate the two reach phrases 'seems like' and 'can be interpreted as' you yourself are acknowledging (probably subconsciously) that you have no case.

Truly, as I described you last month, you are an arse brained creatard idiot. Oh, and by the way, how does it feel for you to get schooled by somebody who doesn't even have a science degree, especially with all your boasting about how great a student of biology you are? Stuff I remember from  20 years ago, and stuff I've picked up from popular science books are more scientificially valid that the santorum that emanates out your arse every time you try and prove god by disproving evolution.

Yeah, things aren't always as they seem, but because it seems that way, the null hypothesis should be that it was designed. If things that are only found in designed features are also found in cells, then that is evidence of design.

And the fact that you don't have a science degree is showing.

(February 21, 2016 at 2:58 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 9:54 pm)AAA Wrote: I'm not overly concerned with peer review. But if an ID article is published, you will just say that the publisher is wacko and ignore it. So if we can look at the evidence ourselves, then we do not need to base our conclusions solely on peer review.

You have repetitively, and dubiously claimed to be a university biology student.

Where are you studying?

Who are you studying under? What's his/her name and title?

Does this person believe your above statement on peer review?

I'm not going to say where, because I don't want to hurt the reputation. Also knowing my luck, one of you would contact them and wine and complain and get me in trouble. It is in Iowa, it is a catholic school that teaches conventional science and does not entertain the idea of ID. I'm and undergraduate, so I'm not studying under any one person. I have plenty of professors, and strangely enough I've never had a conversation with any of them on peer review.

Do they teach the difference between "wine" and "whine"?

(February 21, 2016 at 4:23 am)robvalue Wrote: Wait...

Not overly concerned with peer review?

If that's isn't an anti-science motto, I don't know what is. The absence of peer review is "making shit up".

AAA seems to want to play both sides, science and anti-science, whichever is convenient at the time.

It's not like if it isn't peer reviewed it's making stuff up. Peer review is simply a good way to make sure that experimenters don't overlook things in their study, that they didn't fudge the data, and that they conducted it well. Do you have to rely on peer review for every one of your beliefs? Do you have a peer reviewed paper that describes your day yesterday? is everything you say about it then a lie? Also when's the last time you've read a peer reviewed paper? I know you aren't going to answer truthfully if you answer at all.