(March 17, 2018 at 5:53 am)Whateverist Wrote: ... is a parrot, ...

There's that word recently used by me. It's a good one isn't it?

"Parrot" - nice consonants.

Quote:ID is recognized by intelligent people who are able to design as well. 

ID recognized by ideologically motivated hacks and the scientifically ignorant. The fact they can design man made objects does not alter their ignorance or ID's poor reasoning .  

Quote:You have yet to prove that you are qualified to make a comment on ID.

I don't care if think i'm qualified . Deal with my statements or don't . The choice is yours . Is ID fallacious reasoning or is it not ? Is their clear non fallacious evidence of ID in nature or is there not ?

Quote:Have you ever designed something from nothing but your ingenuity?

Whether i have or not does not alter the bad reasoning of ID proponents . So this question is pointless. As it is every time you have asked it . It does not alter ID fallacious logic. Nor the dubious claims of it's followers .   

Quote:By not recognizing ID in nature,

Their is nothing to recognize it's bad reasoning without basis . And claims without basis . 

Quote:you are proving that you don't have either

Nope it proves i don't buy fallacious reasoning or baseless claims of design in nature .

Quote:but I'd be pleased if you could prove me wrong, simply by giving evidence of your creative skills and achievements.

I don't care about pleasing you . Nor do i care about your opinion of my creative talents . It has no bearing on weather ID's reasoning is valid or not. Nor does it make a case for ID in nature . And you'll try this same tired dismissal tactic again as not actually have to engage with the fact ID's reasoning is fallacious. But that's fine it does not change matters in the least .So go ahead dismiss what i have too say . Go on about how i'm not a "designer " (which is not true )therefore i won't understand design or whatever variant of mental defense you cobble together to dodge the issue. It does not  refute the above facts . And i have no more patients for your games .

This parrot is dead in the head.

Quote:There's that word recently used by me. It's a good one isn't it?

"Parrot" - nice consonants.

it also beautifully applies to your tactics . Repeat the same tired games over and over again and act like your winning .

Cue meme of parrot shitting all over the chess board, knocking the pieces over and crowing of its victory.

(March 17, 2018 at 7:01 am)Whateverist Wrote: This parrot is dead in the head.

Yup both Lives and banned two dead parrots .Squawking

Lived - Compare man made and natural things falliciosly over and over again without merit . Assert argument from ignorance . Repeat . 

Banned - Asked you a pointless question about your creativity to distract away from ID's failings . Declare you can't talk about the issue because you won't play his games . Repeat at nauseum .

---

(March 17, 2018 at 7:04 am)Whateverist Wrote: Cue meme of parrot shitting all over the chess board, knocking the pieces over and crowing of its victory.

Usually it's a pigeon 

---

ID iS FALLACIOUS AND BASELESS

Well banned guess i can still criticize ID without your approval

Tough Luck

(March 17, 2018 at 6:20 am)Banned Wrote: ...ID is recognized by intelligent people who are able to design as well...

Who designed the designer?

(March 17, 2018 at 7:20 am)Succubus Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 6:20 am)Banned Wrote: ...ID is recognized by intelligent people who are able to design as well...

Who designed the designer?

He thinks the ability to design man made  things gives people magic powers to see ID in nature as not fallacious bunk and baseless film flam . And intelligence as a bane to bad reasoning .

(March 17, 2018 at 6:58 am)Tizheruk Wrote: I don't care if think i'm qualified . Deal with my statements or don't . The choice is yours . Is ID fallacious reasoning or is it not ? Is their clear non fallacious evidence of ID in nature or is there not ?

...

Of course ID is fallacious reasoning to you, that's the whole point of what I'm saying, you don't have to prove what you think, you've made that pretty clear.

You cannot possibly see ID if you don't have it.

When you ask for evidence, that's like a person who can't read demanding that the book reveals itself.

Unless of course you can show that you are inventive, creative etc.

---

(March 17, 2018 at 7:20 am)Succubus Wrote: Who designed the designer?

The watch asked the watchmaker.

(March 17, 2018 at 7:25 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 7:20 am)Succubus Wrote: Who designed the designer?

He thinks the ability to design man made  things gives people magic powers to see ID in nature as not fallacious bunk and baseless film flam . And intelligence as a bane to bad reasoning .

Aye, and if he was in anyway interested in finding the truth ™ of ID he would know that its proponents Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson et al, have openly stated the designer they refer to, is God.
Hoist with their own petard springs to mind, but then Christian fundies don't do irony.

---

(March 17, 2018 at 7:35 am)Banned Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 7:20 am)Succubus Wrote: Who designed the designer?

The watch asked the watchmaker.

Dodge noted.