DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Glad you're in agreement.

Glad you prefer ignorance over truth.

Sad you ignore scientific facts that are clear as day and relatively easy to understand.

---

ID Peer Reviewed Articles:

https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

That list is so contrived. So many of those papers you look at the title and think, what the hell does that have to do with ID? For example it lists a paper published in the field of AI.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gmontane/pdfs/mon...ecting.pdf

Abstract:

"Can machines think?”  When faced with this “meaningless” question, Alan Turing suggested we ask a dif-
ferent, more precise question: can a machine reliably fool a human interviewer into believing the machine is
human? To answer this question, Turing outlined what came to be known as the Turing Test for artificial intel-
ligence, namely, an imitation game where machines and humans interacted from remote locations and human
judges had to distinguish between the human and machine participants.  According to the test, machines that
consistently fool human judges are to be viewed as intelligent.  While popular culture champions the Turing
Test as a scientific procedure for detecting artificial intelligence, doing so raises significant issues.  First, a
simple argument establishes the equivalence of the Turing Test to intelligent design methodology in several
fundamental respects. Constructed with similar goals, shared assumptions and identical observational models,
both projects attempt to detect intelligent agents through the examination of generated artifacts of uncertain
origin. Second, if the Turing Test rests on scientifically defensible assumptions then design inferences become
possible and cannot, in general, be wholly unscientific.  Third, if passing the Turing Test reliably indicates
intelligence, this implies the likely existence of a designing intelligence in nature.

So some religionist crap stuck onto the end of what is a legitimate question. Although actually a rather redundant question because we have known for decades now that the Turing test is not a reliable test for intelligence and you can easily create a bot that looks intelligent but isn't by making it obsessed with a single subject and largely ignore everything said to it. It would act quite like you in fact.

You're hilarious.  Did you come up with that one all by yourself to hurt my feelings or did you consult with your little atheist buddies on here.