Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:06 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 9:07 am)Stimbo Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 1:05 am)AAA Wrote: therefore designer is a reasonable conclusion.
No, it's not a conclusion at all. I've been saying this throughout the thread. "Designer" is the hypothesis; now come up with ways to test that against the observations. Concluding with the very thing that you presuppose is not following the evidence by any definition.
Actually designer is considered theory. Because it is arrived at using historical sciences. Look up method of comparing competing hypotheses.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 12:09 pm by robvalue.)
OK well thanks for answering AAT. I don't agree with anything you've said about the benefits of believing life is designed, but there you go.
Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 12:10 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You seem to think that you can make this true by repetition Trips. Pro-tip, you cannot.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:16 pm
*still waiting for the testable hypothesis of ID*
Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 12:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Put that on your headstone, then. It'll be just as true then as it is now. You don't think these people are interested in anything that might be seen as potential falsification of their god, do you?
"Science can't test that!"....remember?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:25 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 10:30 am)Delicate Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:26 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: You want kindness from someone who you've deliberately set out to insult over numerous threads? Wanna know what started all this? My post specifically addressing TC, that, honestly, I didn't need your smart-assed remarks on.
Get this: A majority of regular posters on here, don't like you. I'll let you figure out why that seems to be. But your remark was uncharitable and irrational. Gotta expect to get called out on it.
That's really rich coming from you. I think you'd better take a good look in the mirror since you seem to regularly love insulting the intelligence of many here, including myself.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:25 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 11:29 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Still no response to the clear and obvious refutations of Dembski?
Maybe he's actually reading the links I posted.
...
![[Image: 886813887726407309.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--7AtwzDlG--%2F886813887726407309.gif)
I watched the video. It seemed to be the guy saying well we don't know if his statistical analysis is accurate, therefore the intelligent design is wrong. But if (like he said in the video) Demski's test always gives the conclusion of design when we know the test subject was designed, then I don't see the problem. Is the thought: Well maybe it gives the result of design no matter what the test subject is? This is very unlikely considering things that we know not to be designed that still have complexity do not have a sequence that could even be tested. The fact that we can't even find an item that wasn't intelligently designed that fits the criteria to be tested should tell you something.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:26 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:06 pm)AAA Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 9:07 am)Stimbo Wrote: No, it's not a conclusion at all. I've been saying this throughout the thread. "Designer" is the hypothesis; now come up with ways to test that against the observations. Concluding with the very thing that you presuppose is not following the evidence by any definition.
Actually designer is considered theory. Because it is arrived at using historical sciences. Look up method of comparing competing hypotheses.
Great - then there will be published, peer reviewed papers on the subject. Do you have a citation?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:29 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Science can't test that!"....remember?
This is one of my favorites...that God is by nature untestable, and that science can never apply to him. Except we all know that if even a SHRED of anything resembling scientific evidence emerged to support ID, or miracles, or god's existence, every theist in the world would be creaming their pants screaming, "see?! I told you so! It's SCIENCE! You can't refute SCIENCE!"
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:34 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 12:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 12:06 pm)AAA Wrote: Actually designer is considered theory. Because it is arrived at using historical sciences. Look up method of comparing competing hypotheses.
Great - then there will be published, peer reviewed papers on the subject. Do you have a citation?
They are out there. It says on the website of Nature that I need to make a payment to access the peer-reviewed articles so I can't give you a citation. But there are several. You can still look up comparing competing hypotheses though.
|
