The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[GUBU]

A poorly worded article.  Apparently they are as inept as you are.  Got that cite for me yet?

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol. 

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design. The former is an invalid argument made by Nudger; the latter is presumably a weak/strong argument made by Dembski.

And now you're posting arguments by William Dumbski. You rally hate science

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol. 

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design. The former is an invalid argument made by Nudger; the latter is presumably a weak/strong argument made by Dembski.

And now you're posting arguments by William Dumbski.  You rally hate science

Yup he's hit rock bottom

[GUBU]

Would you mind stating your position concerning evolution? Sorry if you posted it before, I looked and couldn't find it stated. I don't mean to inconvenience you. I just want context.

I'm not an evolutionist—if such a term is helpful. I view theories as tools but have no commitments to them. I think evolution is a good theory in that it provides many unique perspectives. I also have no broad objections to its tenets—natural selection, genetic drift, etc. That said, I also recognize that the theory is imperfect and overextends itself. Many of its problems are widely recognized, such as Gould's critique of the adaptationist programme, or the untestability of phylogenetic inferences. Its overextensions are more widely critiqued in the field of evolutionary psychology. Many of these aforementioned critiques comes from within the proponents of the theory. But I also value arguments from without, such as irreducible complexity, because they pierce through the monotony of its echo chamber. Such critiques are needed to create growth and improvements in the theory. 

An addendum: 

One thing to notice is that I rarely argue for one perspective over an other—this is perhaps why you couldn't find my position on evolution. In other words, I am not interested in debunking evolution in order to mount an argument for design. This is in contrast with the forum, which seems to demand that only one theory be crowned "best explanation." I am of the opinion that science is a fertile land, with many theories being permitted to germinate thereon. Their only appraisal is by the data, not by each other.

Based on that post alone we can safely say that you're a full on anti-science creationist then. Thanks for making that clear.

---

Do you think, stupid atheists, that this doesn't point to a designer? Screw you and your objections

Absolutely no evidence of design there, liar.

---

Psychology, frightening. Noted.

Psychology isn't frightening.  That Breezy seems to be headed in that direction for a career is.

If Breezy is studying psychology it'll be "christian psychology", which is to actual psychology what Breezy's beloved creationism is to biology.

[HappySkeptic]

ps. Evolution, like any theory, has a certain weight, or inertia, to it. People tend to only see a theory's momentum across time, but don't realize that it dies at the alter of observation daily. Or they do know that a theory is always adjusting to the evidence, but don't realize the adjustment is mandated by its wrong predictions. There is a certain blindness to the faults of evolution that I think is unfortunate.

Evolution is a fact.

Modern Evolutionary Theory, like all science, is changing with new evidence.

Please inform us of all the "wrong" predictions that cannot be resolved with adjustments to the theory.  My guess is that these "wrong predictions" are written by clueless Young Earth Creationists.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Please inform us of all the "wrong" predictions that cannot be resolved with adjustments [emphasis added] to the theory. 

Adjustment is an important word. According to Quine (a philosopher of science), any belief can be kept in place if you are willing to move enough stuff around it. You can keep any theory alive with revisions, including competing theories.

[Apollo]

We are still going at this???

If it would take me to accept there is a god just to have this thread go away, I would gladly concede. Fuck, I would even be willing to say there are many gods. Pick a number.

[Mister Agenda]

Please inform us of all the "wrong" predictions that cannot be resolved with adjustments [emphasis added] to the theory. 

Adjustment is an important word. According to Quine (a philosopher of science), any belief can be kept in place if you are willing to move enough stuff around it. You can keep any theory alive with revisions, including competing theories.

And that's why scientific theories are never replaced by better theories.... /s

[John 6IX Breezy]

And that's why scientific theories are never replaced by better [emphasis added] theories.... /s

Better is subjective precisely because changes within a theory aren't that different from changes between theories.

[Angrboda]

Argument of the Beard

(also known as: fallacy of the beard, heap fallacy, heap paradox fallacy, bald man fallacy, continuum fallacy, line drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy)

Description: When one argues that no useful distinction can be made between two extremes, just because there is no definable moment or point on the spectrum where the two extremes meet.  The name comes from the heap paradox in philosophy, using a man’s beard as an example.  At what point does a man go from clean-shaven to having a beard?

(link)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hmm there is no arguments from the heap being made by Quine:

"Quine’s most powerful argument is usually seen to be his claim that there is no way to mark out the distinction between changes within and changes between frameworks in a way that is scientific and does not beg the question" (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p 118).

Reference: Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.