Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

RichTard Hughes Proves He does not understand Science

-
Richtard Hughes thinks he is being all clever and shit, when actually all he is doing is exposing his scientific illiteracy.

Telic Thoughts has a thread on the alleged "god of the gaps argument".

My buddy Jim posted the following on how the design inference works:

1- We observe X

2- Everytime we have observed X and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency interaction

3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

4- Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via agency interaction

5- And to refute that inference all one has to do is show that blind, undirected (chemical) processes do indeed suffice.

Then I sit back and let the flailing begin…


RichTard Hughes flails
Hmm, what number should "I smuggle some question-begging bad analogy in there, because we've never seen 'agency interaction' ACTUALLY DESIGN THIS THING"?

I think he's left it out.

Unfortunately for Richtard science does not need to observe the agency actually designing the thing.

If we did then archaeology, forensics and SETI would be in big trouble.

Geez Rich are you really that ignorant of science?

To top it off midwifetoad chimes in with:
Nor have we ever observed x in the process of being designed (although we have observed x being incrementally modified through mutation and selection).

Unfortunately no one has ever observed mutation and selection constructing a functional multi-part system- IOW there isn't any justification for what the toads baldly asserts.

IOW all the toad can do is lie.

So ignorance and lies are the only way around the logic behind the design inference.

Got it.

52 Comments:

  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Every time we see high-powered circular lighting apparatus they are man made.

    Therefore it is reasonable to infer stars are man made.

    Every nuclear reactor is man made - therefor Oklo is man made.

    Every non-permeable food protecting container is man-made.

    There it is reasonable to assume Joe has made a banana skin.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Every time we see high-powered circular lighting apparatus they are man made.

    Really?

    Any evidence to back that up?

    Richtard:
    Therefore it is reasonable to infer stars are man made.

    Non-sequitur.

    ichtard:
    Every nuclear reactor is man made -

    Any evidence to back that up?

    therefor Oklo is man made.

    Non-sequitur.

    Every non-permeable food protecting container is man-made.

    And more evidence free shit.

    There it is reasonable to assume Joe has made a banana skin.

    Well there isn't any evidence that blind, undirected processes- ie your position- can produce a banana.

    So Rich thinks that if he spews more ignorance that will prove he in't ignorant?

    BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAA

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lighting_brands


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_packaging

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard posts:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

    So what?

    Was that supposed to support what you said?

    If so how des it support what you said?

    Richtard posts:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lighting_brands


    Again so what?

    How does that support anything you have said?

    Richtard posts:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_packaging

    No explanation Rich?

    So you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

    Sweet...

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Every instance(where we knew the cause)it is ..... [drumroll] Mankind.

    So per your 'Joe-science', it is reasonable to assume man designed all the things we listed.

    Thanks.

     
  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Every instance(where we knew the cause)it is ..... [drumroll] Mankind.

    Yup and all those things you referenced wikipedia were man-made.

    Go figure.

    Richtard:
    So per your 'Joe-science', it is reasonable to assume man designed all the things we listed.

    Nope, not according to anything I have said.

    IOW Rich you are nothing but an ignorant freak.

    But I am sure you think that you are clever as shit...

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- We observe X

    2- Everytime we have observed X and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency interaction

    3- We have NEVER observed blind, undirected (chemical) processes producing X

    4- Therefore when we observe X and don't know the cause we can safely infer it was via agency interaction

    5- And to refute that inference all one has to do is show that blind, undirected (chemical) processes do indeed suffice.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe-science is great!

    Pick something you know is designed because you know there's a designer, make some bad analogies and then pretend you're justified concluding something else is designed.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/explanatory_filter_20_in_one_s.php

    If ID was honest, it would know that the first case (things that are designed because we see the act happening) were designed by methods other than design witnessing or 'chance exclusion'.

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard-science sucks.

    You don't need any positive evidence all you have to do is act like an asshole when trying to represent your opponent's position- IOW you misrepresent your opponent's position in order to try to "win".

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    1) Stop trying to redifine science

    2) Grow up

    3) For a cross between Jack Bauer and Stephen Hawking, you sure come across like Ray Comfort.

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    If ID was honest, it would know that the first case (things that are designed because we see the act happening) were designed by methods other than design witnessing or 'chance exclusion'.

    Archaeology- didn't see the act happening.

    Forensics- ddn't see the act happening

    SETI- can't see the act happening.

    ALL design inferences occur in the absence of seeing the act happening.

    As for analogies- they are only "bad" to you and your ilk because you assholes don't have any analogies to draw upon!

    If evolution was honest it would admit that it is not only non-science but pure bullshit.

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Rich- your link didn't work.

    face it if you are too stupid to use html codes then you are too stupid to understand science...

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    1) Stop trying to redifine science

    False accusation.

    2) Grow up

    Projection

    3) For a cross between Jack Bauer and Stephen Hawking, you sure come across like Ray Comfort.

    And total bullshit.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science

    Funny how both of these are very concerned with identifying and explaining the agents, where as ID isn't.

    Maybe that's beacsue they're not really *shhhh* religion.

    And I don't personally believe SETI is science. But it would attempt to answer

    WHO
    WHAT
    WHERE
    WHEN
    HOW
    WHY

    Which ID does not.

     
  • At 5:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    But you have an IQ of 150, can benchpress 300lbs (go for 3 plates, you can do it!), you fly airplanes, disarm bombs, visit warzones, fix fridges, study dragonflies playing...

     
  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Funny how both of these are very concerned with identifying and explaining the agents, where as ID isn't.

    So you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse- that's funny.

    The only way archaeologists can identify the agents is by studying the artifacts.

    The only way forensic scientists can hope to identify the criminal is by going over the evidence.

    Also unscientific detective work aids those scientists in finding the criminal.

    Ya see Rictard reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possible way to make any scientifiuc determination about the designer or the specific processes used is by studying the design in question.

    Heck after centuries of studying Stonehenge we still don't know who nor how.

    Prediction- Richtard will say we know humans didit, which of course proves my point.

    So Rich do you really think that continuing to expose your ignorance of science is going to help you?

     
  • At 5:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    But you have an IQ of 150, can benchpress 300lbs (go for 3 plates, you can do it!), you fly airplanes, disarm bombs, visit warzones, fix fridges, study dragonflies playing...

    Sounds like you are jealous...

    Your jealousy is not a refutaion.

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    :

    Archaeology, or archeology (from Greek ἀρχαιολογία, archaiologia – ἀρχαῖος, arkhaīos, "ancient"; and -λογία, -logiā, "-logy"), is the study of past human societies, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data which they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes.

     
  • At 6:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Archaeology-

    FIRST artifacts must be found- that alone entails quite a bit of design detection.

    Next hopefully more artifacts are found.

    Then other evidence is collected- site evidence, climate evidence, etc.

    Then they try to put together all the pieces.

    And even after all that the best they can do is a general idea of the people who lived there.

     
  • At 6:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Forensics-

    FIRST they have to determine if a crime has been committed or not-that alone entails quite a bit of design detection.

    Next hopefully more evidence is turned up/in.

    Then the pieces are put together.

    And even then it is usually good ole-fashioned and unscientific detective work that gets the criminal.

    Neither forensics nor archaeology is a failure because they can't catch the criminal nor identify the people behind the artifacts.

    A crime is still a crime even if the criminal remains unknown. And an artifact is still an artifact even if the artist is unknown.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://history-world.org/archeology.htm

    "Archeology is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior, from the origins of humans to the present. Archaeology studies past human behavior through the examination of material remains of previous human societies. These remains include the fossils (preserved bones) of humans, food remains, the ruins of buildings, and human artifacts—items such as tools, pottery, and jewelry. From their studies, archaeologists attempt to reconstruct past ways of life. Archaeology is an important field of anthropology, which is the broad study of human culture and biology. Archaeologists concentrate their studies on past societies and changes in those societies over extremely long periods of time."

    So in archeology we know the designer first (Humans) and it's actually a subset of Anthropology, which is "the broad study of human culture and biology"

    Which forensics are you referring to?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science#Subdivisions

    with forensic dactyloscopy we might have a clue to the type of entity.

    And Forensics provides evidence, not a decision, through positive analysis. It doesn't say "evolution couldn't have put a bullet in his head, hence design" - It would analyse the bullet, velocity, trajectory, you know, sciency stuff ID can't do.

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Archaeology studies past human behavior through the examination of material remains of previous human societies.

    Richtard:
    So in archeology we know the designer first (Humans) and it's actually a subset of Anthropology, which is "the broad study of human culture and biology"

    Just as predicted- "humansdidit"-

    Thanks Rich- and then there are cases in which we don't know if humans did do it.

    As I said FIRST they have o find something that demonstrates some agency was there.

    Richtard:
    Which forensics are you referring to?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science#Subdivisions

    with forensic dactyloscopy we might have a clue to the type of entity.


    Again you are clueless.

    First they have to have evidence for a crime.

    Richtard:
    And Forensics provides evidence, not a decision, through positive analysis.

    Forensics doesn't provide evidence. The scientists go over the evidence- sifting through it, examining it, testing it.

    Richtard:
    It doesn't say "evolution couldn't have put a bullet in his head, hence design" -

    ID doesn't argue like that.

    Richtard:
    It would analyse the bullet, velocity, trajectory, you know, sciency stuff ID can't do.

    Except IDists do exactly taht- and that is why we are so confident the design inference is the best inference.

    OTOH your position doesn't have any idea of what mutations caused what changes- yu have NOTHING pertaining to the "how" beyond some vague reference to some unknowable mutations.

    You have nothing in the way of positive evidence to support your position.

    IOW stop projecting your inadequacies onto us.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great, Joe. Please run the following very simple experiment we've been asking you to do for years.

    Have someone pick out 2 rock formations with which you are unfamiliar (one of which was designed, one not). You tell us which one was designed.

    Or, even easier: tell us which of two rocks was tumbled and which is a river rock.

    Seems to me that you should be able to do this in a couple minutes.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID doesn't argue like that."

    That's *Exactly* how ID argues.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Except IDists do exactly taht-"

    Really? Let's see the mechanisms of ID then please Joe.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID doesn't argue like that."

    Richtard:
    That's *Exactly* how ID argues.

    So you keep saying yet you don't offer anything to support that nonsense.

    OTOH even the mundane EF mandates more than what you are saying.

    IOW Rich you are a lying loser.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Except IDists do exactly that-and that is why we are so confident the design inference is the best inference.

    OTOH your position doesn't have any idea of what mutations caused what changes- yu have NOTHING pertaining to the "how" beyond some vague reference to some unknowable mutations.

    You have nothing in the way of positive evidence to support your position.

    IOW stop projecting your inadequacies onto us."


    Richtard:
    Really?

    Really- ya see you have had many opportunities to produce positive evidence for your position yet you have failed to do so.

    AND you continually misrepresent ID.

    Richtard:
    Let's see the mechanisms of ID then please Joe.

    Design is a mechanism- and then we have a targeted search, built-in responses to environmental cues, directed mutations.

    We have been over all this before and you choked on it then too.

     
  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Please run the following very simple experiment we've been asking you to do for years.

    Please shut the fuck up or start supporting your position with positive evidence as i have been asking you for years.

    However I do think it's funny that evotards think if they act like assholes that alone refutes ID.

    You would think it would be easier just to produce sme positive evidence for your position yet it is obvious that you are just a bunch of lying losers.

     
  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Design is a mechanism"

    Okay - to avoid your very deliberate and dishonest equitation - please provide the fabrication methodology.

    If you're not too busy benching a bajillion pounds.

    Oh please please represent ID in court. You'll probably get sent away for contempt the first day but that will still be worth the flight!

     
  • At 6:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Design is a mechanism"

    Richtard:
    Okay - to avoid your very deliberate and dishonest equitation

    Please provide something to support that accusation.

    IOW just because you are too stupid to read a dictionary doesn't mean I am dishonest nor does it mean I am equivocating.

    Richtard:
    - please provide the fabrication methodology.

    I presented several possibilities.

    I take it that you are too stupid or dishonest to actually address what I have posted.

    OTOH your position doesn't have any idea of what mutations caused what changes- you have NOTHING pertaining to the "how" beyond some vague reference to some unknowable mutations.

    You have nothing in the way of positive evidence to support your position.


    Worry about your position's fabrication mechanism you immature jerk.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    OTOH even the mundane EF mandates more than what you are saying.


    Would it be possible for you to give or link to a demonstration of the EF in action. Ideally two examples, one where design is not detected and one where it is detected, both against biological a entity.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Would it be possible for you to give or link to a demonstration of the EF in action.

    How do you think design detection occurs in archaeology, forensics and SETI?

    Do you think those scientists just flip a coin?

    The EF is standard operating procedure.

    OM:
    Ideally two examples, one where design is not detected and one where it is detected, both against biological a entity.

    As I told you over on Dr Hunter's blog YOU can use it- so have at it.
    Ya see OM as I have said many times before the EF is the exact process one would use to refute the design inference AND support the non-telic position.

    And as I have also said if I use it you will just say that am cheating.

    So stop stalling and go for it.

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And OM or Rich,

    What methodology was used to determine that the universe, our planet and living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes?

    Rail against the EF all you want however it is obvious that your position doesn't have a methodology beyond "It ain't designed".

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    OM:
    Would it be possible for you to give or link to a demonstration of the EF in action.

    How do you think design detection occurs in archaeology, forensics and SETI?


    In all three of those cases the design detection is done by matching the unknown to known-to-be designed objects. Not analogies mind you, but actual objects.

    Archaeology matches unknown artifacts by comparing the materials, workmanship, tool marks, etc. to known human designed artifacts.

    Forensics compares the physical evidence with previously known examples of the same features - blood splatters, footprints, etc.

    Even SETI is comparing signals it sees with known designed EM radiation modulation schemes.

    What known designed object do IDists match living organisms against? Not analogies such as saying "DNA acts like computer code". Actual physical objects.

    Can you name any? If not, then your claim that the EF is used the same way in ID fails miserably.

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortard:
    In all three of those cases the design detection is done by matching the unknown to known-to-be designed objects. Not analogies mind you, but actual objects.

    Reference please.

    Ya see I know first-hand that SETI would not infer alieans did it if nature, operating freely can account for it.

    The same goes for archaeology and forensics.

    Ya see you can't have an artifcat if nature, operating freely can account for it and you cannot have a crime if nature, operating freely can account for it.

    thortard:
    Archaeology matches unknown artifacts by comparing the materials, workmanship, tool marks, etc. to known human designed artifacts.

    We don't have any known humans designing things like Stonehenge.

    And again if nature, operating freely can account for something that appears to be an artifact then the alleged artifact is disgarded as a rock.

    Forensics compares the physical evidence with previously known examples of the same features - blood splatters, footprints, etc.

    They have to know what nature, operating freely can do as well as what designing agencies can do.

    Even SETI is comparing signals it sees with known designed EM radiation modulation schemes.

    Right they compare them against what nature, operating freely can do as well as what know agencies can produce.

    If not, then your claim that the EF is used the same way in ID fails miserably.

    LoL!

    Just because you have no idea how archaeologists, foensic scientists and SETI reasearchers go about their business does not refute my claim.

    As I said many times if nature, operating freely can account for an alleged artifact it ain't an artifact.

    If nature, operating freely can account for the evidence at an alleged crime scene we don't infer a crime took place.

    And if nature, operating freely can account for a signal from space- as was the case with pulsars- then they do not infer it is from an alien civilization.

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What methodology was used to determine that the universe, our planet and living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes?

    Rail against the EF all you want however it is obvious that your position doesn't have a methodology beyond "It ain't designed".

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And OM or Rich,

    What methodology was used to determine that the universe, our planet and living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes?

    Rail against the EF all you want however it is obvious that your position doesn't have a methodology beyond "It ain't designed"."

    I never said that it wasn't designed. I maintain we don't know and at the moment can't know.

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uber-fail.

    Reference for any of your "ya see I believe..." statements?

    Wow. The actual working process of SETI, forensics labs and archaeologists is presented with examples and all you can come up with is:

    "ya see I believe...."

    Strong. How about a counter example? Using real objects.

     
  • At 1:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I never said that it wasn't designed. I maintain we don't know and at the moment can't know.

    The there isn't any reason to keep ID out of the public schools except to push a purely atheistic/ materialistic agenda.

     
  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    The actual working process of SETI, forensics labs and archaeologists is presented

    No it wasn't.

    Just because you are fool enough to believe that shit doesn't make it so.

     
  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The there isn't any reason to keep ID out of the public schools except to push a purely atheistic/ materialistic agenda."

    1) There are millions / billions of theists who accept evolution
    2) Science is materialistic. So it only has to excluded from science. It's fine in (bad)philosophy.
    3) Given its complete lack of support (and subversion of teh scientific method), why not teach immaterial pixies are messing with the economy?
    4) Wedge. ID has already spilled teh beans about what it is *really*

     
  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    1) There are millions / billions of theists who accept evolution

    Nice bald assertion.

    The Gallup Poll seems to refute that claim.

    Ya see according to the poll the vast majority accept ID of some type.

    Rich:
    2) Science is materialistic. So it only has to excluded from science. It's fine in (bad)philosophy.

    Science is mot limited and materialism is nothing but a lim iting philosophical position.

    All science cares about is reality. And how to figure it out.

    3) Given its complete lack of support (and subversion of teh scientific method), why not teach immaterial pixies are messing with the economy?

    That is your position- a complete lack of support and a subversion of science in general.

    4) Wedge. ID has already spilled teh beans about what it is *really*

    Only if you are a selective reading drooler:

    The Wedge Document- So what?

     
  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You are told that archaeology compares artifacts to known human designs. You are told that forensics compares physical evidence to known previous behaviors of known objects (blood splatters etc). You are told that SETI compares signals to known EM modulation schemes.

    Your reply was "No they don't."

    That was it; there was no explanation, no counter-examples, nothing.

    You have been asked for an example that would be very helpful for your position: namely, what we are comparing Stonehenge to.

    You have failed to provide any insight into this question, despite 2 things:

    1. You say it is easy to do
    2. It would be very supportive of your position

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe.

    1. Catholics

    2. There must be some physical manifestation to test

    3. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html

    mechanisms!

    4. If you think that link helps them, bless you.

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    1. Catholics

    What about them?

    I bet the majority do not accept the blind watchmaker thesis.

    And again the Gallup poll refutes you.

    Rich:
    2. There must be some physical manifestation to test

    The design is a physical manifestation.

    Materialism says that all things are reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    3. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html

    mechanisms!


    And as I told Allen as far as anyone knows the bulk of those mechanisms are design mechanisms- see "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner- that answers MacNeill's strawman.

    4. If you think that link helps them, bless you.

    Spoken like an asshole with an agenda.

     
  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    You are told that archaeology compares artifacts to known human designs.

    By an anonymous imbecile- I asked for a reference and no one has provided one.

    blipey:
    You are told that forensics compares physical evidence to known previous behaviors of known objects (blood splatters etc).

    By an anonymous imbecile- I asked for a reference and no one has provided one.

    blipey:
    You are told that SETI compares signals to known EM modulation schemes.

    By an anonymous imbecile- I asked for a reference and no one has provided one.
    blipey:
    Your reply was "No they don't."

    That was it; there was no explanation, no counter-examples, nothing.


    That is a lie as I have explained what I said.

    Ya see moron not one of those groups infers design if nature, operating freely can produce what they are investigating.

    blipey:
    You have been asked for an example that would be very helpful for your position: namely, what we are comparing Stonehenge to.

    I have been over and over that already.

    Ya see asshole first they had to eliminate nature, operating freely.

    Then they needed some specification and they found that by examining the rocks.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um. No you didn't provided any counter examples. Hold on, I'll look again--just in case I missed it.







    Ah, got it. Three references to "nature operating freely". A phrase you've never put rigorous mathematical definition to. One "No you didn't."

    Nope. No counter examples there. Please provide some counter-examples to support your position that SETI, archaeology, and forensics don't compare evidence to known physical stuff. Thanks.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    Um. No you didn't provided any counter examples. Hold on, I'll look again--just in case I missed it.

    First I would need examples in order to provide a counter-example.

    Right know all have I the "word" of a known liar and another known liar sticking up for him.

    blipey:
    Please provide some counter-examples to support your position that SETI, archaeology, and forensics don't compare evidence to known physical stuff.

    I have always said that the design inference is based on our knoledge of cause and effect relationships.

    That is the whole point asshole.

    We know what nature, operating freely i capable of and we couple that with our knowledge of what agency involvement can do.

    I have only said that over 1,000 times so wha the fuck is your problem?

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yes you have said that. However, that ignores over 1000 times the difference between our criticism and what you address.

    We gave the example of blood splatters at the scene of the crime being compared to the known previous behaviors of blood.

    We gave the example of SETI comparing incoming signals with known EM radiation modulation schemes.

    We gave the example of archaeologists comparing site samples with known human engineering practices.

    Three examples that have been given repeatedly. Examples that you ignore and then say were never given.

    These examples all involve comparing evidence to PREVIOUSLY KNOWN BEHAVIORS.

    If you would like your analogy to have any relevance, ID needs to compare its evidence to PREVIOUSLY KNOWN BEHAVIORS. Unfortunately for you, that requires us to know something about the designer--something you say cannot be done.

    Your analogy is flawed and ignoring the flaws doesn't make them go away.

    Something that could make them go away would be your giving some examples. Another thing you refuse to do.

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    We gave the example of blood splatters at the scene of the crime being compared to the known previous behaviors of blood.

    So what?

    They still need to eliminate regularity and chance.

    And also there wasn't any reference to support the claim.

    blipey:
    We gave the example of SETI comparing incoming signals with known EM radiation modulation schemes.

    No reference provided.

    blipey:
    We gave the example of archaeologists comparing site samples with known human engineering practices.

    Three examples that have been given repeatedly. Examples that you ignore and then say were never given.


    It has just been your say-so.

    You need to provide valid references as your word is meaningless.

    Also I have been in the investigation business and you have never been in the investigation business.

    IOW I know how it is done and all you are is a clueless clown.

    So shut the fuck up and start providing valid references to support your claims.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I missed the part about how any of those people eliminated chance and regularity. Perhaps you could give an example showing such?

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    I missed the part about how any of those people eliminated chance and regularity.

    No doubt.

    I have been over and over that very thing.

    I told you that they do so by conducting a thorough investigation to figure out cause and effect relationships.

    blipey:
    Perhaps you could give an example showing such?

    Just watch CSI or Ghost Hunters- TV shows are about your speed for learning.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home