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

Friday, November 12, 2010

Intelligent Design, the Designer(s) and the Processes- Revisited

-
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski


Yes, they can.


Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design.

IOW reality dictates the the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

If anyone doubts that fact then all you have to do is show me a scenario in which the designer(s) or the process(es) were determined without designer input, direct observation or by studying the design in question.

If you can't than shut up and leave the design detection to those who know what they are doing.

This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):

“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”
Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch


Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.


As for the people who have some "God phobia":

Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

(As a comparison no need to look any further than abiogenesis and evolutionism. Evolutionitwits make those separate questions even though life’s origin bears directly on its subsequent diversity. And just because it is a separate question does not hinder anyone from trying to answer either or both. Forget about a process except for the vague “random mutations, random genetic drift, random recombination culled by natural selection”. And as for a way to test that premise “forgetaboutit”.)

For more information please read the following:

Who Designed the Designer?

(only that which had a beginning requires a cause)

Mechanisms in Context

Intellegent Design is about the DESIGN not the designer(s). The design exists in the physical world and as such is open to scientific investigation.

All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery. We have also figured out that targeted searches are very powerful design mechanisms when given a resource-rich configuration space.


Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

59 Comments:

  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery."

    Not really - "we infer" is actually we don't know but are heavily influenced by our religious predispositions so in the absence of any real evidence we presuppose design without agency or mechanism.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "All that said we have made some progress. By going over the evidence we infer that our place in the cosmos was designed for (scientific) discovery."


    Richtard:
    Not really -

    eally and science is done via inference Rich.

    And the design inference was reached by going over the evidence.

    OTOH you infer we are here due to blind, undirected (chemical) processes only because of your predisposition as you sure as hell don't have anything in the way of positive support.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Inference is only part of it JOE:

    Generally you look at the universe, pick some part of it.

    You ponder about it and make some abductive conjecture as to why it is, possibly guided by inference / analogy / induction.

    But this isn't science. Fairies might live up your bottom, Joe - without a hypothesis that explains the how (without introducing unnecessary agents) and makes novel, testable predictions you're just navel gazing.

    Also, science DOESN'T work by 'not this therefore that', especially when YOU can't enumerate the NOT THIS component.

    Hope this helps.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Inference is only part of it JOE:

    It is a big part Rich as science does not deal with proving. That is math.

    Rich:
    But this isn't science.

    You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of science.

    Rich:
    Fairies might live up your bottom, Joe - without a hypothesis that explains the how (without introducing unnecessary agents) and makes novel, testable predictions you're just navel gazing.

    ID makes testable prediction whereas your position does not.

    Rich:
    Also, science DOESN'T work by 'not this therefore that', especially when YOU can't enumerate the NOT THIS component.

    Your position is just "not design therefor blind, undirected (chemical) processes..."

    Pathetic

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID makes testable prediction whereas your position does not."

    Oh, I can see your cards, and they're not good.

    What are they? How is the research going.

    Note - Evolution can't / won't are not ID predictions nor are they evidence for design.

    Our position is actually studying these process. We don't talk about design. That's why we're the honest, hard working, doing side. No cheap tuxedo here.

    How many of these 1 million or so hits talk about design?

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mutation+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=400001&as_sdtp=on

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID makes testable prediction whereas your position does not."

    Rich:
    Oh, I can see your cards, and they're not good.

    Not good for you you bluffing maggot.

    Rich:
    Note - Evolution can't / won't are not ID predictions nor are they evidence for design.

    Yet you use ID can't/ won't as evidence for your position.

    Rich:
    Our position is actually studying these process. We don't talk about design.

    Yet with all of your studying there still isn't any positive evidence for your position.

    And by not talking about design you are ignoring an entire class of causes, which means your position is based on ignorance.

    Rich:
    How many of these 1 million or so hits talk about design?

    How many of them demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes are all that is required?

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yet you use ID can't/ won't as evidence for your position."

    Actually, ID doesn't. no research, no testable hypothesis. we're not comparing two competing theories, because you don't have one. I can't opine on the limits of ID, because it hasn't actually started.

    "How many of them demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes are all that is required?"

    They don't. Science isn't about "all"; it's tentative, but it is an honest investigation into mechanisms, something ID finds very troubling.

     
  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Actually, ID doesn't. no research, no testable hypothesis.

    Yet I have provided a testable hypothesis, and I have also provided research.

    Rich:
    we're not comparing two competing theories, because you don't have one.

    Obviously YOU don't have one Rich. All you can do is equivocate.

    "How many of them demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes are all that is required?"

    Rich:
    They don't.

    Thank you for once again admitting your position is devoid of content/ empty.

    Rich:
    Science isn't about "all"; it's tentative, but it is an honest investigation into mechanisms, something ID finds very troubling.

    Then it is strange how I talk about mechanisms.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yet I have provided a testable hypothesis, and I have also provided research."

    No you haven't.


    "Then it is strange how I talk about mechanisms."

    No you haven't. You just proffered the very vacuous framework of "Design".

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Yet I have provided a testable hypothesis, and I have also provided research."

    Rich:
    No you haven't.

    "The Privileged Planet" alone contains both.

    Here is my design hypothesis- notice how all you could do is drool.

    That was your perfect opportunity to produce a testable hypothesis for your position to show me how it was done, and you fell all over yourself instead of doing so.

    "Then it is strange how I talk about mechanisms."

    Rich:
    No you haven't.

    Yes I have- targeted search anyone?

    Rich:
    You just proffered the very vacuous framework of "Design".

    Actually it is only vacuous to the sientifically illiterate. Educated people understand the great value in saying somethimg was designed.

     
  • At 11:20 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    The privileged planet is a not very sophisticated exercise in question-begging.

     
  • At 6:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard Hughes is a clueless question-begging evotard who could not support his position so he is forced to hurl false accusations at his opponenys.

    Nicely done you clueless twit.

    Unfortunately for Rich, unlike his position the inferences in "The Privileged Planet" are based on scientific data nad evidence and can be refuted.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    The data might be scientific but the 'inferences' are unwarranted and circular, the data tiny given the size of the unobservable universe and the hypothesis untestable so as to be relegated to conjecture.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    The data might be scientific but the 'inferences' are unwarranted and circular,

    Rich you haven't even read the book so what you say is based on ignorance and therefor meaningless.

    Rich:
    the data tiny given the size of the unobservable universe

    Strawman and tred herring all in one!

    Rich:
    and the hypothesis untestable so as to be relegated to conjecture.

    Strange how they provided a way to test their hypothesis.

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A Response to Some Objections to The Privileged Planet (made by) by Kyler Kuehn

    Kyler is Richtard's one source of an alleged refutation of TPP.

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Strawman and tred herring all in one!.

    No - brute fact. we know little about teh observable universe due to its size, close study is difficult due to the vast distances required (not designed for discovery) and you've already shown you don't understand the concept of the unobservable universe.

    "Strange how they provided a way to test their hypothesis."

    Really - How's that going, given the above?

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    No - brute fact.

    Yes it's a brute fact that you are erecting a strawman.

    Rich:
    we know little about teh observable universe due to its size,

    We don't have to know everything Rich. We are discovering new things almost on a daily basis. And the inference is about our planet and solar system also.

    And we are discovering new things almost every day.

    "Strange how they provided a way to test their hypothesis."

    Rich:
    Really - How's that going, given the above?

    Your strawman doesn't refute it, if that is what you mean.

    Rich you have to erad the book to address their arguments. And you cannot refute their inference of you do not address their arguments.

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    again:

    How's that going, given the above?

    What's the ID perspective braught to the science party? Or is it sterile?

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    How's that going, given the above?

    The above strawman? The above argument from ignorance?

    The TPP hypothesis is still standing and going strong.

    Rich:
    What's the ID perspective braught to the science party?

    What has the accident party brought to the science party? IOW Rich you should focus on yur position which is devoid of content = empty.

    Just saying something is designed adds quite a bit to the science party and it is a game-changer as we chage the ay we investigate because of that inference.

    Rich:
    Or is it sterile?

    Sterile- now that encapsulates your position.

    Nicely done.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Just saying something is designed adds quite a bit to the science party and it is a game-changer as we chage the ay we investigate because of that inference."

    okay - let's go with that. Can you give me three examples of how we've changed teh way we investigate based on the 'design inference'?

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Can you give me three examples of how we've changed teh way we investigate based on the 'design inference'?

    Again?!!!

    OK Stonehenge- we are studying it differently than a geologist would if it were a "natural" formation.

    Forensic science- the investigation is different when a murder is inferred as opposed to a "natural" death.

    SETI- The investigation of pulsars compared to the investigation of an inferred alien signal.

    Rich, do you really think that by exposing your ignorance it helps your case?

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What has the accident party brought to the science party?

    IOW Rich you should focus on yur position which is devoid of content = empty.

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hmmm..

    "OK Stonehenge- we are studying it differently than a geologist would if it were a "natural" formation.

    Forensic science- the investigation is different when a murder is inferred as opposed to a "natural" death."

    SETI.."

    So ALL it adds is information about the designer, which is something ID is trying very hard to sidestep. Curious..

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    So ALL it adds is information about the designer, which is something ID is trying very hard to sidestep.

    Not at all. Just because ID is not about the designer(s) doesn't mean we cannot garner information about the designer(s) BY STUDYING THE DESIGN.

    That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics- I am sure if SETI ever finds something that is how they will do it too.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    So ALL it adds is information about the designer,...

    What information, besides saying a designer existed that did this, do you think it adds? Please be specific.

    We do not know who designed and built Stonehenge and not all murders are solved.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So tell me again how ID changes scientific inquiry apart from information about the designer?

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

    Rich:
    So tell me again how ID changes scientific inquiry apart from information about the designer?

    What information about the designer Rich?

    Also do you not understand what I have told you? Do you not understand how the investigation changes once design is inferred? Do you really think that geology and archaeology are the same thing? Do you really think that police investigate a natural death the same as they would a murder?

    Do you have an education above 5th grade?

     
  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Stonehenge:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#Before_the_monument_.288000_BC_forward.29

    "The builders placed the bones of deer and oxen in the bottom of the ditch, as well as some worked flint tools. The bones were considerably older than the antler picks used to dig the ditch, and the people who buried them had looked after them for some time prior to burial."

    "Evidence of the second phase is no longer visible. The number of postholes dating to the early 3rd millennium BC suggest that some form of timber structure was built within the enclosure during this period. Further standing timbers were placed at the northeast entrance, and a parallel alignment of posts ran inwards from the southern entrance."

    All about the designers.

    Forensic science:

    DNA evidence, size and weight of attacker. handiness of attacker. Method employed. etc.

    All about the 'designer'.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Do you not understand how the investigation changes once design is inferred?"

    It only changes so we can learn about the 'designer'. Nothing more. And ID refuses to do this, because shhhhhhhh! it's religion really.

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

    Rich's reference:
    "The builders placed the bones of deer and oxen in the bottom of the ditch, as well as some worked flint tools. The bones were considerably older than the antler picks used to dig the ditch, and the people who buried them had looked after them for some time prior to burial."

    Umm they don't know if the builders did that or some other people who came later.

    And that still tells us nothing.


    "Evidence of the second phase is no longer visible. The number of postholes dating to the early 3rd millennium BC suggest that some form of timber structure was built within the enclosure during this period. Further standing timbers were placed at the northeast entrance, and a parallel alignment of posts ran inwards from the southern entrance."

    All about the designers.


    More about the DESIGN in the 2nd part- duh

    And all of that was after centuries of investigation!

    Rich:
    Forensic science:

    DNA evidence, size and weight of attacker. handiness of attacker. Method employed. etc.


    Don't always get DNA- can't tell the size and weight from DNA and it takes investigation to get to the method and still that may only be a method and not THE method.

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Do you not understand how the investigation changes once design is inferred?"

    Rich:
    It only changes so we can learn about the 'designer'.

    That is only a small part if it Rich. It changes so we can learn about the how and why also.

    Rich:
    Nothing more.

    There is more an I have just told you what that is.

    Rich:
    And ID refuses to do this,

    And the theory of evolution refuses to talk about the origin of living organisms.

     
  • At 5:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "can't tell the size and weight from DNA" - Know you get that from impact and blood splatter anaylsis.

    Face it Joe, the only extra info you get is about the designer.

     
  • At 8:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "can't tell the size and weight from DNA"

    Rich:
    - Know you get that from impact and blood splatter anaylsis.

    No you don't.

    You may be able to get the weight by the depth of a footprint in soft ground. You may be able to guess the height from the size of the footprint.

    But first you have to determine a crime has been committed- ie design exists.

    Rich:
    Face it Joe, the only extra info you get is about the designer.

    That's just ignorant- we can get something of the how and why- the when and where- a quite a bit about the design itself.

    But anyway thanks for proving my point which has always been that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possoble way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific design mechanism used, is by studying the design in question- and that is what ID is all about.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Let's be clear, we study how, when and where for proper science. And in the case of Stonehenge and Forensics - people don't naturally mathematically rule out all natural pathways (how, when , where) to infer design, which is what ID claims should happen. Ego, not "ID".

    All ID could add would be info about the designer. you've shown nothing else.

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Let's be clear, we study how, when and where for proper science.

    Except we don't study them. We try to figure that out given our observations.

    Rich:
    And in the case of Stonehenge and Forensics - people don't naturally mathematically rule out all natural pathways (how, when , where) to infer design, which is what ID claims should happen.

    Nice strawman.

    That's yor whole "argument"- one strawman after another.

    What people have to do to infer design is to rule out alternatives and have some positive evidence.

    With archaeology if nature, operating freely can produce it then it would be a very hard sell to say it is an artifact. And that is how it is with Stonehenge. They ruled out nature, operating freely, observed a specification and inferred it was designed.

    Still don't know who did it nor how they did it. But people are working on that.

    Rich:
    All ID could add would be info about the designer.

    Maybe to your little pathetic existence that is all it could add. But reality says by studying the design, which is what ID is about:

    Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski

    we can try to answer the other questions- the who, how, why, what is it for, what does it do- all the questions that science tries to answer.

    Rich:
    you've shown nothing else.

    Both of us have!

    YOU did with your wikipedia reference on Stonehenge- are you really that stupid?

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Face it Joe, the only extra info you get is about the designer.

    That's just ignorant- we can get something of the how and why- the when and where- a quite a bit about the design itself.

    But anyway thanks for proving my point which has always been that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only possoble way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific design mechanism used, is by studying the design in question- and that is what ID is all about.


    So Richie ReTardo just ignores that and repeats his trope- the trope of a dope- dope-a-trope.

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Nice strawman."

    no, that's hwo the EF supposedly works. Try to keep up.

    "how, why," are already in teh remit of real science

    "what is it for, what does it do" - you need to know who the designer is and what his motivations are.

     
  • At 1:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    no, that's hwo the EF supposedly works.

    Supposedly? You mean you don't know?

    Well you don't know and that ain't how the EF works.

    Rich:
    "how, why," are already in teh remit of real science

    Yes ID is real science.

    Rich:
    "what is it for, what does it do" - you need to know who the designer is and what his motivations are.

    Nope. Hell I don't know who designed cars but I know what they do and what they are for. I don't know who designed hammers but I know what they do and what they are for.

     
  • At 2:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " Hell I don't know who designed cars but I know what they do and what they are for."

    Well that's because you're not very bright. If you look closely you'll see the name of the manufacturer on most of them. In some cases the manufacturer was also teh chief engineer, like Henry Ford.

     
  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    If you look closely you'll see the name of the manufacturer on most of them.

    That doesn't tell me anything about who designed it. The name of teh company is not the name of the engineers you twit. And even given their names doesn't tell me anything about them you freak.

    Richtard:
    In some cases the manufacturer was also teh chief engineer, like Henry Ford.

    Yeah Henry Ford designed the Taurus- what a waste of skin you are.

    But I am sure you think you make sense.

    LoL!!!

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Well you don't know and that ain't how the EF works."

    How do YOU think it works? Don't you know its supposed to reject a chance hypothesis?

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    How do YOU think it works?

    I know how it works.

    Rich:
    Don't you know its supposed to reject a chance hypothesis?

    Don't you know that you are supposed to make a point and support it with facts and evidence as opposed to looking like you are grasping for something?

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Thanks Joe, it's obvious you don't know how at works having read your comments. Carry on.

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

    Let's see if I can follow Richtard's "logic"-

    1- Richtard is ignorant of ID

    2- Richtard is ignorant of the EF

    3- I have successfully used the EF

    4- Richtard, being ignorant of ID and the EF cannot make a point to debate.

    5- Therefor Richtard has a hissy fit and declares I don't know how to use the EF even though I have used it successfully many times.

    BTW Richtard the EF is not just rejecting the chance hypothesis. And there are more ways than mathematics that can be used to eliminate chance and necessity.

    IOW you are an ignorant son of a bitch Richie.

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Therefor Richtard has a hissy fit and declares I don't know how to use the EF even though I have used it successfully many times.

    Perhaps you could demonstrate how the EF determines that the Giant's Causeway is or is not designed?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant's_Causeway

    Looks designed to me....

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Perhaps you could demonstrate how the EF determines that the Giant's Causeway is or is not designed?

    People determine that- eductaed people using the EF- the EF is just a tool.

    The GC gets bailed out at the first node because nature, operating freely can produce the structures observed.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Looks designed to me....

    And that is reason enough to check out that possibility.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    The GC gets bailed out at the first node because nature, operating freely can produce the structures observed.

    Can it? Prove it!

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    And that is reason enough to check out that possibility.

    So check it out! Use the EF!

    Show your working!

     
  • At 7:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The GC gets bailed out at the first node because nature, operating freely can produce the structures observed.

    OM:
    Can it? Prove it!

    It's in the reference YOU provided dipshit wanker.

     
  • At 4:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    It's in the reference YOU provided dipshit wanker.

    Funny how you don't challenge data that agrees with your position but accept it unquestioningly.

    While contraction in the vertical direction reduced the flow thickness (without fracturing), horizontal contraction could only be accommodated by cracking throughout the flow. The size of the columns is primarily determined by the speed at which lava from a volcanic eruption cools. The extensive fracture network produced the distinctive columns seen today.

    There is simply no evidence that this process could have proceeded without intelligent guidance.

    The speed at which lava cools is so finely tuned that the probability of it being exactly the right temperature at the right time to produce the observed effect is larger then the available search space of the universe.

    Reducing the flow thickness without fracturing would require fine-tuning beyond anything that's available to our technology and it's simply not feasible that this process was unguided. The flow thickness would have to be specifically tuned by a designer in order for the observed pattern to form, any deviation from the exact flow rate would not produce that pattern. Flow rates don't control themselves you know! It's absurd to think that the complex feedback system required to produce the exact flow rate and heat gradients arose via natural processes!

    You simply have no evidence that this was a natural process and as such I think that you'll find if you run it through the EF you'll in fact find that it was designed.

    So, it's up to you. Do you believe what that liberal hotbed "Wikipedia" of all places says or do you want to form your own conclusion by following the evidence where it leads? I.E to design?

    Next you'll be telling me that the system of continental plates floating on magma that provide our living space is not designed! And that would be absurd!

     
  • At 7:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Funny how you don't challenge data that agrees with your position but accept it unquestioningly.

    I did challenge it at one time and I did question it.

    IOW you are a piece of shit know-nothing wanker.

     
  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I did challenge it at one time and I did question it.

    But now you accept everything that Dembski, Behe etc say as gospel. They are right, regardless.

    Do you agree with Dembski that there was a worldwide flood as described in the bible? And that Noah had an arc with all the earth's animals on it?


    IOW you are a piece of shit know-nothing wanker.

    Is that how you'll be responding to high school pupils that challenge the data you'll be providing on your "intelligent design awareness days"?

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But now you accept everything that Dembski, Behe etc say as gospel.

    No, I was sure the ToE was bullshit and design was the better explanation long before I ever heard of those guys.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are indeed a piece of shit wanker.

    As for the IDAD I see you have abandoned that thread because you were expoosed as a know-nuthin' drooling moron.

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW I hope you are satisfied with getting one round of posts a day (on this blog anyway) and you just used it for today...

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    And BTW I hope you are satisfied with getting one round of posts a day (on this blog anyway) and you just used it for today...

    No problem Joe. I just won't bother to post here any more at all. You know where you can find me if you want to continue this "conversation".

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    No, I was sure the ToE was bullshit and design was the better explanation long before I ever heard of those guys.

    And the global flood? Agree or disagree? Funny how you pretended that I did not even ask the question.

    This is my last post.

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Funny how you pretended that I did not even ask the question.

    Funny how evotards get all upset and shit when their tactics are used against them....

     

Post a Comment

<< Home