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

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Archaeology, Forensic Science, SETI and Intelligent Design

-
For years I have been saying that Intelligent Design is as scientific an enterprise as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. All rely on our ability to understand cause and effect relationships in order to differentiate between what nature, operating freely can do and what takes agency involvement to accomplish.

Easy to understand yet some people, re evotards, just refuse to grasp the concept. They will say that archaeology and forensics we already know who the designer is, which is total bullshit, or that those enterprises strive to identify the designer whereas ID does not. More bullshit as the way archaeologists and forensic scientists do that is by studying the evidence- as I tell them-there evotards:

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

But being scientifically illiterate chimp-wannabe's, evotards cannot grasp that. Sad, really.

OR they will want to know what we have found out about the designer so far as if that will somehow refute ID. *shrug, sigh*

So the bottom-line is Intelligent Design is based on our knowledge and experiences of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

37 Comments:

  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Design is based on our knowledge and experiences of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism."

    Okay.

    From experience, the source we see creating information today is MAN.


    Keep going for me, you're good at this..

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    From experience, the source we see creating information today is MAN.

    Is it?

    Geez man got the information on how to make paper by studying an insect. Man gets quite a bit of information from studying other organisms creating information.

    But anyways thanks for proving that you are ignorant of extrapolation- I believe we went over this already you willfully ignorant evotard...

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

    So in your example, Man does it. Thanks for supporting my argument. Now please, continue;

    From experience, the source we see creating information today is MAN.


    Keep going for me, you're good at this..

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    So in your example, Man does it.

    No. AGENCY does it. Man is an agency, just as all organisms are agencies.

    RichTard:
    From experience, the source we see creating information today is MAN.

    Nope. Try again.

    But anyways thanks for proving that you are ignorant of extrapolation- I believe we went over this already you willfully ignorant evotard...

     
  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap-

    We know what agencies can do with nature and we know what nature, operating freely can do- experience.

    We also know there isn't any reason to invoke agency involvement if we observe nature, operating freely producing the effect we once thought was due to agency-> Newton's first rule.

    So all RichTard and his ilk really have to do is start presenting the positive evidence for their position- nature didit- and ID falls.

    Obviously they can't do that. And even more obvious is they can't form a coherent argument against the design inference. Strange, that...

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, science needs to be more specific. "Something did something" doesn't help. So we need to specify. The only "agency" we've seen doing the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc", is man. So you need to be HONEST, and precise, and say man. Because that's the only example we have. and it is specific, unlike your jello version.

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe, science needs to be more specific.

    Umm YOUR position doesn't have any specifics.

    RichTard:
    "Something did something" doesn't help.

    Yet that is all your position has.

    OTOH we know from experience that saying an agency was involved changes the investigation- IOW it matters to science as that is one of science's three basic questions.

    RichTard:
    The only "agency" we've seen doing the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc", is man.

    Is it?

    But anyways thanks for proving that you are ignorant of extrapolation- I believe we went over this already you willfully ignorant evotard...

    By continuing to avoid that last, bolded sentence, you prove that you are a willfully ignorant fuck.

    YOU brought up extrapolations and now you are choking on it like you did your first load...

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wht are you trying to change the subject, Joe? Don't cry.

    again:


    From experience, the source we see creating information today is MAN.


    Keep going for me, you're good at this..

     
  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Wht are you trying to change the subject, Joe?

    Obviously you don't even understand the subject.

    RichTard repeats for no apparent reason:
    From experience, the source we see creating information today is MAN.

    Prove it.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Actually, YOU can disprove it by listing others, in the context of:

    The only "agency" we've seen doing the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc", is man.

    Falsify away.

    Don't cry. Someone was always going to make your jello analogy wobble at some point.

     
  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Obviously you don't even understand the subject.

    But anyways thanks for proving that you are ignorant of extrapolation- I believe we went over this already you willfully ignorant evotard...

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Yes, we're clear that the agency is MAN. and nothing more in your case. now feel free to extrapolate away, but for once try to be honest, and use "Man".

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am still waiting for you to support your claim:

    The only "agency" we've seen doing the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc", is man.

    It isn't up to me to disprove it.

    And then perhaps explain the relevance- if you can.

    And obviously you don't understand extrapolation...

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

    The claim:

    "The only "agency" we've seen doing the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc", is man."

    Is falsifiable. So we can take it is provisionally correct until you disconfirm it, which you can't.


    OMG, the designer is MAN.

     
  • At 6:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    The claim:

    "The only "agency" we've seen doing the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc", is man."

    Is falsifiable.


    It is unsupported. And strange how man gets information from other organisms. That alone falsifies your claim, moron.

    And obviously you don't understand extrapolation...

     
  • At 7:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And strange how man gets information from other organisms. That alone falsifies your claim, moron."

    No it doesn't. Nothing is getting designed without man, he is the principle cause.

    Finding badgers designing cars would falsify my claims, something like that. Have a go, if you can.

     
  • At 7:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And strange how man gets information from other organisms. That alone falsifies your claim, moron."

    RichTard:
    No it doesn't.

    Yes, it does.

    RichTard:
    Nothing is getting designed without man, he is the principle cause.

    Unsupported gibebrish.

    Richtard:
    Finding badgers designing cars would falsify my claims, something like that.

    Your claim is still unsupported.

     
  • At 7:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And obviously you don't understand extrapolation...

     
  • At 11:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    My claim is unsupported?

    Do we see man designing "the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc""

    Do we see anything else designing "the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc""

    ? If so, what?

    Sorry, your slight of hand "analogy' is transparent. You're not a good con artist.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    My claim is unsupported?

    Yes, it is.

    RichTard:
    Do we see man designing "the things you find incredible "building complex multi-part systems, etc etc""

    I don't find what man builds as being "incredible". You lose.

    RichTard:
    Sorry, your slight of hand "analogy' is transparent.

    Except it isn't an analogy, moron.

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Geez blind and undirected physical processes can't even produce something as simple as Stonehenge.

    And that tells reasonable people it doesn't have a chnce producing something as complex and intricate as a living organism...

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I don't find what man builds as being "incredible". You lose.

    Very good, design isn't that hard. Thanks for playing.

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Very good, design isn't that hard.

    It isn't for most intelligent agents. But for evotards design is very hard.

    And geez blind and undirected physical processes can't even produce something as simple as Stonehenge.

    And that tells reasonable people they don't have a chance producing something as complex and intricate as a living organism...

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks for playin'...

     
  • At 12:18 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It isn't for most intelligent agents'

    You mean it isn't hard for mankind.

    Thanks playing, less sophistry in the future, please.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It isn't for most intelligent agents. But for evotards design is very hard.

    And geez blind and undirected physical processes can't even produce something as simple as Stonehenge.

    And that tells reasonable people they don't have a chance producing something as complex and intricate as a living organism...

    Any sophistry is all yours, asshole loser.

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

    "And geez blind and undirected physical processes can't even produce something as simple as Stonehenge."

    And yet they can produce terrestrial fission reactors, something man could only do in the past 60 years.

    Man has yet to create a fusion reactor, which 'undirected physical processes' have created arounf 10^22 of them.

    Thanks for playing!

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    And yet they can produce terrestrial fission reactors,

    Question-begging fallacy, moron.

    RichTard:
    Man has yet to create a fusion reactor,

    A COLD-fussion reactor. man has yet to create a COLD fussion reactor.

    Man has created fussion reactions- just look at the H-bomb

    RichTard:
    which 'undirected physical processes' have created arounf 10^22 of them.

    And another question-begging fallacy.

    Thanks fer playin', moron

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you should learn what 'question begging' means. It's when you assume your premise in your conclusion. I made no conclusion, but simply stated well established facts.

    And changing 'reactor' to 'reactions' is more easily spotted dishonest Joe G behavior.

    What's the matter, not so keen on extrapolation and analogy any more?

     
  • At 6:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey moron, YOU are assuming the conclusion as no one knows if blind, undirected physical processes did what you said.

    RichTard:
    And changing 'reactor' to 'reactions' is more easily spotted dishonest Joe G behavior.

    Umm a reactor needs reactions, moron. And a hydrogen bomb is a fussion reactor in the same sense a star is.

    But anyway humans have made fussion reactors you ignorant fuck- look it up.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Umm a reactor needs reactions, moron. And a hydrogen bomb is a fussion reactor in the same sense a star is. "

    Except one is stable and lasts millions of years.

    Joe we know very well how stars form. We can see them in multiple places at various stages of formation and life.

    So to recap - nature does stuff man can't. And when you say "intelligent agency", you mean man. BUt you can't quite bring yourself to be that honest.

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe we know very well how stars form.

    No, we don't.

    Richtard:
    We can see them in multiple places at various stages of formation and life.

    Speculation sez that. And that doesn't mean we know they form via blind, undirected physical processes.

    RichTard:
    So to recap - nature does stuff man can't.

    To recap nature cannot produce itself meaning natural processes cannot account for nature.

    Richtard:
    And when you say "intelligent agency", you mean man.

    No, I don't as we know of many intelligent agencies on this planet alone, moron.

     
  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How can we test the claim that blind, undirected physical processes produced/ can produce a star?

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "How can we test the claim that blind, undirected physical processes produced/ can produce a star?"



    Look at a suffient mass of proximal matter.

     
  • At 11:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More question begging.

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "More question begging."

    Whilst 'we can learn how stars are formed by looking at star formation' seems tautological at first pass, we actually leave with something new: A theory of star formation.

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- Question begging- are we really observing star formation at all?

    2- Still nothing on blind and undirected processes- and more question begging- is gravity the result of blind, undirected processes?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home