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

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Why Design is a Mechanism- For Still Clueless evoTARDs

-
Unbelieveable. In this day and age in which a dictionary is at your fingertips if you have access to the internet, and evoTARDs STILL choke on the meanings of words.

As with most words mecahnsim has several meanings. In the context of the ID vs. anti-ID debate, "mechanism" refers to a method or process for getting something done within a system or organization.



For example, in biology the anti-ID mechanism is "culled genetic accidents/ accumulations of random mutations". In contrast the ID position which posits there was a plan, a structure, a purpose, an intention- IOW some grand (or not so grand)  design.

Meaning organisms were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.
This is similar to the way GAs are used to solve problems. The GAs are DESIGNED to do so. So when someone needs an antenna to perform a specific task, writes a GA to do so, and it does it, that means it was done by design. The program was not just chugging along doing nothing but chughing along and then BOOM here's an antenna for a specific purpose.

Many of the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet used science as a way to understand that design. IOW for those who embrace ID they can only be as scientifically literate as those great scientists. Which is something I would wish on everyone.



OK mechanisms are a way of doing things. We can do things by design or we can do things willy-nilly. Both are mechanisms in this sense- the sense that the word is being used in this debate.

So why is it that evoTARDs have such difficulty with words?

36 Comments:

  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Magic" must also be a mechanism then, Joe. Same level of detail. ;-)


    Now go and suck KF off again, there's a good boy.

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

    Yes, magic and your position have quite a bit in common, including the same level of detail.

    And sucking is what you do best, cupcake circle-jerker

     
  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Design is a mechanism! It's clear the world is talking fabrication, not conceptualization, you question begging tard. You can replace 'design' with 'magic' in your posts and get the same level of who/what/why/when/how detail. And you know this.

     
  • At 7:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According to the definitions, design is a mechanism. And design refers to both, fabrication and conceptualization you ignorant fuck.

    I know I can replace your position's mecahnsim with magic and nothing will be changed.

    Only a moron would think design = magic, and here you are.

     
  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    And you accuse people of being equivocators. Priceless!

     
  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You can replace 'design' with 'magic' in your posts and get the same level of who/what/why/when/how detail. And you know this.

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What's the equivocation? Please make your case if you can you fucking worthless piece of shit.

     
  • At 8:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie,

    You can replace natural selection with 'magic' in your posts and get the same level of who/what/why/when/how detail.

     
  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And still only an ignorant faggot would say design = magic, and here you are, again.

     
  • At 8:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I said:

    You can replace 'design' with 'magic' in your posts and get the same level of who/what/why/when/how detail. And you know this.


    Because they do have the same explanitory power: zero.

    And to show what a know-nothing you are:

    “ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.” - Dembski.

     
  • At 8:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm saying something was designed completely changes the investigation you ignorant fuck.

    Heck as far as we know Stonehenge was created by magic and saying Stonehenge was designed added quite a bit to our knowledge base and drove investigations.

    And nothing I have said contradicts what Dembski said. IOW all you are doing is proving that you are an ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I said:

    You can replace natural selection with 'magic' in your posts and get the same level of who/what/why/when/how detail.

    That is because they do have the same explanatory power- zero.

     
  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Lenski, and the rational world know otherwise.

     
  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    And to show what a know-nothing you are:

    “ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.” - Dembski.

     
  • At 8:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm Lenski didn't do anything wrt natural selection, dumbass.

    And nothing I have said contradicts what Dembski said. IOW all you are doing is proving that you are an ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 8:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.” - Dembski.


    That is true. But that does NOT mean that 1- design is not a mechansim nor 2- we cannot propose specific design mechanisms.

    But obvioulsy you are too fucking stupid to understand that.

     
  • At 8:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What gibberish - design is not a mechanistic theory but design is a mechanism. Really? You are lord of the tards.

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again, asshole-

    Intelligent Design is not a mechanistic theory but design is a mechanism because the definitions say it is.

    Again don't blame me because you are too stupid to understand the definitions of words.

    How the fuck do you communicate?

     
  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Intelligent Design is not a mechanistic theory but that does NOT mean that 1- design is not a mechansim or 2- we cannot propose specific design mechanisms.

    But obvioulsy you are too fucking stupid to understand that.

     
  • At 8:46 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Only a tard like you could proffer such self contradictory nonsense. You've disagreed with dembski shit for brains. Deal with it.

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is only contradictory to a tard like yourself. And no, I have not disagreed with dembski pertaining to this- design is a mecahnsim.

    That you think so proves that you are a clueless loser, still.

     
  • At 8:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “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

     
  • At 9:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So to be clear, ID is a non mechanistic theory with a mechanism (design). The mechanism that supports the theory IS The theory. Well done!

     
  • At 9:12 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID is not a mechanistic theory" - and the above Qoute shows you need 'design' BEFORE you can search for a mechanism, dipshit!

     
  • At 9:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So before we can search for a mechanism, we need to establish design - but design is a mechanism! Tell us more!

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

    So to be clear, RichTARD Hughes is too stupid to use a dictionary and he thinks his ignorance is a refutation.

    Intelligent Design is not a mechanistic theory but that does NOT mean that 1- design is not a mechansim or 2- we cannot propose specific design mechanisms.

    But obvioulsy you are too fucking stupid to understand that.

    What Richie dumbass doesn't understand is when we say ID is not a mechansitic theory we mean that we do not have to know the specific design mechansims used BEFORE we can infer design.

     
  • At 9:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Adress the points above. Youve painted yourself into a corner, idiot.

     
  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie, you ignorant little faggot, you haven't made any points that need to be addressed.

    You are just upset because you cannot understand what dictionaries say.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger southstar said…

    I'm sorry what is the mechanism by which the CIT+ e.colli were the majority if not through natural selection?

    Please identify the physical mechanism that acted instead of natural selection and as a bonus please show us how it works.

    thanks

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    southstar,

    If you think natural selection donedidit, then make the case.

    Thanks

     
  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger Hans said…

    I think IDers need to investigate further into what exactly "design" means, since by the same reasoning the author defines "mechanism" one can also define "design." In both cases, context is crucial and we all know that IDers love to take things out of context. "Design" in nature simply implies the form an organism assumes and not that it was designed by a "blueprint" which suggests intention. It came into existence because of a long line of ancestors and their history can be read in the genes of extant species. When you look at this history you see a series of adaptations and changes that were useful when they arose and may or may not be useful anymore. That information is encoded in genomes as well, as well as in the fossil record, and quite often these data are used as evidence that evolution occurred. You just need to know where to look.

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

    Nice story Hans. Unfortunately there isn't any evidence that nature can design anything, let alone design itself.

    BTW, that form that organisms take, doesn't appear to be written in the genome.

     
  • At 12:15 AM, Blogger Hans said…

    Hello Joe, it's interesting you would jump to that conclusion so hurriedly. If you wish to go there, then, the form that organisms take is written embryologically, which means that when the organism is developing in the womb its cells know where to go and what to do. Incidentally, human fetuses look so remarkably similar to fetuses of other species, such as fish, and that is not a coincidence either.

    Btw, I read evidence every day; it's everywhere. what are you not seeing? And where is your evidence?

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What conclusion did I jump to so hurriedly? Please be specific.

    If you wish to go there, then, the form that organisms take is written embryologically

    Prove it.

    which means that when the organism is developing in the womb its cells know where to go and what to do.

    How do they know where to go and what to do?

    Incidentally, human fetuses look so remarkably similar to fetuses of other species, such as fish, and that is not a coincidence either.

    Actually there is only one satge in which embryos look similar. And no fetus loks limke an adult of another species, including fish.

    Dod you know that the gut- which is pretty much the same throughout vertebrates- forms DIFFERENTLY during development?

     
  • At 1:31 AM, Blogger Hans said…

    Hello Joe, I'd be delighted to but you first. No need for me to go through the effort if you won't. (Why do I have to ask twice anyway?) And you need not quote Dembski, either, since he preaches pseudoscience.

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

    Me first, what?

    And your entire position is pseudoscience.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home