RichTARD Hughes- A "Challenge" Based on Ignorance
It never fails- ask evoTARDs to support the claims of evolutionism and instead of doing that they spew evoTARDgasms. Enter RichTARD Hughes, AKA Captain Coward. Ya see kairosfocus has issued a challenge to evoTARDs asking them to support blind watchmaker evolution. The point is is bwe is a bottom-up approach that posits incremental steps. That is the nature of the beast so it is up to its supporters to provide the evidence to support that claim.
In contrast there is Intelligent Design, which is a top-down approach. It does not posit anything about the designer(s) except that at least one existed. It does not posit how the design came to be. The who, how, why, where and when all come AFTER design is detected and studied.
Back to the ignorant fuck RichTARD Hughes who is obvioulsy too much of a coward to actually respond to KF by supporting bwe. Instead RichTARD sez:
KF is of course free to set the bar for his personal satisfaction at whatever pathetic level of detail he requires, but given that he’s often accused of being a massive hypocrite I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide us with a corresponding ID narrative.
I mean, ID isn’t just a negative case against Evolution, is it?
Things I’m sure he’s eager to include:
Who is / was the designer?
What was their motivation(s)?
What was their method of fabrication?
How many design interventions were there?
What specifically was designed?
What specifically wasn’t designed?
Please feel free to add your questions in the comments. I’d ask that if math is invoked for any design justification then in is comprehensively completed and not just talked about in a big numbers / hand-wavy sort of way. Any new concepts you bring to the table must be empirically tested rigorously so we can attest to their design detection capabilities. Thanks in advance KF, we know you’ll engage us in good faith and we’re eager to have productive dialogue.
Where to even start- 1- As I said ID doesn't require a corresponding narrative as ID does not posit the same thing that bwe does
2- ID is not anti-evolution so no, it is not a "negative case against" (wtf is that? double-negative) evolution. ID is anti-bwe having sole domion over evolutionary processes. IOW Richie is totally ignorant of ID and very proud of it. And I have already proven to Richie that ID is more than an argument against something.
3- Who the designer is is irrelevant to ID.
4- Motivation is irrelevant to ID.
5- Methodology of manufacture is irrelevant to ID
6- How many design interventions is irrelevant to ID
All of those come AFTER detecting and studying the design and all relevant evidence. And guess what? THAT is exactly how it goes with archaeology and forensic science. And yes, SETI too.
As for what was and wasn't designed, well that is what science is for, dumbass. Unlike you cowards we have provided a methodology for making such determinations.
IOW there isn't having any productive dialog with a willfully ignorant shit-eating cowards like RichTARD Hughes and the rest of the cowardly minions of the septic zone.
The sad part is Richie and the other evoTARDs only attack ID because they can't support their position's claims. If they could then ID would be a non-starter as ID claims blind physical processes are not up to the task.
The RichTARD does prove that ID is not a scientific dead-end as it is obvious the design inference opens up new questions that we will attempt to answer via scientific investigation.
LoL@ RichTARD's confusion. Wm Dembski, in "No Free Lunch" says your first four questions are irrelevant wrt Intelligent Design. Wm Dembski and the others have limited ID to the detection and study of design. It's as if you are really proud to be an ignorant ass.