-
It is as if evotards have never designed nor built anything in their lives. Why is that, you say? Well for one just being involved in building a house you will see bulding standards at work. The studs of a wall will be 16" apart on center- building code/ standard.
Floor joists? The same OR 12" apart on center depending on the load the floor will carry. (yes some can be 24" apart, again depending on the floor's load- I have never seen that spacing).
IEEE? Standards that allow for different companys'equipment to work together.
What does this have to do with a common design? EVERYTHING.
The point being is a common design is one that uses the same standards to construct something. That is the same standards others used to construct something else.
Other examples would be plug-n-play electronics, PC clones, rail-road tracks, roads, bridges, etc. (Russia used a different standard for their rail road tracks forcing Germany to refit their rail road cars to ride on Russia's tracks- WWII)
How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard. It does not require only one designer. Just one set of design standards that must be followed.
"Living organisms were designed to the same or very similar standard."
ReplyDeleteList them please.
for starters:
ReplyDeleteGenetic code, DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins
And then there is:
ReplyDeleteUnified Physics Theory Explains Animals' Running, Flying And Swimming
These aren't 'standards'. That's like saying pebble and boulder follow the same standard, "Rock".
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
ReplyDeleteThese aren't 'standards'.
Sure they are.
RishTard:
That's like saying pebble and boulder follow the same standard, "Rock".
No it isn't.
"Arguing" evotard-style is easy...
The standard for DNA is that those components be arranged in a specified configuration.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes for all the rest.
To recap:
ReplyDeleteRichTard wanted me to list the standards.
I did-
The genetic code standard
the DNA standard
the RNA standard
the amino acid standard
the protein standard
I will add:
the enzyme standard
Then there are the physical laws- more standards.
Please show me some research on "the DNA standard" because I think Joe is making things up again.
ReplyDeleteTo recap -
Joe gets called out
Joe makes stuff up
Joe gets found out.
As predicyed Richtard cannot even grasp a simple concept.
ReplyDeleteAs I said:
It is as if evotards have never designed nor built anything in their lives.
To recap:
I put forth a concept explaining common design. RichTard, too stupid to understand the concept, spews evotardgasms as if they refute what I said.
Earth to Richtard- FIRST you need to demonstrate an understanding of the blog you are commenting on and THEN comment.
Oh, don't cry Joe, there there. It's okay.
ReplyDeleteJust show us some research on "the DNA standard" to prove your point.
Wah wah wah.
Umm pointing out your stupidity and ignorance is not crying.
ReplyDeleteThat you even ask of such a thing proves my point-> you are a clueless loser.
Sad, really...
Still waiting for "the DNA standard", Joe.
ReplyDeleteIsn't ID great!? And fool can assert gibberish, make up sciencey acronyms and feel like he's making a difference is some culture war predicated on religious nonsense.
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for "the DNA standard", Joe.
That doesn't even make any sense.
It was the standard used to design living organisms.
RichTard:
Isn't ID great!?
Yes it isd. It allows willfully ignorant evotards to spew evotardgasms as if it means something.
You don't even understand the point of the OP.
We have experience with standards in the way we build things- sharing/ using the same standards allows for/ causes similarities on different levels.
But again you don't have any design nor investogative experience, so you are ignorant of such things.
And you definitely never had an original thought in your life so when you encounter them you are forced to flail away.
So please, carry on.
"It was the standard used to design living organisms."
ReplyDeleteCircular reasoning much? The standard used to create living organisms is best describes as the standard used to design living organisms. Another ID insight!
"But again you don't have any design nor investogative experience, so you are ignorant of such things."
Actually you don't know what I may or may not have designed, what patents I may hold or have pending etc, and I'm not about to engage in such credentialism with a known fabricator of personas and 'facts'.
"And you definitely never had an original thought in your life" utter gibberish . We all have highly personal, unique lives and our thoughts reflect the interplay of many factors in them.
But I see IDists have branched into telepathy. Woo Woo.
"It was the standard used to design living organisms."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Circular reasoning much?
No, you just are too stupid to grasp what I am saying.
Richtard:
The standard used to create living organisms is best describes as the standard used to design living organisms.
Wrong- the use of standards is what explains the concept of common design.
RichTard:
Actually you don't know what I may or may not have designed, what patents I may hold or have pending etc, and I'm not about to engage in such credentialism with a known fabricator of personas and 'facts'.
Dude your posts speak for themselves. So either your are being dishonest and disingenuous or you are ignorant.
"And you definitely never had an original thought in your life"
RichTard:
utter gibberish
Again, it is all in your posts...
If one designer does not explain common design will it ever be possible to discern how many designers have existed/continue to exist through inference?
ReplyDeleteIs there a reason the designer is limited in scope to common design when conceivably they could design anything?
I can design a house specifically to meet the California building code....or I could make a house out of lego....or I could glue rubber bands together into the shape of a house. All are clearly products of my design, but none are so limited that they must follow common design.
Brent:
ReplyDeleteIf one designer does not explain common design will it ever be possible to discern how many designers have existed/continue to exist through inference?
What is the relevance of the question?
Brent:
Is there a reason the designer is limited in scope to common design when conceivably they could design anything?
Is it conceivable they could design anything? How do you know?
Brent:
or I could make a house out of lego.
Then do it.
or I could glue rubber bands together into the shape of a house.
Have fun. Let me know when you move in.
"Is it conceivable they could design anything? How do you know?"
ReplyDeleteTo me this is a large piece of evidence that the designer is not omnipotent and is much more likely ET.
My house example was poorly worded, but what it was meant to convey was that an omnipotent designer would only be limited in scope by its imagination and not constrained at all.
The limitations our designers had and reliance on similar morphologies is a big reason why baraminologists have never been able to build a coherent structure of relatedness.
The designers were so constrained by common design that many kinds of animal appear to be related by morphology even though we know that's impossible.
Brent:
ReplyDeleteMy house example was poorly worded, but what it was meant to convey was that an omnipotent designer would only be limited in scope by its imagination and not constrained at all.
Maybe, maybe not.
An omnipotent designer could still be constrained by the parameters of the design.
An omnipotent designer could still be constrained by the parameters of the design.
ReplyDeleteSomeone doesn't understand 'omnipotent'
An omnipotent designer could still be constrained by the parameters of the design.
ReplyDeleteRichtard:
Someone doesn't understand 'omnipotent'
I understand that you are impotent. As a matter of fact you are so impotent you walk around in a tux.
Have you and Blipey had tea yet? Did you hand him your documents?
ReplyDeleteRichTad:
ReplyDeleteHave you and Blipey had tea yet?
He is too chicken-shit to do as requested. Go figure...
"He is too chicken-shit to do as requested. Go figure..."
ReplyDeleteMore likely is wise to your lies of being where you're not. Which highlights who's really chicken-shit...
RichTard:
ReplyDeleteMore likely is wise to your lies of being where you're not.
What lies?
But anyway it is all moot because he has both admitted and proven that he is a scientifically illiterate clown and it is a waste of time trying to discuss serious scientific issues with him.
Also he sez he knows where I live.
ReplyDeleteThat means all he has to do is use that information to fulfill my request.
That he doesn't do so is more proof he is a waste of time.
"That means all he has to do is use that information to fulfill my request."
ReplyDeleteWell that looks like permission for him to come over. Well done Joe, you finally grew a pair.
"That means all he has to do is use that information to fulfill my request."
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
Well that looks like permission for him to come over.
Strange. My request is that he tells me when he is in the area (the area he thinks I live), tell me where he is staying and where is is performing.
But again it is all moot because he has both admitted and proven he is nothing but a waste of time. So I have moved on with my life. Apparently he, like you, is caught in some fantasy.
RichTard:
Well done Joe, you finally grew a pair.
Coming from a piece-of-shit lying coward like you that means a lot.
BWAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAA
"Apparently he, like you, is caught in some fantasy."
ReplyDeleteOh, that's precious. Should he ask for you at the empty parking lot, Joe / John / Jim?
But again it is all moot because he has both admitted and proven he is nothing but a waste of time. So I have moved on with my life. Apparently he, like you, is caught in some fantasy.
ReplyDeleteRichtard:
Oh, that's precious.
The "precious" part is that you are too stupid to understand it. The proof is in your drooling, meaningless response.
Richtard:
Should he ask for you at the empty parking lot, Joe / John / Jim?
As I said you are just too fucking moronic to have a clue:
1- Your imagination is meaningless and irrelevant to what you were trying to say.
2- I was there just a couple of days ago. Played pool just down the street. Hint- it ain't a parking lot, moron.
Its nice to see you pushing the boundaries of stupid again, Joe.
ReplyDelete1. lie
2. get caught
3. admit it
4. pretend 2 & 3 didn't happen.
So Joe, let us know what *is* there and how to contact the place to verify what you're saying is true.
More bluffing in 3....2...1....
RichTard,
ReplyDeleteNice projection.
1- You lie all the time
2- You get caught and called on it
3- You then try to change the subject
4- You always avoid the issue:
But again it is all moot because he has both admitted and proven he is nothing but a waste of time. So I have moved on with my life. Apparently he, like you, is caught in some fantasy.
IOW you are a piece-of-shit lying coward.
And I never said I was there all the time. I was there when I said so and I was there just last week.
But again it is all moot because he has both admitted and proven he is nothing but a waste of time. So I have moved on with my life. Apparently he, like you, is caught in some fantasy.