Yes, even compared to that the string I typed is of greater purpose.
1 Like
Wow what a string 
Nitpick: they’re not always more advanced.
The issue we were discussing is whether one need to answer the who and how questions in order to legitimately draw a design inference. I think my story of the Stone Age man encountering an iPhone or a mountain bike establish that this is not the case. But I could also have cited SETI to establish the same point. And I am pretty sure that other participants here could also establish the point with their own scenarios/stories.
It established more or less the opposite.
More interestingly, when asked what your stone age man would have thought of a coconut or a kangaroo, you admitted that they would have not inferred design in them. And yet any other day you would insist that everything, and most especially living organisms, are designed. So at best your cave man’s intuitions are unreliable even to confirm your own desired results. Not that any attempt had been made to argue why anyone should care for them in the first place.
6 Likes
SETI won’t support your point in part because SETI involves hypothesizing different means of how an alien civilization would transmit signals as part of the signal detection process.
As we established earlier, ID proponents shy away from asking “how”.
2 Likes
Indeed. And it is also requires knowledge of what sort of signal patterns are produced by natural phenomena. The assumption is that an extraterrestrial civilization would use technology much like ours to emit radio signals.
3 Likes
No, the assertion was supported in detail, something you never do.
Since you are unable to provide a single objective criterion, what’s wrong with that?
Yours does not appear to be capable of doing it at all. All you have are vague, bald, subjective assertions.
I don’t see how that would work.
Humans SHOULD deny any such inference when it is not supported by objective criteria.
But you avoid evidence, Bill.
If you’re completely unwilling to examine any evidence for yourself, you have no basis for any opinion on evidentiary solidity.
So the question is, why all of this babbling about evidence, when the reality is that you have zero confidence in your own ability to evaluate any? Why is everything rhetorical?
There’s a perfect example of avoidance. Pattern recognition is not evidence.
3 Likes
You don’t like the design argument as it does not match your ideal that God does not tinker. The argument is independent of this and can frame science with a better overall model. We all have the same evidence to look at. Your over playing your hand on the repeated evidence is everything claim.
See, you’re nothing if not predictable. You hop around between “theory,” “argument,” and “inference” as though they are the same thing. They aren’t.
The “design argument” isn’t supported by evidence, and you know it, so you avoid evidence and misrepresent things that are not evidence as evidence. As in:
That’s gibberish. We’ve also established that you don’t know what “model” means. I’ve never, ever seen anyone else refer to framing science with any model whatsoever.
Again, why all of this babbling about evidence, when the reality is that you have zero confidence in your own ability to evaluate any? Why is everything rhetorical?
We do, but you refuse to look at any real evidence. On some level, you’re aware that you have no evidentiary basis for any of your assertions.
Speaking of looking at evidence, have you used the free tools and sequence databases to look at any of the evidence for nested hierarchy?
2 Likes
291 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic
19 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Argument Clinic