ID, Bayesian inferences and the Priors of MN

Conversation Side Conversation
222

@Eddie,

I see the link … this morning I was using my Android … which very well could have had that link in there somewhere … but in my haste, I probably gave up too soon, and it was there all the time.

Firstly, the link to Behe’s discussion is a possible “goldmine” for understanding some of Behe’s use of terms. So you provide a real service to your readers when you dug that up and included it in your posting.

Secondly, that 2009 article by Behe looks like a tremendous “rabbit hole”!!!

It may be just what you say it is … but as I read on - - all the way to the end - - I could see that I was going to read that entire article 2 or 3 (or ten?) more times!

I’ll get back to you as soon as I understand exactly what he wrote … and not just what I think he wrote!

223

Why you imagine changes in my argument where none exist is a mystery.

224

I am here using “natural” as opposed to artificial, or created by humans (which are the only “intelligent designers” for whose existence evidence exists.) You are, of course, correct in saying that “design” is a natural, as opposed to supernatural, process. But the ID creationists keep insisting that the imaginary “designer” they keep talking about is not necessarily supernatural (Ha ha!) so let’s humour them.

225

Is this your claim? Odd as you appear to be criticizing your own claim.

226

Imaginary designer :slight_smile: Keep thinking in a circle and you will get dizzy.

227

Duh. What do you think, Bill?

228

He’s not imaginary? The ID movement have finally identified their “Designer”? How did I miss this momentuous announcement?

229

The imaginary label is a claim and at this point it is only defended by assertion. The ID guys do not identify a designer yet you surface the designer and label him imaginary. This is nothing but materialist spin.

You changed Eddie’s argument that is called a straw-man. More materialist spin.

230

Let me get this straight: You admit that the ID Creationists are not even able to identify this alleged “designer”, yet say I am not justified in therefore characterizing this unidentified designer as “imaginary”?

Hoo boy.

2 Likes
231

Yeah, we know how unable you are to follow a simple line of logic, But thanks for the reminder.

232

So because something is not identified it is imaginary. These dots do not connect.

1 Like
233

Do you admit you changed his argument or not. Your line of logic only applied to your straw-man. Why are you doubling down here?

234

“Official vocab guidelines state we no longer refer to these incidents as ‘accidents’, they’re now ‘collisions’ … ‘accident’ implies there’s nobody to blame.” - Nicholas Angel

In my experience, collisions are a combination of design (by driver) and law (motion, gravity).

235

I will save this quote for moments where ID supporters start talking about fossils and mutations that happened in the past.

1 Like
236

Oh, look. You changed my argument. How ironic.

I did not. You’re inability to comprehend the things you read is already well attested and not my problem.

237

Eddie’s quote.

Your statement of Eddies claim.

Do you claim these are the same?

238

You need to show that this logically follows to properly characterize it this way. Unidentified and imaginary are very different things.

239

My statement was not intended as re-statement of Eddie’s argument. That must be what is confusing you.

1 Like
240

I did not claim the one to be a logical entailment of the other. The fact that ID Creationists have not even identified the “designer” is part of the overall line of evidence that it is just imaginary.

You, OTOH, made the very bizarre argument that because ID Creationists do not identify the “designer”, I am unjustified in calling the designer imaginary. I can’t even begin to imagine what kind of “thinking” goes on in your head to make that argument.

241

Glad we cleared this up. Given Eddies statement why did you make the burden shift?