ID, Bayesian inferences and the Priors of MN

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

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’re completely unjustified. This is materialist spin that has been going on for 30 years as I watch the debates.

The burden is on you to show that the design comes from an imaginary designer as your opponent has not even mentioned the designer.

@Faizal_Ali

I can’t even begin to imagine what kind of “thinking” goes on in your head to make that argument.

By labeling the designer imaginary you are assuming your conclusion without support as unidentified does not support the claim of imaginary. This is circular reasoning by use of a label.

@Faizal_Ali

. I can’t even begin to imagine what kind of “thinking” goes on in your head to make that argument.

An argument from personal incredulity. You are using all the fallacies available.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The burden is on you to show that the design comes from an imaginary designer as your opponent has not even mentioned the designer.

Sorry Bill the burden is on you to show your “design” in biological life actually exists. An imaginary designer is a perfectly logical assumption when dealing with an imaginary design.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Sorry Bill the burden is on you to show your “design” in biological life actually exists. An imaginary designer is a perfectly logical assumption when dealing with an imaginary design.

Again, nice assertion. The burden is always on both sides. A burden shift is a logical fallacy.

Eddie did a great job showing evidence of design and I have not seen any competent counter argument yet.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

The burden is always on both sides.

No Bill, the burden is on the side making the positive claim. You claim biological life is designed, you supply the positive evidence. Evolutionary theory has 150+ years of consilient positive evidence from dozens of scientific disciplines.

@colewd

Eddie did a great job showing evidence of design

LOL! Sure he did Bill. That’s why he has a Nobel prize and is world famous, because he showed biological life is designed.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

LOL! Sure he did Bill. That’s why he has a Nobel prize and is world famous, because he showed biological life is designed.

Tim, you are changing the argument by changing the language. I said evidence you said is. This changes the meaning and is another logical fallacy.

Let me repeat Eddie did a great job showing evidence of design which supports Ashwin’s original claim.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Let me repeat Eddie did a great job showing evidence of design

Let me repeat: LOL! Sure he did Bill. That’s why he has a Nobel prize and is world famous, because he showed positive evidence biological life is designed.

Maybe the problem is what you consider “evidence” and what scientifically literate people consider evidence are extremely different things.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Maybe the problem is what you consider “evidence” and what scientifically literate people consider evidence are extremely different things.

Nice assertion. Well someday we may get an argument out of you

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Nice assertion. Well someday we may get an argument out of you

We’ll never get any positive evidence for the design of biological life from you.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

We’ll never get any positive evidence for the design of biological life from you.

I know. I suck but thankfully Eddie is hitting it out of the ballpark.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

I know. I suck but thankfully Eddie is hitting it out of the ballpark.

All we have heard from Eddie is, “it looks designed”. That’s not what scientists consider evidence.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

All we have heard from Eddie is, “it looks designed”. That’s not what scientists consider evidence.

I heard a lot more than that. I suggest you open your ears a little

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

I heard a lot more than that. I suggest you open your ears a little

This is the usual type of response we get. Allusions to evidence, but no actual evidence. Eddie claimed there was tons of evidence in Denton’s book, but couldn’t describe any of it. You claim that Eddie has presented evidence, yet can’t cite any of it.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

The burden is on you to show that the design comes from an imaginary designer as your opponent has not even mentioned the designer.

You are very confused. I reject the very idea of “design” in biology, never mind that of some non-biological “designer.” So why would I have any burden to support claims that I reject?

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

An argument from personal incredulity.

Hee hee. Not even remotely close. I don’t think you even know what an argument is. You seem to be using the term for all sorts of not-arguments.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

You are very confused. I reject the very idea of “design” in biology, never mind that of some non-biological “designer.” So why would I have any burden to support claims that I reject?

If you want to argue the point you need to. You reject the idea of design in biology but you are struggling to persuade anyone not already committed to this position.

How do you explain the origin of novelty generated by novel sequences? Why don’t you start with the spliceosome. Random alterations of type 2 introns?

Maybe you just reject out of hand because it does not support your world view yet you cannot defend your position. If this is the case why try and argue your position.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

Hee hee. Not even remotely close. I don’t think you even know what an argument is. You seem to be using the term for all sorts of not-arguments.

Well at this point don’t think you do either but that’s what makes a market

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

You claim that Eddie has presented evidence, yet can’t cite any of it.

Eddie has written hundreds if not thousands of words on the subject and you try to synthesize it to 3 words. Give me a break.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Eddie has written hundreds if not thousands of words on the subject and you try to synthesize it to 3 words. Give me a break.

Allusions to evidence, but no actual evidence.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

How do you explain the origin of novelty generated by novel sequences? Why don’t you start with the spliceosome. Random alterations of type 2 introns?

Who had #256 in the “Bill complains about the spliceosome again” pool?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Allusions to evidence, but no actual evidence.

The evidence and argument is all over this discussion you read it but apparently did not comprehend it. Your just selling against the design argument and if I was in your profession I might do the same thing but would not feel good about the hypocrisy I was a part of.