# Universal Common Designer theory \[UPDATED and REVISED\]

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [August 29, 2021, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182 "2021-08-29T01:46:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 60

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 6:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/60 "2021-09-09T18:28:04Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > - **Neither** of these papers make _any mention at all_ of digital information.
> > 
> > > - **Neither** of these papers claim that consciousness is non-local.
> > > - The first paper is a quantum experiment dealing with a single photon.
> > > - The closest the second paper comes is when it states:
> 
> Okay then, I guess I fail at complying with YOUR rules in (A). What about B,C, and D though?

@Meerkat_SK5, please **CEASE AND DESIST** quoting me out of context.

I **explicitly** prefaced that comment with:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Okay, let me take your latest (A), **not** as an individual error, but as an **example** of a pervasive pattern of behavior:

Therefore I have already answered your question:

“What about B,C, and D though?”

What I clearly meant was that the same problem applies to those three claims that I identified with (A), the [same problem](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/4) I identified with [your first post](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182), the [same problem](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/12) I identified in [your revised post](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/11), the same problem @John_Harshman has identified in your recent posts on [this thread](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-current-status-of-ewerts-dependency-graph-of-life/3735).

**Your citations do not substantiate you claims.**

As I said above:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> I have _no interest whatsoever_ in playing _further_ whack-a-mole with them.

So I will not provide “detailed” explanations as to why more of your endless supply of claims _are not substantiated_ by your citations. Suffice it to say, they are of the form: “You claim X, your cited sources do not mention X.”

Finally, I would note that these are not “[MY] rules”, they are rules that appear to be understood by everybody except you on this thread, and appear to be ubiquitous in every form of scholarship I have come across. That you, an apologist, do not appear to consider yourself to be bound by these rules, I see as further evidence that _apologetics is not a form of serious scholarship_

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182)._