Creationists

[newpolitics]

Anykind of language or communication is the result of an intelligent agent unless you can show otherwise this argument is dead.

Now you are trying to switch the burden of proof to those not making the claim. You do this because you can not prove your own, unfalsifiable claim, because your agument relies on inductive reasoning, which is invalid in science when making definitive conclusions. You have one... ONE example of a code made by an intelligence (and that intelligence is US), and you think this allows you to generalize to all other codes???? That's just lazy, and strangely narcissistic.

Really, I just gave you the chance to show us wrong and the argument continues but you are dead in the water if you can't show otherwise. Your argument is based on a vivid imagination if you can't show otherwise. This is not even an argument at this point.

I just refuted the basis for your argument. You don't have the ability to say "any kind of language is from an intelligent mind." This is a faulty premise. I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, since you are making the claim. I have falsified your premise, so your claim fails to stand on its own.

 

[newpolitics]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.

really? says who? how do you know this? This is unsubstantiated. In reality, simplicity is evidence of a designer.

 

[UltimateReality]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Anyone? Anything?

Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?

 

[newpolitics]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Anyone? Anything?

If you have not been showed evidence then explain how complexity arised from chaos with evidence please ?

This question is incoherent. Complexity doesn't arise from chaos. It arose from a number of things, none of them of which, are directly "chaos." It may have arisen in a universe, which itself tends towards entropy, but that says very little of the specific conditions in which life arose. In fact, it says almost nothing about it.

You are taking the term "chaos" out of context to make life seem more implausible. This is a dishonest creationist tactic.

 

[newpolitics]

It still holds true according to the evidence.

You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.

The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.

What? You make little sense.

The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.

WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.

 

[Hollie]

If you are walking down a beach and find a watch is it rational to pick that watch up and assume over billions of years, it formed itself ?

The watchmaker analogy? Old school.


We recognize what a watch is, and know who makes it (we do). This is false inductive reasoning again. Because we know that watches are designed, doesn't mean we can conclude that anything else that isn't man-made, is designed, such as the beach, the ocean, trees, etc... That's an unsound assumption.

It still holds true according to the evidence.

I'm surprised that Christian creationists even bother with your silly argument as it has been refuted more times than I can count.


The Analogical Argument follows the paradigm first asserted by William Paley in the 1600's. He asserted the following scenario: While walking through the woods, one sees a watch lying on the ground. Picking it up, one is struck by its intricacy and quickly concludes that this object is too complicated to have evolvedout of nothing; since reality is vastly more complicated than a simple watch,it therefore follows that nature itself has a vastly more complicated Designer. The first rebuttal to this argument is a repeat of the one above: Even if nature does display design, doesn't it follow that the Designer, vastly more complicated than that which it designs, should also have a Designer, and so on? After all, one is implying: • I find a watch which impliesa designer.

• I meet the watchmaker who is more complicated than the watch, hence the watchmaker must have a designer as well.

• Why do I stop assuming designers when I reach the watchmaker's designer?

Also, how does the watch imply its designer is still an existing entity? Suppose the same watch is found 300 years later. Even though the watch implies a designer,it would be foolish to assert that watchmaker was stillalive. Wecouldbefairly certain he was long dead.

It is true the watch impliesa designer,yet naturedoesnot imply thesameand herein lies the single most devastating element to the theist's analogical argument from design.

How do we know the watch is an artifice,and not simply yet anothernaturally occuring item lying in the woods? Why is it that we don't stop by every tree, flower, rock, blade of grass and pine cone, considering who might have created each, yet we stop at the watch and think, "Hmmm. Someone left a watch here..."?

Simply put, it is because the watch specifically displays attributes APART from that of nature that we know it is a designed item!

Said another way, man attributes design or artifice to an item because it displays properties that by definition set it apart from nature, which does not display any artificial attributes of any kind. We know the difference because the two are inherently different.

To say that nature and the watch are equally designed is to empty the word "design" of all meaning. It is to say we cannot distinguish between something created with a goal in sight (an artifice) from a tree (a naturally occuring object). No one sees a tree toppled from a storm or burned in a fire and claims,"That tree is broken". No one sees a broken watch and states, "That watch is dead" (they might use that phrasing in slang, but they do not mean it was once alive and now has no biological functions).

As it can easily be seen, the Christian creationist is forced into eradicating the context in which we can separate artifice from nature, and then turns around and compares the two having already destroyed it. On this one point alone the analogical argument from design topples into irrationality

 

[UltimateReality]

Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence. You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE.

The fact that something happened in the past doesn't mean you must only employ induction to make conclusions about it. In fact, the past has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. You can deductively ascertain conclusions about the past just as easily as you can about the present, or even the future. When forensics experts figure out who a killer was by using the evidence, they are not using inductive, but deductive reasoning.

While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.

This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true.

Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.

Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),[/QUOTE] Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.

 

[Hollie]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Complexity is evidence of a designer. Foreknowledge from the bible is also evidence of this designer.

Both statements are false and unsupportable.

 

[UltimateReality]

You just ignore what you can't address. I just refuted the watchmaker analogy. It has nothing to do with evidence, but faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. In other words, bad interpretations of the evidence.

The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.

What? You make little sense.

The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.

WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.

First, I need to clarify the BLIND watchmaker was your high priest Dawkin's book, and I agree, it is a stale argument. Your last paragraph shows you have no understanding of the analogy. In the analogy, it is assumed that the person who finds the watch does not know the origin of the watch.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.

This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true.

Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.

Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.[/QUOTE]
Oh my. The screaming Christian creationist is back with gargantuan pink fonts. Don't the fundies understand that Meyer's hack arguments self-refute?

 

[newpolitics]

Wrong!!! You still deny (or miss) the point that intelligence is the ONLY KNOWN SOURCE for complex, specifiable DIGITAL code or as Lyell put it, "causes presently in operation"!!! Meyers argument, just like the pseudoscience of evolution, has to be an inductive argument because it refers to an event that happened in the distant past. So no one is arguing that it is 100% absolute, like the foolish darwinists try to do, but unless new evidence comes to light, it is currently the best explanation for the source of digital code in dna.

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley.

This obvious and common example falsifies your point that the past=induction. Evolution DOES NOT USE INDUCTION TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS, as ID does. This is the vital difference. You keep on maintaining this erroneously. Evolution has actual evidence, which shows this model or theory to be correct, and which has PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY, and these predictions have been shown again and again, to be true.

Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.

Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.[/QUOTE]

You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.

 

[UltimateReality]

Please show me some actual proof of your creator. Not things that you think it created. The actual dude or dudess.

Please show me proof of Homer, not the book he created, but the actual dude.

 

[Hollie]

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley. Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.

Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.

You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.[/QUOTE]
What we're seeing is that the Christian creationists are forced to retreat into multiple variations of the "prove it isn't", argument. It's a failed tactic as the individual making a positive assertion of a position bears the burdenof proof.

In the realm of the Christian creationist, proof or evidence of gawds is nonexistent, thus their retreat into the "you can't disprove it", weasel.

 

[UltimateReality]

As I have shown, your first point is completely unimportant. You continually disregard this. I don't care what Lyell said. I barely know who he is, aside from him being Darwin's mentor, and it is not terribly important. You are making an appeal to authority and quote mining Lyell.

You obviously still don't understand what an inductive argument is, or inductive reasoning.

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley. Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog.

Example: Ring Species. Time is irrelevant to as whether induction versus deduction is used, so try and get that out of your head.

Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.

You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.

Okay, now you are just out right lying, which means my conversation with you is OVER. You have been PROVEN WRONG that the theory IS FALSIFIABLE, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.

 

[newpolitics]

The one using faulty reasoning is your side because you are doing exactly as the blind watch maker analogy suggests. You are saying chaos produced a lesser form of life then that lesser form of life produced even more complex life.

What? You make little sense.

The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.

WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.

First, I need to clarify the BLIND watchmaker was your high priest Dawkin's book, and I agree, it is a stale argument. Your last paragraph shows you have no understanding of the analogy. In the analogy, it is assumed that the person who finds the watch does not know the origin of the watch.

This analogy was not created by Darwin, if that is what you are asserting, and is what it sounded like. It was not included in Darwin's book as an original idea of his. It was an analogy put forth by William Paley's as a form of the teleological argument in 1802. Darwin provided a counter-argument in this in his book in 1859 with his theory of natural selection.

The fact that the person who finds the watch does not know the origin, is inconsequential. What is important is that the people reading the analogy do know this, which supposedly gives it its power, for those who find it re-affirming. The analogy breaks down because watches don't have the ability to procreate, as biological organisms do.

 

[newpolitics]

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley. Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog. Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.

You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.

Okay, now you are just out right lying, which means my conversation with you is OVER. You have been PROVEN WRONG that the theory IS FALSIFIABLE, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.

No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick. Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.

Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen? You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.

 

[Hollie]

Ummmm, no. That would be you. And you are also hopelessly lost in seeing the exact same shortcomings in your own materialistic religion driven beliefs about the TOE. While this is true, now you are really showing your huge ignorance as to how to apply the correct reasoning to events in the DISTANT past. Please go back and read the article I posted from the Paleontologist at Berkley. Wrong!! They just keep moving the goalposts so they can make it appear it has predictive power. Go back and read the two posts I linked to Cornelius' blog. Omigosh!! You really are completely confused. Seriously, go take a class or something. You are obviously not able to discern everything you read on the internet.

As for your last point, ID is not the best explanation at all for the source of digital code. Here you commit another argument from ignorance. We don't know how DNA was created, so you make an assertion, and because it hasnt been proven false (because it is unfalsifiable, disqualifying ID from being science),

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.

You can huff and puff, and write in huge pink lettering, all you want. You haven't said much in the way of proving your position or refuting my points.

I have not made any assertions about how DNA was created, so I can't be using an argument from ignorance. Abiogenesis doesn't have strong enough evidence at this point to make a conclusion one way or the other as to exactly how it happened. The difference is, we don't claim to. You do.

I don't need to provide you with an example of a complex, specifiable digital code that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source, as this wouldn't do anything to falsify your unfalsifiable claim. Here, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You need to show how DNA has an intelligent designer, and you can't do that.

Okay, now you are just out right lying, which means my conversation with you is OVER. You have been PROVEN WRONG that the theory IS FALSIFIABLE, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.

Good gawd, what a whiner. Still the Christian creationist cannot provide a single instance of a specifiable, designer gawd that doesn't have an intelligent agent as it's source.

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, I looked for an article to really lay out the differences in layman's terms between deductive and inductive reasoning, Good luck:

The Crime Scene: How Forensic Science Works - W. Mark Dale, Wendy S Becker - Google Books

 

[UltimateReality]

Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.



Okay, now you are just out right lying, which means my conversation with you is OVER. You have been PROVEN WRONG that the theory IS FALSIFIABLE, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.

No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick. Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.

Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen? You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.

You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.

For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.

 

[newpolitics]

No, I'm actually not lying, and if you accuse me again of lying, then you will have shown yourself to be a dishonest prick. Neither have you proven the unfalsifiable nature of ID to be incorrect.

Show me how ID is falsifiable. How would this happen? You just don't like the fact that i won't allow you to switch the burden of proof onto me. Again, even if we have thousands of examples of code that were non-intelligently created, that wouldn't falsify meyer's argument, and conversely, neither would thousands of examples of code that were intelligently created, prove his argument. That's because, the proposition is unfalsifiable, so providing examples of this is a total non-sequitur to the argument. You are demonstrating that fact that you are relying purely on inductive reasoning.

You're a liar and you don't understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. End of story.

For the rest of you that want to remain in an honest discussion, the bolded, pink sentence is the key to falsifying the theory.

Don't call me a liar you fucking asshole. Where do you get off just calling people a "liar" because you disagree with them. If I'm a liar, then so are you. You don't actually refute my points, you just call me a liar. That is being intellectually lazy and categorically immature.