Creationists

[newpolitics]

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

You've demonstrated that:

1.) You can use google
2.) You can read
3.) You can copy and paste links

That's about it.

I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is. The article you posted only confirmed what I already knew, and nothing contradicted what I have been saying.

 

[newpolitics]

Trying to say that all code must be made by an intelligence, because we have one example of a code made by an intelligence, is using inductive reasoning. You are taking a specific example, and generalizing it to all possible examples, and then applying this generalization back down to a specific code for which the origin is unknown. This is completely fallacious, because you have not established that all code must be created by a designer. All you have is intuition, which isn't good enough for science when reasoning deductively to form a conclusion. Because you can not validate your inductive step going from digital code to all codes, you can not validate ID.

 

[Hollie]

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.

It's clearly presumptive and dishonest for you to decide what an honest conversation is. It is also presumptive and dishonest to demand that your gawds are necessarily "proven" by Meyer's specious claims. Meyer presents no theory in connection with the scientific method and no theory that a scientist would accept as valid.

All the gargantuan pink fonts you care to post will not rescue a Christian creationist claim that begs its conclusion

 

[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.

Mere assertions which are demonstrably false. I have demonstrated you to be a complete buffoon when it comes to these ideas. All you do and kick and scream and call people "liars" because you're reasoning is invalid, and you have consigned yourself to being a dishonest prick with this little move.

I'll state it again: you have no basis for saying all codes are made by an intelligence. This kind of inductive reasoning has not been proven to be reliable.

 

[ima]

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?

I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.

 

[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

You've demonstrated that:

1.) You can use google
2.) You can read
3.) You can copy and paste links

That's about it.

I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is.

I just said this to you a few posts back so nice parroting. However, you arguments against Meyers theory and comparisons to crime scenes do show a lack of understanding of inductive reasoning on your part, whether you choose to admit it or not.

 

[UltimateReality]

Anyone? Anything?

Have you been following the thread for the DNA argument?

I'm asking for actual proof of the guy whom you think made DNA, until then, random process cannot be excluded, you weren't there to see that it didn't happen that way.

Random processes have been excluded by probabilistic arguments until someone comes up with something different than it "just happened" in the ocean or a warm little pond or next to an ocean vent.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Mere assertions which are demonstrably false. I have demonstrated you to be a complete buffoon when it comes to these ideas. All you do and kick and scream and call people "liars" because you're reasoning is invalid, and you have consigned yourself to being a dishonest prick with this little move.

I'll state it again: you have no basis for saying all codes are made by an intelligence. This kind of inductive reasoning has not been proven to be reliable.

Even when presented with evidence to the contrary by what is assuredly a biased source to your side, i.e., the Berkley article, you still kick and scream and deny. What makes you more qualified to speak on the topic than a Paleontologist from Berkley, surfing the internet?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anyone? Anything?

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

That's not what I asked. I asked for proof of your guy, not some philosophical bs. So what if I can't show you that? It still doesn't prove anything that I can't explain your irrelevant question, because you have nothing to prove your guy anyways.

You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

What do you think the enviornment was like after the big bang ?

 

[UltimateReality]

Trying to say that all code must be made by an intelligence, because we have one example of a code made by an intelligence, is using inductive reasoning. You are taking a specific example, and generalizing it to all possible examples, and then applying this generalization back down to a specific code for which the origin is unknown. This is completely fallacious, because you have not established that all code must be created by a designer. All you have is intuition, which isn't good enough for science when reasoning deductively to form a conclusion. Because you can not validate your inductive step going from digital code to all codes, you can not validate ID.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again and continue to reveal your lack of understanding of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning defaults to the best explanation based on causes presently in operation in the case of the historical sciences. So the hypothesis stands for now because we HAVE ESTABLISHED there are no other modern sources for complex, specifiable, digital code. Until you find another source, intelligence stands as the best explanation. This reasoning is no different than that applied to the TOE. This is what you can't seem to understand either. Yet you put your faith in the TOE, and scream fallacy for Meyer's argument. Checkmate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?

 

[newpolitics]

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

You've demonstrated that:

1.) You can use google
2.) You can read
3.) You can copy and paste links

That's about it.

I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is.

I just said this to you a few posts back so nice parroting. However, you arguments against Meyers theory and comparisons to crime scenes do show a lack of understanding of inductive reasoning on your part, whether you choose to admit it or not.

You said, what? Try to be a little more specific.

You keep on making these assertions without showing how. It's completely pointless and annoying. Obviously this is your opinion that I don't understand inductive reasoning, but this is simply a baseless reversal on your part. Quoting an article doesn't demonstrate that I don't understand inductive reasoning when the article you cited confirms what I've been saying, and further condemns your position.

Why don't you explain how the article you cited shows how I don't understand inductive reasoning? If you can do that, then maybe you'd have something. Until then, keep it to yourself.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Mere assertions which are demonstrably false. I have demonstrated you to be a complete buffoon when it comes to these ideas. All you do and kick and scream and call people "liars" because you're reasoning is invalid, and you have consigned yourself to being a dishonest prick with this little move.

I'll state it again: you have no basis for saying all codes are made by an intelligence. This kind of inductive reasoning has not been proven to be reliable.

I knew I could get you to throw a temper tantrum if I called you a liar. Don't be so easily manipulated by strangers on the internet. It isn't healthy.

That doesn't change the fact that you are not being truthful and playing games when you back yourself into a corner you can't escape from without denying the truth or changing the argument.

 

[UltimateReality]

You've demonstrated that:

1.) You can use google
2.) You can read
3.) You can copy and paste links

That's about it.

I've studied syllogistic logic on my own, and have a firm grasp of what inductive and deductive reasoning are. It is evidently clear that you have zero idea what these are. You are basically using an ad hominem attack now to try and attack my credibility on this matter. Which would actually be okay, if you had demonstrated any understanding of what inductive and deductive reasoning is.

I just said this to you a few posts back so nice parroting. However, you arguments against Meyers theory and comparisons to crime scenes do show a lack of understanding of inductive reasoning on your part, whether you choose to admit it or not.

You said, what? Try to be a little more specific.

You keep on making these assertions without showing how. It's completely pointless and annoying. Obviously this is your opinion that I don't understand inductive reasoning, but this is simply a baseless reversal on your part. Quoting an article doesn't demonstrate that I don't understand inductive reasoning when the article you cited confirms what I've been saying.

Told you you had no understanding of induction and deduction. The reversal was all you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?

You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.

 

[newpolitics]

f

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.

Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?

I don't rule anything out. If there was somehow evidence of an intelligent designer, I would consider it. However, considering you have no evidence of this unseen designer, and it possesses no ontology, it is a useless concept which is merely used to disguise your creationism, and as of yet, there has not been a single supernatural cause witnessed in this universe that there is evidence of. So, I am justified in maintaining metaphysical naturalism, even though, admittedly, this is inductively derived. Unlike UR, I have no problem admitting this.

It is your confirmation bias that leads you and UR to interpret these attributes of DNA as necessarily having been created by an intelligence, since, ou already contain the premise that an intelligent creator created everything when you beleive in the christian god. This is why, I can only guess, you think ID is even remotely convincing: it would confirm a view you already hold. How wonderful.

Complexity does not have anything to do with a designer, until you prove it does. Citing a specific example does not prove this, generally, only specifically, which leaves you where you started.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.

It's a new tactic to his creepy stalking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?

You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.

By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.