what does your therapist say? will you be allowed visits soon? smoking is a thing of the past now, perhaps they should allow you out... in a carefully controlled (designed) environment first, and then in the real world maybe...
{auto-response auto-repeat mode} Teleoliar - what exactly is your 'empirical data' which supports your 'theory' of intelligently designed cells? Why doesn't the ID/Creationist movement make that 'empirical data' public if it exists?
TraderNik: No, it's my point that's been proven. I said that you ask for evidence of ID but you will only accept absolute proof of ID. You didn't deny it.
{auto-response auto-repeat mode} Teleoliar - what exactly is your 'empirical data' which supports your 'theory' of intelligently designed cells? Why doesn't the ID/Creationist movement make that 'empirical data' public if it exists?
Nonsense. I deny it categorically. It was so ridiculous that I didn't feel it was worth commenting on. You said you had empirical evidence which led you to the inference that the first cells were designed. Examining the evidence is the first step in a series of steps which will hopefully lead to the truth. I have never once claimed incontrovertible proof of evolution. From the first pages I have consistently and simply asked for the evidence of ID. When you said that you had empirical data that led to the inference that the first cells were designed, it was the first I had heard of any concrete evidence in this thread. So I asked you "Please let me know what this 'empirical data' consists of. Either describe the research or at least give me a link to it so that I can check it out myself." And what did you do? You said to me "I am not going to bother giving it to you because you won't believe it". Your credibility, already weakened after the kjkent debacle in which he showed that you were citing authors whom you had never read, is now almost completely gone, after claiming to have 'empirical data' which supported your assertions and, having been challenged to provide it, attempting to weasel your way out if it with obfuscation and evasions. I resent the implication that I would dismiss solid empirical data that the first cells were designed by an intelligent designer. I would in fact be very interested to see such data, as it might challenge some of my beliefs. Something tells me, however, that I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to provide it. Teleologist: I have proof that pigs have wings The Rest of Us: Really?? Wow, that's amazing! What is the proof?? Teleologist: I'm not going to tell you because you wouldn't believe it. But I am telling you this - pigs have wings. The Rest of Us: Well, that's helpful. Thread Closed.
TraderNik: Followed by this question: who designed the designer? That there is data from the natural world that warrants a design inference is indisputable. Even atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes this. He says: The ID critics here are advocates of the designer-centric approach. That is, we can't ever hope to detect/infer design without having independent knowledge of the designers and their methods. Of course, I think the designer-centric approach is confused. Specifically, while independent knowledge of the designers and their methods will make a design inference easier, and also make it easier to reach a consensus, I do not think such knowledge is necessary. It all depends on what one is trying to extract from the data of the physical world. Are we trying to establish certainty and reach consensus? If so, perhaps there is something solid to the designer-centric approach. Are we trying to conduct a tentative investigation? If so, the designer-centric approach is not necessary. The main point is how we would go about inferring design without independent evidence of the designers and their methods. Those of the designer-centric school of thought have given up without ever really trying. Here's a quote from a design theorist concerning this:
How convenient that you overlooked many posts in this thread pointing out to you the difference between "appearing to be designed" and "indisputable design inference." Are you really that dumb to not know the difference?
No. You can say it 1000 times but it won't become true. I am not the one who brought up the 'who designed the designer' point in this thread. All I am asking you is this. You said your inference that the first cells were designed was based on empirical data. Can you either describe the research to which you refer or provide a link to a description so that I can check it out? This is the first mention of empirical data that I have seen in this thread, and since it's evidentiary empirical data that we have been asking for the whole time, I don't think it's too outrageous to ask for the details when someone finally claims that they have it.
{auto-response auto-repeat mode} Teleoliar - what exactly is your 'empirical data' which supports your 'theory' of intelligently designed cells? Why doesn't the ID/Creationist movement make that 'empirical data' public if it exists?
James bond: Are you really so stupid that you don't know the difference between inference and proof? If one could see the designer designing one would have proof of design. There would be no need to infer it.