Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 279 of 373 (647142)
01-08-2012 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Insults is your best quality.
You may have found it insulting. It's also true: you haven't been making much sense these past few posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 291 of 373 (647218)
01-08-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 12:58 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
But this is nonsense which we have already kicked to pieces.
Real scientists do not, and indeed could not, detect design with reference to your vague waffle about specificity. I have told you how they do it ...
Here I think I was confusing Jbr with SavageD, and so overestimating the degree to which Jbr has been exposed to reality. My impatience with him was therefore not entirely warranted, and I apologize if I was unnecessarily testy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 12:58 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 305 of 373 (647291)
01-09-2012 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Don't twist my words. I said that things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern (specificity), are the product only of an intelligent source.
With you so far, since you can't have intention without thought.
I clearly defined how such specificity is commonly detected in science.
Commonly, in science, DNA is not attributed to an intelligent source. What you need is obviously something different from what scientists are doing.
And it is not clear that you have defined what this new method is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 322 of 373 (647849)
01-11-2012 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Just being real
01-11-2012 12:40 PM


Look "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! I have however ESTABLISHED that one of the best ways to "detect" intent is to look for specificity.
How?
Furthermore I have very well defined what I mean by specificity and given several real life scenarios in which real scientists use-- looking for specificity (rather that is the actual word they call it or not) to detect intelligence.
No.
I have pointed out that many working biologists describe the code in DNA as being very specified.
No.
To clarify, you may have pointed it out, but it isn't true.
Therefore, devoid of any other observations, the most logical conclusion based on observation is that it came from an intelligent source.
But we have other observations. Actual observations, not just stuff you've made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024