I don’t see how an experiment on a computer has reference to biology.
You see, I don’t deny that intelligent design can create some things, I just deny that it is necessary for all things. You seem to hammer away at your computer with little sign of intelligence, but I do admire your persistance. Hope you get out of your mom’s basement someday.
Tired now. Just spend a day at the Page Museum at La Brea CA, looking at fossils that don’t exist, deposited in a time frame before creation in 6000BCE. With each bucket of crude dipped from that pit we get a window into a past that have litte to do with the Genesis story, and that Evidence does not tell me TRUTH, but gives me a handle on some errors.
On what basis?
What things do you know to exist that have been determined beyond the shadow of a doubt to not be the result of design?
The precedent here, established every time we see order and complexity, is that when we know the source, it is intelligence and design at some level.
Give us examples of self-assembling or self-existing objects.
“I don’t see how an experiment on a computer has reference to biology”.
OF COURSE a materialist can’t see the connection!
To me it’s almost hard to miss, what with all the references of machinery when speaking of even the smallest parts, cell structure/function, etc.
I recall in my pathophyisology class the instructor asking us to list and describe in some detail the funtions of blood.
It was enlightening to see that no one even came close.
Sure everyone listed the stuff we were taught...
transports gases for exchange O2 for CO2 and so on...
or proteins/wastes...
but few got temperature regulation.
I can’t remember all of them but it was fascinating...and we’re still learning!
Your question, genius, didn’t ask a question with a reference to biology.
You are posting here. That can mean one of several things:
a. You have completed Experiment #2, and demonstrated the intelligent design both of the object in question and the analyst performing the experiment.
b. You were too chicken and considerably less-than-assured of the outcome to attempt Experiment #1 – a value judgment also requiring an act of some intelligence by the way.
c. You have failed to understand the instructions, or to just simply follow them, which isn’t necessarily so much a measure of intelligence as it is a failure of one’s basic competence.
But since you have chosen to bring biology into the discussion, and since I asked your sidekick some similar questions already, I’ll ask you a few as well:
Are you a biological organism?
If yes, was it not you who also asked: "So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?
If yes, then a biological organism with innate intelligence of some measure transmitted information.
Do you consider your question to be an intelligent transmission of information?
Do you consider your question to be an intelligent question?
Was this experiment designed to be performed by a biological organism?
Does the experiment as designed manifest an ability of the object(s) in question to transmit useful information using mechanisms requiring intelligence borne of a biological organism and transmitted through a non-biological mechanical device as causation vs. innate materialism of non-biological objects as acted upon by outside forces which include both biological and non-biological forces as causation -- as alleged by evolutionary models?
Making any connections yet or are you still too tired out from struggling in the La Brea tar pits?
You see, I don’t deny that intelligent design can create some things, I just deny that it is necessary for all things.
So then answer the study questions I posed in Part 1:
1. Must something that is designed be designed by something or someone that is intelligent?
2. Is design ever accomplished without intelligence?
3. Is design purposeful?
You seem to hammer away at your computer with little sign of intelligence, but I do admire your persistance. [sic.]
So, as a semi-intelligent bi-ped and respondent biological organism you recognize persistence but fail to sufficiently recognize intelligence. That too is just another manifestation of your deficiency level with respect to one's basic cognitive abilities.
Hope you get out of your mom’s basement someday.
I'd say, if you’re the one stuck fatiguing yourself in the tar pits, you have a bigger problem than I'll ever have.
Tired now. Just spend a day [sic.] at the Page Museum at La Brea CA, looking at fossils that don’t exist, deposited in a time frame before creation in 6000BCE.
OK, donny-boy, you’re mumbling incoherently now. “…looking at fossils that don’t exist….?” What are you smoking, man. Sure, I know, “The pipes, the pipes are calling…,” but put down the crack pipe just long enough to turn off the light and tuck yourself in. You’ve had a hard day for sure.
With each bucket of crude dipped from that pit we get a window into a past that have litte [sic.]to do with the Genesis story,
Is that “have litte,” or “have latte,” or “have a lot”…. Don, baby, you’re fading fast. Stow the bong. Did the Genesis “story” say something about the La Brea tar pits that you’d like to dispute here sometime, perhaps when that cloud in your head clears up a bit? We’ll hold the thread open for you.
and that Evidence does not tell me TRUTH, but gives me a handle on some errors.
Evidence of what, don?
The error you’ve been handling is merely the position you’ve been holding all along.
The study of science absent the search for TRUTH is no study of science at all.