Jump to content


Photo

Arguments Not To Use (Peer Review)


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2017 - 05:56 AM

Not so sure about that analogy. Does it address what I am really saying? 

 

I don't think you can lump people into types and say, "this is the correct type".

 

My argument is that before us we have an object that would usually be considered a rose. It has the same anatomy, the same shapes, colour, DNA as any other rose but people don't want it to be called a rose because they don't like roses. So they call the rose something else.

 

My question is this; is it still a rose?

 

For example if people write papers about the ingenius design which can be clearly inferred from certain anatomies, the correct design, the correct materials and contingency planning etc...and if they correctly label these things as, "correct" showing, "prescience", and "knowledge" of physics, and showing "immense designer ability" etc...if we remove all of these correct and appropriate terms, will that mean the design is not there?

 

Conclusion; that is all that is happening with peer review. If I remove those words and replace them with, "genius of evolution", or "brilliant engineering solved by millions of years of selection" then the same paper would be accepted.

 

Question; If they remove all of the words that correctly describe intelligent design of anatomy, does that mean there isn't any intelligent design, peer-reviewed papers?

 

Correct answer; No, it means there are no papers with intelligent-design terminology.

 

But I could re-word Paley's descriptions of human anatomy TODAY and it would pass peer review as long as I removed any hint of giving God the credit for that design. If I correctly used terms such as, "remarkable teleology, which is self-evident by use of the correct wrist hinge type", the paper would be rejected.

 

Question; Does peer review mean anything much? Well yes it has merit in that the corroboration of fellow peers is something worth while, however it is far from perfect because it allows agendas, such as anti-theistic agenda.

 

So then the problem is science is saying this Fjuri; "I don't care if God is potentially the true answer, because our rules say God isn't allowed."

 

So then as far as I am concerned, "science" doesn't necessarily care what the truth is, as much as they care about finding a scientific answer that fits.

 

So if I care about truth more, are you saying I should not regard peer review? Because if it bans truth, why should I care about peer review?



#22 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2017 - 06:48 AM

I don't think you can lump people into types and say, "this is the correct type".

At no point did I mention a "correct type".

If you feel there is a "correct" type, just try and act accordingly. ;)

 

So then the problem is science is saying this Fjuri; "I don't care if God is potentially the true answer, because our rules say God isn't allowed."

If God would be testable, it would be allowed. The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone.

Science is the communal effort to understand the world. Should you burn all science books today, kill of all the scientists and forbid research for a century, those people that survive will rediscover what we know today about science (even if it will take a while).

 

So then as far as I am concerned, "science" doesn't necessarily care what the truth is, as much as they care about finding a scientific answer that fits.

 

So if I care about truth more, are you saying I should not regard peer review? Because if it bans truth, why should I care about peer review?

For every other field of study, science and peer review is the go-to method to acquire knowledge, to get at the truth. Why throw it out for these subjects (biology and cosmology)? Be honest about it, it is solely because it doesn't fit with your perception of scripture.



#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2017 - 07:17 AM

 

 

Fjuri: If God would be testable, it would be allowed. The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone.

 

I agree, we can test repeatably if a rat sealed in a dome loses air to breath, you could do this test 8 billion times. You could also have a standard bus/coach, try and corner at 200mph and it will flip for the 8 billion times we test (linear momentum overcoming centripetal force). You could throw toys off of a merry go round and they will travel clockwise if it was spinning clockwise, 8 billion times (conservation of angular momentum), you can prove downforce by making the same aerodynamic shapes for an F1 8 billion times and it will create grip and high cornering speeds.

 

What you can't do even once is show a standard bellows type lung evolve into a contraflow lung.

 

That's why a generalisation can't help you. (sweeping generalisation fallacy, that science gives knowledge, therefore because evo is part of science evo is knowledge)

 

 

 

Fjuri: Science is the communal effort to understand the world. Should you burn all science books today, kill of all the scientists and forbid research for a century, those people that survive will rediscover what we know today about science 

 

Well, up to the point we've learnt it. For example in two hundred years evolution theory might be a relic of science, like a steady state universe is now a relic of science, proving science doesn't just include what we don't know, it has also included incorrect, false theories which they "thought" they knew. Why accept today's science instead of tomorrows? :D :P

 

 

 

Fjuri: For every other field of study, science and peer review is the go-to method to acquire knowledge, to get at the truth. Why throw it out for these subjects (biology and cosmology)? Be honest about it, it is solely because it doesn't fit with your perception of scripture.

 

You haven't read my posts properly. My argument isn't that I don't accept peer review. I do accept the peer reviewed papers on anatomy which are supportive of ID and Creation. That they BAN those terms, doesn't mean those papers don't support ID/Creation.

 

You do the same, you would put those papers down to evolution, and give evolution the credit. We would both accept the peer reviewed papers but for different reasons.

 

 

 

 Fjuri: Why throw it out for these subjects (biology and cosmology)? Be honest about it, it is solely because it doesn't fit with your perception of scripture.

 

I don't think I would throw biology out. Biology can be explained without evolution anyway, for example you can study the biology of eukaryotes and prokaryotes and all of the factual biology will still be true even if you don't believe a proto-eukaryote ever existed, since the only facts are those two groups and it is only a belief that such an inbetween stage existed. So anything that refers to history and can't be repeatably tested, is not the same quality of science as operation science, which can repeatably test things, so as to deduce the same things, in an endless repetition of induction. (Getting the same result, repeatably). But with evolution, common ancestors such as pre-bats and proto-eukaryotes, have the same amount of factual basis as the spaghetti monster.

 

All I ask is that each subject, we separate the wheat from the chaff. Evo and big bang are just historical storytelling. Of course I would not accept any evo peer review, because that would prove that those peers weren't able to make these subtle delineations!

 

(That's the problem with only checking with peers from the same field. Often the peers that review it, aren't experts in critical thinking and logic, only experts in the science area, so how can I trust them when they treat spaghetti monsters as equal to forces like linear momentum or angular momentum? Things repeatably proven, but a spaghetti monster proto-eukaryote is thin air, it only exists between evolutionists ears! The only thing you can repeatably test on them is to repeatably believe they existed. :rotfl3: 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#24 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 June 2017 - 08:13 AM

The thing with Fjuri is is he is so creative he believes the things he thinks are in deed external realities. LOL "Oh but it is the way I say! It is! It is! It just is the way I think it is!" LOL :)

 

‚ÄčThere are 7.5 billions others just like him that seem to think their thinking is sacrosanct also. Thus the state of our world. 



#25 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 29 June 2017 - 08:29 AM

‚ÄčThere are 7.5 billions others just like him that seem to think their thinking is sacrosanct also. Thus the state of our world. 

wow, i now fully realize the meaning of the term "population explosion".
i remember the population was approximately 4 billion in my 20's
it took centuries for the population to reach 4 billion.
it almost doubled in my lifetime.
incredible.

#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2017 - 09:17 AM

We live in Fjuri's world Mike. We are good if we agree with him and bad if we don't. His complaint against Calypso! 

 

:D



#27 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2017 - 01:04 PM

I don't think you can lump people into types and say, "this is the correct type".

At no point did I mention a "correct type".
If you feel there is a "correct" type, just try and act accordingly. ;)
 

So then the problem is science is saying this Fjuri; "I don't care if God is potentially the true answer, because our rules say God isn't allowed."

If God would be testable, it would be allowed. The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone.
Science is the communal effort to understand the world. Should you burn all science books today, kill of all the scientists and forbid research for a century, those people that survive will rediscover what we know today about science (even if it will take a while).
 

So then as far as I am concerned, "science" doesn't necessarily care what the truth is, as much as they care about finding a scientific answer that fits.
 
So if I care about truth more, are you saying I should not regard peer review? Because if it bans truth, why should I care about peer review?

For every other field of study, science and peer review is the go-to method to acquire knowledge, to get at the truth. Why throw it out for these subjects (biology and cosmology)? Be honest about it, it is solely because it doesn't fit with your perception of scripture.


"The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone"


GOOD POINT!!

AND

why is Evolution still taught in Science Class?

OUCH



"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

(Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:"

#28 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2017 - 02:39 PM

 

 

 

Fjuri: If God would be testable, it would be allowed. The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone.

I agree, we can test repeatably if a rat sealed in a dome loses air to breath, you could do this test 8 billion times. You could also have a standard bus/coach, try and corner at 200mph and it will flip for the 8 billion times we test (linear momentum overcoming centripetal force). You could throw toys off of a merry go round and they will travel clockwise if it was spinning clockwise, 8 billion times (conservation of angular momentum), you can prove downforce by making the same aerodynamic shapes for an F1 8 billion times and it will create grip and high cornering speeds.

 

What you can't do even once is show a standard bellows type lung evolve into a contraflow lung.

 

That's why a generalisation can't help you. (sweeping generalisation fallacy, that science gives knowledge, therefore because evo is part of science evo is knowledge)

The problem here is that you argue from unsophisticated thinking (bear with me, its not intended as insult). You only have linear relationships between your causes and effects. Sophisticated scientific research incorporates more depth in their analyses. 

 

 

 

Fjuri: Science is the communal effort to understand the world. Should you burn all science books today, kill of all the scientists and forbid research for a century, those people that survive will rediscover what we know today about science 

Well, up to the point we've learnt it. For example in two hundred years evolution theory might be a relic of science, like a steady state universe is now a relic of science, proving science doesn't just include what we don't know, it has also included incorrect, false theories which they "thought" they knew. Why accept today's science instead of tomorrows? :D :P

Sure, I'll grant you the theory of evolution might be a relic of science in two hundred years time for the sake of argument. You can label the argument for appealing to future knowledge?

 

It is today's science. Tomorrow's science is unknown. And creationists science was yesterday's. So why accept yesterday's science instead of today's?

 

 

Fjuri: For every other field of study, science and peer review is the go-to method to acquire knowledge, to get at the truth. Why throw it out for these subjects (biology and cosmology)? Be honest about it, it is solely because it doesn't fit with your perception of scripture.

 

You haven't read my posts properly. My argument isn't that I don't accept peer review. I do accept the peer reviewed papers on anatomy which are supportive of ID and Creation. That they BAN those terms, doesn't mean those papers don't support ID/Creation.

 

You do the same, you would put those papers down to evolution, and give evolution the credit. We would both accept the peer reviewed papers but for different reasons.

The reasons these terms are "banned" is because they are loaded.

Creation is by definition made by a creator.

Design is by definition done by a designer.

Smuggle in the former, you've automatically also smuggled in the latter. And those are then bare assertions. ;)

 

(That's the problem with only checking with peers from the same field. Often the peers that review it, aren't experts in critical thinking and logic, only experts in the science area, so how can I trust them when they treat spaghetti monsters as equal to forces like linear momentum or angular momentum? Things repeatably proven, but a spaghetti monster proto-eukaryote is thin air, it only exists between evolutionists ears! The only thing you can repeatably test on them is to repeatably believe they existed. 

The spaghetti monster is your claim btw, not the atheists...

 

You suggest checking with "peers" from other fields? They lack the background to critically analyse the things that are beings said, no matter how much of an expert in critical thinking they are. This shows exactly how unsophisticated your thinking is with regard to scientific research. You seem to think that someone like you and me are able to understand any single scientific paper without the necessary background and only "critical thinking and logic" being required.

 

We live in Fjuri's world Mike. We are good if we agree with him and bad if we don't. His complaint against Calypso! 

Please demonstrate where I wrote that you'd be good if you agree with me and bad if you don't.



#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2017 - 09:23 PM



Fjuri: If God would be testable, it would be allowed. The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone.

I agree, we can test repeatably if a rat sealed in a dome loses air to breath, you could do this test 8 billion times. You could also have a standard bus/coach, try and corner at 200mph and it will flip for the 8 billion times we test (linear momentum overcoming centripetal force). You could throw toys off of a merry go round and they will travel clockwise if it was spinning clockwise, 8 billion times (conservation of angular momentum), you can prove downforce by making the same aerodynamic shapes for an F1 8 billion times and it will create grip and high cornering speeds.

What you can't do even once is show a standard bellows type lung evolve into a contraflow lung.

That's why a generalisation can't help you. (sweeping generalisation fallacy, that science gives knowledge, therefore because evo is part of science evo is knowledge)
The problem here is that you argue from unsophisticated thinking (bear with me, its not intended as insult). You only have linear relationships between your causes and effects. Sophisticated scientific research incorporates more depth in their analyses.


Fjuri: Science is the communal effort to understand the world. Should you burn all science books today, kill of all the scientists and forbid research for a century, those people that survive will rediscover what we know today about science

Well, up to the point we've learnt it. For example in two hundred years evolution theory might be a relic of science, like a steady state universe is now a relic of science, proving science doesn't just include what we don't know, it has also included incorrect, false theories which they "thought" they knew. Why accept today's science instead of tomorrows? :D :P
Sure, I'll grant you the theory of evolution might be a relic of science in two hundred years time for the sake of argument. You can label the argument for appealing to future knowledge?

It is today's science. Tomorrow's science is unknown. And creationists science was yesterday's. So why accept yesterday's science instead of today's?

Fjuri: For every other field of study, science and peer review is the go-to method to acquire knowledge, to get at the truth. Why throw it out for these subjects (biology and cosmology)? Be honest about it, it is solely because it doesn't fit with your perception of scripture.


You haven't read my posts properly. My argument isn't that I don't accept peer review. I do accept the peer reviewed papers on anatomy which are supportive of ID and Creation. That they BAN those terms, doesn't mean those papers don't support ID/Creation.

You do the same, you would put those papers down to evolution, and give evolution the credit. We would both accept the peer reviewed papers but for different reasons.
The reasons these terms are "banned" is because they are loaded.
Creation is by definition made by a creator.
Design is by definition done by a designer.
Smuggle in the former, you've automatically also smuggled in the latter. And those are then bare assertions. ;)

(That's the problem with only checking with peers from the same field. Often the peers that review it, aren't experts in critical thinking and logic, only experts in the science area, so how can I trust them when they treat spaghetti monsters as equal to forces like linear momentum or angular momentum? Things repeatably proven, but a spaghetti monster proto-eukaryote is thin air, it only exists between evolutionists ears! The only thing you can repeatably test on them is to repeatably believe they existed.

The spaghetti monster is your claim btw, not the atheists...

You suggest checking with "peers" from other fields? They lack the background to critically analyse the things that are beings said, no matter how much of an expert in critical thinking they are. This shows exactly how unsophisticated your thinking is with regard to scientific research. You seem to think that someone like you and me are able to understand any single scientific paper without the necessary background and only "critical thinking and logic" being required.

We live in Fjuri's world Mike. We are good if we agree with him and bad if we don't. His complaint against Calypso!

Please demonstrate where I wrote that you'd be good if you agree with me and bad if you don't.
"The rules say that if I do a test, it must be repeatable by anyone around the world. If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone"


Hmmm.. At the perilousness of having to do emotional contortions in order to eschew the allurement of simply branding everyone who represents your side of such a polemic remonstrance as the Abiogenesis + Darwinism = Man paradigm as hypocritical cretins... I will merely ask the following of you..


Could you please provide a test for us that is repeatable AT ALL, anywhere in the world, by ANYBODY, That supports your Myth of UCA for all Flora and Fauna?

Or does this sentence of yours apply to everything EXCEPT your religion of Chucky?


"If it isn't my results will not and should not be accepted by anyone"


So, unless you can come up with a test, that is repeatable(By YOUR standards) to support "Evolution" your OWN WORDS condemn your hypothetical hypothesis ....


"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
  • mike the wiz likes this

#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 03:51 AM

 

 

Fjuri:The problem here is that you argue from unsophisticated thinking (bear with me, its not intended as insult). You only have linear relationships between your causes and effects. Sophisticated scientific research incorporates more depth in their analyses. 

 

Argumentum ad hominem. I give clear examples of repeatable science and you respond by saying my thinking is unsophisticated.

 

Lol! (you count that as a retort?) Now please show how macro evolution is repeatable which is what you were supposed to do. :gotcha:

 

The ad hominem personal attack, however subtle, always comes in the form of a diversion. Why do you think that on utube when I give an answer the ant-theists can't answer, they just call me names? 

 

I show how macro evolution isn't repeatable and you answer with the same tactic; "dumb creationist, unsophisticated thinking", but did you show how I was wrong? No.

 

 

 

Fjuri: Sure, I'll grant you the theory of evolution might be a relic of science in two hundred years time for the sake of argument. You can label the argument for appealing to future knowledge?

 

It is today's science. Tomorrow's science is unknown. And creationists science was yesterday's. So why accept yesterday's science instead of today's?

 

 Think about it this way - did you know all evolutionary scientists NOW (today) would not accept the reasons for why evolution theory was accepted in Darwin's day? They no longer believe natural selection was responsible, nor do they believe a protein sprang up in a warm pond. Now before you predictably argue that this is because new knowledge can arise in science, that is not the point of what I am saying. The point I am making is, that logically this 100% PROVES, that at that time, scientists accepted evolution-theory predicated on falsehoods.

 

Why would scientists accept a theory for reasons we now know were all false? Why should I believe it is not the same today?

 

So this proves they basically accepted evolution theory on faith because all of the arguments for evolution that used to exist, no longer exist. Yet they still will always say "but we know evolution is true." Funny how they can never produce the special reason why this is "knowledge", and if they do give a reason why they know it is a fact, and you refute that reason, they will still repeat the claim as though there is some mysterious reason why it is true as though it is discovered but nobody knows why.

 

"we have discovered a new world!"

"Where?"

"We don't know we just know we have".

 

Lol

 

 

 

Fjuri: You suggest checking with "peers" from other fields? They lack the background to critically analyse the things that are beings said, no matter how much of an expert in critical thinking they are. This shows exactly how unsophisticated your thinking is with regard to scientific research. You seem to think that someone like you and me are able to understand any single scientific paper without the necessary background and only "critical thinking and logic" being required.

 

Yet another strawman. Where did I say I can understand a science paper without background in the subject? Though it surprises me a bit that you say this because it reveals that you seem to think that if the information is unknown that the thinker is left brain-tied. But I can also refute claims about information I don't understand.

 

I done this recently when the poster "StormanNorman" posted a scientific post, and his argument was that the dating technique for K-Ar dating used to date newly formed Mt St Helens rock, produces a "noise" effect which means newer dates are negligible. So in about half an hour of reading I knew that if I concentrated on the information provided, I may be able to find a hole in his argument even though my scientific knowledge was 0%. I found out that the test for Mt St Helens was actually a different dating method without the noise problem called flame-photometry testing which gave a base date much smaller than the age for Mt St Helens. It was actually argued that the argon in the rock really did come not from age but from argon imbibed from phenocrysts. Logically, I won, but had a peer reviewer examined our argument he probably would have said Norman was correct, simply because he would only focus on the science and wouldn't in all probability, understand the relevance of my argument.

 

 I can also read papers and understand what most of the paper means, by intuition. Certainly I can examine some claims.

 

But is your thinking unsophisticated? For example do you believe that if I rejected the general argument a paper puts forward, that this would mean I reject all of what the paper says, and all of the science parts too? Would I reject all of it? Most of it? Some of it? There is a big difference between rejecting a conclusion and rejecting a premise. EXAMPLE;

 

Humans are vertebrates.

Humans are mammals.

Cats are vertebrates.

Humans are bipedal

Cats are also mammals,

Therefore cats are bipedal.

 

In this example, I would accept ALL of the premises, but not the conclusion meaning I accept most of what was argued.

 

Likewise, if a scientific paper involves a lot of correct science, I can accept the science but disagree with the conclusion/s. So to make out I reject peer reviewed papers, and reject science, would be simplistic thinking. Also, do you believe a paper is supportive of a claim or proof? You seem to treat a paper passing peer review as proof, but in science papers written in years past can be rejected based on new data, and new experiments and new knowledge.



#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 04:28 AM

So it's the ability to win when you shouldn't be able to win Fjuri. Even when I don't know the subject I won. :gotcha:

 

Like in this instance; background; Kirk is at war with a Klingon vessel, they are near the Genesis planet, but the Klingons have Kirk's son hostage on the planet. They have just murdered Kirk's son to prove they mean business, and will kill more people if Kirk doesn't surrender; can Kirk win when he has no way to win? :D

 



#32 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2017 - 05:11 AM

 

 

 

Fjuri:The problem here is that you argue from unsophisticated thinking (bear with me, its not intended as insult). You only have linear relationships between your causes and effects. Sophisticated scientific research incorporates more depth in their analyses. 

 

Argumentum ad hominem. I give clear examples of repeatable science and you respond by saying my thinking is unsophisticated.

 

Lol! (you count that as a retort?) Now please show how macro evolution is repeatable which is what you were supposed to do. :gotcha:

 

The ad hominem personal attack, however subtle, always comes in the form of a diversion. Why do you think that on utube when I give an answer the ant-theists can't answer, they just call me names? 

 

I show how macro evolution isn't repeatable and you answer with the same tactic; "dumb creationist, unsophisticated thinking", but did you show how I was wrong? No.

1. You didn't show how macro evolution isn't repeatable. You made a bare assessment.

2. I didn't call you "dumb creationist". That is something you're inventing yourself.

3. You fail to understand what I mean with sophisticated thinking. I no longer feel like further explaining it though.

4. I'm not on "utube" discussing with you. I'm discussing with you here and now.

5. You already stated you do not care for the evidence, so I will not waste my time to discuss it. My involvement in this topic is solely about the process of peer review and scientific research. 

 

 

Fjuri: Sure, I'll grant you the theory of evolution might be a relic of science in two hundred years time for the sake of argument. You can label the argument for appealing to future knowledge?

 

It is today's science. Tomorrow's science is unknown. And creationists science was yesterday's. So why accept yesterday's science instead of today's?

 

 Think about it this way - did you know all evolutionary scientists NOW (today) would not accept the reasons for why evolution theory was accepted in Darwin's day? They no longer believe natural selection was responsible, nor do they believe a protein sprang up in a warm pond. Now before you predictably argue that this is because new knowledge can arise in science, that is not the point of what I am saying. The point I am making is, that logically this 100% PROVES, that at that time, scientists accepted evolution-theory predicated on falsehoods.

 

Why would scientists accept a theory for reasons we now know were all false? Why should I believe it is not the same today?

 

So this proves they basically accepted evolution theory on faith because all of the arguments for evolution that used to exist, no longer exist. Yet they still will always say "but we know evolution is true." Funny how they can never produce the special reason why this is "knowledge", and if they do give a reason why they know it is a fact, and you refute that reason, they will still repeat the claim as though there is some mysterious reason why it is true as though it is discovered but nobody knows why.

The reason why we accept evolution in its current form is because of experimentation and observation we can do today. If it was accepted in the past for faulty reasons, that that only means that it was accepted in the past for faulty reasons.

 

So if I use a faulty methodology to determine your name is Mike, and the flaws in the methodology are shown (by use of a better methodology), does that mean your name isn't Mike?

LOL no.

 

 

 

 

Fjuri: You suggest checking with "peers" from other fields? They lack the background to critically analyse the things that are beings said, no matter how much of an expert in critical thinking they are. This shows exactly how unsophisticated your thinking is with regard to scientific research. You seem to think that someone like you and me are able to understand any single scientific paper without the necessary background and only "critical thinking and logic" being required.

 

Yet another strawman. Where did I say I can understand a science paper without background in the subject? Though it surprises me a bit that you say this because it reveals that you seem to think that if the information is unknown that the thinker is left brain-tied. But I can also refute claims about information I don't understand.

So you can refute things you don't understand?

It doesn't work that way. I agree that's how Christian apologetics work, but that's not a valid method of refutation.

 

To correctly refute something, to correctly ask the correct critical questions, you need to have an understanding of the subject matter.

 

I done this recently when the poster "StormanNorman" posted a scientific post, and his argument was that the dating technique for K-Ar dating used to date newly formed Mt St Helens rock, produces a "noise" effect which means newer dates are negligible. So in about half an hour of reading I knew that if I concentrated on the information provided, I may be able to find a hole in his argument even though my scientific knowledge was 0%. I found out that the test for Mt St Helens was actually a different dating method without the noise problem called flame-photometry testing which gave a base date much smaller than the age for Mt St Helens. It was actually argued that the argon in the rock really did come not from age but from argon imbibed from phenocrysts. Logically, I won, but had a peer reviewer examined our argument he probably would have said Norman was correct, simply because he would only focus on the science and wouldn't in all probability, understand the relevance of my argument.

Science is not "up to vote". Unlike what "What If" stated about peer review, the review more often then not includes the paper undergoing scrutiny and serious questioning by the reviewers. For this they obviously need to understand everything that's involved..

Debates aren't "peer reviewed". Debates are oratory tools only.



#33 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 05:51 AM

 

Fjuri: 1. You didn't show how macro evolution isn't repeatable. You made a bare assessment.

2. I didn't call you "dumb creationist". That is something you're inventing yourself.

3. You fail to understand what I mean with sophisticated thinking. I no longer feel like further explaining it though.

4. I'm not on "utube" discussing with you. I'm discussing with you here and now.

5. You already stated you do not care for the evidence, so I will not waste my time to discuss it. My involvement in this topic is solely about the process of peer review and scientific research. 

 

1. Please read question number 2 in this test; (it was your claim science is repeatable)

http://highered.mhed...es_quiz_ii.html

2. I didn't say you called me a dumb creationist, it's just an example of how people personally attack using ad homs.

3. You don't have any knowledge of what I understand based on limited words posted on a forum. (you don't have telepathy. Please put forward your paper for the existence of telepathy, which powers evolutionists seem to only possess. :gotcha:

4. I am aware of that, but my point was that it is ubiquitous behaviour from evolutionists.  B) 

5. I don't remember saying I don't care about the evidence, I don't care for the non-sequiturs argued from the evidence!

 

 

Fjuri: So if I use a faulty methodology to determine your name is Mike, and the flaws in the methodology are shown (by use of a better methodology), does that mean your name isn't Mike?

LOL no.

 

Strawman. This is a strawman of the Ad Logicam fallacy. You are saying that I am saying that the conclusion for one argument is false because the other argument for it is false. It would only qualify as Ad Logicam if that's what I was arguing, but I am actually arguing that SCIENCE THEN accepted evolution for reasons they would have argued irrefutably prove it, they would have argued all of the same things they do now, such as "it is factual" and, "science has accepted it, the majority of scientists accept it." What I am saying is that it is not unreasonable to believe that they accept evolution TODAY for false reasons, just like they did yesterday. And indeed I happen to know that they argue macro evolution is true, by arguing micro evolution, which is simply false or at the very least unknown because those changes don't seem to add up or be part of any macro change. EXAMPLE: I am constructing a car, but with slow changes - I could observe the small changes are part of a larger plan. But with micro evolution there is no genuine direction, there isn't an organ which is in the middle of evolving into another organ, the small changes that are produced, aren't part of any macro-change, for example we don't find something like a pre-bat, going from quadruped with forelimbs to a flier with wings, we see no "stage" micro evolution is at, on it's journey to macro, all we see is trivial adaptation.

 

 

Fjuri: So you can refute things you don't understand?

It doesn't work that way. I agree that's how Christian apologetics work, but that's not a valid method of refutation.

 

To correctly refute something, to correctly ask the correct critical questions, you need to have an understanding of the subject matter.

 

I'm not quite saying that, I can't fully describe some things in words. You'd have to know my experiences to understand - basically I have read papers and I can see their errors even if I don't know the subject that well. But obviously I do understand evolution subjects better, as I invented that quiz as you know, and got high percentage scores on my knowledge of evolution.

 

 

 

 Fjuri: to correctly ask the correct critical questions, you need to have an understanding of the subject matter.

 

No, this is a non-sequitur. You actually don't necessarily have to fully understand the subject matter if you are an expert in reason or close to an expert. It depends on what is claimed in the paper. For example to spot circular reasoning in a paper, or epithets, or begging the question, etc...you can still critically spot those things even without knowledge of the subject matter.

 

As long as your evaluation is logically sound criticism that's all that counts. It wouldn't matter if a vagrant off the street evaluated the paper with zero knowledge, if he spotted a fallacy and he was correct, then he would be correct. Correctness isn't dependent upon knowledge, apart from knowledge of logic, knowledge of what is valid in form, true in premise, sound in inference. 

 

But I can concede it would be better to have a good knowledge of the paper if that is required. It depends on the paper. I wasn't arguing that every peer reviewed paper on earth can be refuted by me.

 

 

Fjuri: Science is not "up to vote". Unlike what "What If" stated about peer review, the review more often then not includes the paper undergoing scrutiny and serious questioning by the reviewers. For this they obviously need to understand everything that's involved..

Debates aren't "peer reviewed". Debates are oratory tools only.

 

It doesn't matter if you CLAIM something in a paper or CLAIM something in a debate, if that claim is false, mikey will know. :)



#34 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2017 - 06:13 AM

 

 

Fjuri: 1. You didn't show how macro evolution isn't repeatable. You made a bare assessment.

2. I didn't call you "dumb creationist". That is something you're inventing yourself.

3. You fail to understand what I mean with sophisticated thinking. I no longer feel like further explaining it though.

4. I'm not on "utube" discussing with you. I'm discussing with you here and now.

5. You already stated you do not care for the evidence, so I will not waste my time to discuss it. My involvement in this topic is solely about the process of peer review and scientific research. 

 

1. Please read question number 2 in this test; (it was your claim science is repeatable)

http://highered.mhed...es_quiz_ii.html

2. I didn't say you called me a dumb creationist, it's just an example of how people personally attack using ad homs.

3. You don't have any knowledge of what I understand based on limited words posted on a forum. (you don't have telepathy. Please put forward your paper for the existence of telepathy, which powers evolutionists seem to only possess. :gotcha:

4. I am aware of that, but my point was that it is ubiquitous behaviour from evolutionists.  B) 

5. I don't remember saying I don't care about the evidence, I don't care for the non-sequiturs argued from the evidence!

1. Science is repeatable by definition. Anything that's not repeatable isn't science. Easy as Pi.

2. So instead of showing me going ad hominem, you invent something and pretend it is me going ad hominem... Maybe preparing a tu-quoque for later?

3. I do not need telepathy. If you understood me, you'd not have posted the way you did.

4. So it was just an ad hominem on your part. "evolutionists act like such" instead of focusing on the discussion right here?

5. Check your own topic "No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured".



#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 06:35 AM

 

Fjuri: 1. Science is repeatable by definition. Anything that's not repeatable isn't science. Easy as Pi.

2. So instead of showing me going ad hominem, you invent something and pretend it is me going ad hominem... Maybe preparing a tu-quoque for later?

3. I do not need telepathy. If you understood me, you'd not have posted the way you did.

4. So it was just an ad hominem on your part. "evolutionists act like such" instead of focusing on the discussion right here?

5. Check your own topic "No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured".

 

1. That doesn't show how macro evolution is repeatable. I gave examples to compare.

2. No, your argument was a personal attack, I requested you prove your claim evolution is repeatable, and your answer was a personal comment. That is a diversionary fallacy of ad hom.

3. I did understand you, you said I "fail" to understand what you mean by sophisticated thinking. How can you know that unless you have telepathy?

4. No it was an insight, that a subtle ad hom fallacy is no better than a crude one.

5. How many times do I have to explain that this has to be understood in the context it's meant, it's not that "evidence can't convince me evolution happened" as that's out-of-context, it's that you have to understand a more deeper level of logic, that for some claims, even evidence isn't sufficient because those claims are so large.. It comes from this axiom;

 

"The greater a claim, the greater the corresponding evidence must be."



#36 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2017 - 07:18 AM

 

 

Fjuri: 1. Science is repeatable by definition. Anything that's not repeatable isn't science. Easy as Pi.

2. So instead of showing me going ad hominem, you invent something and pretend it is me going ad hominem... Maybe preparing a tu-quoque for later?

3. I do not need telepathy. If you understood me, you'd not have posted the way you did.

4. So it was just an ad hominem on your part. "evolutionists act like such" instead of focusing on the discussion right here?

5. Check your own topic "No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured".

 

1. That doesn't show how macro evolution is repeatable. I gave examples to back my claim that we can reproduce the conditions to test exotic air, rat in a sealed dome), linear momentum, by having a bus corner at speed, downforce by reproducing the aerodynamics that creates it. You have only asserted, "show evolution isn't". I have - because a bellows type lung can't evolve in the lab, into a contraflow lung, meaning macro evolution can only be indirectly supported. It isn't the same as these strong sciences.

2. No, your argument was a personal attack, I requested you prove your claim evolution is repeatable, and your answer was a personal comment. That is a diversionary fallacy of ad hom.

3. I did understand you, you said I "fail" to understand what you mean by sophisticated thinking. How can you know that unless you have telepathy? I have a very good idea of what you meant. Your "unsophisticated" thinking comment was actually psychological projection, you realised that your initial claim that science is repeatable, wasn't a good one when I gave specific examples of how various forces can be repeatably tested, and I demonstrated that macro evolution can't be repeated by deduction and induction, in that way, meaning you projected that my thinking was "unsophisticated" because you realised your own thinking was simplistic an unsophisticated. So you accuse me of the very problem YOU have.

"Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projectioninvolves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings."

5. How many times do I have to explain that this has to be understood in the context it's meant, it's not that "evidence can't convince me evolution happened" as that's out-of-context, it's that you have to understand a more deeper level of logic, that for some claims, even evidence isn't sufficient because those claims are so large. For example you could convince me with evidence that you saw a man do a fairly impressive leap over a wall, by witnesses testifying to it, by showing his fingerprints, etc...however, the same evidence would not be sufficient if the claim was someone saw superman flying over that wall. The testimonies and finger prints would now be logically insufficient.

 

 Basically you can have the same evidence for one large claim, as a smaller claim, and for the large claim the evidence shouldn't convince you, because evidence isn't sufficiently matched to the size of the claim. It comes from this axiom;

 

"The greater a claim, the greater the corresponding evidence must be."

 

In the same way claiming mud can turn into molecules which can turn into microbiologists given enough time, by saying some bacteria became resistant and some beaks got tougher and larger, therefore it's true, is absurdly insufficient evidence. The micro evolution would have to show it was part of a macro evolution, like if I claimed to be superman I would at least have to give a demonstration of strength. Winning an arm wrestling competition would be insufficient, but throwing a car over a house would be better evidence.

 

1. Demonstrate where I claimed that macro evolution is repeatable. 

2. You understood my argument as a personal attack, even though I especially stated that was not intended as such. While I might have been insufficient in making myself clear, but the disclaimer that it was not intended as an insult should have made it clear that more elaboration might be required if you thought it was an insult after all.

3. You clearly didn't since you thought it was a personal attack (as is demonstrated in your previous post).

5.  :burp:

 

I'll restart because we're getting side tracked:

- My point is that the method to acquire knowledge is science. Embedded in the methods of science is peer reviewed publishing. While it has flaws it is the best available method to provide sufficient critical thinking with regards to results that are being published.

- For a peer review, you need someone who is also involved in the subject to understand the different nuances of the paper. Who has read most if not all the references that are included in the paper so they also know what the background is of these references and the conclusions that where made there. You need someone who is not cooperating with the author to ensure a certain level of impartiality.

- To include terms such as "creation", "design" and the like, without providing support for this "creator" or "designer" you are making a bare assertion fallacy. Based on that, creation literature up for peer review including these terms should be rejected, or requested to put up for a large revision at least. Considering the political landscape where creationists try to push creationism as being taught in schools (in the US), at least some scientists will have some prejudice towards creationist literature and do not feel like correcting a text purely on wording, resulting in a rejection rather then a major revision note.

- When a peer rejects a paper, he/she needs to justify the rejection. "Because it might be true" isn't a reason to reject.



#37 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:01 AM

 

 

Fjuri: - To include terms such as "creation", "design" and the like, without providing support for this "creator" or "designer" you are making a bare assertion fallacy. Based on that, creation literature up for peer review including these terms should be rejected, or requested to put up for a large revision at least.

 

 

A contradiction.

 

You can't say the usual features of intelligent design are "NOT" evidence of intelligent design. You can't say that cleverer designs (biomimetics) is "NOT" evidence of cleverer design. You're basically saying, "no, the evidence of intelligent design is an assertion, provide the evidence of intelligent design."

 

That's like saying, "no you haven't shown a differential in a car is designed by showing the arrangement of the gears, and how they solve wheelspin, and it is an assertion to use that terminology."

 

Lol. How can I argue design if you won't let the usual evidence of design count as design? Lol. "show me this bird flies, but showing the viable flight anatomy is bare assertion, show something else."

 

Erm...........there is nothing else - once we show the features of intelligent design are there, then it is correct to infer it for it qualifies as intelligent design evidence by identity. If a human proves himself human you could also say, "assertion, prove you are human" which is argumentum ad nauseam.

 

What I'm saying is that at the very least, the design in the anatomy counts as evidence of design, and because Paley shown how sophisticated, and not only correct that design is, but the best design arguably, then it counts as exceptional design evidence. (Rules of logic means you can't say it doesn't, you can't argue a contradiction just because you don't want certain evidence to count as evidence of design when it does qualify as the usual evidence.)

 

Peer reviewers can remove terminology if they want, but that won't change that logically, there are logical rules where certain things QUALIFY as evidence. For example, creative things qualify as evidence of creation, and designed things qualify as being designed. They can't count as "not" evidence of the very thing they are identified by. That would be like saying a human foot isn't evidence of human anatomy.

 

These laws of logic can't be circumvented by peer reviewers. That is to say, to qualify something as, "supportive" of intelligent design and creation, all I have to do is provide the usual expected evidence of those things, which would be designed things with the features of design, and creative things with creative features. To say that is "NOT" evidence of those things,  IS INCORRECT logic. For that is the evidence of those things, because we already know it, from examining things we agree are designed. For example, if we examine a car, we can see it has SC, IC, goals, correct materials, contingency planning. So this logically qualifies as evidence of design according to the law of non-contradiction.

 

If you can't respect that and argue it then basically that is tantamount to a declaration of intellectual suicide and bias - that you WON'T (by an act of WILL, refuse) to acknowledge reality because reality doesn't favour your argument that there is no literature to support ID and creation.

 

There is. Anatomy, papers on anatomy, support ID and creation HEAVILY. It's not even difficult logic to prove, it's actually a fairly elementary level, the law of non-contradiction. To say forum posts on a forum are not evidence of a forum, for example, is absurd, I can't even talk to someone who won't acknowledge basic reality.

 

 

 

 

Fjuri: 2. You understood my argument as a personal attack, even though I especially stated that was not intended as such. While I might have been insufficient in making myself clear, but the disclaimer that it was not intended as an insult should have made it clear that more elaboration might be required if you thought it was an insult after all.

 

No, it counts as a personal attack in the sense of an ad hominem diversion. If someone responds to a piece of text not by refuting it or addressing it, but says something about the arguer, instead, then because that tactic is to put the focus on the arguer rather than the argument, then it counts as a diversionary fallacy of that type. That you said my thinking is "unsophisticated" is to attack the arguer, not the argument I provided, which you didn't address and still haven't. So if it mentions the arguer, it's an ad hom, whether it is an insult or not. If it is not an insult that does not mean it is not a personal attack. Logic, Fjuri, logic! For to imply there is some missing trait in the arguer so as to imply they don't understand the matter being debated, is a personal attack which is being used to DIVERT attention from what was being discussed so that people will conclude that the arguer is wrong because of a personal defect. This is a rhetorical tactic, which doesn't count as a refutation known as ad hominem fallacy.

 

It seems clear you have no real example of macro evolution being experimentally repeatably tested 8 billion times. There is no way to test macro in that manner, and you define science as testable in this way. I can only accept that evolution is weaker, since this is what makes the strong sciences, provable.



#38 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:08 AM

I'll restart because we're getting side tracked:
- My point is that the method to acquire knowledge is science.

it's one of several methods.
here are 2 other examples:
i witnessed a car crash, i have just acquired knowledge if i happened to know who was involved.

instincts, animals often instinctively "know" which way to go.
arctic terns navigate 1000s of miles of open water without ever making the trip before.

Embedded in the methods of science is peer reviewed publishing. While it has flaws it is the best available method to provide sufficient critical thinking with regards to results that are being published.

let's list a few of these flaws.
it's prone to abuse, it's worthless for detecting fraud, and it's somewhat like a lottery (my original typing was lootery, which was hilarious)

- When a peer rejects a paper, he/she needs to justify the rejection. "Because it might be true" isn't a reason to reject.

i think you need to point out that you aren't familiar with all the different institutions involved.

#39 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:17 AM

FALSE, showing a lack of knowledge of the law of non-contradiction. If there is a design in the anatomy, and it is the "correct" or "best" design, and if it has the usual features of intelligent design which qualify it as designed, then it is a contradiction to say that evidence of design is, "not design" or that it is, "not evidence of design".

computer chess programs can give the illusion of thought.
what if the computer said "i'm thinking" then 3 or 4 minutes later made its move.
i'm telling you, it's IMPOSSIBLE for a computer to think, although it gives every outward appearance of doing so.
 

For example, if I re-arrange the brake system in a car and it doesn't function, then ipso facto it has specified complexity and teleology and a goal to function which was spoiled. These are the usual features of design, the expected evidence of a designer.

but isn't this exactly what the cell does, rearranges what it has, and it possess no intelligence at all.

#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:38 AM

 

 

What If: computer chess programs can give the illusion of thought.
what if the computer said "i'm thinking" then 3 or 4 minutes later made its move.
i'm telling you, it's IMPOSSIBLE for a computer to think, although it gives every outward appearance of doing so.

 

No but this isn't true thought and a computer program needs to be designed. Can you think of something that isn't designed by an intelligence which can give an appearance of figuring things out?

 

Your argument as a complaint is a good counter-argument in that you are arguing that "the usual evidence of X might not mean X", but I would say that some things like that are going to in some way fall short of the real thing. For example a computer program if it really has sentience, is going to break out and go beyond it's programming. 

 

Humans aren't programmed, we can do something unusual and sporadic by will at any time. For example if you get the most sophisticated robot ever to act sporadically, it will be false because it is only doing it because it's programmed to. If you don't program it to and it does it anyway, that's a sign of sentience.

 

With design it's different because all sophisticated designs have such sophistication that all of the features of design are displayed. Only simple designs stand a chance of NOT being designed, because the more sophisticated they are, I am afraid it is unavoidable that the more cleverness and knowledge is required to make them that sophisticated. 

 

This can be proven, by showing the history of mankind. Design improves incessantly the more knowledge and intelligence that is built up over time. A computer that needed to be the size of a house, is now the size of a matchbox. But that level of design still isn't on the same level of life, because DNA has the greatest storage density/efficiency. (one feature of design is storage density being immensely and conveniently dense, so as to fit lots of information on a pinhead.)

 

 

 

What If: but isn't this exactly what the cell does, rearranges what it has, and it possess no intelligence at all. 

 

But ultimately it only does this because it is programmed by an intelligent designer, to do it. One aspect of design which usually goes beyond human ability but not for everything, is the ability to get the designed thing to do things itself so you don't have to do it.

 

Like when machines put products together for us. 

 

This is usually a sign of very advanced intelligent design. To say it isn't is basically a lie. I wonder if some peer reviewers are liars? Obviously they must know the usual features of design yet they ban the words from papers. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users