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.
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.