Here's an old post by joe-boi on telic thoughts. Some things never change. My responses are in bold type.
Joe G Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 9:57 am
The EF works. The people that use it may not understand how to use it.
Then let's see you use it on a variety of living and nonliving things in nature. Show your work.
IF EF methodology isn't used to detect design then how do we detect design?
That's your problem. You figure it out.
The criteria for complexity, specification and information are more rigorouly laid down than the anti-ID position.
ROFLMAO!
ID might not get YOU anywhere but that is because of you.
No joe-boi, it's because there's NO evidence to support ID.
Why is it that you avoid the issues? Why don't you tell us the methodology currently used by scientists and lay-people alike to detect intentional design?
There's a HUGE difference between detecting design in man-made things and detecting it in natural things. And since you're one of the IDiots pushing ID, you're going to have to support your own assertions. Quit expecting science to figure it out it for you.
Why don't you tell us the criteria used to determine that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for life and the universe? Let us see if it holds up to scrutiny.
Read a shitload of books and papers on biology, evolutionary theory, paleontology, geology, astronomy, etc., etc., etc. In other words, do your own fucking homework, dipshit.
Also it would help if the alleged majority of biologists could substantiate the claims made by evolutionists- that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.
That's funny joe-boi, coming from an IDiot who thinks and claims that some supernatural sky fairy just happened to poof everything into existence.
http://telicthoughts.com/57/
