Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used a house as it was the first thing that popped into my head, no specific reason. And you know for a fact that complex systems like weather or galaxies are not designed. that I would like to see. and you can't use laws because science can only tell us what the law does it cannot explain the law itself.
Please point it out
You can actually use random mutation's for your line logic. I don't even think we were designed by an intellect and can use it.
The "random mutation" is only "random" by definition of "unknown out comes" within a set of answers. Like flipping a coin. A coin is a "random event" but it will only have two outcomes.
The workings of a cell are classified as random. But as a point of fact, it is a very precise set of interactions that are far from "random" as most people use the word. If it was "anything goes" random, it would not be alive as we use the word.
The fine tuning matches homeostasis. At least on earth.
Your point is a non sequitur as ID does not say who or what the mind behind it all is.
This is a perfect example of you not being able to separate what ID says from your anti god stance.
No. You are so keen on trying to make out that a creator - god is a
I never said anything about everything that is designed must be complex, we know things are designed by observation and the only known cause of the specified information in the dictionary is the mind, random mutation simply cannot produce that information.
I already explained this, but you have your fingers in your ears - we can tell design from nature otherwise Paley could not tell the designed watch from the natural grass it was lying in. Your weird assertion that 'information' cannot be produced by random mutation' is apparently a muddled memory of the Creationist claim that DNA information is a written code, which it isn't. Information in nature is what is and what changes. It is not what is written in a book or stored in a computer or in the mind. And random mutation can produce it as much as a volcano producing lava and that turning into tufa. That is 'information' too.
And, as to 'complexity' I was anticipating and blocking appeal to complexity beforehand. Don't try playing the tiresome 'I did not say exactly that - stop misrepresenting me!' ploy. It just makes you look crafty.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-20-2020 at 08:17 AM..
Your point is a non sequitur as ID does not say who or what the mind behind it all is.
This is a perfect example of you not being able to separate what ID says from your anti god stance.
1) here is the list of ID proponents and their religion that I posted earlier.
Achtemeier - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Alcocer-Ruthling - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Alexanian - Works at DI - Young Earth Creationist - Not qualified
Atchison - ID creator = God - Qualified
Babuna - Creationist - Not qualified
Barnard - Creationist - Not qualified
Baumgardner - Young Earth Creationist - Qualified
Bearden - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Beaucage - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Behe - ID creator = God - Qualified
d'Abrera - Young Earth Creationist - Not qualified
2) If evolution can not account for for complex beings, then our ultimate creator must also not be designed. That would be a god.
ID arguing for some unspecified creator when we know who they mean is just more dishonesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I never said anything about everything that is designed must be complex, we know things are designed by observation and the only known cause of the specified information in the dictionary is the mind, random mutation simply cannot produce that information.
We know what the sun is composed of because of spectroscopy identifying specified information.
Your assertion is begging the question and ignoring evidence.
I used a house as it was the first thing that popped into my head, no specific reason. And you know for a fact that complex systems like weather or galaxies are not designed.
Which is why I used those two examples to counter your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
and you can't use laws because science can only tell us what the law does it cannot explain the law itself.
Then you can not use God for the same reason.
And what you describe as laws (which are man made observations) are simply rules defining how our reality works. So we see complex systems such as stars and galaxies forming with no need for an intelligence.
It does not mean the nay sayers is right either. What we have here is scientist disagreeing with other scientists ( like thats never happened before) but they are all scientist using the same data and come up with different hypothesis from that data.
No, Behe's irreducible complexity is not the same data, it is non-existent data.
And other scientists do not use books in peer review, they use other peer reviewed papers.
These are just two of the problems I pointed out earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You simply cannot say one hypothesis is scientific and the other one is not just because you disagree with it or think it is bad.
Good, as that is not what I am doing. It IS bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Is this what you are afraid it will come to? If an ID hypotheses on design or any hypothesis on design is taken as a scientific hypothesis that all the pro-evolution papers mean nothing. That does not compute Harry, all it would mean is that there is another hypothesis out there to explore.
But that exploration sure seems like scary stuff to most of you guys on here
No, I was simply pointing out the many papers for evolution you need to ignore.
This has nothing to do with the debate at hand it has to do with phet trying in vain to ridicule me and now the pack mentality jumping in and trying to rescue one of their own even when they know the person they are defending is in the wrong. It truly is mind-boggling.
It isn't mind -boggling that you keep trying to scrape a lone miserable point from banging on about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You took my point differently then I meant it, but I was kind of vague. What I was referring to was that it looked more like the science in the paper was good until Christians started using it. And Darwinism simply cannot have that.
How crafty of you. The paper was either a legitimate one on fine tuning (which can be a valid subject) but has been questioned, or it was an attempt to slip disguised evidence for I/D into a peer -reviewed Journal. Predictably, you want to cast this in Creationist -propaganda terms: "ID is legitimate science that Darwinism wants to suppress". But the answer is to prove the paper is good science - rebut the rebuttal. Just like the whining you did about Dover - they could have appealed; they didn't.
Quote:
Then you really have no idea of the arguments ID uses.
I have a good enough idea of the arguments that ID uses to have downed you a couple of times and all you had was denial, and reiteration of the party line about ID is not Creationism. In all the examples you'd used, it traces right back to the arguments of the Creationists.
Quote:
And like old cold you missed the point. and you need to look up cut the mustard again and see a few other definitions because it can also mean something far greater then just adequate to do the job.
That's irrelevant to the two ways the expression is used. You are just making yourself look absurd. Where are we? Yet again, no case, just denial and abuse and trying to buy the argument with scraping a piddling nitpick. Where you usually end up.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-20-2020 at 08:08 AM..
That's what you should have been doing. What you have been doing is to to stick to the Creationist party line: "This got published in a peer -reviwed Journal. That proves that ID is valid science".
It doesn't. Answer us this: it is was a valid paper on Fine Tuning (even if some disagreed with the conclusions) how do you show that this is validation of ID? Fine tuning in physics only validates ID in the minds of Creationists.
I guess you are not a man of thought then because instead of acknowledging you were wrong you try to ridicule again. LMAO
I just woke up twenty minutes ago.
l concede the point.
Now I'm going to ask you a question that you've refused to answer repeatedly. What is your scientific background.
And another question: You've posted dozens of articles. Literally dozens. How many of them have you fully read?
Whatever the answer is, that's fine. If it turns out you have a PhD in genetics...fine. If it turns out you've read 5,000 journal articles on the topic...that's fine.
But how about answering the questions -- even the ones you don't like.
your whole post points to something more. That something more, is what the discussion is all about.
so you "denying something more", or at the very least not stating you think its some more, is exactly like standing by and letting the "global warning deniers" go by, or not trying to slow them down, based on some other reason that the topic itself.
Also, what some people do, is they walk down the data and when it starts to look like it is not supporting a position, they start to look for outs. Again, global warming is a great example. to some deniers ... "Yeah, did you hear about the station that didn't report the tempuras right." They completely ignore all that other natural changes.".
Life, at the very least came from the universe. The universe is clearly more complex than humans. Life on this planet came from an unknown complexity source but its safe to say that it is vastly more complex that the earth.
thats the base line fact.
you can point out where its wrong.
I think I've told you this before during your obsessive posts over the "something more" routine over the last MANY months. I know I mentioned something about it yesterday, although not in regard to one your obsessive posts. So let me outline AGAIN my position:
As I said yesterday, and as I have said many times in the past, there could be a deistic god. What I firmly do not believe in is biblegod. I don't think there is any clear evidence of a deistic god, but it's a possibility.
I guess there's even a possibility that there is a god...just not biblegod, and certainly not OT biblegod. End of that story.
In terms of your "something more", until you firmly define what that means -- which you have not since you are still calling it "something more" -- it is difficult to respond to. There are things in the universe that we don't know. The Buddhist concepts of karma and rebirth are examples of what I accept as fitting the definition (to me) of "something more", but as I have said about those Buddhist concepts...maybe, maybe not. And the concept that some Buddhists believe -- that there have been seven Buddhas over time -- does not work from a scientific standpoint. Psychics -- maybe maybe not. Tarot -- maybe, maybe not. I remain open-minded about "some" god, but not biblegod. I remain open-minded about karma (depending on how it's defined) and rebirth; but I re-emphasize that being open-minded is simply being open-minded to yea or nay; open-minded is not taking a position.
I'm not going to say you're wrong.
I am going to say your definition of "something more" is nothing more than being open-minded. Open-minded is good (usually).
You can ask me another thousand times why I don't believe in your "something more". I'm not going to keep answering that WRONG question. This post is my answer to that question. Tattoo it on your eyeballs so you can see it clearly in the future.
And here's one more thing I want you to understand: just because you're interested in some particular topic...that doesn't mean everyone else is interested in it. Your "something more" routine is too vague for me to be very interested in. It is too vague to make me want to constantly speculate about it. It pretty much doesn't interest me. That's why I don't keep talking about it obsessively. I look at most of your posts, and when I see "something more" my eyes glaze over. In its current state, it doesn't interest me in terms of discussion. It just doesn't. There are other things you discuss that I find interesting. But your vague "something more" -- at least in its current state -- doesn't interest me. I have a right not to be interested, just as you have a right to be not interested in something I post.
Thank for agreeing that "There are large number of religious believers who fit your negative stereotypes". And I have talked before about the FACT that when I discuss stereotypes, I virtually never mean always. You saying "a large number" is fair.
As always the above average effort to explain yourself. Thanks...
Just a thing or two beginning with the above "stereotype." What do you mean by "large number?"
In the U.S., atheists are mostly men and are relatively young, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study. About seven-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (68%). The median age for atheists is 34, compared with 46 for all U.S. adults. Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% vs. 66% of the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LMAO
