Intelligent Falling

[Lursa]

Ad hom.

*snicker* and I'm not even an atheist.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not an atheiest. I'm a practicing Christian.

And I looked at one of your sources and it was clear you had misinterpreted the conclusions about mutations. But I cant be bothered to explain how and why because you would pick apart every word...because from what I've read, you dont have the foundation to discern the details.

So I dont even care if you want to continue to insult me with comparisons to The Donald...it's a nasty thing to do, he's a horrifically bad person. But I have a life...one that included studying evolutionary biology and spending hours discussing it with PhD candidates on road trips. I earned my education, I continue to buy books that examine evolution and our species. I find it almost as fascinating as epidemiology and they dovetail nicely in many areas.

But I'll let some of the others continue to deal with you...insult away. God bless you

I apologize, yes you are not an atheist I see that, my error, I replied in haste.

However you did write (which is what I responded to): "dont understand what they read" and "since they are incapable of or dont try to understand the science" which is a little insulting too I think.

If you think I said something erroneous in a post ("it was clear you had misinterpreted the conclusions about mutations") then bring that to my attention and give me an opportunity to respond, is that too much to ask?

 

[pinqy]

I consider it a strawman argument, it is not an argument I've made, I've not mentioned "universe" only "anything we see in nature".

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

nature
noun

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.

I assumed, because it made the most sense, that you were using the word " nature" as in definition number 5.
Otherwise it's not clear to me what you mean. Within the material world, IF we have a basis of comparison, AND IF we have a means of testing, THEN we can distinguish between things that occurred through natural processes and those made through design. If you had one diamond, and nothing with which to compare it (including any records of diamond properties) you would not be able to tell whether it was natural or synthetic. And even if you did have something to compare it to, without a device measuring UV, IR, or X-Ray, you still couldn't tell.

So asking if the diamond was designed or not would be pointless.

We do not have comparisons or methods of distinguishing designed or undesigned universes or life.

 

[Lursa]

I apologize, yes you are not an atheist I see that, my error, I replied in haste.

Thanks

However you did write (which is what I responded to): "dont understand what they read" and "since they are incapable of or dont try to understand the science" which is a little insulting too I think.

It was intentional, becuse your attitude onscreen has been rude and arrogant and superior. So...I 'took a page out of your book.' My greatest sin is lack of patience.

If you think I said something erroneous in a post ("it was clear you had misinterpreted the conclusions about mutations") then bring that to my attention and give me an opportunity to respond, is that too much to ask?

Open your mind from your pre-conceived ideas and re-read about the topic with a more open perspective. IMO, you just want to find cracks in the theory to look smarter than everyone else.

Deal with everyone else...and a wide range of texts...for the science. Like I wrote, I can be bothered.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

nature
noun

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4. natural scenery.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.

I assumed, because it made the most sense, that you were using the word " nature" as in definition number 5.
Otherwise it's not clear to me what you mean. Within the material world, IF we have a basis of comparison, AND IF we have a means of testing, THEN we can distinguish between things that occurred through natural processes and those made through design. If you had one diamond, and nothing with which to compare it (including any records of diamond properties) you would not be able to tell whether it was natural or synthetic. And even if you did have something to compare it to, without a device measuring UV, IR, or X-Ray, you still couldn't tell.

So asking if the diamond was designed or not would be pointless.

We do not have comparisons or methods of distinguishing designed or undesigned universes or life.

I was referring to 3) which is why I used the term "things" - here's what I wrote:

I disagree, speculating that the universe or aspects of it suggest an intelligent agency may have been involved in its origination is a very reasonable thing, so far as I'm concerned that is a valid intellectual question.

Intelligent design poses the question - how can we tell if some "thing" was or was not designed? did or did not need intellect in order to exist - what is wrong with that question?

Now please explain what is this "comparison" you speak of? if you found a watch in the street would you not regard it as the result of design? what could you compare it to?

 

[watsup]

I was referring to 3) which is why I used the term "things" - here's what I wrote:



Now please explain what is this "comparison" you speak of? if you found a watch in the street would you not regard it as the result of design? what could you compare it to?

If I found a leaf in the street, I would not attribute it to intelligent design.

 

[zyzygy]

If I found a leaf in the street, I would not attribute it to intelligent design.

Evolution placed it there.

 

[watsup]

I apologize, yes you are not an atheist I see that, my error, I replied in haste.

However you did write (which is what I responded to): "dont understand what they read" and "since they are incapable of or dont try to understand the science" which is a little insulting too I think.

If you think I said something erroneous in a post ("it was clear you had misinterpreted the conclusions about mutations") then bring that to my attention and give me an opportunity to respond, is that too much to ask?

So since you find out that she is not an atheist, the generalized insults that you throw at atheists suddenly do not apply to her? What this shows is that your ad hom towards atheists is just a knee jerk reaction to the word rather than to a serious consideration of the attributes of atheists, both on an individual and group basis. It's quite childish, actually, to continue to constantly make such unsupported and hateful accusations based solely on their understanding of the absence of a God. A more mature manner would be to simply consider the particular words that they write or utter in a particular case and address those statements, not to automatically become suspect of them just because they fit the definition of one word.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks

It was intentional, because your attitude onscreen has been rude and arrogant and superior. So...I 'took a page out of your book.' My greatest sin is lack of patience.

Consider:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Open your mind from your pre-conceived ideas and re-read about the topic with a more open perspective. IMO, you just want to find cracks in the theory to look smarter than everyone else.

Deal with everyone else...and a wide range of texts...for the science. Like I wrote, I can be bothered.

If you disagree with something I wrote then quote that and politely state your case, that's all I expect from those who disagree with me, perhaps I expect too much.

 

[Lursa]

If you disagree with something I wrote then quote that and state your case.

???

Open your mind from your pre-conceived ideas and re-read about the topic with a more open perspective. IMO, you just want to find cracks in the theory to look smarter than everyone else.

Deal with everyone else...and a wide range of texts...for the science. Like I wrote, I can be bothered.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lursa, it seems you are new to debating, this is how it looks based on what you said anyway.

Whether I am or am not "rude", "arrogant", "superior" or anything else, this is of no significance, what I actually say is what you must respond to, not my perceived attitude, not my beliefs, education, qualifications or any of that - all that matters is the correctness or want thereof of what I write, is it true or false? is it correct or incorrect?

Resorting to personal character traits never helps in these things, that kind of approach invariably leads to ad hominem attacks.

This is why one should quote what their opponent wrote or said and then state what you disagree with and why, it really should be that simple, all too often people end up getting personal.

 

[watsup]

Resorting to personal character traits never helps in these things, that kind of approach invariably leads to ad hominem attacks.

Psychological projection.

 

[Lursa]

It was intentional, because your attitude onscreen has been rude and arrogant and superior. So...I 'took a page out of your book.' My greatest sin is lack of patience.

Open your mind from your pre-conceived ideas and re-read about the topic with a more open perspective. IMO, you just want to find cracks in the theory to look smarter than everyone else.

Deal with everyone else...and a wide range of texts...for the science. Like I wrote, I can be bothered.

Lursa, it seems you are new to debating, this is how it looks based on what you said anyway.

Um, nope. Please see my 'join' date here for one reference. (just one but it should be sufficient, along with post numbers. We're talking about quantity, not quality here...for quality you'd have to invest in some reading.)

My post above, for reference, is still adequate to state my position.

 

[Valery]

So since you find out that she is not an atheist, the generalized insults that you throw at atheists suddenly do not apply to her? What this shows is that your ad hom towards atheists is just a knee jerk reaction to the word rather than to a serious consideration of the attributes of atheists, both on an individual and group basis

Atheists are a group — get over it. You think you're all "special" in your atheism?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Um, nope. Please see my 'join' date here for one reference. (just one but it should be sufficient, along with post numbers. We're talking about quantity, not quality here...for quality you'd have to invest in some reading.)

My post above, for reference, is still adequate to state my position.

What does " Like I wrote, I can be bothered."? is that garbled English like the phrase "I could care less" when it really means one couldn't care less?

 

[NWRatCon]

I had initial engaged with friend Sherlock (the irony of the avatar and screen name is absolutely delicious) in the mistaken belief that the question/assertion was serious. It is now abundantly clear it was not. I apologize for my error.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The question: "Evolution or not" is on the same level as "Gravity" or not.

See: "Intelligent Falling!"

I 'd like open a thread on that topic.



More about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

If somebody believes in creation, he has also to believe in "Intelligent Falling."

Very well, I'll respond to the initial OP directly, rather than jump in partway through.

This is a deceptive comparison, comparing the claim "the life we see today arose through evolutionary processes" with the claim "objects always fall when unsupported" is comparing very different ideas.

Far better to compare the claim "genes sometimes mutate when organisms reproduce" with "objects always fall when unsupported".

Each of these is a readily observable phenomena, their truth is established by simple observation with little if any inductive reasoning, extrapolation, leaps of faith, etc that permeate the fantastical claims of the evolutionist.

This is yet another example of the poor scholarship and reasoning skills so often exhibited by atheists, the cited articles are nothing more than a strawman, deliberately misrepresenting creationist ideas, attacking the poor reasoning in that strawman and then implying that this amounts to a refutation of the position of the creationist or ID advocate.

 

[watsup]

I had initial engaged with friend Sherlock (the irony of the avatar and screen name is absolutely delicious) in the mistaken belief that the question/assertion was serious. It is now abundantly clear it was not. I apologize for my error.

Many have learned that quite quickly and yet his snake oil remains for sale to the gullible and naive among us.

 

[watsup]

Very well, I'll respond to the initial OP directly, rather than jump in partway through.

This is a deceptive comparison, comparing the claim "the life we see today arose through evolutionary processes" with the claim "objects always fall when unsupported" is comparing very different ideas.

Far better to compare the claim "genes sometimes mutate when organisms reproduce" with "objects always fall when unsupported".

Each of these is a readily observable phenomena, their truth is established by simple observation with little if any inductive reasoning, extrapolation, leaps of faith, etc that permeate the fantastical claims of the evolutionist.

This is yet another example of the poor scholarship and reasoning skills so often exhibited by atheists, the cited articles are nothing more than a strawman, deliberately misrepresenting creationist ideas, attacking the poor reasoning in that strawman and then implying that this amounts to a refutation of the position of the creationist or ID advocate.

Prove it.

 

[watsup]

What does " Like I wrote, I can be bothered."? is that garbled English like the phrase "I could care less" when it really means one couldn't care less?

Actually, the phrase “I could care less” can be explained as proper in English usage, it it matters not because it has become acceptable through common usage as a substitute for the other perhaps more correct phrase. And I could care less if you don’t agree.
.

 

[watsup]

Atheists are a group — get over it. You think you're all "special" in your atheism?

I fully stand by my previous assertion, Grouping individuals who ay have a common understanding but who have individual differences in the way that they approach it is simplistic and poor debate technique. I have learned that I’ve the years on the manner I which right wingers always insist in growing liberals as a monolith, wrongly of course.

 

[NWRatCon]

Many have learned that quite quickly and yet his snake oil remains for sale to the gullible and naive among us.

I was, I believe, influenced by my oft-repeated approach that science addresses the question "How?", while philosophy/theology addresses the question "why?". My initial surmise was that Sherlock was approaching the issue that way, but I was apparently misapprehended. It was merely a method of injecting theism into what was, otherwise, an amusing look into intellectual laziness and dishonesty. (e.g., "the fantastical claims of the evolutionist.") I now feel I've been given an object lesson in that vein. I have been appropriately chastised.

 

[watsup]

I was, I believe, influenced by my oft-repeated approach that science addresses the question "How?", while philosophy/theology addresses the question "why?". My initial surmise was that Sherlock was approaching the issue that way, but I was apparently misapprehended. It was merely a method of injecting theism into what was, otherwise, an amusing look into intellectual laziness and dishonesty. I now feel I've been given an object lesson in that vein. I have been appropriately chastised.

No need to feel chastised. He initially sounds reasoned, so it takes a day or two to understand the repetitive schtick. On the other hand, it’s kinda fun to refute his garble with thoughtful response just to see how big of a hole he digs for himself.

 

[watsup]

I was, I believe, influenced by my oft-repeated approach that science addresses the question "How?", while philosophy/theology addresses the question "why?". My initial surmise was that Sherlock was approaching the issue that way, but I was apparently misapprehended. It was merely a method of injecting theism into what was, otherwise, an amusing look into intellectual laziness and dishonesty. (e.g., "the fantastical claims of the evolutionist.") I now feel I've been given an object lesson in that vein. I have been appropriately chastised.

And the constant ad hom from Sherlock! What exactly does that prove?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I was, I believe, influenced by my oft-repeated approach that science addresses the question "How?", while philosophy/theology addresses the question "why?". My initial surmise was that Sherlock was approaching the issue that way, but I was apparently misapprehended. It was merely a method of injecting theism into what was, otherwise, an amusing look into intellectual laziness and dishonesty. (e.g., "the fantastical claims of the evolutionist.") I now feel I've been given an object lesson in that vein. I have been appropriately chastised.

You'd do well then to more fully explore the differences between "how" and "why" in science, they are in fact interchangeable.

Many questions about the natural world can be expressed using "how" or "why" with no confusion whatsoever, for example "why is the sky blue" or "why does an apple fall yet the moon does not" or "why does a light ray seem to bend when it enters water", in fact these kinds of questions are far more often that not expressed using "why" and it is quite uncommon to see them phrased with a "how".

Whether one uses "how" or "why" the intent is exactly the same, the discovery of the nature of their cause-and-effect relationship.