Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You cited by name, but you did not cite them supporting your assertions.
    As I said, I did not think I would ever be quizzed for specifics on this question. One debate I do remember was between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig on youtube. Where Harris used the "If God existed, X,Y&Z would never happen" argument. Its a very common argument for atheists to make. I personally get these arguments constantly from them

    How can you define different kinds of supernatural beings or anything else in the supernatural when you find no evidence that it exists. From an objective perspective you need evidence of something to objectively definite.
    Incorrect, we have objectively defied the concept of the "supernatural" before there was any evidence of its existence (although there is evidence now). My point was you can't reject a word/concept you have not properly defined

    For example, you said..

    No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.
    If I were to ask you if you believe grtwshsns exist or not, your response to me would be "I don't know tell me what a "grtwshsns" is first so I can decide".

    You must have a coherent definition of the concept that you choose to reject before you can rationally reject its existence.

    Also the "supernatural" does not exist per se, its only a label put on things that that are not within the scope of observable nature, and unable to be quantified and qualified. Radio waves would have been labeled "supernatural" to people thousands of years ago, and all of quantum physics would have been labeled supernatural 200 years ago. But once science learns how something works, and develop a theory for it, they move the concept from the supernatural to the natural

    The "supernatural spirit realm" spoken of by theists for thousands of years is simply a term for another dimension of reality that science now accepts as a reality. But science does not refer to other unseen, unfalsifiable, non-verifiable dimensions as "supernatural", they are simply not apart of our observable world (i.e. string theory) , but they are just as natural as the dimension we live in.

    Yes there are many standard usable definitions in the English language for; God(s), angels, souls, demons, dragons, huge giants (as described in the Bible.), monsters, aliens, but at present there is no evidence for these 'things' outside human imagination and anecdotal claims.
    Correct, just as there is no evidence for any other life forms existing anywhere else in the universe, however science does not blanketly reject their existence based on your criteria. Science uses logical inferences to make assumptions, and so do theists.

    Being able to define something based on anecdotal indirect evidence does not justify an argument that it exists.
    Why do you assume the indirect evidence I'm referring to is anecdotal?. I use the observable and testable teleological argument for Gods existence because it is extensive and supported even by atheists in science

    These are not my rules. There is evidence for string theory and multiverse. The evidence is not conclusive nor are all scientists in agreement, but these concepts are a direct result of falsifiable hypothesis and models.
    Absolutely no empirical evidence at all of their existence (many references available) , and they are both completely unfalsifiable. Please show me evidence to the contrary.

    You have presented considerable objections so far. The evidence for God(s) is highly anecdotal. I believe in God, but I avoid these bad arguments.
    When I first read that statement I thought it was a typo, but in context it obviously cant be. Tell me how did you come to believe God exists when you don't seem to believe there is any rational reason to believe in God?

    You said

    (1) There is insufficient evidence to believe in any form of Divine Beings called God(s). The logical arguments for God are old, outdated and highly circular.

    (2) There is insufficient evidence that any form of evil exists. What is described as evil is simply natural suffering and death. The view of evil and miracles from ancient religions is just supersticious views of natural events and behavior.

    (3) The evidence for God claimed by theists is anecdotal.

    Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'
    There can be only three reason why anyone could come to believe God exists

    1. Personal revelation or experience/anecdotal (you have stated is a "bad argument")
    2. The teleological argument/logical inferences, i.e. it looks designed, therefore it is (you have stated is "highly circular")
    3. Blind faith & Philosophy (you have stated you reject things that have no observable evidence for their existence)

    Please tell me what is your reasoning for believing In Gods existence. ?

    Your knowledge of science appears very limited and warped. Since you prefer to cite the less then 1% of the scientists that do not support natural evolution. Fully 99% plus of all scientist in the related fields support natural evolution.
    First of all, you fail to understand these fields of science only allow atheistic (naturalistic) hypotheses to be entertained, therefore they will naturally select for people who believe in naturalism, hence your numbers for methodological naturalists will always be biased

    And tell me where I ever once said "evolution" does not happen?. The problem here is you do not acknowledged, recognize, or understand the limits and mechanisms of evolution. Years ago evolutionary science observed minor fluctuations in phenotypes, then falsely extrapolated entire system evolution from that observation. We now know through the fossil record (via rampant stasis) and through genetics (via the "conserved elements" or elements that do not evolve) entire system evolution is false.

    Anyone that believes in "entire system evolution" either knows nothing about biology, nothing about engineering, or both. I will not belabor you with the specifics here, but I will explain in a thread I will start "Why Darwinian Evolution Is Impossible"

    There is evidence for natural processes that lead to abiogenesis. The field of research is very new, only 20 - 30 years at best. The possible processes of abiogenesis are falsifiable in the real world and research is progressing. If you're interested start a thread and we will discuss the present state of the evidence.
    A valid theory of abiogenesis does not exist. RNA world has recently suffered many problems

    Watch "The Great Debate What Is Life" on The Science Network
    http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...-is-life-panel

    Sydney Altman said natural RNA (all RNA found in nature) can do none of the 25 enzymatic functions synthetic RNA can do, and all RNA experiments are done with synthetic RNA. Also on that same video, Craig Venter informs Dawkins, Darwin's predicted "Tree Of Life" does not exist, and Dawkins is visibly upset by this news

    And two recent articles on the problems with RNA world

    "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)" Harold S Bernhardt
    "Study of ribosome evolution challenges RNA world hypothesis" Gustavo Caetano-Anollés

    “I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct....That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.” Caetano-Anollés

    The science of evolution and abiogenesis are scientific issues, and nothing to do with the argument for or against theism, or atheism or deism, or any other belief system.
    Quite the opposite, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are staples of the atheistic philosophy. Many atheists have said it was their belief in evolution that led them to their atheism. Dawkins said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

    Those that believe in Theistic Evolution consider Evolution and Abiogenesis as natural processes of how God created. Based on Methodological Naturalism science is justifiably neutral as tow whether there is a God involved or not.
    Why would any rational thinking theist believe the selection of luck randomness can do a better job at creating life and species than the mind of God?. Thats a ridiculous proposal. Any theist that believes in abiogensis or Darwinian evolution does so because of media propaganda and school indoctrination. Just as nobody would believe lucky randomness has a better chance at writing Microsoft Windows when there is a master PC programmer available. Its nonsensical

    The above does not make sense as part of a logical argument.
    The above does not make sense as a part of a logical rebuttal. Thats an absolutely pointless response that did not address my argument in the least. My argument is, atheists reject God based on the fact there is no observable empirical evidence of his existence, therefore logic dictates it is the lack of observable evidence that is the foundation for their lack of belief in God, therefore logic dictates any and all other things that also have a lack of observable evidence of its existence should also be rejected by atheists on the same grounds. But we know this is not true don't we?. Which makes atheists hypocrites, lairs or both
    Last edited by IDScience; 06-18-2014, 04:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      Yeah. When an idea is new, somebody has to invent a label for it. But an idea doesn't become new just because somebody on the Internet sticks a new label on it.
      Were not taking about a new "idea", we are talking about a new "term" that encompasses more than one term of logic

      That is the height of absurdity. The scientists who have worked on multiverse theory could not possibly have been motivated by anything I have ever said.
      LOL, good one Doug. You could not see from my response where the confusion came from? It should have been obvious. The way you wrote it can be implied, you didn't know where that topic came from,. You should have said

      "Whatever might have motivated the origins of the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution."

      That would have been a more accurate statement.

      The logical form of my statement is "A or not-A." That is true no matter who says what.
      I was not addressing your "logical form" I was addressing your erroneous assumption that supernatural abilities are needed to create life, again that should have been clearly evident.

      Other atheists can speak for themselves, but on the day I am confronted with incontrovertible facts that are inconsistent with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life or its present diversity, I will believe whatever those facts tell me I must believe. I am not afraid to change my mind. I have done it before, and I can do it again
      But the question is, if ID is verified and abiogenesis nullified does this equate in your mind God did it?. Or will you jump on the ALIENS DID IT bandwagon as most other atheists will. This is the whole point I am making with people making ID and supernatural creationism synonymous. Because if your not prepared to become a God believer if and when that happens, you will have some egg to wipe off your face when you have to back peddle and admit to ID proponents that you were wrong about ID equating supernatural creation. And that error in judgment about what ID actually is will put your reasoning abilities in question

      I have not seen that, and I have been observing scientific discourse for almost my whole life. And if I have not seen it, it isn't because I am a liberal philosopher, because I am not a liberal philosopher.
      I see it all the time. The evidence would be, find me a question science does not currently attempt to answer, or claim an answer to an unsolved question will eventually be forthcoming. Its the nature of science to do this

      Not all stereotypes are groundless. "A's are typically B" can be factually true even if "Some A's are not B" is also true.
      I agree, I am not saying there are no grounds for stereotypes, they are called that for a reason, because they are accurate. I'm saying the liberal establishment who claims to abhor using stereotypes, will use them on creationists and ID proponents

      It is a certain faction within each religion that thinks the current theory of evolution is inconsistent with Genesis. A majority of each's adherents have no problem reconciling Genesis with modern science.
      Thats because they have interpreted the bible incorrectly. Gen 1 & Gen 2 are two separate creation events. Gen 1 being Neanderthals millions of years ago and Gen 2 being Adam & Eve 6000 years ago. If they understood this they would not believe the evolutionary scientists

      I agree, but the hypothesis doesn't become valid just because you use lots of scientific terminology to formulate it. The science is not in the language. It's in the process.
      Correct, and the process (therefore hypothesis) of ID will be verified by science long before the process of chemical reactions comes even close. This is a fact

      If your argument requires you to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, then you don't have a good argument.
      The integrity of evolutionary scientists are a problem. David Berlinski's daughter had a video on youtube called "dissidents", in which she was at a conference in Europe that had many evolutionary scientists discussing the problems with the Darwinian theory, and as soon as she pulled out her camera to interview, all but one scattered like rats off a sinking ship for fear of being seen at the conference

      Evolutionary science (liberals) rules like the Catholic church did before the reformation, by intimidation and ridicule. Its really sad how they treat those who look for problems in evolutionary theory
      Last edited by IDScience; 06-18-2014, 04:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        What I think is that your observation is irrelevant. What do you think it would prove if I were to say, "The egos in evangelical Christianity will not admit that evangelical Christianity is nonsense"?
        Christians admits we stand by faith, and our belief is not falsifiable. Science claims to stand on empirical observable testable evidence that is falsifiable, and claims to reject everything that does not fit that criteria. See the difference?

        Show me one such prediction.
        If your not aware of even one false evolutionary prediction, your not at all familiar with evolutionary science.

        The tree of life (phylogenetic relationships) falsified
        Junk DNA, falsified
        Molecular clock predictions, falsified
        Selection of Random mutations as a mechanism, falsified
        Gradualism, falsified

        "...The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.... The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution" The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" E. Koonin

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        Yes, it is. What it is not, is a refutation. Do I need to explain the difference?
        No, I need to explain the difference to you. Your confusing a rebuttal with a response

        "The rebuttal, strictly interpreted, refers to argumentation meant 'to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning by introducing other evidence and reasoning that will destroy its effect.' In practice, the terms refutation and rebuttal are used interchangeably, except that the second speech by each advocate in an academic debate is designated as the rebuttal speech." (Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 12th ed. Cengage Learning, 2008)"

        Therefore "Not just because you say so, it doesn't." is not a rebuttal, it's a response

        You have not given me a good reason to believe it. That is all the justification I need for not believing it.
        If I remember correctly that comment was in response to me saying. If abiogenesis was false, ID must be true. Which I then said if I am wrong, then prove it by giving me a third hypothesis, which you never did
        Last edited by IDScience; 06-19-2014, 03:58 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Homo neanderthalensis started at 600,000 years ago, according to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            When an idea is new, somebody has to invent a label for it. But an idea doesn't become new just because somebody on the Internet sticks a new label on it.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            Were not taking about a new "idea", we are talking about a new "term" that encompasses more than one term of logic
            Why do you think we need a new term? What was inadequate about the terminology that was in use before the Internet came along?

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            "Whatever might have motivated the origins of the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution."

            That would have been a more accurate statement.*
            OK, I'll accept that version of it.

            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            The logical form of my statement is "A or not-A." That is true no matter who says what.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            I was not addressing your "logical form" I was addressing your erroneous assumption that supernatural abilities are needed to create life, again that should have been clearly evident.
            My statement was: "The origin of life was either natural or supernatural." There is no assumption there about supernatural abilities being needed to create life. Just because of its logical form, the statement is true no matter what might be necessary to create life.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            Or will you jump on the ALIENS DID IT bandwagon as most other atheists will.
            I don't care what most other atheists do. If it were to be demonstrated that a natural origin of life was impossible, then the alien hypothesis won't be any help unless it is presupposed that the aliens themselves were of supernatural origin.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            And that error in judgment about what ID actually is will put your reasoning abilities in question
            You say so. It is your judgment of my reasoning abilities.

            Originally posted by IDScience
            The problem with science today is, its littered with liberal philosophers that think its their job to answer every single question posed by humanity

            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            I have not seen that, and I have been observing scientific discourse for almost my whole life. And if I have not seen it, it isn't because I am a liberal philosopher, because I am not a liberal philosopher.
            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            I see it all the time.
            Let's see an example. Give us a quotation from a scientist who said, "I think it is our job to answer every single question posed by humanity," or word to that effect.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            The evidence would be, find me a question science does not currently attempt to answer, or claim an answer to an unsolved question will eventually be forthcoming. Its the nature of science to do this*
            Are you asking me to produce a quotation by a scientist saying that there are questions science cannot answer?

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            I am not saying there are no grounds for stereotypes
            Good.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            they are called that for a reason, because they are accurate.
            No, that is not why they are called that. A stereotype originally was a kind of printing plate. The word was later extended metaphorically to refer to certain kinds of generalizations, usually with the pejorative connotation of being oversimplified.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            I'm saying the liberal establishment who claims to abhor using stereotypes, will use them on creationists and ID proponents*
            Liberals denounce stereotypes because stereotypes historically have been used to justify racism and other bigotries, which they regard as evil. They have reasoned, erroneously, that whatever can be used to justify evil must itself be evil and therefore stereotypes must be evil. It then follows, of course, that when they themselves use stereotypes, they must deny doing so.

            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            It is a certain faction within each religion that thinks the current theory of evolution is inconsistent with Genesis. A majority of each's adherents have no problem reconciling Genesis with modern science.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            Thats because they have interpreted the bible incorrectly.
            They disagree with your interpretation. Why should I extend any privilege to yours? I have no problem in principle with rejecting a majority viewpoint, but I need a better reason than the minority's mere assertion "The majority is wrong."

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            Gen 1 & Gen 2 are two separate creation events. Gen 1 being Neanderthals millions of years ago and Gen 2 being Adam & Eve 6000 years ago.
            You say so.

            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            the hypothesis doesn't become valid just because you use lots of scientific terminology to formulate it. The science is not in the language. It's in the process.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            Correct, and the process (therefore hypothesis) of ID will be verified by science
            A hypothesis is a statement, not a process. The formulation of a hypothesis is a process, but it is not the entire scientific process, and if you get the rest of the process wrong, your hypothesis is scientifically worthless.

            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            If your argument requires you to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, then you don't have a good argument.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            The integrity of evolutionary scientists are a problem.
            You say so.

            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
            David Berlinski's daughter had a video on youtube
            You think you can prove your point by referencing a YouTube video, and then you expect me to believe that you know enough about science to tell me when it isn't working the way it's supposed to.
            Last edited by Doug Shaver; 06-17-2014, 02:29 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
              What I think is that your observation is irrelevant. What do you think it would prove if I were to say, "The egos in evangelical Christianity will not admit that evangelical Christianity is nonsense"?

              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              Christianity admits we stand by faith, and our belief is not falsifiable.
              Some Christians admit that, but that has nothing to do with whether any Christian will admit to believing in nonsense. Unfalsifiable nonsense is still nonsense.

              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              Science claims to stand on empirical observable testable evidence that is falsifiable, and claims to reject everything that does not fit that criteria. See the difference?
              I saw the difference between science and Christianity a long time ago.

              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
              Show me one such [falsified] prediction.

              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              The tree of life (phylogenetic relationships) . . . Junk DNA . . . Molecular clock predictions . . .
              Selection of Random mutations as a mechanism . . . Gradualism
              Good. Now, pick one of those and show me, with pertinent references to the scientific literature, (a) that evolutionary theory predicted it and (b) the discovery that falsified it.

              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
              But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

              Originally posted by IDScience
              Of course it does
              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
              Not just because you say so, it doesn't.
              Originally posted by IDScience
              Thats not a rebuttal
              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
              What it is not, is a refutation. Do I need to explain the difference?
              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              No, I need to explain the difference to you. Your confusing a rebuttal with a response
              A response can be a rebuttal, a refutation, or neither (an evasion, e.g.). A refutation is a rebuttal, but a rebuttal is not necessarily a refutation. To be a refutation, it must succeed in proving that the opponent's claim is actually false. To be a good rebuttal, it suffices to demonstrate that the opponent has failed to adequately demonstrate the truth of his claim. A bad rebuttal tries to do that but fails.

              Originally posted by Doug Shaver
              You have not given me a good reason to believe it. That is all the justification I need for not believing it.

              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              If I remember correctly that comment was in response to me saying. If abiogenesis was false, ID must be true. Which I then said if I am wrong, then prove it by giving me a third hypothesis, which you never did
              I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to prove that I'm not being unreasonable when I disagree with you.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                Again, you repeatedly make the mistake of assuming to know what a life form with "omnibenevolence" characteristics would do in certain situations. And you repeatedly fail to understand unless you possess these characteristics yourself and find them contradictory to your own, its impossible for you to know this. You can't even get over this minuscule hurdle of critical thought.

                "What I cannot create, I do not understand" Richard Feynman
                This is false. Words have definitions, and we can analyze those definitions. God does not call himself omnibenevolent. People do that. People, using their definitions, make a claim. We have the ability to assess that claim within the framework of the definitions. If, using this framework, the description does not apply to what we see around us, there is an issue. This is what we find in regards to omnibenevolence, and that's quite clearly is the case or the PoE would be non-existent.


                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                Then you are claiming to have reasoning abilities beyond what is inherent to your nature and abilities, which is not only patently illogical, its complete arrogance. Which does not surprise me because arrogance is a Hallmark of atheism. As Solomon said "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble"

                Does a single celled organism know what a human would do in any given situation, of course not, but the arrogant illogical ones are certain they do know.
                I have made no such claim to reasoning abilities beyond what is 'inherent to my nature or abilities'. This is your claim made on questionable premises.

                Your claim that we must possess certain characteristics in order to make claims about them is pure assertion on your part, and one that you've provided no reason for me (or anyone) to accept. I reject your claim, plain and simple. I would do so merely on the fact that it is pure assertion without backing, but I can further do so on the basis of it's quite at odds with normal, everyday function. We need not fully know or understand a given subject to reason about it and/or to make true statements about it.


                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                Incorrect, I did not modify my statement at all, I clarified it to you even though no clarification should have been necessary if you knew anything about how polls work. Ill explain it one more time.

                Polls are not conducted by asking 100% of the targeted audience, they are conducted by asking a large group of them so that an accuracy rate of + or - 5% will be achieved. (Just Google "How are Polls Conducted"). And in my experience with debating atheists, the vast majority of those that are intelligent enough to carry on a debate, use the "IF ANALOGY", i.e. "IF GOD EXISTED, X,Y&Z WOULD NEVER HAPPEN" as a main reason for their atheism.
                When you say one thing then later say another thing, even if the second thing is a clarification, it is also a modification. Your initial statement was non-specific and generally false. You've since amended it to only aim at "those with whom you've interacted". So be it.


                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                And the ironic part of this is, you seem to be blind to the fact that you're using these same ""IF ANALOGY" arguments in this debate, with... "If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply"... , then turn around and argue most atheists don't use that argument.

                Shooting down the same arguments you're trying to making in the exact same post you are setting them up in, is not conducive to winning the debate
                You can't even keep your own claims straight. I do not use the impossibility of omnibenevolence as a "main reason for my atheism". That I can use an if-then statement as a disproof for any facet of religion is not the same as it being a main reason for my beliefs, nor does it have any impact on how many atheists do or do not use it as a main reason. Of course, this all ignores the very real fact that I'm not even an atheist.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                  Why do you think we need a new term? What was inadequate about the terminology that was in use before the Internet came along?
                  Because the term encompasses more than one law of logical absolute outcome. As long as you understand the meaning behind it what difference does it make. Again, this is one step away from quibbling about punctuation and spelling.

                  http://logical-critical-thinking.com...cal-absolutes/

                  Law of Identity
                  Law of Excluded Middle
                  Law of Non-contradiction

                  My statement was: "The origin of life was either natural or supernatural." There is no assumption there about supernatural abilities being needed to create life. Just because of its logical form, the statement is true no matter what might be necessary to create life.
                  But you never qualified the terms. Does natural mean ipso facto no ID took place, or if ID did take place, must it be a supernatural intelligence?

                  I don't care what most other atheists do. If it were to be demonstrated that a natural origin of life was impossible, then the alien hypothesis won't be any help unless it is presupposed that the aliens themselves were of supernatural origin.
                  Well it satisfies the appearance of design without God, which is what all atheists actually want anyway. And that statement also lends credence to my claim that science needs to answer every question posed, which is why its littered with philosophers and not engineers.

                  Let's see an example. Give us a quotation from a scientist who said, "I think it is our job to answer every single question posed by humanity," or word to that effect.
                  Ill look for it, I think I did hear something to that effect years ago. But since its the nature of science to find answers to questions, I don't see how you could rationally argue against this.

                  Are you asking me to produce a quotation by a scientist saying that there are questions science cannot answer?
                  No, I'm asking you to produce a quote by science that claims some question are completely off limits to science

                  Liberals denounce stereotypes because stereotypes historically have been used to justify racism and other bigotries, which they regard as evil. They have reasoned, erroneously, that whatever can be used to justify evil must itself be evil and therefore stereotypes must be evil. It then follows, of course, that when they themselves use stereotypes, they must deny doing so.
                  Recognizing truth does not make you a racist. I recognize orientals consistently score higher on SAT scores, Jews are better communicators, hence they flock to the fields that use those skills, Germans and better engineers, Africans are more physically adept, ect. the list can go on and on (and I know there are exceptions to every rule). Liberals don't like to admit these self evident truths because it causes people to feel uncomfortable, hence they created political correctness (i.e. lying) to cover up these truths that everyone clearly recognizes. This is why liberals appear disingenuous

                  They disagree with your interpretation. Why should I extend any privilege to yours? I have no problem in principle with rejecting a majority viewpoint, but I need a better reason than the minority's mere assertion "The majority is wrong."
                  Because my OEC theory makes far more sense, its explains the contradictions in the creation events between Gen 1 & 2. Its explains Neanderthals existing before Adam & Eve, It also explains the genetic and archaeological evidence that our modern species appeared suddenly 6000-7000 years ago, even though mankind has been here much longer.

                  A hypothesis is a statement, not a process. The formulation of a hypothesis is a process, but it is not the entire scientific process, and if you get the rest of the process wrong, your hypothesis is scientifically worthless.
                  I said the process of ID will be verified before the process of abogenesis is. And a hypothesis can not be verified before the process is verified, thus the process (therefore hypothesis) of ID will be verified by science before abiogenesis is. Why is it difficult to understand its the process of scientists intelligently designing life that will verify the hypothesis of intelligent design?

                  You think you can prove your point by referencing a YouTube video, and then you expect me to believe that you know enough about science to tell me when it isn't working the way it's supposed to.
                  Everyone familiar with evolutionary academia knows how those critical of evolution (applying the scientific method of attacking the theory) are treated. And if you truly don't know about it, you prove your not informed on whats really going on. I get all the ID/evolution news on a daily basis, and this type of treatment is common. Thats how liberals come to a consensus, by intimidation, ridicule and political correctness, not by critical debate of the facts

                  Some Christians admit that, but that has nothing to do with whether any Christian will admit to believing in nonsense. Unfalsifiable nonsense is still nonsense
                  To use your words. "You say so".

                  Your statement should be worded .."but that has nothing to do with whether any Christian will admit to believing in what I believe to be nonsense"... If you admit a position is unfalsifiable, then you can't possibly know if that position is actually nonsense if its unfalsifiable. Things that are true can be unfalsifiable, because the very definition of unfalsifiable means its incapable of being proven false, thus unfalsifiable things can be true, thus your statement is nonsensical as a factual claim

                  I saw the difference between science and Christianity a long time ago
                  Did you also happen to see how science does the same things they blame Christians for doing when it comes to their own theories?.

                  Good. Now, pick one of those and show me, with pertinent references to the scientific literature, (a) that evolutionary theory predicted it and (b) the discovery that falsified it.
                  I should not have to do this for someone that debates this topic. If your not fully aware of both sides of an argument, you have no business debating it.

                  The quotes for false predictions are exhaustive in every area, and may get me flagged for quote spaming if I post them all (its happen to me before on this website), Ill post a few on the phylogenetic conflicts

                  "Early expectation that data from more molecules would lead to a clearer answer "began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."
                  J. Lake, R. Jain, M. Rivera, Science283 , p 2027-2028.


                  "With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA trees" H. Philippe and P. Forterre, Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 , p509-523.

                  "Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees." M. Lynch, Evolution 53 (1999) p 323.

                  "No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".
                  C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.


                  "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea." W. Ford Doolittle Science 286, 1999.

                  Hope for a basis for organizing molecular data into a tree of life (ancestor-decendent relationships) is dwindling. This is attributed by some to lateral gene transfers...the incongruities "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds." ... "It is time to question underlying assumptions". C. Woese, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859.

                  I have many more if you want them

                  A response can be a rebuttal, a refutation, or neither (an evasion, e.g.). A refutation is a rebuttal, but a rebuttal is not necessarily a refutation. To be a refutation, it must succeed in proving that the opponent's claim is actually false. To be a good rebuttal, it suffices to demonstrate that the opponent has failed to adequately demonstrate the truth of his claim. A bad rebuttal tries to do that but fails.
                  Yes, all rebuttals and refutations are responses, but not vice versa. I don't expect you to refute any of my arguments, but I do expect more than a "Not because you say so" response. If you don't intend to give a explanation why I'm wrong, then don't bother responding
                  Last edited by IDScience; 06-19-2014, 04:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    This is false. Words have definitions, and we can analyze those definitions. God does not call himself omnibenevolent. People do that. People, using their definitions, make a claim. We have the ability to assess that claim within the framework of the definitions. If, using this framework, the description does not apply to what we see around us, there is an issue. This is what we find in regards to omnibenevolence, and that's quite clearly is the case or the PoE would be non-existent.
                    The origins of the claim has no relevance to its actual definition. There can be a difference between its actual definition and its perceived definition, and our human ability to perceive and assess the definition is strictly bound by human logic & reason.

                    And, this case can be solved by your own words.."People, using their definitions, make a claim".. Therefore humans, who do not possess these characteristics, make the claim and they define the parameters of the "omnibenevolence claim" without even knowing where the parameters of omnibenevolence are located or the extent of their reach. Logical fallacies are rampant in philosophers.

                    Also your argument below is not logically sound

                    If the world we live in is not the best possible world, the description of omnibenevolence doesn't apply. If it is not the best possible world, there's no reasonable
                    expectation of a better world to come.
                    If we currently did live in "the best possible world" now, then there would be no reasonable expectation of a better world to come because the world could not possibly get any better based on that criteria. But if we do not live in the best possible (enjoyable) world right now, the expectation of a better world to come is not only reasonable, but should be expected based on the law of averages

                    Your claim that we must possess certain characteristics in order to make claims about them is pure assertion on your part, and one that you've provided no reason for me (or anyone) to accept.
                    I never claimed that. Of course you can makes claims all day long about the nature of characteristics you do not personally have. My statement was that you cant claim it accurately unless you possess the characteristics you are critiquing

                    I would do so merely on the fact that it is pure assertion without backing, but I can further do so on the basis of it's quite at odds with normal, everyday function. We need not fully know or understand a given subject to reason about it and/or to make true statements about it.
                    True, you do not need to fully know or understand a given subject to reason about it or even to make true statements about it, but you do need to fully know and fully understand a given subject to not make false statements about it.

                    Prime example: non-coding DNA being labeled as nonfunctional JUNK. The subjective philosophers in science made assertions about things they did not fully understand, thereby made false statements about the subject. And this will inevitably happen in 100% of subjects that people do not fully understand.

                    When you say one thing then later say another thing, even if the second thing is a clarification, it is also a modification. Your initial statement was non-specific and generally false. You've since amended it to only aim at "those with whom you've interacted". So be it..
                    Its a modification in wording, not in meaning. I had to modify the wording for you to understand it, but you still don't.

                    You've since amended it to only aim at "those with whom you've interacted". So be it.
                    Thats like telling a pollster you've since amended it to only those you have polled. it still constitutes + or - 5% of the targeted audience

                    You can't even keep your own claims straight. I do not use the impossibility of omnibenevolence as a "main reason for my atheism. That I can use an if-then statement as a disproof for any facet of religion is not the same as it being a main reason for my beliefs, nor does it have any impact on how many atheists do or do not use it as a main reason
                    If atheists do use the IF-THEN argument, which you agree atheists do (and you have also used that argument) then you can't emphatically say its not "a main reason for their atheism", because only if you practice debating atheists as I do and find its a claim they rarely or never use in a debate, can you make this claim about what the cause of their atheism is established in.

                    And I can tell you of the many hundreds of atheists I have debated (considering the accuracy of polls) the vast majority use the IF-THEN arguments. I find it assuming you attempt to convince me my experiences with atheists and the polls numbers that follow are false

                    And lastly, if your not even an atheist how can you argue for their position and claim to know why they are atheists?. Wait, I know why, because someone who can predict how a omnibenevolence, omnipresent, omniscient life-form would think, would certainly also know how all atheists would think...Checkmate, you got me on that one.
                    Last edited by IDScience; 06-19-2014, 04:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                      Good. Now, pick one of those and show me, with pertinent references to the scientific literature, (a) that evolutionary theory predicted it and (b) the discovery that falsified it.
                      Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                      The quotes for false predictions are exhaustive in every area, and may get me flagged for quote spaming if I post them all (its happen to me before on this website)
                      You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

                      You did include references, though. It might take me a while to check them, but I'll get back to you when I'm done with that.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                        Why do you think we need a new term? What was inadequate about the terminology that was in use before the Internet came along?

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Because the term encompasses more than one law . . . .
                        Law of Identity
                        Law of Excluded Middle
                        Law of Non-contradiction
                        We don't need a new term for that. Aristotle already gave us one. The term is "axiom."

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Again, this is one step away from quibbling about punctuation and spelling.
                        People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Does natural mean ipso facto no ID took place, or if ID did take place, must it be a supernatural intelligence?
                        That depends on what is being claimed about the intelligence responsible for the design. If it is a disembodied intelligence, then it is supernatural. If it's aliens, then it's natural, but then we'll want an explanation for how they acquired their intelligence.

                        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                        Are you asking me to produce a quotation by a scientist saying that there are questions science cannot answer?

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        No, I'm asking you to produce a quote by science that claims some question are completely off limits to science
                        I can't quote science. I can only quote scientists.

                        Originally posted by IDScience
                        they have interpreted the bible incorrectly.

                        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                        They disagree with your interpretation. Why should I extend any privilege to yours?
                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Because my OEC theory makes far more sense
                        Every Christian says their interpretation of scripture makes the most sense. You're getting mighty close to claiming something like infalllibility for your own interpretation.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Why is it difficult to understand its the process of scientists intelligently designing life that will verify the hypothesis of intelligent design?
                        Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Everyone familiar with evolutionary academia knows how those critical of evolution (applying the scientific method of attacking the theory) are treated.
                        Sure. And the only people familiar with evolutionary academia are the ones who happen to agree with you. Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        Thats how liberals come to a consensus
                        You can complain about liberals all you want, but when you're talking with me, you might as well be complaining about Australian aborigines for all the good it will do you.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        If you admit a position is unfalsifiable, then you can't possibly know if that position is actually nonsense if its unfalsifiable.
                        Fascinating. That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        If your not fully aware of both sides of an argument, you have no business debating it.
                        There you go again, claiming that no one but ignoramuses can disagree with you.

                        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                        but I do expect more than a "Not because you say so" response. If you don't intend to give a explanation why I'm wrong, then don't bother responding
                        If your say-so is enough to prove your point, my say-so is enough to prove mine. And so, I say you're wrong. Shall we end this discussion now?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                          The quotes for false predictions are exhaustive in every area, and may get me flagged for quote spaming if I post them all (its happen to me before on this website), Ill post a few on the phylogenetic conflicts
                          You referenced five articles (two of your six quotations are from one of them). I have obtained copies of all five and will read them as soon as I can.

                          I'm assuming that by "phylogenetic conflicts" you mean falsification of common ancestry. If you mean something else, please clarify your semantic intentions. Meanwhile, I'll be examining your quotations in their proper context to see whether they support anybody's claim that common ancestry has been falsified.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            That didn't take as long as I was afraid it might.

                            First up:

                            Carl Woese, "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 12 (Jun. 9, 1998), pp. 6854-6859.

                            Your quotation:

                            Source: IDScience

                            "No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves".

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Actual quotation (plus context):

                            Source: Woese

                            A discrete picture of the ancestor began to emerge only when many more sequences representing all three phylogenetic domains became available. These sequences could be seen as putting phenotypic flesh on an ancestral phylogenetic skeleton. Yet that task has turned out to be anything but straightforward. Indeed, it would seem to require disarticulating the skeleton. No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.

                            Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves (p. 6854).

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            What Woese is saying here is not that common ancestry has been falsified. He is saying that there remain many unanswered questions about particular relationships among several taxonomic groups.

                            Your other quotation from Woese:

                            Source: IDScience

                            Hope for a basis for organizing molecular data into a tree of life (ancestor-decendent relationships) is dwindling. This is attributed by some to lateral gene transfers...the incongruities "are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds."... "It is time to question underlying assumptions".

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Actual quotations, plus context:

                            Source: Woese

                            Exceptions to the topology of the rRNA tree such as these are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can be neither overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds (p. 6854).

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Source: Woese

                            All of this apparently happened in far less than 1 billion years, whereas evolution within each of the three primary lines of descent has been going on for over 3 billion years now with outcomes that don't even begin to compare with the spectacular ones associated with the ancestor and its original offspring (4) -- yet experience teaches that complex, integrated structures change more slowly than do simple ones. Moreover, the totipotent ancestor associates physiologies that have not been observed together in any modern lineage and asks that all of this come about through vertical inheritance. Thus, we are left with no consistent and satisfactory picture of the universal ancestor. It is time to question underlying assumptions (p. 6855).

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Again, there is nothing here, or anywhere else in the article, to suggest a falsification of common ancestry. There is only an admission that we are not yet sure what that common ancestor would have looked like.

                            Next is:

                            James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, New Series, Vol. 283, No. 5410 (Mar. 26, 1999), pp. 2027-2028.

                            Your quotation:

                            Source: IDScience

                            "Early expectation that data from more molecules would lead to a clearer answer "began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Actual quotation:

                            Source: Lake, Jain, and Rivera

                            The clonal theory began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone (p. 2027)

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            The clonal theory is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was a specific hypothesis about particular relationships among early lineages. The gene relationships that were discovered were inconsistent not with the general theory of common ancestry but with that hypothesis.

                            Then we come to:

                            W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science,
                            New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5423 (Jun. 25, 1999), pp. 2124-2128.

                            Your quotation:

                            Source: IDScience

                            "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            This statement does not appear in the article. If it is supposed to be a paraphrase, you had no business putting quotation marks around it. In any case, like the others, the statement is not in any way contrary to any prediction of evolutionary theory.

                            We also have:

                            Michael Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla," Evolution, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 319-325

                            Source: Lynch

                            Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees (Table 1) (p. 323).

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Nothing in this statement entails the falsification of common ancestry.

                            And finally:

                            Herve´ Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 49 (1999), pp. 509-523.

                            Source: Philippe and Forterre

                            With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each others as well as the rRNA tree (p. 510).

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            The article reports no falsification of common ancestry. The sequencings reported in this article show that we do not yet know all the particular details about relationships among early taxa. They do not show that there could not have been a common ancestor for all organisms.
                            Last edited by Doug Shaver; 06-19-2014, 04:50 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                              You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

                              You did include references, though. It might take me a while to check them, but I'll get back to you when I'm done with that.
                              You asked for the pertinent information, and I gave it to you. Its my pet peeve when people I debate make claims, then post a reference that is not even fully accessible to the pertinent information. If you would prefer to make it more difficult and to do all the lengthly footwork and reading yourself to find the information I am claiming, then that is your choice. I have no problem with it

                              People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.
                              Yes, but in my experience people who feel the need to argue about punctuation usually do so because they have no argument to be made about the main point, so they take what ever victory in the debate they can get

                              That depends on what is being claimed about the intelligence responsible for the design. If it is a disembodied intelligence, then it is supernatural. If it's aliens, then it's natural, but then we'll want an explanation for how they acquired their intelligence.
                              But the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests mind and brain are separate entities (the observer effect), and quantum entanglement, which Eisenstein called "spooky action at a distance", defies the conventional law of physics that prohibits information traveling faster than the speed of light. This is one of my points, that many people are stuck in a outdated interpretation of what the supernatural and natural actually are.

                              Every Christian says their interpretation of scripture makes the most sense. You're getting mighty close to claiming something like infalllibility for your own interpretation
                              Not at all

                              Romans 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar
                              1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly

                              But Solomon may have implied a race of people existing before "us" in Ecc, and the theory does fit the evidence

                              Ecc 1:9 That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
                              Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing of which it may be said, See, this is new? It has already been in days of old, which were before us.
                              Ecc 3:15 That which has been is now; and that which is to be has already been; and God requires that which is past.

                              Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.
                              It appears you may prefer the use of philosophical double negative poetic rhetoric (aka liberal logic). Certainly you must be able to grasp the basic concept that the process of intelligently designing life must be verified before is can be referred to as a successful theory of intelligent design.?. Its the successful process that verifies the theory. I can't get anymore basic that that

                              Sure. And the only people familiar with evolutionary academia are the ones who happen to agree with you. Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.
                              On this issue it is ignorance. Would you like me to post the information on how those who are critical of Darwinian evolution are treated by academia?. Darwinian evolution is a "religion" of sorts because it does not follow the tenets that all other areas of science follow, which is to continually attempt to prove the theory wrong. All other scientific theories teach the problems in their theory, in fact they encourage looking for holes in the theory. But evolutionary science hides these gaping holes in the theory from students because as Eugenie Scott said, ..."It will just confuse the students"... Therefore its not even an actual theory, its an atheistic ideology posing as a legitimate scientific theory

                              Fascinating. That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.
                              Yes it is, and considering my position on liberal atheists, and the fact falsification came from the liberal atheist Popper, you should have seen that position coming.

                              Falsification rejects that which is incapable of being rejected (falsified) , and if an investigator of a crime rejected a valid potential suspect on the grounds the suspect was incapable of being rejected, he would be fired on the spot. Attacking the theory is essential , but rejecting "out of hand" that which is incapable of being attacked and rejected is irrational and illogical.

                              There you go again, claiming that no one but ignoramuses can disagree with you.
                              Wrong, but the problems in the theory of evolution are so well known, even the 16yo atheist noobs on youtube know all about them. I expected more knowledge of the subject from someone who initiated the debate on this topic. Knowing your opponents arguments is debate 101

                              You referenced five articles (two of your six quotations are from one of them). I have obtained copies of all five and will read them as soon as I can.

                              I'm assuming that by "phylogenetic conflicts" you mean falsification of common ancestry. If you mean something else, please clarify your semantic intentions. Meanwhile, I'll be examining your quotations in their proper context to see whether they support anybody's claim that common ancestry has been falsified.
                              If you want more from other sources I have many.

                              The phylogenetic conflicts refer to the conflicts in the predicted relatedness. Darwinian evolution makes predictions of relatedness based on the fossil record sequences and physical characteristics of species. Species that are predicted to be closer related based on these criteria should have more similar genotypes (genetics) , and species that are predicted to be distantly related should have less similar genotypes, and if these predictions were true, it would have verified Darwin's "tree of life". But the tree of life that predicts divergence is not a clean tidy tree as predicted it would be, its a manged undecipherable bush with no way yet to predict relatedness.

                              And with no way to make valid predictions, its not a scientific "theory", its an unsubstantiated faith based ideology

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                You wouldn't have that problem if you knew the difference between a reference and a quotation. I didn't ask for any quotations.

                                You did include references, though.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                You asked for the pertinent information, and I gave it to you.
                                What I asked for a lot more specific than "pertinent information."

                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                People who do not know, and will not learn, how to punctuate and spell correctly have no one but themselves to blame if people have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Yes, but in my experience people who feel the need to argue about punctuation usually do so because they have no argument to be made about the main point, so they take what ever victory in the debate they can get
                                When you've driven me to the point where I have nothing to criticize but your punctuation, everyone on this forum will know about it.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                But the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests mind and brain are separate entities
                                There's a reason it's called an interpretation rather than a theory.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                quantum entanglement, which Eisenstein called "spooky action at a distance",
                                Eisenstein was a 19th-century mathematician. You're thinking of Einstein.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                defies the conventional law of physics that prohibits information traveling faster than the speed of light.
                                Yes, this discrepancy between quantum theory and special relativity is a scientific puzzle.

                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                Because your idiosyncratic semantics makes you unintelligible.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                It appears you may prefer the use of philosophical double negative poetic rhetoric (aka liberal logic).
                                I guess that's possible.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Certainly you must be able to grasp the basic concept that the process of intelligently designing life must be verified before is can be referred to as a successful theory of intelligent design.?. Its the successful process that verifies the theory. I can't get anymore basic that that
                                If you say that you can't make any better sense than that, I believe you.

                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                Because in your worldview, disagreement with you is proof of ignorance.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                On this issue it is ignorance. Would you like me to post the information on how those who are critical of Darwinian evolution are treated by academia?.
                                I've watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled." Do you have anything to add to it?

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Darwinian evolution is a "religion" of sorts because it does not follow the tenets that all other areas of science follow, which is to continually attempt to prove the theory wrong. All other scientific theories teach the problems in their theory, in fact they encourage looking for holes in the theory. But evolutionary science hides these gaping holes in the theory
                                I've studied science, including its historical development, for 50 years. You don't know what you're talking about.

                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                That sounds a lot like logical positivism. I would never have guessed you had any sympathy for that philosophy.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Yes it is, and considering my position on liberal atheists, and the fact falsification came from the liberal atheist Popper, you should have seen that position coming.
                                I should have expected you to sound like the people you hate? You just might have a point there.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Darwinian evolution makes predictions of relatedness based on the fossil record sequences and physical characteristics of species.
                                It makes predictions based on whatever evidence is available. When Darwin published his book, fossils and observable physical characteristics were the only evidence at hand. Now we have tons of other kinds of evidence.

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                But the tree of life that predicts divergence is not a clean tidy tree as predicted it would be
                                The theory never predicted a clean and tidy tree. All it ever predicted was a tree of some kind.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christian3  
                                Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                                97 responses
                                522 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                557 responses
                                3,486 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,079 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X