@kellyjay saidYou can say anything about nature "seems" poetic.
They are visible to us, and how they are manifested with water seems poetic.
A quiet thunder storm during a summer night can "seem" poetic. Does that mean a designer made water molecules to have positive and negative charges to create a giant destructive force that can damage ear drums just from the sound it causes?
If you think a dog crapping on your lawn is "poetic" is that opinion evidence of design?
"Poetic" is purely your opinion and therefore unscientific. So is whatever you perceive as "design" in nature.
20 Jul 23
@vivify saidLet me know when you wish to continue a conversation.
You can say anything about nature "seems" poetic.
A quiet thunder storm during a summer night can "seem" poetic. Does that mean a designer made water molecules to have positive and negative charges to create a giant destructive force that can damage ear drums just from the sound it causes?
If you think a dog crapping on your lawn is "poetic" is that opinion evidence o ...[text shortened]... purely your opinion and therefore unscientific. So is whatever you perceive as "design" in nature.
@kellyjay saidThis must be what Indonesia Phil was talking about when he pointed out you dodge points you can't counter. And here you are again.
Let me know when you wish to continue a conversation.
I've noticed something: never once do you use any facts that can actually be looked up to support what you say. Everyone else points out specific facts about nature to make their point while your responses are always, without exception, vague unscientific philosophical musings.
What is the last scientific fact you mentioned? Have you mentioned even one in this thread? I brought the Island Rail, a small bird whose wings don't work, the fact that most of the universe is empty, lifeless and void, etc., all facts that make ID seem silly....while you response with "rainbows are pretty!"
Anyone: what is the last scientific fact Kelly brought up on his own? Has he done that once?
Kelly is simply ill-equipped to discuss scientific matters.
20 Jul 23
@vivify saidI am talking about instructions within life, are they evidence of a mind or mindlessness. You brought up rainbows 🌈 and shadows as if that were a talking point someone was pushing. You then proceeded to bring up dog 🐕 $hit say something worth addressing I will, in the meantime you just are stinking up the conversation.
This must be what Indonesia Phil was talking about when he pointed out you dodge points you can't counter. And here you are again.
I've noticed something: never once do you use any facts that can actually be looked up to support what you say. Everyone else points out specific facts about nature to make their point while your responses are always, without exception, vague ...[text shortened]... p on his own? Has he done that once?
Kelly is simply ill-equipped to discuss scientific matters.
Condescend much, this is on par with the stupid question comment.
20 Jul 23
3 edits
@kellyjay saidThe point is you have no criteria to define "designed".
I am talking about instructions within life, are they evidence of a mind or mindlessness. You brought up rainbows 🌈 and shadows as if that were a talking point someone was pushing. You then proceeded to bring up dog 🐕 $hit say something worth addressing I will, in the meantime you just are stinking up the conversation.
Condescend much, this is on par with the stupid question comment.
How do you differentiate between something that was designed and something that's not? This was point of bringing up rainbows, which you suggested was designed by bringing up Noah. That indicates you have no idea what is designed and what isn't since rainbows are clearly not designed.
Unless you can show the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't you have no case for a creator.
Can you do that? It seems not.
@vivify saidNot just designed, a pile of rocks has a design, a snowflake has a design, pouring paint on a floor by accident has a design. Functionally specialized systematic design with stop-start, error checking features as well as other features that support and cause specific work to be done is the topic.
The point is you have no criteria to define "designed".
How do you differentiate between something that was designed and something that's not? This was point of bringing up rainbows, which you suggested was designed by bringing up Noah. That indicates you have no idea what is designed and what isn't since rainbows are clearly not designed.
Unless you can show the dif ...[text shortened]... igned and something that wasn't you have no case for a creator.
Can you do that? It seems not.
Granted that is more complicated than a shadow. Even dog poop 💩 originated from a complex system with more physical parts than a rainbow,
20 Jul 23
@vivify saidClearly, if you don’t know how they were made, how does “clearly” come into play concerning rainbows. The point of the conversation is identifying designs that would not through mindless natural causes be identified. You understand why and how the universe works so you can tell what is and isn’t designed?
The point is you have no criteria to define "designed".
How do you differentiate between something that was designed and something that's not? This was point of bringing up rainbows, which you suggested was designed by bringing up Noah. That indicates you have no idea what is designed and what isn't since rainbows are clearly not designed.
Unless you can show the dif ...[text shortened]... igned and something that wasn't you have no case for a creator.
Can you do that? It seems not.
@kellyjay saidYou're not answering the question. How do you know when something *isn't* designed?
Clearly, if you don’t know how they were made, how does “clearly” come into play concerning rainbows. The point of the conversation is identifying designs that would not through mindless natural causes be identified. You understand why and how the universe works so you can tell what is and isn’t designed?
Regarding rainbows we know how they're formed. That's why we know they're made by unguided natural process: rainbows are just an illusion, a trick of scattered light.
It seems ID relies on ignorance. You don't know how it works so therefore God did it. The writers of the Bible didn't know how rainbows were formed so it must've been God.
21 Jul 23
@vivify saidI answered you depending on what you mean by design! Snowflakes, accidental paint spills have designs. Arranging letters to form words, put together with other words to convey an idea, is a design. Having instructions that accomplish tasks with information is a much more complex design.
You're not answering the question. How do you know when something *isn't* designed?
Regarding rainbows we know how they're formed. That's why we know they're made by unguided natural process: rainbows are just an illusion, a trick of scattered light.
It seems ID relies on ignorance. You don't know how it works so therefore God did it. The writers of the Bible didn't know how rainbows were formed so it must've been God.
When intention is used to create out of incredible number of possible choices that don’t do or mean anything, selecting just the ones that do, shows intent. The higher the probability of wrong or bad choices the more improbable the right answers are. Mindlessness is inadequate to overcome what we we see in life.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121483
21 Jul 23
@vivify saidKellyJay uses his manufacture turned religious outrage as an excuse to ignore posters who challenge his man-made doctrines and unsupportable moral vacuums.
This must be what Indonesia Phil was talking about when he pointed out you dodge points you can't counter.
I’m one poster, FMF is another on his huff list. Indonesia Phil is on semi-huff, you’re not far behind.