Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDoes 'more' even matter?
Are you having difficulty with the word 'more'?
If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?
Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.
Originally posted by chaney3Your mistake, a big one, is thinking they have evidence. They DON"T have evidence. They want to bend any science they can to fit a preconcieved agenda. That is NOT science. That is politics. Of course you will be unable to understand the difference.
Does 'more' even matter?
If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?
Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.
Originally posted by chaney3No he meant that "there are a greater number of extremely intelligent scientists.". Although it is not clear to me that weighing the scientists who are atheists and weighing the ones that are theists and then comparing the totals will get us very far.
"There are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't".
Your words.
The crux here is how to distinguish an artefact from something whose origin is a process without an agent. Order is not enough, if you take concentrated copper sulphate solution and grow some crystals then the crystals have an ordered shape. So order is not automatically a sign of design. I wonder if you could explain what your procedure for assessing whether a specimen is of natural origin or an artefact. For example the Rosetta Stone is clearly an artefact because the symbols carved into it, even if they could have come about by some natural process, have a level of information content associated with them (see informational entropy on Wikipedia) and deduce that it is a language. Basically we can know that the creation of the artefact involved an agent who had language.
Originally posted by chaney3Can you cite some examples of scientists who have found empirical evidence for design? I am not aware of any such evidence existing.
Does 'more' even matter?
If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?
Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Well, I certainly wish you would give 'more' thought to your posts.
Does 'more' even matter?
If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?
Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeBesides your arrogance, insults and sarcasm, Ghost, you have brought nothing to this thread, except one thing: alliance to your fellow atheists.
Well, I certainly wish you would give 'more' thought to your posts.
Oh yeah, and Elvis toast, pet hamsters and cats.
Originally posted by chaney3I deployed simplistic analogies of burnt toast and hamsters in the hope their meaning would reach you, where rational argument had failed.
Besides your arrogance, insults and sarcasm, Ghost, you have brought nothing to this thread, except one thing: alliance to your fellow atheists.
Oh yeah, and Elvis toast, pet hamsters and cats.
You deserve to be victim to my arrogance, insults and sarcasm.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHa. That's exactly what I was going to post.
Well, I certainly wish you would give 'more' thought to your posts.
Chaney, what are you saying, exactly? That quote about honeycomb was clearly not an argument in favor of intelligent design. Nor was anything Darwin ever wrote. Intelligent design is a purely modern idea, with no historical or religious context, which approaches the subject from a position of absolute ignorance. It's utter nonsense.
Do you think someone who rejects intelligent design must be an atheist? Why is that? To me it is clearly a false assumption.
The frustrating thing is that there are some very interesting teleological counterarguments you could be making but choose not to. The "watchmaker analogy" is particulary provocative, and has been around for centuries. Try reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Originally posted by chaney3What about those words?
"There are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't".
Your words.
Are you saying that saying there are more of them implies they are more intelligent?
Or are you disputing that there are more of them?
If the latter, what has that got to do with the former?
If the former, how?
Originally posted by wildgrassHe is stuck on the idea that lunar eclipses are a direct result of intelligent design, and he needs go no further in his own mind.
Ha. That's exactly what I was going to post.
Chaney, what are you saying, exactly? That quote about honeycomb was clearly not an argument in favor of intelligent design. Nor was anything Darwin ever wrote. Intelligent design is a purely modern idea, with no historical or religious context, which approaches the subject from a position of absolute ignoran ...[text shortened]... been around for centuries. Try reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Originally posted by wildgrassThe thing about the Watchmaker Analogy is that it argues design by complexity. You are walking down the beach and see a watch, is it more logical to assume that this watch was created or that it occurred naturally? Of course, the former option is more logical. But if this scenario was true to reality, you would pick up a watch while walking down the beach of watches, looking at an ocean of watches, and so on. The watch wasn't obviously designed because it was complex, it was obviously designed because we know what watches are and that they don't occur naturally.
The frustrating thing is that there are some very interesting teleological counterarguments you could be making but choose not to. The "watchmaker analogy" is particulary provocative, and has been around for centuries. Try reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3It does when its in a sentence that you claim means one thing but actually means something else. I could chalk it up to a mistake on your part if it wasn't for the fact that you have done it consistently throughout this thread which leads me to believe you are just a blatant liar not smart enough to realise he will be caught if he lies about a post right above him.
Does 'more' even matter?