Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...

miknik5 said:

Original design sir
And original designer of that design

Can't ignore it

He's not going anywhere even if some of the little coats keep running away

Click to expand...

Sure you can. You are just afraid to try. The fact that you are an evolved being, that you are still an ape, does not mean that Christianity is wrong. It only means that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I have a feeling that you already know that.

Subduction Zone said:

Sure you can. You are just afraid to try. The fact that you are an evolved being, that you are still an ape, does not mean that Christianity is wrong. It only means that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I have a feeling that you already know that.

Click to expand...

I'm not afraid of anything
Continue on in your discussion

If I have something to say, I'll say it

And the way I will say it without someone suggesting how I should say it

You again projected your own opinion onto me

Remember, your opinion of another remains your opinion of another

Opinion is not a truth
Only the person to whom you are trying to project your opinion knows what is true or truth regarding his person


You are not speaking true about me but I'm pretty sure that you already know that

miknik5 said:

I'm not afraid of anything
Continue on in your discussion

If I have something to say, I'll say it

And the way I will say it without someone suggesting how I should say it

Click to expand...

You are afraid to learn. You are afraid that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

And no, I am being honest about you.

Subduction Zone said:

You are afraid to learn. You are afraid that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

And no, I am being honest about you.

Click to expand...

Okay
Continue in thinking that your lies are truth

I have nothing more to say




Right now

miknik5 said:

Okay
Continue in thinking that your lies are truth

Click to expand...

I don't lie. Please, you can't make that claim here. Creationists that try to argue science have to lie. You seem to know that and at least are honest enough not to argue the topic. But to claim that I lied is wrong. It is also a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Do you understand that one? This is the second time that you have broken that law at the very least.

[

Subduction Zone said:

Sure you can. You are just afraid to try. The fact that you are an evolved being, that you are still an ape, does not mean that Christianity is wrong. It only means that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I have a feeling that you already know that.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

You are afraid to learn. You are afraid that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

And no, I am being honest about you.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

I don't lie. Please, you can't make that claim here. Creationists that try to argue science have to lie. You seem to know that and at least are honest enough not to argue the topic. But to claim that I lied is wrong. It is also a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Do you understand that one? This is the second time that you have broken that law at the very least.

Click to expand...

Don't offer "opinions" of me and pass them off as true

That is a gentle way of continuing to lie about and slander me especially when I already told you (not counting elsewhere) on this thread alone that it isn't true

Subduction zone:
You are afraid

Me:
No I'm not

Subduction zone:
Yes you are afraid

Me:
I'm not afraid

When you offer your opinion of another and you keep offering your opinion of another, even after the person tells you that you are not speaking the truth about them

That's lying

miknik5 said:

[



Don't offer "opinions" of me and pass them off as true

That is a gentle way of continuing to lie about and slander hem especially when the person tells you that you are not speaking the truth about them

That's lying

Click to expand...

My "opinions" can be backed up. They are not lies. Let's start with how you are wrong about the Genesis myth. Now the fact that you believe a myth does not make you a liar. It only makes you terribly mistaken.

You on the other hands cannot support your claims. It is why you tend to run away so often. And that is an observation, it is not an "opinion".

You're doing to again and none of the posters are going to appreciate it


You are resorting to personal attacks

No one cares about this

Get back to the discussion

I won't run away
If I have something to say (no matter that it might be gibberish to those who can't understand) I will say it

miknik5 said:

You're doing to again and none of the posters are going to appreciate it


You are resorting to personal attacks

No one cares about this

Get back to the discussion

I won't run away
If I have something to say (no matter that it might be gibberish to those who can't understand) I will say it

Click to expand...

No, no more so than you have. The fact that you are wrong is not a personal attack. The fact that you run away from even discussing why you are wrong is not a personal attack.

Not discussing the science in a science based forum is running away. How can we get back to the discussion if you will not discuss the science involved?

Subduction Zone said:

No, no more so than you have. The fact that you are wrong is not a personal attack. The fact that you run away from even discussing why you are wrong is not a personal attack.

Not discussing the science in a science based forum is running away. How can we get back to the discussion if you will not discuss the science involved?

Click to expand...

GOD

science


One is sovereign over the other
That's not an opinion sir

It's a truth

miknik5 said:

GOD

science


One is sovereign over the other
That's not an opinion sir

It's a truth

Click to expand...

Sorry, if you can't be honest why should we continue? If you want to claim that your "GOD" exists the burden of proof is upon you. Your version of god appears to be the hide and seek winner of the universe.

And no, what you posted is not a "truth".

By running away from the science, and that is what you are doing right now, you as much as admit that you are wrong.

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, if you can't be honest why should we continue? If you want to claim that your "GOD" exists the burden of proof is upon you. Your version of god appears to be the hide and seek winner of the universe.

And no, what you posted is not a "truth".

By running away from the science, and that is what you are doing right now, you as much as admit that you are wrong.

Click to expand...

We can't continue

miknik5 said:

We can't continue

Click to expand...

I am sorry that your fear of reality won't let you discuss a scientific matter.

Subduction Zone said:

I am sorry that your fear of reality won't let you discuss a scientific matter.

Click to expand...

I am sorry your fear of GOD won't let me talk

miknik5 said:

I am sorry your fear of GOD won't let me talk

Click to expand...

One cannot have fear of something that does not exist. Your inability to support your claims indicates that your GOD at the very least does not exist. Of course there are many thousands of different versions of "God" in just the sects of Christianity.

Unlike you I am not afraid. Show me some evidence and I will change my mind. You are afraid to even look at the evidence properly.

variant said:

Question begging. We trust conclusions that come from brains because of experience, not from abstract justifications.

If you don't trust your experiences, you can't get to the idea of trustworthiness at all, let alone epistemology.

Also your position is self defeating. If we couldn't trust our brains unless we know there is an intelligent designer, then we can't trust our brains because we could only know such a thing through using our brains. The trust in your brain would have to come before you could know anything, which means that you could just be wrong about knowing there is a designer.

Here's a picture of ouroboros for your troubles:

Click to expand...

Trusting “conclusions that come from brains because of experience” is a kind of arbitrary and gratuitous question-begging if our presuppositions cannot justify that trust. FrumiousBandersnatch remarked that our brain is “not a trustworthy calculator because, more often than not, it gives the wrong answer.” How is it, then, that people frequently draw wrong conclusions from experiences that you describe as trustworthy? What kind of trustworthiness is that which is so compatible with error? To reiterate, the lack of an intelligently-designed brain would mean that we could not justify trust in our conclusions anymore than we could justify trusting the experienced conclusions of a calculator that was not intelligently designed. (There are other reasons why atheistic materialism leaves us without a foundation for knowledge, but this point is enough for now.) Whether or not my own view is question-begging or self-defeating does not affect the argument. Lack of an intelligently-designed brain would leave us with no foundation for knowledge, and the only logically consistent position we could take would be that of universal skepticism, where every sentence should contain or imply a "perhaps." Do we agree on this much?

Mediaeval said:

Trusting “conclusions that come from brains because of experience” is a kind of arbitrary and gratuitous question-begging if our presuppositions cannot justify that trust.

Click to expand...

Trusting in things that are demonstrated via experience is question-begging?

Well, you've got quite an epistemological pickle then.

FrumiousBandersnatch remarked that our brain is “not a trustworthy calculator because, more often than not, it gives the wrong answer.” How is it, then, that people frequently draw wrong conclusions from experiences that you describe as trustworthy? What kind of trustworthiness is that which is so compatible with error?

Click to expand...

If you can recognize errors you can indeed learn from them.

But, in order to decipher truth from error you are going to need some sort of demonstration and thus some experience.

So, you're going to be in quite a bit of an epistemological pickle if you can't rely on your experiences to find truth.

All of your ideas rely on your experiences, so, if you can't find them to be trustworthy you have no possibility of a workable epistemology.

To reiterate, the lack of an intelligently-designed brain would mean that we could not justify trust in our conclusions anymore than we could justify trusting the experienced conclusions of a calculator that was not intelligently designed.

Click to expand...

And to reiterate to you. You can't KNOW your brain is intelligently designed without using your brain and thus trusting it.

I would suggest, given the pure circularity of your argument, and your willingness to throw out direct experience, that your argument demonstrates that your brain isn't that good at coming up with reasons to trust your brain.

I think you should trust that instinct and stop globbering up the world with your sophism.

(There are other reasons why atheistic materialism leaves us without a foundation for knowledge, but this point is enough for now.) Whether or not my own view is question-begging or self-defeating does not affect the argument.

Click to expand...

It's actually a very good reason to dismiss your ideas...

Universal skepticism is quite a bit better than universal nihilism with the idea of supporting a pet idea such as you are doing here.

Lack of an intelligently-designed brain would leave us with no foundation for knowledge, and the only logically consistent position we could take would be that of universal skepticism, where every sentence should contain or imply a "perhaps." Do we agree on this much?

Click to expand...

Every statement can indeed contain a perhaps and it effects nothing except your degree of certainty of any given idea.

Certainty isn't the point of knoledge, application is.

The foundation of knoledge is experience.

The point of knoledge is use.