Christian Scientists of the past

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, each time I provide my reasons the same people I explain them to pop up on other threads demanding I repeat. Multiply that by about twenty-five people and it becomes a barrage of demands that I repeat myself and always with the same response that they can't see. Umm, that can become a bit annoying-you know?
.

Can you provide a link to where this actually occured?
Preferable a link to the post where you explain the reasoning. I'll just follow the discussion from there on to see if the responses were as you say they were.

 

[Radrook]

Can you provide a link to where this actually occured?
Preferable a link to the post where you explain the reasoning. I'll just follow the discussion from there on to see if the responses were as you say they were.

I would like to oblige but I don't have the time nor the patience to backtrack through piles of posts in that way.
However, what specifically is it that you supposedly don't understand about my saying that I see intelligent design in nature? After all, I have posted videos on threads which have clearly and meticulously explained the empirical basis for my conclusion and which you have unceremoniously tagged as non-evidence. Now you emerge here claiming that I have never offered anything at all as an explanation? That seems a bit odd!

 

[Skreeper]

I would like to oblige but I don't have the time nor the patience to backtrack through piles of posts in that way.
However, what specifically is it that you supposedly don't understand about my saying that I see intelligent design in nature? After all, I have posted videos on threads which have clearly and meticulously explained the empirical basis for my conclusion and which you have unceremoniously tagged as non-evidence. Now you emerge here claiming that I have never offered anything at all as an explanation? That seems a bit odd!

Can you maybe explain how you "see" intelligent design in nature? There has to be some method or tool one can use to determine this. Because I do not see intelligent design in nature and as far as I can tell nobody so far has demonstrated that nature is the result of intelligent design.

 

[Radrook]

Can you maybe explain how you "see" intelligent design in nature? There has to be some method or tool one can use to determine this. Because I do not see intelligent design in nature and as far as I can tell nobody so far has demonstrated that nature is the result of intelligent design.

Well, if indeed you have an inability to see, then there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to provide you with an ability to see since everything I will show you you will not see. See?

 

[Skreeper]

Well, if indeed you have an inability to see, then there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to provide you with an ability to see since everything I will show you you will not see. See?

You didn't really answer my question: What tool or methodology can one use to determine that nature is the result of intelligent design?

 

[Radrook]

You didn't really answer my question: What tool or methodology can one use to determine that nature is the result of intelligent design?

The same tool you apply to determine that anything else is intelligently designed. Or do you need constant meticulous explanations for every single thing that you perceive as intelligently designed in your daily life?

 

[Skreeper]

The same tool you apply to determine that anything else is intelligently designed. Or do you need constant meticulous explanations for every single thing that you perceive as intelligently designed in your daily life?

We don't simply determine that something is designed by looking at it. We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs.

 

[KCfromNC]

The same tool you apply to determine that anything else is intelligently designed.

We know things are designed because we can see the designer here at work using natural processes. I don't think that generalizes to a supernatural hidden god who supposedly did something via some sort of magic we can't understand.

 

[Radrook]

We don't simply determine that something is designed by looking at it. We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs.

Ah! there is the crux of the problem. You suspend your criteria when nature is involved. In other words, everything in nature cannot have a designer from your standpoint. Which means that your questions are just as I suspected, requests to provide explanations so you can say you don't see. A total waste of both my time and yours.

 

[Skreeper]

Ah! there is the crux of the problem. You suspend your criteria when nature is involved. In other words, everything in nature cannot have a designer from your standpoint. Which means that your questions are just as I suspected, requests to provide explanations so you can say you don't see. A total waste of both my time and yours.

On a case by case basis you have to ask yourself: Do we know of any natural mechanisms that can account for this? Do we know of any intelligent agents that could account for this? Do we have examples of this type of thing being constructed intelligently?

Design needs to be demonstrated and so far this has not been done.

 

[Radrook]

We know things are designed because we can see the designer here at work using natural processes. I don't think that generalizes to a supernatural hidden god who supposedly did something via some sort of magic we can't understand.

Calling something magic and bringing in gods when magic nor gods are being postulated is strawman and brings the discussion to an end. Go argue against your own ideas.

BTW
I could just as easily consider your claim that life pops up from dead matter and then eventually turns fish into people as an appeal to magic.

 

[Radrook]

On a case by case basis you have to ask yourself: Do we know of any natural mechanisms that can account for this? Do we know of any intelligent agents that could account for this? Do we have examples of this type of thing being constructed intelligently?

Design needs to be demonstrated and so far this has not been done.

Ever heard of justifiable inferences? Do you even know what an inference is?

 

[Skreeper]

Ever heard of justifiable inferences? Do you even know what an inference is?

Sure I know what inference is.
The problem is that you can't just argue from analogy. How do you tell the difference between a bundle of sticks blocking up a river after a flood and a beaver dam? By just looking at it both look pretty much identical. You actually have to investigate and gather evidence and then you compare this to other beaver dams where the construction has been observed. And then you can reach the conclusion reasonably that this thing is so similar to this other thing for which we have direct observational evidence of intelligent design that it is most probably the result of intelligent design.

So it is not as easy as you might think to clearly identify something as designed. "Just look at the trees!" is not a valid argument anymore.

 

[KCfromNC]

Calling something magic and bringing in gods when magic nor gods are being postulated is strawman and brings the discussion to an end.

Just because you've avoided researching how ID proponents have described ID in court doesn't mean those statements don't exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

The same tool you apply to determine that anything else is intelligently designed.

I did apply that tool, and I found that life is not designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ever heard of justifiable inferences? Do you even know what an inference is?

Ever heard of unjustifiable inferences?

 

[Loudmouth]

Calling something magic and bringing in gods when magic nor gods are being postulated is strawman and brings the discussion to an end. Go argue against your own ideas.

Then how do you think life originated? What was the physical process?

BTW
I could just as easily consider your claim that life pops up from dead matter and then eventually turns fish into people as an appeal to magic.

In order to support your claim you would need to point to specific processes that you are calling "magic".

 

[Radrook]

I did apply that tool, and I found that life is not designed.

Then I guess we differ in opinion.

 

[Radrook]

Then how do you think life originated? What was the physical process?



In order to support your claim you would need to point to specific processes that you are calling "magic".

Well, maybe it popped up out of dead matter and then started changing from one form to another until here we are.

 

[Radrook]

Then how do you think life originated? What was the physical process?



In order to support your claim you would need to point to specific processes that you are calling "magic".

The one that is depending on magic is you.