Ttalkkugjil
Social Pastor
- Mar 6, 2019
- 1,680
- 908
- Country
- Korea, Republic Of
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It seems he has too much belief tied up in intelligent design to be able to be objective about it.
This attitude of yours is not not very helpful towards people who are trying to help you see that saying "it looks designed" is not how science works.
I think that may be his way of admitting that he is wrong. He uses the word "attitude" every time that he is caught making a false statement.
If it was truthiful, the scientists would be able to duplicate it in the lab. Thus far, no.
Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again. There is no need to do so in every post.More attitude yet again. It is very obvious you all have psychological problems with the concept of choice, and this is why you all have such an attitude.
The mechanism of creation is choice. Everybody does use knowledge about making choices practically in daily life. So it is the most used knowledge in the world.
And again, saying it for the third time or so in this topic, you would also support intelligent design theory if you paid dedicated attention to understanding how things are chosen in the universe. That you do not appreciate that knowledge makes you anti scientific. If all is said and done, and if you would be judged for your knowledge about how things work in the universe, and you would have no understanding about how things are chosen, then basically you get an F. Just saying you should evaluate what knowledge is important.
You probably won't see many technical inventions coming out of creation science, because technical inventions must behave in a forced way. Technical inventions must do what we want. Creation science is focused on choice as the mechanism of creation. So unless anyone wants a washingmachine with free will, or a car with free will, the car drivingbaround wherever it wants, there isn't going to be any technical use for creation science.
Speciation has been observed, as have the processes that result in speciation. What more would you have anyone see beyond this?
If scientists cannot say this looks like X, then no more science.
Where did you get that idea? We can't replicate most things in the universe in the lab, but we still have a very good idea how lots of them work.If it was truthiful, the scientists would be able to duplicate it in the lab. Thus far, no.
Where did you get that idea? We can't replicate most things in the universe in the lab, but we still have a very good idea how lots of them work.
That's not really how science is done. (Or, rather, that's not the prime component of scientific research.)
So an assessment and a prediction:
Assessment: Nando has no practical experience in doing science (research), and is probably not well educated in scientific disciplines.
Prediction: This thread is screaming down hill fast and will be moderated by the time I get home. (No, I'm not going to try to trigger moderation. That would be cheating.)
If you don't mind, I'm going to go to my office and do some science now.
Can you specifically describe where choice needs to occur within the process of mutation and selection?
How about how choice fits into other physical processes of the universe: planetary orbits, the birth and death of stars, volcanoes?
Also, you have made the comment that life "looks designed". Can you give some specifics as to how it looks designed and how you tell something designed from something that isn't designed?
(If possible, can you please give an example of things that are clearly not designed using your system.)
I understand that "theory" in a scientific context means a model that accounts for all the data.
Then I'm not understanding you. If my questions are childish and you actually have answers it should be straightforward to explain.These are all childish questions. It is just more attitude.
Personally the closest I've come to being "triggered" is the irritating and frankly, mildly offensive use of the term triggered. I would truly appreciate you not use it about me.Why don't you talk about your emotional problems with the concept of choice. Why are you triggered by the concept, so that if someone hypothesizes that organisms are intelligently designed, you get all hyper critcical.
Yet more attitude. We disagree that organisms looking designed counts as evidence.
If it was truthiful, the scientists would be able to duplicate it in the lab. Thus far, no.
More attitude. Why don't you just stop with the attitude.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?