Ah, very true about creating arguments that are internally consistent but false. All we need is a premise minor premise and conclusion which harmonizes with the twain. Or to create a framework wherein everything that is discovered is cunningly fit into that framework to make it seem as if it proves the validity of the framework.
Sounds like a reasonable answer to the question "what is creation science?"
In fact, many evolutionist hoaxes have been attempted using that technique. Once the presuppositions are adopted the rest usually goes like a self-perpetuating well-oiled machine.
No... you see, unlike in
creation science - where people are rewarded to maintain the status quo of bronze age beliefs - in
actual science, people are rewarded for proving all their peers to be wrong or by answering those questions that nobody else could answer.
That's how towns, streets, holidays, buildings, universities and even measurement units, are named after you. That's how you win Nobel prizes. That's how you get a ridiculous amount of grants for research. By turning fields upside down.
That's also how you potentially get enormous boosts in technological advances and subsequent new riches in economies and stuff.
No, there really is very little fame and glory to be gained by making a discovery who's only contribution is "
just as we allready knew....".
In fact, you could even say that such a thing isn't a "discovery" at all. Since nothing was discovered that wasn't already known.
However, those are not the kinds of arguments that am using in support of an ID.
To be honest, the only argument I remember seeing from you, is nothing but a species of "it's obvious!".
I never said that your rejection of an ID is based on any universally-accepted worldview among atheists.
You were very clear though:
There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automaticallyThere is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically
"its" (=emphasis mine) refers to "atheism" as if it is a thing from which concepts or models or what-have-you are derived. This is simply not true.
My rejection of ID is based on one thing only: the failure of that idea meeting its burden of proof. It is simply not in evidence in any way.
My lack of belief in supernatural shenannigans has literally nothing to do with that. If tomorrow somehow it is discovered that life on earth as artificially engineered, I would be absolutely shocked and amazed. But I would have no problem accepting that fact.
And
then the question may be asked who the "D" was.
I am very aware that certain atheists claim not the challenge God's existence and claim that that they simply don't know.
Personally, I don't know anybody who would fit the definition of a gnostic atheist.
Even Richard "mr public atheist" Dawkins, common target of the creationist community for all kinds of slander, puts himself on 6 in a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is "i believe there is a god" and 7 being "i believe there is no god".
There simply is no point in discussing or making the claim "god does not exist", because there simply is no way that such a claim could ever be shown to be true.
The only thing that could, in principle at least, be shown to be true is the claim of existance.
So whatever the subject, the claim of the non-existance of anything, seems to me to be a total waste of time and energy.
For example, I don't remember any academia ever working to disprove the existance of Bigfoot. What we ask is for the people that claim bigfoot exists, to come forward with sufficient evidence in support of that claim. We aren't asking anybody to prove the opposite.
Just to clarify, I don't know any atheist who thinks differently about any gods. All atheists I know, are agnostic atheists.
I prefer to view them as agnostics for all practical purposes.
That's kind of funny. It seems to me that it is more for semantical purposes.
But whatever. I'ld say the exact opposite. For practical purposes, there is no difference between someone who identifies as an atheist and someone who identifies as an agnostic.
I predict that if you ask both what they believe or don't believe, the vast majority will give similar answers.
About determining ID, manufacture or lack of manufacture has absolutely NOTHING to do with the application of the rules of determining if something was designed or not.
Ow, I heavily disagree.
There are an inumerable amount of "marks" that can be found on objects which show clear sign of manufacturing. As in: unnatural origins.
The use of bolts for example. Plastics. Traces of carving. Trademarks. Labels literally saying "made in china". Etc.
If it meets the criteria of having been designed then it was designed
You keep saying this and eventhough I and others have already asked you, you still haven't shared with us what these criteria are, exactly.
If you have, I appologise for missing it. But then please leave a link in your next response to the post in question, so that I can learn.
And if you idd haven't, or can't dig up the link for some reason, then please explain those criteria.
Your sudden suspension of the evaluative criteria indicates bias and bias has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method which demands strict adherence to objectivity.
I can't really suspend criteria that I don't know about because you are keeping them a secret (it seems).
