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.
Absolutely wrong. One must believe among other things that one exists in a real world where certain laws are inviolate and that one's senses do not give one false information. Belief of some sort is required to care enough to act at all in any way.
Where did I conflate the two?
You do understand that science must be combined with a 'moral imperative' (the spiritual element) to do the good it promises. Because it fails to do this we have all or most of the historical problems that have plagued mankind from the beginning.
What science fails to grasp is that while scientists themselves don't view science as a religion millions of others do, and look teary-eyed and worshipful to science to save them from their problems, be they moral or material. In response science retreats to it's ivory tower laboratories to continue peering at life myopically through their microscopes.
Absolutely wrong. One must believe among other things that one exists in a real world where certain laws are inviolate and that one's senses do not give one false information. Belief of some sort is required to care enough to act at all in any way.
I think the point was, what a specific faith belief has to do with science, not whether someone exists in a real world to have one.
No, this is quite flatly wrong.
I am sure you believe that to be true.
-_- all experiences can influence beliefs, regardless of whether they relate to scientific fields or not. The biggest reason that I am an atheist is because I read the BIBLE. I read it, and eventually other religious texts, without the social pressure or constant assertions that these texts were representative of reality. Because quite frankly, without those factors, most people wouldn't read it from cover to cover and become a theist.The post was in response to the OP's basically saying that if one does a one will believe b and if one does c one will believe d . The idea was not that one would have a specific faith belief but rather that doing a specific thing would tend to make one believe that something was the case. The response that science has nothing to do with belief was therefore ridiculous and needed to be rebutted.
I was responding this comment, not the ones you refer to above.
DogmaHunter said:
"Correcting your mistakes and actually learning something, doesn't seem to be one of your priorities..."
This strongly suggests (infers) more broad intellectual 'weakness' than in the discussion about the current topic, thus an ad hominem.
DogmaHunter said:Acknowledging the obvious mistakes you made. That would be a start.
Acknowledging that what things appear to be, are often not what they actually are.
I would put that way down on my list of important things. Most things are what they appear to be.
But whatever.
Design is anathema to evolution. If something shows design it likely has design, and thus a designer.
Therefore design, by default, must be denied by evolutionists.
What is curious is that evolutionists use terms like "evolved to function" in a certain way, the very phrase directly implies design
You do understand that science must be combined with a 'moral imperative' (the spiritual element) to do the good it promises.
Because it fails to do this we have all or most of the historical problems that have plagued mankind from the beginning.
What science fails to grasp is that while scientists themselves don't view science as a religion millions of others do, and look teary-eyed and worshipful to science to save them from their problems, be they moral or material
Another vague, unevidenced, accusation.In response science retreats to it's ivory tower laboratories to continue peering at life myopically through their microscopes.
Designs made by conscious entities versus those that are a product of an intelligent force such as a human have distinctions to them. To state otherwise is to claim that they are indistinguishable and thus make it entirely impossible to evidence a designer by virtue of the design. (note that I am not arguing against you).Unless the apparant design, is the result of a natural process, off course.
You know... like most designs in nature are...
View attachment 223599
View attachment 223600
No. We just don't need to load up the term "design" to imply intent by some conscious undemonstrable entity.
I don't need to deny the design of snowflakes, to acknowledge the natural process that forms them. The design, is the result of the natural process.
...by natural processes. Like natural selection.
Unfalsifiable science is just a construct of man. Man has decided in his wisdom to define science using an unfalsifiable construct. Therefore anything that is observable in this world such as the design of anything with a function is okay. However with biology it's not. It's quite illogical, but then who said man is logical. It's perfectly logical to look at the world around us and see a functional object and declair a design. But suddenly when it comes to the complex functionality of life we say we cannot accept design. Not logical.No this is all wrong.
ID is unfalsifable and therefore not science. Its just religion.
Hierarchical trees are basically a way of representing relationships of things based on underlying data. That's all they really are.
There are various different algorithmic ways of generating them and naturally different data sets that can be used. So you've have to look at how they are specifically constructed before making any claims about any assumptions in their construction. You can read more about it here: Computational phylogenetics - Wikipedia
But the trees themselves are not an assumption. They are just an output.
Unless the apparant design, is the result of a natural process, off course.
You know... like most designs in nature are...
View attachment 223599
View attachment 223600
No. We just don't need to load up the term "design" to imply intent by some conscious undemonstrable entity.
I don't need to deny the design of snowflakes, to acknowledge the natural process that forms them. The design, is the result of the natural process.
...by natural processes. Like natural selection.
Oh man is that so full of assumptions it's ridiculous. Let's look at this simple statement. The goal is to assemble a phylogenetic tree representing a hypothesis about the evolutionary ancestry of a set of genes, species, or other taxa.
The goal is to assemble a tree representing what? Evolutionary ancestry!
That's because you accept the evolutionary construct. Your understanding is clouded by your desire to believe whatever you are told. Despite the fact that no scientist has EVER been able to show it ever occurring. Evolution uses similarities and commonalities and make the assumption that since such things exist therefore all came from a common ancestor. Yet there is no way to show that it actually occurred. We don't observe it occurring even today. We can't test it to see if it does occur. In fact all testing that has been done has failed to show it actually occurring. All testing and observation has shown is all things remain in the same group or family and do not leave it to move to another. They have not been able to see or observe a branching that branched off into a completely different group or family. No one has been able to create it test such a thing.Are you starting to appreciate the absurdity of denying the existence of the moon?
I'm trying to get you to understand that this is how you sound to the rest of us when you keep denying the reality of biological evolution.
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?