My Interglacial Challenge

[AV1611VET]

What are you claiming their expertise to be?

Don't have to claim it; it gets shoved in our faces.

Mr Morris makes a comment on Laban's cattle being ringstraked, spotted, and speckled, and edurons* will arc & spark he's just an hydraulic engineer ... but let Einstein say God doesn't play dice with the universe, and edurons* will hail him as someone with great insight.

* don't ask

 

[redleghunter]

1. What is the nature of this "intelligence". If it is living then you have not shown an "origin of life", you have merely suggested some life forms which we know about were "designed" (ie where did this designer come from?

YHWH revealed Himself as the uncreated Creator.

2. "Design" is nearly impossible to detect outside of cases where we KNOW it was designed (ie things we as humans made. Beyond that it is actually quite a difficult thing to suggest something was "Designed". There are a huge number of things in the universe which are very, very complex and "feel" to the human observer to be "designed" mainly because they are bafflingly complex. But then a pet iguana APPEARS to share some human emotions with their owners. Is it really true? Or is it our human tendency to anthropomorphize?) In other words: "seeming" to be something is not evidence for it to actually BE that thing.

If we deny Design, we embrace chance and natural selection as deity.

 

[Belk]

Don't have to claim it; it gets shoved in our faces.

Mr Morris makes a comment on Laban's cattle being ringstraked, spotted, and speckled, and edurons* will arc & spark he's just an hydraulic engineer ... but let Einstein say God doesn't play dice with the universe, and edurons* will hail him as someone with great insight.

* don't ask

So... What is their expertise?

 

[VirOptimus]

Maybe some cannot identify it, but the attribution of deity to natural selection clearly is held by some. They won't admit it but alas it's there.

Nope. You are quite simply wrong and seem to not understand what metaphysics mean.

 

[redleghunter]

Nope. You are quite simply wrong and seem to not understand what metaphysics mean.

Nothing about existence?

 

[redleghunter]

No, I didn't see any real "data" or discussion of data. Just kvetching about who critiqued the author's earlier works.

When I say science I mean more like peer-reviewed journal type stuff. Sorry for the confusion.

Perhaps this will be informative.

BIO-Complexity

 

[Enfeoffment75]

Perhaps this will be informative.

BIO-Complexity

OK. It is becoming quite clear that you are simply going to keep pointing me to the library and saying "Hey, my point in there somewhere! Go find it!"

I don't have time to make your point for you. Thanks, though for the link. Any particular paper that stands out specifically to you? Or are they all just great?

 

[Enfeoffment75]

YHWH revealed Himself as the uncreated Creator.

So intelligent design is simply Christianity. That's religion. Your biggest problem then is that you don't have any real objective evidence of the primary factor in your hypothesis.

If we deny Design, we embrace chance and natural selection as deity.

With the obvious caveat that "chance" and "natural selection" are seen every single day in just about all of nature. (And by "chance" I probably don't mean it as loosely as you do. Stochastic processes exist but there are physical laws which bias certain outcomes.)

 

[Enfeoffment75]

Don't have to claim it; it gets shoved in our faces.

Mr Morris makes a comment on Laban's cattle being ringstraked, spotted, and speckled, and edurons* will arc & spark he's just an hydraulic engineer ... but let Einstein say God doesn't play dice with the universe, and edurons* will hail him as someone with great insight.

* don't ask

You really hate educated people, don't you? You seem to have a whole zoo of epithets!

That aside, I might point out that Einstein's proclamation about "dice" is one of those areas where most scientists disagree with him. Einstein had significant problems with the uncertainty concepts in Quantum Mechanics and, if I recall, he used that flippant phrase to speak against it. But QM does have uncertainty at it's heart.

So in a sense your point is about 180degrees off from correct.

 

[redleghunter]

OK. It is becoming quite clear that you are simply going to keep pointing me to the library and saying "Hey, my point in there somewhere! Go find it!"

I don't have time to make your point for you. Thanks, though for the link. Any particular paper that stands out specifically to you? Or are they all just great?

I was actually offering you some of the sources you asked for. You wanted peer reviewed journals and I posted you one. Our conversation started with you not sure of the DI actually dealt in science.

1. I showed you the resume of the fellows
2. Pointed to some works
3. Pointed you to journal papers and articles.

All for your use if you want to expand understanding.

 

[redleghunter]

So intelligent design is simply Christianity. That's religion. Your biggest problem then is that you don't have any real objective evidence of the primary factor in your hypothesis.

The objective evidence points to YHWH. He has revealed Himself throughout history.

With the obvious caveat that "chance" and "natural selection" are seen every single day in just about all of nature. (And by "chance" I probably don't mean it as loosely as you do. Stochastic processes exist but there are physical laws which bias certain outcomes.)

I agree Creation is observable. But the creation is not the designer.

I do understand that materialists must stick with the material and like their ancient pagan cousins tend to worship the creation instead of the Creator. That is why we hear "Mother nature" and "Nature" used as place holders for the unbelieving vocabulary. Which is deification of nature.

 

[Enfeoffment75]

The objective evidence points to YHWH. He has revealed Himself throughout history.

I normally don't take religion to be science.

I do understand that materialists must stick with the material and like their ancient pagan cousins tend to worship the creation instead of the Creator. That is why we hear "Mother nature" and "Nature" used as place holders for the unbelieving vocabulary. Which is deification of nature.

Not sure who you are addressing here. Maybe there was someone else you were talking to?

Oh well.

It is clear your position is religious. Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

I normally don't take religion to be science.



Not sure who you are addressing here. Maybe there was someone else you were talking to?

Oh well.

It is clear your position is religious. Thanks.

My position is based on the revelation of YHWH to mankind which He manifested in the Incarnation of the Son of God. Just wanted to get that straight as "religion" is such a misunderstood term these days.

The Christian hope is in the Risen Christ.

Where is your hope?

 

[Enfeoffment75]

I was actually offering you some of the sources you asked for.

Here's what I usually see from people who want to propose a religious concept as "science". They find their favorite outlet that does that and then they just point at everything they have and say "See? My position has science!"

Unfortunately (I'm going to take a guess here) you probably can't actually differentiate between good and bad science, technically speaking. As such it is all just a giant mush of goodness in your view.

This is not uncommon. I see it a lot with people who, for instance want to push Young Earth Creationism. They don't understand basic geology and they don't really understand the stuff their favorite YEC sources are putting out. It just has lots of big sciencey words in it.

I don't mean this as an insult. It just doesn't seem like you have any specifically powerful points to make in regards to the "science" of intelligent design. You just want people to be impressed that there are resources, regardless of what they say.

Our conversation started with you not sure of the DI actually dealt in science.

Not really. I believe I said that I seldom see good science come from creationist sources like the DI or ICR. And you brought up Intelligent Design which is a similarly religious concept. I still haven't seen you actually provide a single scientific study we could discuss. And likely that is because you aren't actually interested in the nuts and bolts, but just the fact that you can find someone who publishes stuff you feel is likely right.

1. I showed you the resume of the fellows

I'm trying not focus on bona fides but rather the science. I have been clear from the outset on that.

2. Pointed to some works
3. Pointed you to journal papers and articles.

Let's be fair. You essentially pointed at the library and said "My favorite ideas are in there! YOU FIND THEM!"

Again, I don't think you actually are capable of assessing solid from flawed science. That's not a bad thing because most people are not scientists by training or have not put in much effort to learn science.

All for your use if you want to expand understanding.

I'm sorry but it is highly unlikely that you will be able to "expand" my understanding of science. No offense but you will have to have a LOT more behind it than what you've presented. Again, if I point to the library it doesn't mean I'm as smart as all the books in it.

 

[Enfeoffment75]

My position is based on the revelation of YHWH to mankind which He manifested in the Incarnation of the Son of God. Just wanted to get that straight as "religion" is such a misunderstood term these days.

The Christian hope is in the Risen Christ.

That's fine! I mean that sincerely! You have religious faith that gives you hope and happiness. That is what it should do.

Doesn't mean it has any say in what is or isn't science. Sorry if that is problematic for you.

Where is your hope?

See, it is now clear you don't actually care about the "science" part of this. It is all religion for you. Which, again, is fine, but clearly not a scientific discussion.

I don't think your question makes much sense. Sorry!

 

[redleghunter]

Here's what I usually see from people who want to propose a religious concept as "science". They find their favorite outlet that does that and then they just point at everything they have and say "See? My position has science!"

Unfortunately (I'm going to take a guess here) you probably can't actually differentiate between good and bad science, technically speaking. As such it is all just a giant mush of goodness in your view.

This is not uncommon. I see it a lot with people who, for instance want to push Young Earth Creationism. They don't understand basic geology and they don't really understand the stuff their favorite YEC sources are putting out. It just has lots of big sciencey words in it.

I don't mean this as an insult. It just doesn't seem like you have any specifically powerful points to make in regards to the "science" of intelligent design. You just want people to be impressed that there are resources, regardless of what they say.



Not really. I believe I said that I seldom see good science come from creationist sources like the DI or ICR. And you brought up Intelligent Design which is a similarly religious concept. I still haven't seen you actually provide a single scientific study we could discuss. And likely that is because you aren't actually interested in the nuts and bolts, but just the fact that you can find someone who publishes stuff you feel is likely right.



I'm trying not focus on bona fides but rather the science. I have been clear from the outset on that.



Let's be fair. You essentially pointed at the library and said "My favorite ideas are in there! YOU FIND THEM!"

Again, I don't think you actually are capable of assessing solid from flawed science. That's not a bad thing because most people are not scientists by training or have not put in much effort to learn science.



I'm sorry but it is highly unlikely that you will be able to "expand" my understanding of science. No offense but you will have to have a LOT more behind it than what you've presented. Again, if I point to the library it doesn't mean I'm as smart as all the books in it.

I believe I addressed most of your assertions but will not engage in your strawmen.

There is a lot of junk science ruminating in our post modern society. I agree to that. There is the possibility much has to do with those who deny an uncreated Creator.
Take YHWH out of the equation and you end up trying to re-engineer an F-16 from scratch with only the pieces.

 

[redleghunter]

That's fine! I mean that sincerely! You have religious faith that gives you hope and happiness. That is what it should do.

Doesn't mean it has any say in what is or isn't science. Sorry if that is problematic for you.



See, it is now clear you don't actually care about the "science" part of this. It is all religion for you. Which, again, is fine, but clearly not a scientific discussion.

I don't think your question makes much sense. Sorry!

It is about science. Dead men in a grave 3 days just don't come back to life without some Help.

But you are right. We are off topic of the OP and I send @AV1611VET my apologies.

 

[Enfeoffment75]

I believe I addressed most of your assertions but will not engage in your strawmen.

You should learn what a "strawman argument" actually is.

But, indeed, I already explained my points to you.

There is a lot of junk science ruminating in our post modern society. I agree to that. There is the possibility much has to do with those who deny an uncreated Creator.

There is a lot of junk science out there. A lot of it comes out when people try to support a pre-conceived notion.

Take YHWH out of the equation and you end up trying to re-engineer an F-16 from scratch with only the pieces.

Ahh, the old "Junkyard + Tornado = 747" canard.

 

[redleghunter]

There is a lot of junk science out there. A lot of it comes out when people try to support a pre-conceived notion.

I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really hate educated people, don't you?

Negative.

You seem to have a whole zoo of epithets!

Over the years here, I have referred to them as: Internet scientists, armchair scientists, ssscientists, slientists, scientific methodists, whitecoats, and a few other appropriate monikers.

So in a sense your point is about 180degrees off from correct.

Good point. I'll keep that in mind.