Prove it or remove it challenge

[DogmaHunter]

We already had parts of this discussion.

And I will continue to bring it up every time you expose the same fallacies.

You proved what you are.

Logical? Honest? Not gullible?

It seems to me that any further discussion would only prove again what you have already shown.

Indeed, being that ID is nothing more then a bunch of arguments from incredulity and ignorance.

So, I respectfully decline discussing it with you.

Run Forrest, run!

 

[DogmaHunter]

We simply say that there are zero known or demonstrated instances of specified complex coded information in our unifrom and repeated experience that don't have an intelligent cause.

1. argument from ignorance

2. you have not shown that DNA is such a thing - you merely asserted it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Anyway, with regard to ID, we make the case that the empirical evidence demonstrates that DNA comprises coded information.

Yes, you ID folks continually assert this, but not once did you actually show how this is true.

And by asserting this, you are assuming your conclusion

The discreet morphological characteristics of any living organism is manifest proof of that.

How?

Each has its own body plan, it's own taxonomy, it's own appearance, all as a result of its own DNA.

And evolutionary mechanisms explain why that is the case.

Did you see my "100 dice" analogy/demonstration? It was quite a few pages back.

I explained to you why that analogy was fallacious. Instead of addressing my objections, you then said that you wouldn't speak to me anymore.........

 

[DogmaHunter]

I appreciate you sticking to your arguments. However, we are kind of going around in circles.

Only because you run around in circles with an argument that uses an assumed conclusion.

ID is based only on empirical evidence.

No, it's based on incredulity, ignorance and an a priori belief that a god created it.

It doesn't conclude who the causal agent is.

Ow please...............

What we do know is that information, in our experience without exception comes from intelligent agency. Please give any counterfactual if you can.

He already did.
H + 2O gives H2O

My example was intended to show what specified complexity is. I wasn't claiming that it was DNA.

But this thread is about biological evolution. It's not about dice and phone numbers.
Perhaps you should address DNA instead of fallacious analogies that, by your own admission, have nothing to do with it.

Your code string is meaningless to me. If there is any intelligence in it, it would have to be decoded and translated into a language that I understand. If there is any information coded into it, it would have to be decoded by the intelligent agent who embedded the information in the first place.

Funny.
What "decodes" it is not an "intelligent agent", but a chemical process.
You know why? Because DNA is not a language. It's a molecule, which simply follows the laws and processes of chemistry and physics.

Faith is not measurable by science, but then neither is love. Both are just as real as the nose on your face.

Faith, as a thing, is very real. But the thing one has faith in, is another matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

HA!! He'd be crying for mommy in no time ha ha ha!

He is the host of the show The Atheist Experience. It's a call-in show. Anyone can call. Please do so. Let me know wich episode it is so I can watch the embarassment on youtube.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Sorry, but no Christian has put it like that before that I have seen and it surely is not what the Bible says.

And I have never seen your unsupported definition for subjectivism before so everyone can disregard it.

Matthew 22

1. 
   37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
   

As I said, these are the two commandments of God that ground our moral ontology. All of the rest of the commandments are to be interpreted or applied in light of these two and are therefore subjective.

 

[Paterfamilia]

It perfectly describes faith and how people justify their religious beliefs:




Just for the record, give your approval in the formal debates thread and we will get under way. If you want, you could explain why you think the rules are tipped in my favor.

"Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience".[1] In other words, subjectivism is the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

How many times have we heard theists say that there isn't any objective evidence for the supernatural? How many times have we heard that they believe in God because of an emotional and personal experience that has no tangible evidence in the external world?

The point of subjectivism is that there is no objective truth, and that it is totally up to us to decide what is true, and that our truth only applies to us.

Do understand? The subjectivist isn't a Christian who says "there is no objective evidence of God". The subjectivist says "there is no objective truth outside of my own thinking". A robust subjectivist is nearly always atheist. They have to do some pretty intricate mental gymnastics otherwise.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I don't recall seeing a response from PF to this post:

----------------------
Let's try this exercise. How would any of the following sources for the origin of life on earth effect the theory of evolution?
- Abiogenesis
- Panspermia
- Fiat creation by God
- Something kooky like being a science class experiment by hyper-dimensional high school students

It seems to me that this would be the most impactful scientific finding in history.

The effect of substantial evidence for any one of these sources would be that we would re-interpret our entire understanding of the theory according to that evidence, and make the appropriate changes in our attributions, if indeed there are any. Probably the lowest impact on the theory itself would be abiogenesis.

Probably the most impactful change would be with regard to our new hypotheses and resulting funding for future research.

Anyway, that's my take.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew 22

1. 
   37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

As I said, these are the two commandments of God that ground our moral ontology. All of the rest of the commandments are to be interpreted or applied in light of these two and are therefore subjective.

Yes, but that is just selective reading. Jesus also said that not one bit of the Old Testament law was to change. The Bible is not consistent. But then since it is a book written by man one would not expect it to be consistent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point of subjectivism is that there is no objective truth, and that it is totally up to us to decide what is true, and that our truth only applies to us.

Do understand? The subjectivist isn't a Christian who says "there is no objective evidence of God". The subjectivist says "there is no objective truth outside of my own thinking". A robust subjectivist is nearly always atheist. They have to do some pretty intricate mental gymnastics otherwise.

You seem to think that the fact that morality, which deals with right and wrong and is relative, makes one a subjectivist. By the definition given this is not true. We can show that an idea is right or wrong often. But you have to oversimplify your argument to claim that relativists are subjectivists.

By the way, Matt Dillahunty is not at every Atheists experience show. You might want to check ahead. But yes, please do call him. He has studied philosophy and will be able to tell you when you misuse it. He will be able to clearly tell you your errors when you attempt to debate with him.

 

[Paterfamilia]

You seem to think that the fact that morality, which deals with right and wrong and is relative, makes one a subjectivist. By the definition given this is not true. We can show that an idea is right or wrong often. But you have to oversimplify your argument to claim that relativists are subjectivists.

Look you can pick whatever camp best suits you. I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint.

Going back to my original statement, I was interested in finding out why atheists (generally speaking) are so rude. So intentionally over the top rude.

Dawkins and Krauss and Harris et al, the guys on the debate circuit, openly and repeatedly recommend ridicule and rudeness as a tactic to be used against Christians.

What part of your moral foundation makes that right?

You say that you can show an idea to right or wrong often - please show me why you think it's right to be so offensive. Because to me it betrays an underlying contempt for other human beings who have done you no wrong.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yes, but that is just selective reading. Jesus also said that not one bit of the Old Testament law was to change. The Bible is not consistent. But then since it is a book written by man one would not expect it to be consistent.

It's not just selective reading. It is consistent with all of Jesus teaching. You said that "it's surely not what the bible says". Can you see your mistake?

"Jesus also said that not one bit of the Old Testament law was to change."

He said that He has not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.

You err because you don't know the scriptures or the power of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not just selective reading. It is consistent with all of Jesus teaching. You said that "it's surely not what the bible says". Can you see your mistake?

"Jesus also said that not one bit of the Old Testament law was to change."

He said that He has not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.

You err because you don't know the scriptures or the power of God.

The error is yours. You are still picking and choosing. But to be a Christian one must pick and choose.

 

[sfs]

It seems to me that this would be the most impactful scientific finding in history.

The effect of substantial evidence for any one of these sources would be that we would re-interpret our entire understanding of the theory according to that evidence, and make the appropriate changes in our attributions, if indeed there are any. Probably the lowest impact on the theory itself would be abiogenesis.

Probably the most impactful change would be with regard to our new hypotheses and resulting funding for future research.

Anyway, that's my take.

I asked how one of those findings on the origin of would change the study of evolution. I don't see anything in your response that answers that question.

 

[HitchSlap]

Look you can pick whatever camp best suits you. I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint.

Going back to my original statement, I was interested in finding out why atheists (generally speaking) are so rude. So intentionally over the top rude.

Dawkins and Krauss and Harris et al, the guys on the debate circuit, openly and repeatedly recommend ridicule and rudeness as a tactic to be used against Christians.

What part of your moral foundation makes that right?

You say that you can show an idea to right or wrong often - please show me why you think it's right to be so offensive. Because to me it betrays an underlying contempt for other human beings who have done you no wrong.

Ha ha ha.

 

[Paterfamilia]

The error is yours. You are still picking and choosing. But to be a Christian one must pick and choose.

Okay. Well I had thought maybe it was time to start a different thread since we pretty thoroughly hijacked this one.

But if that's your argument it seems we have reached the end.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Paterfamilia]

I asked how one of those findings on the origin of would change the study of evolution. I don't see anything in your response that answers that question.

Okay, probably the biggeSt change would be how we interpret our findings, how we ground new hypotheses and how we fund future research.

I think that's what I already said.

Were you looking for something different?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha ha.

Ha ha don't start!!

Are you saying you're not being rude youre just being funny?? Ha ha

 

[DogmaHunter]

It seems to me that this would be the most impactful scientific finding in history.

The effect of substantial evidence for any one of these sources would be that we would re-interpret our entire understanding of the theory according to that evidence, and make the appropriate changes in our attributions, if indeed there are any. Probably the lowest impact on the theory itself would be abiogenesis.

Probably the most impactful change would be with regard to our new hypotheses and resulting funding for future research.

Anyway, that's my take.

You seem to be an expert in talking a lot and saying very little.

He asked you a DIRECT question, that question being HOW would it impact evolution?

Your answer is just a very elaborate way to simply repeat "it would impact it", without actual explaining HOW it would be impacted - which is what the question was.

Try again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Look you can pick whatever camp best suits you. I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint.

Going back to my original statement, I was interested in finding out why atheists (generally speaking) are so rude. So intentionally over the top rude.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you just perceive them to be rude, because they happen to say things you don't like to hear?

Dawkins and Krauss and Harris et al, the guys on the debate circuit, openly and repeatedly recommend ridicule and rudeness as a tactic to be used against Christians.

I have never heared them say such a thing.
They might have said that ridiculous ideas deserve to be ridiculed, yes. But that's quite different from saying "be rude to christians".

You say that you can show an idea to right or wrong often - please show me why you think it's right to be so offensive.

Perceiving something to be offensive is not necessarily objectively offensive. It might simply be how you perceive it to be.

I know people who feel "offended" when I say "I think religion is nonsense".
I'm not trying to be offensive when I say that, nore am I targetting anyone's person. I'm just expressing an opinion. If you are offended by my opinion, perhaps that is your problem?

Because to me it betrays an underlying contempt for other human beings who have done you no wrong.

Look man... in a society where people have freedom of speech, things are going to be said that you might or might not find offensive.

In a free society, you arm yourself with a shield against that.

There's plenty of stuff that you believe and say that I could just as easily call offensive.

For example, if you are a hell-believing christian, you might think that I as an atheist will be sent to hell to be tortured and tormented for eternity, and you might believe that I, on the count of being an atheist, deserve to be tortured and tormented for eternity. I find that incredibly offensive. Extremely offensive, actually.

But I don't whine about it.