Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[bhsmte]

Well, I'm relatively new here, so I guess +1?

Welcome to the growing club.

 

[The Cadet]

If someone claimed you were mimicking Johnny Depp that would mean there was a Johnny Depp to mimic...get it.

Or it could mean that there's some cultural understanding of what a "Johnny Depp" is. Someone might recognize my Twilight Sparkle costume; this does not mean that Twilight Sparkle is a real thing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Demonstrate that this is objectively present. Don't dodge, don't shift the burden of proof, this is your claim. Own it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective
ob•jec•tive ( b-j k t v)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object. (living organisms systems and features)
2. Having actual existence or reality. (observed by a 3rd party as in most biologists and biochemists)
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
(both materialists and theist observe it.)
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
(All biologists that I am aware of claim they observe the appearance of deliberate design)

This is objective evidence as defined in the free dictionary. As shown it is objectively present.

Are you making the claim that we can objectively observe the appearance of design with nature? Yes or no. (Actually, feel free to correct the wording if you feel it misrepresents your position, but I would really appreciate it if you told me whether or not you were making this claim.)

According to the above definition of objective evidence those who claim there is an appearance of deliberate design do so by observation which is confirmed by 3rd party observations about living organisms' systems and features which actually exist.

I don't care what Dawkins or Crick said in their personal musings about this subject. I care that you have been promoting an idea for two months and you cannot adequately define or demonstrate. So please provide:

• A definition of "appearance of design"
• An objective mechanism to detect "appearance of design"
• A null hypothesis which we could expect in the absence of any objective "appearance of design".

(And if you can find someone else who already did this, by all means, feel free to link to them.)

It is an innate ability to understand from experience what design appears like. To claim that we don't understand or recognize design is going against reason and logic. If we didn't know the pyramids were designed we would still recognize that it is not built from natural processes. The same is true of Mt. Rushmore. Now if you want to deny this and claim you don't recognize design you must do so going against it when the majority of people out there disagree with you.

Stop trying to hide behind scientists who disagree with you. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto them. Dawkins said it? I don't care. I do not care at all what Dawkins said on this subject any more than I care about his opinion on feminism or racism unless he published it in the scientific literature. You are making a claim. Stop pretending you aren't.

Stop pretending that I haven't been completely clear on their positions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or it could mean that there's some cultural understanding of what a "Johnny Depp" is. Someone might recognize my Twilight Sparkle costume; this does not mean that Twilight Sparkle is a real thing.

You have a Twilight Sparkle costume?

 

[Oncedeceived]

She is quote-mining the dude from the book called "The Blind Watchmaker".
Which is a book that literally explains why evolution produces the appearance/illusion of design.

She then continues to state that he doesn't back that statement up. It's almost like she believes that that quote is the only sentence in the entire book.

Or, off course, she only read the back cover.



Haaa, yes. It's a conspiracy!!!!

Millions of biologists all over the world need to swear a blood oath when they start their studies that they will pledge allegiance to Great Darwin God.

And this has been going on for 200 years!!!!

It's a plot I tell you, A PLOT!!!!


/endsarcasm

Does this sound familiar whois? They accuse you of the same thing. Common tactic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Anyone else think that all this attacking the poster rather than the posts tactic is being used to close the thread so they don't have to back up their assertions?

 

[lasthero]

Anyone else think that all this attacking the poster rather than the posts tactic is being used to close the thread so they don't have to back up their assertions?

I think you have a very low standard for what constitutes attacks

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think you have a very low standard for what constitutes attacks

: to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)

: to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way

: to begin to work on or deal with (something, such as a problem) in a determined and eager way

To say someone is a liar without foundation is harsh. To say someone is dishonest without foundation is harsh. To claim someone is misrepresenting others without foundation is harsh. To criticize the poster rather than the argument is against the rules.

Now I don't think the attack is from acting violently against me, I don't think they are trying to hurt or injure me but they are trying to destroy my arguments using attacks against me personally. Now if that is a very low standard..so be it.

 

[lasthero]

: to act violently against (someone or something) : to try to hurt, injure, or destroy (something or someone)

: to criticize (someone or something) in a very harsh and severe way

: to begin to work on or deal with (something, such as a problem) in a determined and eager way

To say someone is a liar without foundation is harsh. To say someone is dishonest without foundation is harsh. To claim someone is misrepresenting others without foundation is harsh. To criticize the poster rather than the argument is against the rules.

Now I don't think the attack is from acting violently against me, I don't think they are trying to hurt or injure me but they are trying to destroy my arguments using attacks against me personally. Now if that is a very low standard..so be it.

When Mike said that he didn't believe Dogma was a programmer, was that an attack?

 

[whois]

When Mike said that he didn't believe Dogma was a programmer, was that an attack?

who's mike?
i for one doubt if dogmahunter is a programmer.

i presented dogmahunter with a very simple program, and asked him a simple question about it that any programmer should have been able to answer.
so far he has provided no answer.

i presented a base conversion program written in the same language to a mathematician on a different forum and asked him why it didn't work right, he had no problem pointing out my error, and it wasn't even the language he was familiar with, he programs in python.
so yes, i question dogahunters assertion that he is a programmer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When Mike said that he didn't believe Dogma was a programmer, was that an attack?

If I said I was a neurosurgeon and then made statements that were what you thought were uncharacteristic of knowledge that I should hold if it were true, is it an attack to question that claim?

 

[lasthero]

who's mike?

I don't have the time to look it up, but Mike Enders said something of the effect to 'If you're a programmer, I'm the POTUS'

i presented dogmahunter with a very simple program, and asked him a simple question about it that any programmer should have been able to answer.
so far he has provided no answer.

You're assuming that he's provided no answer because he CAN'T, as opposed to him possibly not feeling the need to answer you.

so yes, i question dogahunters assertion that he is a programmer.

So you would say that he's lying?

 

[lasthero]

If I said I was a neurosurgeon and then made statements that were what you thought were uncharacteristic of knowledge that I should hold if it were true, is it an attack to question that claim?

I notice you didn't actually answer my question.

What does Dogma being a programmer or not actually have to do with the merits of his arguments? If he held up his degrees and sent you copies of them and gave you 100% proof he is what he said he is, would that change anything in this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

who's mike?
i for one doubt if dogmahunter is a programmer.

i presented dogmahunter with a very simple program, and asked him a simple question about it that any programmer should have been able to answer.
so far he has provided no answer.

i presented a base conversion program written in the same language to a mathematician on a different forum and asked him why it didn't work right, he had no problem pointing out my error, and it wasn't even the language he was familiar with, he programs in python.
so yes, i question dogahunters assertion that he is a programmer.

Which is not an unfounded attack, you not only doubted his claim of being a very proficient programmer but you tested his knowledge and that led to you believe that he might not be as he claimed. You then took that one step farther and asked an actual programmer and found that he was able to provide the answer in which DogmaHunter was not. I think that is going to great lengths to establish the truth of his claim and one that if he had provided the answers according to that of a programmer, you would have believed his claim. Good job.

 

[whois]

I don't have the time to look it up, but Mike Enders said something of the effect to 'If you're a programmer, I'm the POTUS'

ah yes, i remember.

So you would say that he's lying?

read my previous post and come to your own conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I notice you didn't actually answer my question.

What does Dogma being a programmer or not actually have to do with the merits of his arguments? If he held up his degrees and sent you copies of them and gave you 100% proof he is what he said he is, would that change anything in this?

In this case Dogma said he was a programmer and not only knew how these worked but have developed them himself. That brings the issue into the fray.

 

[lasthero]

read my previous post and come to your own conclusion.

Why can't you just say it? 'Yes, I think he's lying'.

 

[lasthero]

In this case Dogma said he was a programmer and not only knew how these worked but have developed them himself. That brings the issue into the fray.

And I ask again - if he provided you with 100% proof that he is what he said he is, how would that change anything for you?

Also, I'm noting that you still haven't answered the very simple question about whether or not what Mike said constitutes an attack.

 

[Oncedeceived]

ah yes, i remember.

read my previous post and come to your own conclusion.

I would say that you agree that you have been accused of quote mining yourself when in fact that was an unfounded accusation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I ask again - if he provided you with 100% proof that he is what he said he is, how would that change anything for you?

Also, I'm noting that you still haven't answered the very simple question about whether or not what Mike said constitutes an attack.

I have never questioned his profession. I took his word for it. What I question is his claim that intelligence has nothing to do with the program and his lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. I have provided unbiased, expert opinions on both which he rejected.