Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 1157952" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>LOL!! Now who's playing semantic games? You are trying to argue the existence of a deity and still equating evolution with atheism. Nope. Ain't gonna play that false game. What I am claiming is that there is no "gap" in the material processes such that some "supernatural" ID has to directly manufacture components. </p><p> </p><p>Intelligence can be accounted for by natural selection. That is, what we call "intelligence" is a set of cognitive algorithms that can evolve by natural selection. Natural selection won't account for "meaning" in the metaphysical sense you are using the term. </p><p> </p><p>Since when does "natural" exclude God? I find it ironic that IDers accept the basic statement of faith of atheism.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The laws of chemistry. DUH!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Doesn't appear that you did. Otherwise you would know the references I posted refute your position. You didn't list <strong>any</strong> of them in your book. Why not?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Not "just wait a few million generations", but have natural selection working.</p><p> </p><p>Well, wasn't thru Darwinian selection that we did make watches that tells time? First the gears were used in mills, etc. Then they were exapted to large clocks. Then the gears and mechanismss were modified to tell time more accurately. Then the gears were made smaller so that they could be carried on persons, although much larger than the watches we have now. In each step, variations that didn't meet the environment -- correct time -- were selected against and those variations that did meet the environment were selected for.</p><p> </p><p>The difference is cells is that we have chemistry to serve as an unintelligent manufacturing process while in watches you have to have humans manufacture the parts.</p><p> </p><p>Post 207:</p><p> </p><p>You said:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I did. Your claim was "<em>1. My book is about theism and atheism with personal opinions interjected. I do not claim that it is pure science and I make that distinction in the book."</em></p><p> </p><p>Notto showed, with quotes from your book, that you do not make that distinction. This seems like a lost cause for you to argue. Are you saying Notto got the quotes from your book wrong?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Why didn't you quote the relevant passage from the book? That would have been easy enough for you to do, right?</p><p> </p><p>"<em>2. It is my thesis that God created life however he chose, with or without the aid of natural processes that we observe today."</em></p><p> </p><p><em>"<em>I am asserting that intelligence has been interjected into the universe, especially the universe of life. God originated the language of life and assigned meaning to the chemicals symbols."</em></em></p><p> </p><p>Care to reconcile your two quotes? If you are saying that God used the material processes that I have outlined -- chemistry and selection -- to "originate the language of life" then we agree. You've made a statement of belief -- that God is behind the material processes we observe by science. However, I don't think you are saying that, are you?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Then what did you say? You castigate me for not reading it "right", but then don't tell me what the correct reading was.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 1157952, member: 4882"] LOL!! Now who's playing semantic games? You are trying to argue the existence of a deity and still equating evolution with atheism. Nope. Ain't gonna play that false game. What I am claiming is that there is no "gap" in the material processes such that some "supernatural" ID has to directly manufacture components. Intelligence can be accounted for by natural selection. That is, what we call "intelligence" is a set of cognitive algorithms that can evolve by natural selection. Natural selection won't account for "meaning" in the metaphysical sense you are using the term. Since when does "natural" exclude God? I find it ironic that IDers accept the basic statement of faith of atheism. The laws of chemistry. DUH! Doesn't appear that you did. Otherwise you would know the references I posted refute your position. You didn't list [b]any[/b] of them in your book. Why not? Not "just wait a few million generations", but have natural selection working. Well, wasn't thru Darwinian selection that we did make watches that tells time? First the gears were used in mills, etc. Then they were exapted to large clocks. Then the gears and mechanismss were modified to tell time more accurately. Then the gears were made smaller so that they could be carried on persons, although much larger than the watches we have now. In each step, variations that didn't meet the environment -- correct time -- were selected against and those variations that did meet the environment were selected for. The difference is cells is that we have chemistry to serve as an unintelligent manufacturing process while in watches you have to have humans manufacture the parts. Post 207: You said: I did. Your claim was "[i]1. My book is about theism and atheism with personal opinions interjected. I do not claim that it is pure science and I make that distinction in the book."[/i] Notto showed, with quotes from your book, that you do not make that distinction. This seems like a lost cause for you to argue. Are you saying Notto got the quotes from your book wrong? Why didn't you quote the relevant passage from the book? That would have been easy enough for you to do, right? "[i]2. It is my thesis that God created life however he chose, with or without the aid of natural processes that we observe today."[/i] [i]"[i]I am asserting that intelligence has been interjected into the universe, especially the universe of life. God originated the language of life and assigned meaning to the chemicals symbols."[/i][/i] Care to reconcile your two quotes? If you are saying that God used the material processes that I have outlined -- chemistry and selection -- to "originate the language of life" then we agree. You've made a statement of belief -- that God is behind the material processes we observe by science. However, I don't think you are saying that, are you? Then what did you say? You castigate me for not reading it "right", but then don't tell me what the correct reading was. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
Top
Bottom