Who is doing that and how exactly is it happening? You keep making these random assertions without even discussing the contents of the posts you're responding to. Do you think that's going to convince anyone?
Upvote
0
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.
Trashing cogent reasoning isn't science-it's quackery.
Lots of ... in that quote-mine. Wonder what the real paragraph actually said.One compelling reason behind their objections is described by this atheist scientists.
No one believes evolution is how life began.If indeed you wish to believe in evolution as the means by which life was created you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true. That is why NASA can count on the reliability of gravity when planning its space exploration missions.
I'm not expecting to convince people who conveniently dispense with cogent reasoning via selective blindness and inconsistency of policy whenever it is deemed advantageous. Such an expectation would be unreasonable.Who is doing that and how exactly is it happening? You keep making these random assertions without even discussing the contents of the posts you're responding to. Do you think that's going to convince anyone?
Someone else's inefficiency, buffoonery, lack of preparation or innate stupidity is that person's problem not mine and is totally irrelevant to the clear indication of a planning mind manifested in nature. That's just like saying that all SETI scientist should be swayed or are misguided because one inept SETI scientist failed to provide the right reasons for considering a certain code from space as evidence of intelligence. Or that all Christians should deny Christ because one inept minister made a buffoon of himself by providing stupid answers.Did you ever investigate Dr. Behe's testimony under oath, as I suggested in a previous post?
Do you know how you ask others to use Google? Well, Google the transcripts from the Dover trial, which was about getting ID taught in schools. Focus on the testimony of Dr. Behe, ID'S star witness and see him get his head handed to him when questioned about ID. It is priceless stuff
Someone else's inefficiency, buffoonery, lack of preparation or innate stupidity is that person's problem not mine and is totally irrelevant to the clear indication of a planning mind manifested in nature. That's just like saying that all SETI scientist should be swayed or are misguided because one inept SETI scientist failed to provide the right reasons for considering a certain code from space as evidence of intelligence. Or that all Christians should deny Christ because one inept minister made a buffoon of himself by providing stupid answers.
BTW
That is assuming that he in fact was foolish and not that those who listened were merely in the accustomed atheistic heckling, and mockery mode.
I'm not expecting to convince people who conveniently dispense with cogent reasoning via selective blindness and inconsistency of policy whenever it is deemed advantageous. Such an expectation would be unreasonable.
In all fairness he has, a number of times: he observes functional organization in naturally occurring structures and from that concludes intentional organization requiring an intelligent designer. QED.Let us know when you plan to demonstrate this; cogent reasoning.
So, no actual evidence for the stuff you're claiming. Fair enough. Keep on ranting that everyone else is blind, irrational, or whatever - that's sure to attract those people to your type of Christianity.I'm not expecting to convince people who conveniently dispense with cogent reasoning via selective blindness and inconsistency of policy whenever it is deemed advantageous. Such an expectation would be unreasonable.
That is assuming that he in fact was foolish and not that those who listened were merely in the accustomed atheistic heckling, and mockery mode.
On the subject of the origins of biological life on earth, it's always better to ask "who, what, where, when, why" rather than to only ask "what, where, when, why". Leaving out "who" puts a limit on the possible answers one can openly consider that could lead to the truth.
That's beside the point.
The point is that a designer is needed to produce the watch in the first place, the analogy does not speak on the watch's ability to reproduce (which would also require a designer).
That doesn't affect the criteria for determining intelligent design one iota.
If thinking is limited by an extreme aversion to a concept then that mind is shackled by fanatical bias. That is one reason why I try to avoid debates. It is a complete waste of time.
They're apparently similar to the criteria for evaluating astrology, at least if you listen to what ID proponents say when there are legal penalties for lying under oath.Remind us again, what those criteria are, exactly?
They're apparently similar to the criteria for evaluating astrology, at least if you listen to what ID proponents say when there are legal penalties for lying under oath.
Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true.
I'm not expecting to convince people who conveniently dispense with cogent reasoning via selective blindness and inconsistency of policy whenever it is deemed advantageous. Such an expectation would be unreasonable.
In all fairness he has, a number of times: he observes functional organization in naturally occurring structures and from that concludes intentional organization requiring an intelligent designer. QED.
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?