The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[KCfromNC]

Trashing cogent reasoning isn't science-it's quackery.

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?

 

[KCfromNC]

One compelling reason behind their objections is described by this atheist scientists.

Lots of ... in that quote-mine. Wonder what the real paragraph actually said.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

No one believes evolution is how life began.

You should say abiogenesis.

Two different things.

I'm surprised you are unaware of this.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

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

 

[Radrook]

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?

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.

 

[Radrook]

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. Whatever the case might have been it would be a waste of my time since my belief doesn't depend on someone else's views.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

And that buffoonery came from ID's star scientific witness. It is amazing what happens when ID folks are putter under oath.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Let us know when you plan to demonstrate this; cogent reasoning.

 

[Speedwell]

Let us know when you plan to demonstrate this; cogent reasoning.

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

If you'd actually read the testimony you wouldn't have to guess. But don't take a risk of letting actual facts get in the way of what you wish were true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No.

The first question is "how".
Depending on the answer, follow up questions may consist of "who" and "why" or just "what".

Otherwise, it's akin to asking "why do you hit your wife", without first establishing that a wife is evenbeing hit in the first place.

Consider finding a dead person.
The first question is not "who killed this person?". Rather, the first question is "what was the cause of death?".

The "who is the killer?" question is only asked after it is first established that a "who" was even involved at all.

Or to keep it a bit simple: loaded questions, are fallacious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's beside the point.

It's not, since reproduction with variation is the very essence of evolutionary biology.

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).

So... it's a "heads I win, tails you loose" kind of thing.
Not particularly impressive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That doesn't affect the criteria for determining intelligent design one iota.

Remind us again, what those criteria are, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Irony alert.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I think you mean cdesign proponentsists.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

How do you determine that a theory is entirely consistent with all of reality without having absolute knowledge of every interaction in the entire universe?

Science is littered with discarded theories that were consistent with all known observations, until they weren't. Newton's Laws of Gravity come to mind. Those laws stood for hundreds of years until we came across observations that were no longer consistent with those laws.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

What selective blindness? What inconsistencies of policy?

Seems you are still making stuff up.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

How do those observations lead to that conclusion? There is no reasoning between observation and conclusion.

I observe that clouds are fluffy and white. From that, I conclude that fairies are responsible for rainbows.

Is that cogent reasoning, just because I list observations and a conclusion?