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.
Sorry you feel that way. But-I guess it is what it is. You are entitled to your opinion.There is your problem. You don't want to "demonstrate", because you cannot demonstrate, beyond claiming "it is obvious".
If it was obvious, you shouldn't have no problems demonstrating it.
But it isn't obvious. There are legitimate doubts, there are legitimate alternatives.
True, there are many opinions, some more reasonable than others. Please note that experts in the field are not infallible and have been known to make very serious mistakes. So a 100% trust based on expertise alone can lead to the entertainment of illogical ideas such as the geocentric model of our universe which experts of those times supported. Or the expert conclusion that the Milky Way contained all the stars in the universe. Or the former expert idea that the universe had always existed in its present form. These were concepts' which the majority of scientists upheld as undeniable truths until they were proven to be bogus. So an appeal to expertise has value only to a certain degree because humans are fallible and make mistakes.
It seems you forgot the "second".
But fine, let's say it is always and exclusively "scientists" who identify "coded information". Then you should accept that it is also those same scientists who disagree with your assertion that this coded information has to be "intelligently designed".
And that still doesn't change that fact that you do indeed assert that "coded information must be intelligently designed, therefore when we see coded information, we can conclude an intelligent designed".
I guess you were to adress that in your "second" point. I hope you were, at least.
Not that you are going to amend it.LOL! True, once you say first, then a second is expected, and third and finally a finally. My bad!
I can't even tell anymore if you are serious or not.About the scientists contradicting themselves? Well, that is typical of desperation and/or confused thinking.
It seems that the one group that you exclude is yourself. People who disagree with your superior assessments of "the obvious" are desperate and confused. It is simply not possible that you might be wrong.Bias is a human tendency that crops up among all groups regardless of race, nationality, education, religious or philosophical persuasion. So I am not restricting it to any one group.
...Bias is a human tendency that crops up among all groups regardless of race, nationality, education, religious or philosophical persuasion. So I am not restricting it to any one group.
I agree and that's why science doesn't deal in absolutes. Scientific theories are always open for revision.
I am not striving to prove the supernatural. This is getting tiresome and useless! You are taking my statements out of context.
You are placing the cart before the horse. That's like saying that we are assuming that a bow and arrow are designed and therefore when we see a bow and arrow we call it designed.
No one is assuming anything before concluding. We are concluding an intelligent designer after observations which lead us to that justifiable inference.
Well, since I never intended a second or a third, it is illogical to demand that I follow through with the unintended. Please chuck it down as a typo of sorts. My apologies.Not that you are going to amend it.
I can't even tell anymore if you are serious or not.
But if we are talking about "contradicting themselves... you already said:
It seems that the one group that you exclude is yourself. People who disagree with your superior assessments of "the obvious" are desperate and confused. It is simply not possible that you might be wrong.
Fascinating.
I don't know who this Screeper fellow is and do not recall accusing him of saying anything at all.
There is a problem with this view: When we (for the sake of the argument) allow the existence of the supernatural that doesn't get us to a specific god. One could as well claim that universe-creating pixies are responsible since this would be a supernatural event.
But the point is, we don't just claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. We have the problem that science is at the moment incapable of investigating supernatural causation. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism with which we can investigate the supernatural, it is by definition irrational to say it definitely exists. Existence has to be demonstrated.
You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.
No. It seems you didn't not understand what he was saying.
It's more like that, before we make any judgement about bows and arrows, we have established that there is this species called Homo Sapiens wich is known to manufacture tools. And we have quite a good understanding how these tools are created.
That is how we recognise bows and arrows as being of human manufacturing.
That requires assuming that a designer exists, before asking the question.
And as I have pointed out to you in other threads, your modus operandi prohibits that kind of demonstration.
That is not quite correct... or at least it should not be correct.No. It seems you didn't not understand what he was saying.
It's more like that, before we make any judgement about bows and arrows, we have established that there is this species called Homo Sapiens wich is known to manufacture tools. And we have quite a good understanding how these tools are created.
That is how we recognise bows and arrows as being of human manufacturing.
Yes I did read what you posted. But that is an exercise in futility when those involved claim inability to see what should be obvious, have a modus operandi which prohibits any deviation whatsoever and who prefer to assume the supernatural when no supernatural is necessary in order to reject.
Please note that you are dealing with one person-ME, whereas I am dealing with many as well as with serious personal distractions which interfere with my activity on this forum. As for Skreeper, I already acknowledged my mistake and apologized to him personally. So I thought that was resolved.That was actually in this thread.
And you JUST acknowledged also that that was not a warranted accusation at his address, since when I asked you what those limits supposedly were, you started rambling about things that Screeper never mentioned. At all.
I was initially pleased to see you acknowledge your error. But apparantly, it lasted no longer then 3 posts before you already forgot about it again.
As I said before, the issue with Skreeper was resolved.Screeper never expressed any such sentiments and you admitted to that already.
Stop this dishonesty and just answer his question.
As I said before, the issue with Skreeper was resolved.
Once more, the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer is reached AFTER an examination of the phenomena and not BEFORE the evaluation of the phenomena.
Are there people who might think in the superstitious way you describe? Of course there are. But that is not what the intelligent design concept involves.
It involves observation, evaluation and conclusion.
We are talking about evidence of a creative mind not creatures such as humans.
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?