The stumbling block for atheists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not quite correct... or at least it should not be correct.

We start with the observations of the object. We find out the necessary steps of how such an object could have come into existence. Then we postulate mechanisms that could have resulted in these steps. We try to find evidence or examples for these mechanisms.
And then we make a judgement of how this object could have come into existence.

In the case of bow and arrow, we have examples of the mechanisms of "here's how humans do such things". We do not have any examples of examples or evidence for "here's how it could have happened if humans didn't do it". That's why we say (provisionally, with a high degree of certainty: humans did it.)

I concur.

But I was rather talking from the position that we humans "instantly" recognise bows and arrows as being designed, unnatural objects without having a need to go through all those "objective investigation" steps.

We know for a fact what arrows and bows are and we know for a fact that humans make such things. We also know that they don't grow on trees or whatever.

So the only reason we instantly recognise a bow and arrow for what they are, is quite simply because we already know what they are and where they come from....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said before, the issue with Skreeper was resolved.

Cool.

Now you can resolve a similar issue with me...

Since you have repeatedely made similar accusations at my address, like claiming that when I am presented with "your evidence", that I simply dissmiss it at face value and stuff. Which can't be true, because you never presented me with anything except that one time where I immediatly refuted it with the Polar bear fur thingy. So that wasn't at face value. You eventually abandonned that topic. That thread is even closed now, if I recall correctly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Jumping in blind here -- This still assumes that when Atheists look at Christians, they like what they see and decide "I want to be like them." By your own admission, they do not. Why abandon what they know, believe what the Christians say at face value, when the end result is to end up like... well, Christians?

 

[Radrook]

All is good, BUT you still have not responded to my question:

Do you think that the ideas intelligent design could be false? That it was indeed the result of natural processes?

I personally don't believe that the conclusion of an intelligent design can be false and that the human brain can be merely the product of a mindless process found in nature. Please note that it is the process itself leading to a human brain that is being deemed as established by a designer.

So from our perspective what we are seeing is a nature which was made to preform that way and not a nature which somehow, and in some way began to code information into DNA which just so-happened to lead to a brain with an occipital lobe for receiving neurotransmitter signals which just so happened to be designed to interpret such signals into what just so happened to be is perceived as visual images. Not to mention the host of other things that the brain is designed to do. I find mere chance and mindless chemical reactions as very unsatisfactory explanations for this. But if you do-then I guess we simply differ in our opinions.

 

[Radrook]

Cool.

Now you can resolve a similar issue with me...

Since you have repeatedely made similar accusations at my address, like claiming that when I am presented with "your evidence", that I simply dissmiss it at face value and stuff. Which can't be true, because you never presented me with anything except that one time where I immediatly refuted it with the Polar bear fur thingy. So that wasn't at face value. You eventually abandonned that topic. That thread is even closed now, if I recall correctly.

You remember all that? You certainly have an excellent memory! What thread was that? What was the polar bear thing in reference to?

 

[KCfromNC]

For the millionth time, I am not arguing against theistic evolution.

There are forms of theistic evolution which reject ID. Do you agree with them?

 

[Skreeper]

I personally don't believe that the conclusion of an intelligent design can be false and that the human brain can be merely the product of a mindless process found in nature. Please note that it is the process itself leading to a human brain that is being deemed as established by a designer.

So from our perspective what we are seeing is a nature which was made to preform that way and not a nature which somehow, and in some way began to code information into DNA which just so-happened to lead to a brain with an occipital lobe for receiving neurotransmitter signals which just so happened to be designed to interpret such signals into what just so happened to be is perceived as visual images. Not to mention the host of other things that the brain is designed to do. I find mere chance and mindless chemical reactions as very unsatisfactory explanations for this. But if you do-then I guess we simply differ in our opinions.

Well this reminds me of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. The last question was: "What would change your mind?"

Bill said: "Evidence." Ken basically said: "Nothing"

Since you have a similar view, there is no point in discussing this topic any further with you since nothing would change your mind.
You have such a strong emotional attachment to your god that nothing could convince you and every piece of evidence that contradicts that idea will be dismissed by you.

 

[KCfromNC]

The part where you claim that ID isn't testable in any way manner or form.

It is not that it isn't testable in any form. The problem is that the people who made up ID testified in court that it is just as testable as astrology. For people who understand science that disqualifies it from serious consideration.

 

[KCfromNC]

The more you talk about this topic, the less clear it becomes what your actual position is.

He has faith ID is right and will keep making up reasons to feel that way until people stop talking to him?

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course that's the kicker. You don't accept demonstrations that lead to a conclusion that contradicts your view that things mindlessly designed themselves.

Which demonstrations are you talking about? Please be specific.

 

[Radrook]

Yet, when asked where we can review this supposed work, we are left in the dark.
And it's kind of curious that all the people who claim this, just happen to all be theists.
They all happen to already believe that this designer exists and even what his identity is.

Before asking any question, before investigating any phenomena.

And, off course, when asked how we can review this work and how it can be tested and/or repeated... we are once again left in the dark.

Then, all we get is either a variation of "it's obvious!" or we are denied that info and accused of some variation of "you wouldn't accept it anyway!".

So, can you really blame us that we conclude that you have nothing, but an a priori religious belief?




Except that that is exactly what "intelligent design" involves. At least, the concept that is generally known as being "intelligent design". You insist on saying that "your" ID model is somehow different from what everybody else knows as the "ID model". I have yet to hear the specifics of "your" model though and how it differs from what everybody else understands by that name.



Or so you keep saying.

Are you going to explain it any time soon?

I mean... I've only been asking for about a month now...



Humans aren't creative minds?
And what is that evidence again?

Can I blame someone for misrepresenting what I believe and have repeatedly explained? Of course I can since it is inexcusable.

BTW
The reason I don't provide you with a link to where I explained my views in detail is because such info is buried deep within in a vast confusing heap of previous posts imbedded in active and discontinued threads. I also don't provide it because I already have provided it numerous times and you and others keep saying you can't see and then begin requesting for repeats.

 

[KCfromNC]

That matter MUST mindlessly be invariably viewed as totally responsible for designing itself into complex computer-like organs such as brains in order to be acceptable and that any other explanation MUST be bogus by default.

Post #s where non-Christians have made these claims?

 

[Radrook]

He has faith ID is right and will keep making up reasons to feel that way until people stop talking to him?

That's a misrepresentation of what I cleary am saying and you know it.
That blind faith part is what is needed for a belief in abiogenesis not for a belief in an intelligent designer.

BTW
If you feel that not talking to me is the best course of action-then please feel free.

 

[KCfromNC]

First, I don't identify it as coded information-scientists identify it as coded information. So if I apply the same criteria to it as all other coded information

You end up with the "logical" conclusion that humans created DNA - after all, that's who created every other example of coded information. That should tell you there's something wrong with your approach.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's a misrepresentation of what I cleary am saying

"there are many opinions, some more reasonable than others."

 

[Radrook]

Which demonstrations are you talking about? Please be specific.

Demonstrations involving logic, a logic which you claim to be thoroughly familiar with but which suddenly becomes invisible and incomprehensible to you whenever it is applied to the subject of an intelligent design in nature.

 

[Radrook]

You end up with the "logical" conclusion that humans created DNA - after all, that's who created every other example of coded information. That should tell you there's something wrong with your approach.

Human, alien, God, gods, or anything else you might wish to introduce into the subject is irrelevant to the issue of intelligent design as conveyed in nature. Why you are introducing them is obvious. As I said before but to no avail-we are talking about phenomena indicating MIND.

 

[KCfromNC]

Demonstrations involving logic

I wasn't asking what the demonstrations involved. I was asking for a pointer to the actual demonstrations where actual posters in this thread actually rejected. Please be specific - post numbers or links would make it easiest but direct quotes are fine as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can I blame someone for misrepresenting what I believe and have repeatedly explained?

Is it also possible that you actually simply didn't explain it clearly enough?
What is more likely? That all of us are deliberatly dishonest, or that you indeed weren't clear enough?

BTW
The reason I don't provide you with a link to where I explained my views in detail is because such info is buried deep within in a vast confusing heap of previous posts imbedded in active and discontinued threads. I also don't provide it because I already have provided it numerous times and you and others keep saying you can't see and then begin requesting for repeats.

And again with the false and unsupported accusations...

Here's an idea....

Make a post where you explain your position and detail the evidence in favor of that position CLEARLY. Then put a link to that post in your signature.

Because honestly, we are going to continue asking you for such explanation and evidence. And you, apparantly, are simply going to continue with your accusations coupled with a refusal to explain your position and share the supportive evidence.

So this way, we all win...

You get to shut us up when we claim that you never detailed your evidence and explanation, simply by pointing to the link in your signatrue.
And we get to finally address your actual explanation and evidence.

Everybody wins.

Surely you see how this is a reasonable compromise?

 

[KCfromNC]

Human, alien, God, gods, or anything else you might wish to introduce into the subject is irrelevant to the issue of intelligent design as conveyed in nature.

You're the one appealing to human-designed codes, not me. If you think they are irrelevant you sure aren't acting like it.

As for aliens or gods, why bring them up? We're talking about your logical inference that leads to concluding that humans created DNA. Want to explain the issues with that or are you just going to let it slide?