The stumbling block for atheists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"Cerebral Dendrites are mini computers"

My not at face value dismissal post of your arguments, to which you never responded:
Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

"Thread is closed at OP request."

 

[Radrook]

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?



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?

Please note that anyone can claim that an explanation doesn't meet their personal criteria. In fact, that's what's been going on all this time, and that's the reason I stopped providing detailed explanations and am merely speaking in generalities. It saves time and wasted effort.

So will I change my modus operandi in order to provide the opportunity for another barrage of

"Ï don't see hows!!!!" or whatever other phrases you folks might have in reserve for any claim involving an intelligent design? No. However, if you wish to reveal what exactly it is that has you in your self-proclaimed perpetually-befuddled state each time that intelligent design is mentioned-then I will clarify.

Not that I believe for one moment that the attempted clarification will be accepted-it won't. But it's less time-wasting than what you are enthusiastically proposing .

 

[bhsmte]

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

I have asked you many times, to provide the falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present. Anytime you are ready......

 

[bhsmte]

Already done dozens of times. The response of inability to see is all I get. So why keep perpetually and incessantly asking for a repeat?

I know you need to believe it, but not true.

 

[bhsmte]

Please note that anyone can claim that an explanation doesn't meet their personal criteria. In fact, that's what's been going on all this time, and that's the reason I stopped providing detailed explanations and am merely speaking in generalities. It saves time and wasted effort.

So will I change my modus operandi in order to provide the opportunity for another barrage of

"Ï don't see hows!!!!" or whatever other phrases you folks might have in reserve for any claim involving an intelligent design? No. However, if you wish to reveal what exactly it is that has you in your self-proclaimed perpetually-befuddled state each time that intelligent design is mentioned-then I will clarify.

Not that I believe for one moment that the attempted clarification will be accepted-it won't. But it's less time-wasting than what you are enthusiastically proposing .

Not personal criteria, scientific criteria. You know, the same science that affords you conveniences, every hour of every day of your life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please note that anyone can claim that an explanation doesn't meet their personal criteria. In fact, that's what's been going on all this time, and that's the reason I stopped providing detailed explanations and am merely speaking in generalities. It saves time and wasted effort.

So will I change my modus operandi in order to provide the opportunity for another barrage of

"Ï don't see hows!!!!" or whatever other phrases you folks might have in reserve for any claim involving an intelligent design? No. However, if you wish to reveal what exactly it is that has you in your self-proclaimed perpetually-befuddled state each time that intelligent design is mentioned-then I will clarify.

Not that I believe for one moment that the attempted clarification will be accepted-it won't. But it's less time-wasting than what you are enthusiastically proposing .

So, no, you are not even willing to make a single post where you explain your position as well as detail the evidence in favor of that position and then copy and paste that link in your signature?

Instead, you will just continue to claim that you already posted said explanation and evidence, and when asked to post links, you'll just continue to respond with that you "can't be bothered to do so" or that it "takes to much time to dig them up" and that we'll then just have to take your word for it?

I'm offering you a way out here. Because even after I get tired of repeating the same question over and over without getting answers, other people will continue to ask you that question.

So it will simply continue to go around in circles...

It seems to me that it will take FAR LESS of your energy and time to just write a single clear and detailed post, with an easily accessible link in your signature, as opposed to having to repeat your accusations and reluctance of answering questions a couple dozen times per day.



ps: is it really normal that I need to beg like this for getting to write down a post consisting of perhaps 4 paragraphs?? If you add up all the posts you've done today that consisted of nothing but accusations on why you consider it a "waste of time" to share with us your explanation and evidence... You could have done this post I request multiple times already.

 

[Radrook]

So, no, you are not even willing to make a single post where you explain your position as well as detail the evidence in favor of that position and then copy and paste that link in your signature?

Instead, you will just continue to claim that you already posted said explanation and evidence, and when asked to post links, you'll just continue to respond with that you "can't be bothered to do so" or that it "takes to much time to dig them up" and that we'll then just have to take your word for it?

I'm offering you a way out here. Because even after I get tired of repeating the same question over and over without getting answers, other people will continue to ask you that question.

So it will simply continue to go around in circles...

It seems to me that it will take FAR LESS of your energy and time to just write a single clear and detailed post, with an easily accessible link in your signature, as opposed to having to repeat your accusations and reluctance of answering questions a couple dozen times per day.



ps: is it really normal that I need to beg like this for getting to write down a post consisting of perhaps 4 paragraphs?? If you add up all the posts you've done today that consisted of nothing but accusations on why you consider it a "waste of time" to share with us your explanation and evidence... You could have done this post I request multiple times already.

Tell me what confuses you about seeing intelligent design in nature and I will respond.


BTW
Here is a link to a website that explains what I believe in general.
FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

 

[bhsmte]

Tell me what confuses you about seeing intelligent design in nature and I will respond.

Tell us how you test for intelligent design. If you cant produce a reliable and falsifiable test, you are only spouting opinion, which you are more than welcome to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tell me what confuses you about seeing intelligent design in nature and I will respond.


BTW
Here is a link to a website that explains what I believe in general.
FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

1. you posted that link before and it was completely exposed as the junk that it is.
For example: Exons, Introns, and ID
You never responded to those points either. In fact, worse then that... You simply continued in that thread by copy-pasting that link, as if the post addressing it was never posted......... While there were at least two responses to your continued copy-pasting of that link, pointing out to you that those points have already been addressed earlier in the thread. Which you also simply ignored.

2. how could that detail your position on this matter? That page details the arguments and the ID concept as presented by the exposed cdesign proponentsists of the discovery institute. These are the ideas of Behe and Dembski. "specified complexity", "irreducible complexity", etc.... all these points have been addressed and torn apart at the Dover trial. And you have been quite vocal in claiming that your version of ID is not the same as the concept presented by the discovery institute which, by their own admission, is about as scientific as astrology.


It seems that the hole you have been digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper.

 

[Jimmy D]

Here is a link to a website that explains what I believe in general.

I'm no scientist but even I can see the predictions aren't particularly convincing:

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

(1) Have they actually demonstrated that any structures are irreducibly complex?
(2) Until we've examined every single organism that's ever fossilized this is merely an argument from ignorance. It also ignores every fossilized organism that does have precursors.
(3) Such as?
(4) I'm no expert on DNA, but this one seems a bit vague.

 

[Astrophile]

Tell me what confuses you about seeing intelligent design in nature and I will respond.


BTW
Here is a link to a website that explains what I believe in general.
FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

This does at least try to answer some questions. However, I see some difficulties in predictions 2 and 3.

2). When the website says, 'Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors' and 'Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors', does the website mean that the first fossil members of a new species were specially created rather than being begotten by their parents, or does it mean that these first members belonged to a different species from their parents? Also, as Jimmy D. has pointed out, some fossilised organisms do have precursors, for example Ardipithecus and Australopithecus are precursors of Homo.

3). When the website says, 'Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms' and 'Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms', does this mean that, for example, feathers are (or were) used in unrelated flying animals, such as bats, birds, pterosaurs and insects, or that gills are used in unrelated swimming animals, such as whales, turtles, fish, ichthyosaurs, and squid? If not, could you or the website give other examples to explain the sort of thing that you mean?

Would you regard the existence of fossilised organisms that do have precursors, or the fact that unrelated organisms have different functional parts (e.g. gills in fish and lungs in plesiosaurs), as evidence against intelligent design? If it were to turn out that the website is wrong and that there is a lot of 'junk DNA', would you regard that as evidence against intelligent design?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks. Apparently I did miss it. Sorry about that.

No worries, it happens all the time.

Well, logically all "investigations" would have to begin by starting with the accounts themselves, and the "effects" described over time.

I'm going to have to disagree there. I think, logically, we'd need to start with some understanding....even a vague one....of what it is we're talking about. I'd propose this...

1. God is some kind of extremely powerful entity that involves himself in the lives of mankind through miracles.

2. Miracles are events which would not be possible without intervention of god.

There could be more to number 1...but we aren't making any other assumptions about him at this time since we're simply looking for evidence of his existence. Evidence which you've said can be found in the "effects" of god....one of which is miracles.

I'd "assume" that there would be some similarities in terms of the "effects" described by the people themselves.

Why would you assume that? We are speaking of a sentient being...right? Not a force of nature like gravity.

I personally tend to experience a lot of "love", "peace" and "joy" during meditation. I tend to feel more unified with everything and everyone, and the clarity of mind often results in inspirational insights. I would assume that others would have similar types of experiences.

Does that qualify as miracle in your eyes? Is that not possible without a god intervening?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't really know-I can't really see how we can pin down any specific meaning to the term miracle.

Then it's a completely useless term with regards to evidence of a god.

 

[Michael]

I'm going to have to disagree there. I think, logically, we'd need to start with some understanding....even a vague one....of what it is we're talking about.

IMO, that would be the whole point of beginning with the accounts themselves and their description of events. There's no point in interjecting my own opinions into the topic when I can tally up the overall "consensus" of experiences instead. Admittedly I have my own experiences, but I'm more interested in the "consensus" and areas of commonality.

I'd propose this...

1. God is some kind of extremely powerful entity that involves himself in the lives of mankind through miracles.

Well, maybe, but not God isn't "necessarily" limited to 'miracles'. Lot's of folks profess to be able to "commune" with God. They don't always describe it as being "miraculous" however. Admittedly there are the "burning bush" type events in the historical record, but many experiences have occurred during meditation and wouldn't require anything particularly 'miraculous'.

2. Miracles are events which would not be possible without intervention of god.

Is "space acceleration" even possible? Wthout "dark energy"?

There could be more to number 1...but we aren't making any other assumptions about him at this time since we're simply looking for evidence of his existence. Evidence which you've said can be found in the "effects" of god....one of which is miracles.

I guess I'm mostly uncomfortable with the fact that you seem to be limiting God to "miracles", when in fact that hasn't been indicative of my personal experience, or many of the accounts I've read. Admittedly some folks do attribute "miracles" to God, but sometimes they simply experience God as a "close friend".

Why would you assume that? We are speaking of a sentient being...right? Not a force of nature like gravity.

Well, admittedly the fact we're talking about a sentient being would tend to complicate the process a bit. We all see the same guy on TV, but not everyone shares the same opinions about our past or current President. There are bound to be "individual experiences" that play a role in one's beliefs.

Does that qualify as miracle in your eyes? Is that not possible without a god intervening?

As I said, I think you made an untenable assumption by assuming it has to be "miraculous' to start with, and I wouldn't personally describe my experiences that way either.

I think we'd have to look a *wide range* of accounts of human experiences of 'God' and look for similarities. Those similarities might give us some insights as to what to look for and test for.

 

[Ana the Ist]

IMO, that would be the whole point of beginning with the accounts themselves and their description of events.

I didn't think we were looking for accounts at all...we're looking for miracles.

There's no point in interjecting my own opinions into the topic when I can tally up the overall "consensus" of experiences instead. Admittedly I have my own experiences, but I'm more interested in the "consensus" and areas of commonality.

I don't want your opinions...I want observable effects. Just like the effects of dark matter...they should be the same no matter who examines them. Personal accounts shouldn't even enter the picture (and if you need an explanation why, I'll gladly provide).

When you brought up dark matter, and I knew next to nothing about the "effects" of it...I looked into it briefly. The effect I read about involved gravity and the orbit of planets and how something must be affecting them (which is theorized to be dark matter). These effects aren't personal accounts....they're available for anyone to observe (as long as they have the knowledge to know what they're observing).

This idea of something possibly existing because it has an observable effect was your point about god possibly having similarly observable effects through miracles. I don't know how you made the leap from that to "personal accounts" I have no idea.

Well, maybe, but not God isn't "necessarily" limited to 'miracles'.

I understand that...but that's how were going to define him for the purposes of this discussion. If I were to propose that dark matter exists because of its observable effects on gratvity...and then claim it had a bunch of other properties like the ability to make clouds into the shape of bunnies...I'd be leaping to using it as an explanation for phenomenon which already have other possible (and more likely) explanations.

Lot's of folks profess to be able to "commune" with God. They don't always describe it as being "miraculous" however. Admittedly there are the "burning bush" type events in the historical record, but many experiences have occurred during meditation and wouldn't require anything particularly 'miraculous'.

Yet these aren't observable effects to me...or anyone else who has them. I've had multiple conversations about "talking to god" and it often appears very little talking actually happens and when it does...it's to god, not from him.

Is "space acceleration" even possible? Wthout "dark energy"?

Again, I don't know....do I need to research that to have this conversation? The reason I defined "miracles" as things which cannot happen without the intervention of god is we can know they are miracles lol. I thought that seemed obvious. We know cancer sometimes goes into remission all on its own without therapy...so if someone claims it was a "miracle" we don't know that since it can happen without any intervention from god. If, however, someone had their eye gouged out in a fight and had nothing but an empty socket left....and then two minutes later their entire eye regrows in their head and a big booming godlike voice says "I have restored thine eye"....I think that would fairly land in the miracle category. ,

I guess I'm mostly uncomfortable with the fact that you seem to be limiting God to "miracles", when in fact that hasn't been indicative of my personal experience, or many of the accounts I've read. Admittedly some folks do attribute "miracles" to God, but sometimes they simply experience God as a "close friend".

For the sake of this discussion on evidence for god....there's a good reason to limit evidence to "miracles". If we included gods' ability to make someone feel good about themselves....how do we know it's god? There's lots of things that can make one feel good about themselves so that "effect" would be rather terrible and useless evidence.

Well, admittedly the fact we're talking about a sentient being would tend to complicate the process a bit. We all see the same guy on TV, but not everyone shares the same opinions about our past or current President. There are bound to be "individual experiences" that play a role in one's beliefs.

I was merely pointing out that just because a person does "x" doesn't require god to do "y"....after all, you believe god has free will and can make choices right?

As I said, I think you made an untenable assumption by assuming it has to be "miraculous' to start with, and I wouldn't personally describe my experiences that way either.

What's untenable about it? Wasn't the whole discussion you and I are having based upon the idea that god has observable effects much in the way that theorized "dark matter" has observable effects?

If you'll humor me for a moment...it sounds like you're going to attribute some regular everyday kind of experience to "god" because in your mind it really really feels like it's because of god.

You realize that isn't how the theory of dark matter came about right? The effects of dark matter are genuinely unexplainable at this time. No one quite understands what causes them. The term "dark matter" is more or less just a placeholder for whatever the cause of those effects is.

I think we'd have to look a *wide range* of accounts of human experiences of 'God' and look for similarities. Those similarities might give us some insights as to what to look for and test for.

What few attempts that have been made to do this have ended poorly for believers. One of those "wide-ranging" accounts of the effects of god is prayer. So studies have been done to see if prayer has any observable effects. The result? It doesn't.

If you want to talk about observable effects as evidence...then let's do that. If you want to talk about people's feel-goods as evidence...you're sorely mistaken about the problems of personal accounts as evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Tell me what confuses you about seeing intelligent design in nature and I will respond.

What confuses me is why people who are so sure ID is real don't seem to be willing to discuss who the ID is and how it operates (and how they're sure their answers are correct).

 

[Freodin]

What confuses me is why people who are so sure ID is real don't seem to be willing to discuss who the ID is and how it operates (and how they're sure their answers are correct).

Because if they were to discuss it, it would become apparent that they don't have any clue about "how it operates". And some people might start to notice that.

That is what amazes me about Rad's assertions so much: his claim that it is all "natural, no need for supernatural".

At least, when you invoke the "supernatural", you are not expected to explain a mechanism. Somehow, claiming that "it is a miracle" is meant to be enough.

But for a "natural" explanation... it is like pointing to an image and all you have to say it "a painter did it".

 

[Loudmouth]

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

You argue against theistic evolution every time you claim life was intelligently designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

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, then I am within logical parameters and you are the one being irrational by deviating from those parameters.

Let's do the same thing with fire.

We observe that humans make fire.

When we come to a wild fire with no know cause, we apply your methods. We conclude that every single fire is produced by an intelligence because we observe that humans cause fires.

Is that a logical and rational conclusion?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

You are incapable of seeing the natural processes that produce coded information, and are unwilling to see the evidence for random mutations and natural selection producing coding information.