Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

@It Aint Necessarily So and @gnostic These have all been covered a hundred times.....haven't you got anything new?

You're the one who posted this stuff as if it is new.

It should be easy to respond to their points then, shouldn't it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please forgive me.....if we must be pedantic about the semantics...let me just say then, that science has no real conclusive "evidence" for what it believes....a bit like us really.

If your beliefs can lead you to evolution, then mine can lead me to ID. I have as much "evidence" as you do....maybe more.

Look at these....designed or just a fluke of nature?

Nothing about these looks even remotely accidental to me. Look at the colors, patterns and designs.....amazing!



The fossils aren't speaking for themselves. They are like ventriloquist's dummies.....science puts words in their mouths.



Oh my, how impressive.....and what are those "fields" telling us? The same interpreters are using the same empty rhetoric to prove what in these fields? That they can guess what the world was like 60 billion years ago? It's what evolutionary science does best...guess. "Evidence" is used to provide either proof or suggestion.....so you know which one fits the description here. A suggestion is not science.....its a belief.

Aaaaand ... here we come full circle right back to the pretty pictures.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't recall ducking anything. There was nothing to duck.....

Sure you ducked it.

You committed a Texas sharpshooter argument in the past, I defined it and called you on it, you ignored that argument then, disappeared for awhile, and are now not only back making making the same logical error, but when you get the same response to it, you comment that I have nothing new, once again refusing to address the critique, and surely planning to repeat the fallacy in the future - probably with another complaint that you are getting the same response.

You'll always get that response until you address it by either agreeing that you committed the fallacy or by trying to explain why you think you didn't.

Are you unaware that in academic and other formal settings, the last unrefuted or unsuccessfully refuted argument prevails? Failure to address a rebuttal and then repeat yourself as if nothing had been said before is a very common form of bad faith disputation in venues like this one. In formal debates, you lose the debate when you do that. In a court of law, you end up convicted. You can guess for yourself how you are judged here by those that respect academic values.

 

[Polymath257]

Please forgive me.....if we must be pedantic about the semantics...let me just say then, that science has no real conclusive "evidence" for what it believes....a bit like us really.

If your beliefs can lead you to evolution, then mine can lead me to ID. I have as much "evidence" as you do....maybe more.

Look at these....designed or just a fluke of nature?

Nothing about these looks even remotely accidental to me. Look at the colors, patterns and designs.....amazing!

Yes, they are beautiful products of evolution. That is not the same as being accidental.

Beauty and complexity do not show design.

The fossils aren't speaking for themselves. They are like ventriloquist's dummies.....science puts words in their mouths.

Wrong. Science looks at the evidence and figures out what it is telling us about the past.

Oh my, how impressive.....and what are those "fields" telling us? The same interpreters are using the same empty rhetoric to prove what in these fields? That they can guess what the world was like 60 billion years ago? It's what evolutionary science does best...guess.

Wrong. Using known physics to determine how things were in the past isn't the same as guessing. Yes, we *can* tell quite a bit about how things were 60 million years ago.

"Evidence" is used to provide either proof or suggestion.....so you know which one fits the description here. A suggestion is not science.....its a belief.

A belief backed up by observation and testing of alternative suggestions. A suggestion that stands up to scrutiny. And yes, that *is* science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Strongs.....

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. day, time, year
   1. day (as opposed to night)
   2. day (24 hour period)
      1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
      2. as a division of time
         1. a working day, a day's journey
   3. days, lifetime (pl.)
   4. time, period (general)
   5. year
   6. temporal references
      1. today
      2. yesterday
      3. tomorrow

Seriously? You posted this as a defense that the evening and morning in Genesis 1 doesn't represent a 24 hour period? Read what you posted again. Look at definition 1.2.1.

You have at last successfully rebutted an argument - your own.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why spend all this effort on a primitive myth cooked up by ignorant savages? Especially when there is actual knowledge available.

You might just as well get worked up about the colour of Sherlock Holmes' hat.

Curious minds..




“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...

"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can science prove that it is impossible for God to exist?

The god of the Christian Bible can be ruled out with just reason and a Bible by virtue of being ascribed mutually incompatible features rendering it logically impossible.

But gods in the generic sense cannot be. Nor need they be:

• "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

• "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Gods can be treated like any other creature that has been claimed to exist but for which no evidence has been provided.

We simply don't need proof that there are no gods. Nor that there are no vampires. We're also not waiting for proof of the nonexistence of brownies, elves, pixies, sprites, fairies, nymphs, satyrs, fawns, changelings, ghosts, goblins, spirits, giants, doppelgangers, demons, devils, angels, gods, djinns, succubi, incubi, zombies, mummies, werewolves, banshees, gnomes, trolls, imps, gorgons, gargoyles, dragons, mermaids, unicorns, sea serpents, furies, harpies, fates, muses, graces, minotaurs, medusae, gremlins, warlocks, sirens, angels, phantasms, poltergeists, specters, zombies, djinns, spooks, demons, wraiths, revenants, phantoms, ghouls, apparitions, or eidolons.

They're all on the same shelf with the cyclops, the White Walkers, and the Kraken. We’re free to ignore them all without evidence or counterargument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Dust can be made out of lots of things. Even gold can be made of dust.

I'm going to break ranks here and throw Deeje a bone here.

We are literally made of the ashes of starts long dead. Tell him that "we are stardust. We are golden. We are billion year old carbon."

Feel free to add that to your Texas sharpshooter list of places where science and the Bible can be loosely correlated. For added effect, add, "and we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have to be either bloody blind or stupid or lying to not see that a period of "And there was evening and there was morning..." equals to 1 day.

Blind, not stupid or lying. She is under the sway of Morton's demon, last described to Deeje here .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

let me just say then, that science has no real conclusive "evidence" for what it believes

Science has the best evidence that its methods and well established precepts are valid: It works:

• "You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard, then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
  
  "This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.
  
  "This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.
  

 

[Sapiens]

Curious minds..




“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...

"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact"

You're using a quote from a movie about a fictional character and quotes from a humorist to attempt to discredit the underpinning of science? Good luck.

 

[gnostic]

Blind, not stupid or lying. She is under the sway of Morton's demon, last described to Deeje here .

Thanks for that link.

 

[gnostic]

Do you believe that each creative day was 24 hours long? I don't, so looking at 'yom' to mean a much longer period was not difficult. Elsewhere in the scriptures, it is used to mean different lengths of time.

Strongs.....

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. day, time, year
   1. day (as opposed to night)
   2. day (24 hour period)
      1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

[snips]

It doesn't just mean a 24 hour period.

I find it funny how you have completely ignored Strong's definition on when it defined yom as a normal single "day".

Do you see what I have highlighted in large red?

Go on, re-read 1.2 (day (24 hour period)), followed by 1.2.1 (as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1)

Your own quote contradicts your argument, and agree with my view about Genesis 1 (which is "And there was evening and there was morning" = 1 single day).

You really are pathetically and selectively blind to what you have quoted.

 

[Looncall]

They just designed themselves to be too irresistible to their women? Really? How did they do that? Did they imagine a design long enough for the outfit to materialize out of thin air?
The world's top designers would win awards for color co-ordination and fashion accessories like these.

Come now, you can't really be this dense unless you are trying really hard. The patterns are merely signalling fitness. More impressive = more fit and more likely to procreate. No intentionality is needed.

 

[gnostic]

They need no context. They speak for themselves. They need nothing to be said except perhaps a scripture....

Except that your scriptures never describe - let alone explain - why these birds, sea life, reptiles and insects have all these colours.

Where does Genesis 1 ever mention anything specific about this peacock or that toad?

A generalised description of god creating fishes and birds in Genesis 1:20-22, doesn't explain why they have different colours. There are no mention of anything regarding to vibrant array of colours in Genesis, except Joseph's coat.

And not all life at sea are fishes. Whales and dolphins, seals and walruses are all mammals, not fishes. Sea snakes and marine turtles are reptiles, not fishes. Penguins are birds, not fishes.

And not every winged creature are birds. Bats are mammals, not birds. Flies and mosquitoes are insects, not birds.

And not every winged birds can fly, like chickens, ostriches, emus, kiwis and penguins are all flightless birds.

And no where in the bible, does it ever explain the differences between hawks or ducks, between pigeons and penguins, or peacocks and emus.

No where in Genesis, does not explain how any animal reproduces? Like why do reptiles and birds lay eggs, while other creatures give live-birth.

What Genesis described about fishes, birds and land animals, including humans, are so general, that information you can gleaned from those verses, are something that kids in kindergarten could know more about without ever knowing about Genesis or the bible. In fact, my 4-year old niece back then when she was in kindergarten, knew a lot more about animals than the anonymous author of Genesis.

The Genesis information on wildlife are next to useless. Nothing in the bible are suitable for teaching of even very basic biology in Year 7 high school science classes.

 

[Deeje]

Are you unaware that in academic and other formal settings, the last unrefuted or unsuccessfully refuted argument prevails? Failure to address a rebuttal and then repeat yourself as if nothing had been said before is a very common form of bad faith disputation in venues like this one. In formal debates, you lose the debate when you do that. In a court of law, you end up convicted. You can guess for yourself how you are judged here by those that respect academic values.

Oh, so that is how it works for you? All the best with that.

That is not how it worked for Jesus.

How I am judged by men is hardly even a passing thought....how I am judged by the Creator is of much more concern to me, as I feel it should be for you......we will wait for the jury to return their verdict...and hand down their sentence....shall we?

 

[Deeje]

I only have to look at the responses here from the macro-evolution supporters to see that once again the pics have touched a raw nerve. It is obviously so much harder to convince someone of the lack of intentional design in nature when it is staring you in the face. I might just keep posting them. .......

Look carefully....these exhibit artful design, not accidental evolution or mindless natural selection.

Who could argue that art requires an artist? What an eye for color he displays.

Keep on denying guys....your defensiveness looks like desperation talking......I think you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

but that's just me interpreting your responses.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How I am judged by men is hardly even a passing thought

The comment about judgment was not about how you are judged as a person, but the evaluation of your argument - are you persuasive or not. You're a likeable enough person, but your arguments are not judged based on your character or personality, but on their merits.

I'm trying to help you understand the academic values and methods of processing information that characterize your target audience of skeptics, unbelievers, and rational empiricists. They simply will not be persuaded by an argument that has been refuted in a plausible manner which you then walk away from only to repeat unchanged two weeks later having never acknowledged must less addressed the specific elements of the rebuttal. People stop paying attention to your argument and turn it to trying to understand how the faith based mind works.

If that's not your purpose, you might want to rethink your approach.

 

[Sapiens]

The comment about judgment was not about how you are judged as a person, but the evaluation of your argument - are you persuasive or not. You're a likeable enough person, but your arguments are not judged based on your character or personality, but on their merits.

I'm trying to help you understand the academic values and methods of processing information that characterize your target audience of skeptics, unbelievers, and rational empiricists. They simply will not be persuaded by an argument that has been refuted in a plausible manner which you then walk away from only to repeat unchanged two weeks later having never acknowledged must less addressed the specific elements of the rebuttal. People stop paying attention to your argument and turn it to trying to understand how the faith based mind works.

If that's not your purpose, you might want to rethink your approach.

You are wasting your time. She has been shown, several times, how and why rational people adjudge those who stubbornly cling to a discredited belief to be liars, she does not care. You must either find amusement in the paucity of logic and self-contradiction that she offers, or put her on "ignore."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are wasting your time. She has been shown, several times, how and why rational people adjudge those who stubbornly cling to a discredited belief to be liars, she does not care. You must either find amusement in the paucity of logic and self-contradiction that she offers, or put her on "ignore."

View it as tapping the glass.