Echogem222
Active Member
Ok, you're just being a troll, got it.I understand scientists are not all the seekers of truth people make them out to be. They maybe like you.
So you've chosen to go that route. Okay. I'm done. I've explained enough.
+++
(Your response, which implies that scientists (and myself) are not seekers of truth, is an example of an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument attacks the character of the individual (or group, in the case of scientists) rather than addressing the actual content or substance of the argument presented. It is something trolls often do. Trolling is often characterized by the use of inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or disrupting normal, on-topic discussion. Using ad hominem attacks can be a way to deflect from the actual argument and provoke the other person into responding with emotion rather than reason. It can be a tactic to derail the conversation, divert attention away from the subject at hand, and create a hostile or unproductive environment for discussion.)
+++
If, as per your argument, our existence cannot be explained through evolutionary processes due to the complexities involved, it would equally be illogical to attribute our existence to a designer or a creator. The concept of design implies formation from pre-existing elements or principles, and if these can't be scrutinized or understood scientifically, then attributing our existence to a creator doesn’t resolve the complexity; it merely shifts it. How can we logically conclude a designed creation if the design process itself is incomprehensible or unexplained?
Last edited: