Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Crazy Horse]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Please post the links and the parts you believe are relevant. You seem unable to accomplish this simple task.

Seriously?

Read post 2661

It has both quotes by XFish?

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Guyver

Say what? That's not how negation works.

Anyway, if we're talking about intelligent design, then we're talking about intelligent designer(s). Who'd you have in mind if not one or more of the creator gods?

What was all the watchmaker stuff about, if not that?

 

Right.....I should have added if A=B first.  The watchmaker stuff was me defending the argument as someone claimed it failed.  I argued against it's failure.  The person who is the designer is not in question at the moment, only the issue of whether or not we were designed.  The side bar you and I were having was me attempting to add specific, complex information into the argument for design.  

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Seriously?

Read post 2661

It has both quotes by XFish?

Looks like you failed. No surprise. You purposely misrepresented (lied) about the contents of my posts.

[Hre2breal]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

It’s not evidenced in this thread. Must be somewhere else then.

cormac

Yours is not evident anywhere...Some of what you say is close to the actual truth but I know what I say to be true...in the way genetics behaves as a science..

[stereologist]

I was looking for information on this sales guy who authored the book in the OP and ran into this.

Quote

Another example of begging the question is provided by Perry Marshall:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code ... and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Marshall assumes what he should be proving, namely, that all codes are created by a conscious mind. Even if it is true that scientists have not found any natural process that creates coded information--something only one with specific knowledge of the science of natural processes and codes could know--it is still possible such processes exist. Here Marshall commits the fallacy of argument to ignorance. (He also claims that DNA is a language, which is arguable, and that no language has evolved naturally, another questionable claim.) The two premises in this argument are questionable for the same reason that the conclusion is questionable.

http://skepdic.com/begging.html

 

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

Yours is not evident anywhere...Some of what you say is close to the actual truth but I know what I say to be true...in the way genetics behaves as a science..

Again, not evidenced in this thread. But good luck with that. 

cormac

[Crazy Horse]

39 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Are you going to make the same false accusation about me? A meaningless universe is what we have. Then you use a non sequitur. LOL.

 

35 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

What false accusation would that be?

Did XFish make a personal comment, and then the very next post say that " Im not making this personal"?

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Are you trying to misrepresent posts such as when you lied about my use of the term inanimate? I bet you are.

 

27 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Just read post 2661. 

I was talking about XFish and his contradiction.

Do you see the contradiction in XFish's two posts that I quoted in post 2661?

 

[Only_]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

No surprise picking up the other guy. Monton is at least an interesting atheist. He states that there is likely there is a designer and the designer is god. Is he really an atheist or does it just work as an advertising gimmick?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bradley_Monton

''RationalWiki''.

You posts would be more credible, if you added credible sources.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

''RationalWiki''.

You posts would be more credible, if you added credible sources.

Too bad my sources use references. Was it the part where Monton is a sexual predator that you didn't like?

[+Hammerclaw]

29 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Another bad assumption. A meaningless universe does not suggest meaningless lives.

Now Sterologist, let us take it to it's logical conclusion. If the universe is meaningless, everything in it is inherently meaningless. Everything therein has no meaning--it just exists. Now, if one can assign meaning to one's own life in the face of such logic, then why can one not do the same for the universe?  I am a product of that universe and what meaning I have is no less and no greater than that of a stone or a star. If I have meaning, do they not also?

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

I was talking about XFish and his contradiction.

Do you see the contradiction in XFish's two posts that I quoted in post 2661?

I think you are grasping at straws and doing a fair amount of whining about something off topic. And you did lie/misrepresent concerning my posts.

[Hre2breal]

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Any evidence to believe that everyone has a soul? Do cows have souls? Do chimpanzees have souls? Do reptiles and spiders have souls?

How would I know possibilly they do I know we do though..Hell im not an expert on every species on earth come on stop tryna broaden the boundries of the questions or answers until you get to an area where you can fault things..I will tell you now what I do know an dont know....Thats what you get with honest people who truly believe in reality dude...No beating around bushes rubbish..

[Crazy Horse]

Just now, stereologist said:

I think you are grasping at straws and doing a fair amount of whining about something off topic. And you did lie/misrepresent concerning my posts.

Just answer the question and stop all this grasping at straws..

Did XFish contradict himself in those two posts that I quoted in my post 2661?

Its a simple question that a super intelligent guy like you could surely answer quite easily?

 

[stereologist]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Now Sterologist, let us take it to it's logical conclusion. If the universe is meaningless, everything in it is inherently meaningless. Everything therein has no meaning--it just exists. Now, if one can assign meaning to one's own life in the face of such logic, then why can one not do the same for the universe?  I am a product of that universe and what meaning I have is no less and no greater than that of a stone or a star. If I have meaning, do they not also?

Does everything have to have meaning? I say no. A meaningless universe can contain some meaningful things or even concepts.

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Now Sterologist, let us take it to it's logical conclusion. If the universe is meaningless, everything in it is inherently meaningless. Everything therein has no meaning--it just exists. Now, if one can assign meaning to one's own life in the face of such logic, then why can one not do the same for the universe?  I am a product of that universe and what meaning I have is no less and no greater than that of a stone or a star. If I have meaning, do they not also?

Anything that has meaning was given it by you (anyone). 

[XenoFish]

Yeah about my 'contradiction' I was addressing aquila, a member I have a basic level of respect for. I didn't want us to make it personal. Anyone else is fair game. 

[Hre2breal]

12 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Again, not evidenced in this thread. But good luck with that. 

cormac

You too dude you actually need it more than I do to be honest..

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, stereologist said:

Does everything have to have meaning? I say no. A meaningless universe can contain some meaningful things or even concepts.

That is illogical. It is pure rationalism and you know it. It strays into the realm of philosophy and all it's intangible fluff and hubris. In a meaningless universe, nothing has meaning save that which we choose to assign to it. 

[stereologist]

Just now, Hre2breal said:

How would I know possibilly they do I know we do though..Hell im not an expert on every species on earth come on stop tryna broaden the boundries of the questions or answers until you get to an area where you can fault things..I will tell you now what I do know an dont know....Thats what you get with honest people who truly believe in reality dude...No beating around bushes rubbish..

So you don't know. I believe that. But you believe you have one. I believe that.

Do you know anything at all about souls such as " But everyone has a soul an also a souls destiny to for that matter.. " No. You might believe that.

But that is not true. I do not have a soul. Your statement is therefore wrong. Just as you don't know about souls in other people or other species you certainly know nothing about soul destiny.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Here is how this little game is played.

1. I claim there is no scientific evidence for anything spiritual.
2. No one presents any evidence. - Wrong: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
3. You or others whine using vague complaints. - We complain using valid arguments over your biased dismissal and failure to understand the arguments of the other side.
4. I and others point out the amazing new discoveries and the mistakes uncovered by scientists. - Which you blindly accept without any degree of skepticism of course. Typical.
5. You and others misuse terms to feign some legitimacy for your failed ideas. - Pot calling the kettle black.
6. You continue to whine. - And you continue to dismiss with no rational basis.

It is an ongoing game in which those with a failed position pretend they have been wronged. - We haven't been 'wronged', you've simply failed to see your own biases and continue to dismiss the evidence that you find inconvenient to your worldview. 

They sometimes employ bald faced lies such as "hijacking the definition of words" when in fact it is the woo crowd that misuse terms such as vibration, frequency, science, evidence, proved, truth, logic, ectoplasm, dimension, open minded, etc. - You're proving my point in this very sentence. You just claimed that our definition of these words are 'false' while yours are 'correct.' Thus meaning that such words as: science, evidence, proved, truth, logic, etc. are made perpetually in your favor. It's a clever backhanded way of trying to win any argument before the argument even begins.

This thread is simply full of terms that have been misused by the woo crowd. - Since after all, you of course know the true definitions of said words whilst everyone else is in the dark. Typical establishment propaganda.

This ^ is why we are frustrated. It has nothing to do with our arguments being 'weak' or lacking in evidence or whatever. It's the fact that you'll continue to insist that they're weak and lacking in evidence regardless of whether they actually are or not. All of course with a smug sense of condescension.

Apart from being sick of hearing it from time to time, I honestly don't know why I keep responding to you here. All you're gonna do is come back with the same ol' talking points I've heard a million times, and continue to do exactly as I've just described. I suppose I'm just not quite in the mood atm to just brush it off completely, so I keep responding dammit.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

That is illogical. It is pure rationalism and you know it. It strays into the realm of philosophy and all it's intangible fluff and hubris. In a meaningless universe, nothing has meaning save that which we choose to assign to it. 

No. Meaning is something people assign. I can assign meaning to whatever I want to just as you assign that attribute wherever you want to. The universe has no meaning to me. Some other things do. Illogical? You must prove that.You are simply making a guess.

[Podo]

On 2/23/2018 at 4:41 PM, Aquila King said:

Sorry, this may be a stupid question. But reading through some of these comments I keep hearing about these 'Sovereign Citizens' and I honestly have no clue what that is.

Is this some sort of nutjob group I've yet to hear of, or is it just someone on here said or something?

Sorry again, kinda brainless atm.

Ask and ye shall receive.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Podo said:

Ask and ye shall receive.

Lol, better late then never I suppose.

Thanks.  Now my faith in humanity just dipped into the negatives.

[Hre2breal]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you don't know. I believe that. But you believe you have one. I believe that.

Do you know anything at all about souls such as " But everyone has a soul an also a souls destiny to for that matter.. " No. You might believe that.

But that is not true. I do not have a soul. Your statement is therefore wrong. Just as you don't know about souls in other people or other species you certainly know nothing about soul destiny.

Are you trying to tell me you believe you know more than me about souls now Stereo or are you building yourself up to call me a liar Again really...

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

This ^ is why we are frustrated. It has nothing to do with our arguments being 'weak' or lacking in evidence or whatever. It's the fact that you'll continue to insist that they're weak and lacking in evidence regardless of whether they actually are or not. All of course with a smug sense of condescension.

Apart from being sick of hearing it from time to time, I honestly don't know why I keep responding to you here. All you're gonna do is come back with the same ol' talking points I've heard a million times, and continue to do exactly as I've just described. I suppose I'm just not quite in the mood atm to just brush it off completely, so I keep responding dammit.

Surprise me with something of substance instead of this incessant whining. Show that is pertinent to this forum.

It is so obvious that people run off to Radin in the psi forum or EVD and others in the UFO forum.

See you are playing the game.

1. I claim there is no evidence
2. You running off to Radin for support. Wrong forum. The topic is ID.
3. You wine with vague arguments and pretend they aren't vague.
4. You lie about my skepticism applied to science. Of cpurse you'd lie.
5. You misuse terms and whine bout it.
6. More whining and more whining.

So please enter the discuss about the thread instead of making an ass of yourself by attacking other posters.