Post total is the determining factor of emotional attachment?
A new logical fallacy is born every minute...
A new logical fallacy is born every minute...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
It is fine and easy of course to have a rebuttal to an argument "The argument is crap and rubbish and there is no such thing as an intelligent design theory."
Of course that would be a childish position to take.
Intelligent design theory does in fact exist.
That you think it is rubbish, but have not actually refuted the arguments logically...well, that's the way fundamentalists work.
Chance is not a known, it is just as possible and/or probable as non chance.
Fact is that when it boils down to causation, it is not possible to know if chance or non chance is in play.
One way to go is the ostrich approach. Put your head in the sand, and say, "I don't see anything, therefore nothing exists."
Another way is to say, "I don't see a pattern, so there is no pattern."
Well, the ostrich is clearly just an ignorant animal, and the inability to see a pattern is not an equivalent to a pattern not existing.
Since science cannot rule out a pattern and design, then why on earth is it necessary (and believe me, without assuming random ignorant chance the entire evolutionary dogma falls as flat as religion would fall flat if there were proof of no God.) to do so?
It isn't necessary to proclaim (without knowledge of design...a lack of knowledge of design is not knowledge of non design) chance.
What is lacking from the so called "pragmatists" is the folly of a lack of common sense.
If someone finds anything that appears designed, to proclaim it is not designed is a daunting task.
The number of assumptions and guesses in evolutionary theory then applied with faith far outweigh the amount of faith it takes for a person to believe in design.
I have no problem with your religion of chance and non design, I admire your faith.
However, it is faith non the less.
Of course that would be a childish position to take.
Intelligent design theory does in fact exist.
That you think it is rubbish, but have not actually refuted the arguments logically...well, that's the way fundamentalists work.
Chance is not a known, it is just as possible and/or probable as non chance.
Fact is that when it boils down to causation, it is not possible to know if chance or non chance is in play.
One way to go is the ostrich approach. Put your head in the sand, and say, "I don't see anything, therefore nothing exists."
Another way is to say, "I don't see a pattern, so there is no pattern."
Well, the ostrich is clearly just an ignorant animal, and the inability to see a pattern is not an equivalent to a pattern not existing.
Since science cannot rule out a pattern and design, then why on earth is it necessary (and believe me, without assuming random ignorant chance the entire evolutionary dogma falls as flat as religion would fall flat if there were proof of no God.) to do so?
It isn't necessary to proclaim (without knowledge of design...a lack of knowledge of design is not knowledge of non design) chance.
What is lacking from the so called "pragmatists" is the folly of a lack of common sense.
If someone finds anything that appears designed, to proclaim it is not designed is a daunting task.
The number of assumptions and guesses in evolutionary theory then applied with faith far outweigh the amount of faith it takes for a person to believe in design.
I have no problem with your religion of chance and non design, I admire your faith.
However, it is faith non the less.
Quote from stu:
The answers to your questions are be specific, and no
In response to your other comment...
There is actually no such thing as an intelligent design theory. It's conjecture at best. Wild and more often than not, just a silly guess. Trying to suggest science is wrong by getting science wrong. ID is no theory.
It is not logical of you to assert it's proof of something else that's needed in order to prove ID is so off base.
To use your terminology, chance is known from logical proof, within practical logical and scientific proof. You even have Jem's own internationally acclaimed Nobel prize winner biochemist confirming the fact.
Although as creationists it's the intentional denial of anything to do with proof which both of you rely upon so heavily for ideas of ID.
With over a dozen sequential postings of cut&paste creationist nonsense, and those zit issues, it doesn't look like emotionalism is being a stranger to you.
Who would say I am disinterested? I wouldn't. Am I emotionally attached...who can say? IF I WERE SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS, now that would be some indicator.
The issue really is for me not to prove design (I don't believe it can be proven true any more than non design can be proven false), but to show there is no proof for non design, and lacking proof of design it makes sense to present both theories as equal possibilities.
If that were actually done, then faith could return to its rightful place.
Science could be restored to faith free devoid of fanciful speculations grounded in a personal faith of God or non God.
When scientists proclaim that it could not possibly be ________, yet they can't prove that claim, it demonstrates an attachment and emotionalism that is dangerous (IMO) in true scientific discovery. Call it a bias, and when there is a bias in science, typically the necessary objectivity and cold logic goes out the window.
I like science when it sticks with the facts, and not the fanciful...
The issue really is for me not to prove design (I don't believe it can be proven true any more than non design can be proven false), but to show there is no proof for non design, and lacking proof of design it makes sense to present both theories as equal possibilities.
If that were actually done, then faith could return to its rightful place.
Science could be restored to faith free devoid of fanciful speculations grounded in a personal faith of God or non God.
When scientists proclaim that it could not possibly be ________, yet they can't prove that claim, it demonstrates an attachment and emotionalism that is dangerous (IMO) in true scientific discovery. Call it a bias, and when there is a bias in science, typically the necessary objectivity and cold logic goes out the window.
I like science when it sticks with the facts, and not the fanciful...
Quote from Ricter:
Well, unless your posts are automated, it's difficult to imagine you're disinterested.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Post total is the determining factor of emotional attachment?
A new logical fallacy is born every minute...
Interest is emotional attachment. So your post total, unless a result of automation, indicates emotional attachment. It does not matter if it is one or many topics that interest you.
So interest is emotional attachment.
I doubt you would get very far in a study of philosophy with that attitude.
I doubt you would get very far in a study of philosophy with that attitude.
Quote from Ricter:
Interest is emotional attachment. So your post total, unless a result of automation, indicates emotional attachment. It does not matter if it is one or many topics that interest you.
Oh, sure. I do like to argue, and I do like to educate as well.
I suppose that if someone like stu came to my door ala a Mormon on a mission, I might just politely say "Sorry, not interested." I've engaged them before, I know the rap already, and I know their mind is properly closed.
Message boards have a different flavor because there is an audience and input from various members.
I do find it fascinating that those who support science so much, are often to be found to be so irrational and dogmatic when their scientific theory is questioned or a competing theory comes along.
My guess is these failed theists traded their sincere faith in God as a child, once lost, for a dogmatic and angry faith toward theism and a rigid faith in non God as well as a detest of those who are still theists.
I suppose that if someone like stu came to my door ala a Mormon on a mission, I might just politely say "Sorry, not interested." I've engaged them before, I know the rap already, and I know their mind is properly closed.
Message boards have a different flavor because there is an audience and input from various members.
I do find it fascinating that those who support science so much, are often to be found to be so irrational and dogmatic when their scientific theory is questioned or a competing theory comes along.
My guess is these failed theists traded their sincere faith in God as a child, once lost, for a dogmatic and angry faith toward theism and a rigid faith in non God as well as a detest of those who are still theists.
Quote from Ricter:
This answer does remind me of another possibility... you like to argue.
Stu, try controlling your emotions and think....
since the nobel prize winner who you quoted (Szotack) ... stated in 2009 in scientific american that there is no known pathway from non life to life....
How is is fricken possible that YOU or any real scientist or De Duve would be arguing chance alone caused abiogenesis. By science your argument is dead ass wrong.
since the nobel prize winner who you quoted (Szotack) ... stated in 2009 in scientific american that there is no known pathway from non life to life....
How is is fricken possible that YOU or any real scientist or De Duve would be arguing chance alone caused abiogenesis. By science your argument is dead ass wrong.
Quote from jem:
try quoting in context..
"Dr. Christian de Duve, a Belgian microbiologist awarded the 1974 Nobel prize for his investigation of the structures of cells, dismisses the panspermia notion as unnecessary.
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacterial cell to that of the chance assembly of its component atoms," Dr. de Duve wrote in his textbook, "A Guided Tour of the Living Cell," "even eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than one billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet.""
(JEM --- this is the quote STU does not understand...
here we see in plain english what I have been saying...
No chance of the birth of a bacterial cell by chance.... so science just accepts it happened on earth... (the unstated sentence being... God or at least cause unknown but not chance. Now to understand that this is what really means I provided the quote from Crick the founder of DNA who also says no chance of life from non life on earth. Stu of course dismisses science in favor of his preferred 1960s views.)
Then the article contintues...)
The hard part, he wrote, was getting from the simplest chemicals to the first specialized cells, after which "it took no more than 150,000 generations for an ape to develop into the inventor of calculus."
(JEM says... again Stu missed this point... evolution after the first specialized cells... but evolution did not cause the first cell per the sentence before.)
As to whether some guiding hand was needed for the process, Dr. de Duve commented:
"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."
( Essentially science says by definition it must be chance even though De Duve and crick and others know abiogensis did not happen by chance on earth. )
But the succession of chances that created life did not operate in a vacuum, he said. "It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with specific properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up. Among these numbers are life and all its wonders, including the conscious mind.""
It's slightly intriguing then as to why you would make your comment in response to my reply and not to 777'zz earlier one, which had for no real reason already accused me of emotionalism. That's straight after making over a dozen posts in succession of creationists' nonsense in what might well appear to be a fit of high emotion.Quote from Ricter:
No, I have no objection to persistence or focus, per se. I was making my comment in response to your reply to 777 that he was emotional about this, and implying that you are less so, or not at all.
The decision to be an unemotional rationalist is itself an emotionally laden decision. And committment to that decision requires ongoing emotion. It's belief in the "rightness" of the decision.
While you may be trying to be even handed , are you not accurately following events, or do you just reflexively direct criticism my way first for some reason?