28 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemy dear Sir, i am not fuelled by egotism!
my dear Sir, i am not fuelled by egotism! I get trumped all the time by atheistic, evolutionary materialists. One must simply resign oneself to the claims being made, for even the Christ himself was subject to similar claims and yet he maintained a sense of dignity. Whether you are close minded or not doesn't bother me, it is after all, not a reflection of me, but of you 🙂
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
01 Mar 11
1 edit
In this thread, Robbie posted the following:
Shall i direct you towards drosophila (fruit fly experiments), where literally tens of thousands of attempts were made to establish a new species through mutation, result, in each and every instance (my emphasis) the mutated fly was inferior to the parent. No new species!
and to back it up he quoted the following:
“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception (my emphasis) inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” - Dobzhansky
Quoted in Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.
I pointed out that the wording in the second quote results in a critical difference in meaning and that this has been pointed out to him before in previous threads.
Also in this thread, avalanchethecat posted the following
Finally, this website details a number of new species shown to have evolved from pre-existing species:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
To which Robbies eventual reply is:
Yes i have looked now, as i suspected, it relies on the definition of species, it sites a mouse, which remained a mouse, Ciclids , which remained fish etc That is merely diversity within a species which i do not deny.
I pointed out that 'mouse' and 'fish' are not examples of species, and thus his claim above is false.
After some discussion he essentially claimed to have redefined the term 'species' for that post (though he did not explain what he redefined it too).
His rather long winded excuse was:
Did Socrates die in vain i cry! Simply because someone else defines a term after their own manner, we ourselves need not accept that definition, for we have our own mind and our own evaluations to make. When you learn to use your mind and think for yourself, these distinctions which others insist upon have no value whatsoever, they are useless semantic arguments based on a definition of terms and are actually quite irrelevant to the real underlying theme. I in fact consider it the product of a weak and beggarly mind that is simply content to assimilate what others have written without question and terms it knowledge, for it is nothing of the sort, for what you are espousing you have not learned, but simply taken upon trust from some third party source. Originality of thought is the prime objective to be aimed for. Who knows whitey, one day you might get an original thought, its just a matter of waiting for one to come along.
So twice he has been shown to have posted false claims. In neither case has he admitted to making a mistake or in fact given any other reasonable explanation. Instead, he has decided to ignore me henceforth - and will no doubt be repeating the same claims at some later date
So my question to RBHill (or anyone else who objects to Richard Dawkins' suggested explanations for such behaviour) , is: If ' Ignorant', 'Stupid', 'Insane', or 'Wicked', do not suffice, then what alternative explanations can be offered? Proper Knob seems to be suggesting 'Egotistic'.
01 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhitehead"Amoralist", maybe?
So my question to RBHill (or anyone else who objects to Richard Dawkins' suggested explanations for such behaviour) , is: If ' Ignorant', 'Stupid', 'Insane', [b]or 'Wicked', do not suffice, then what alternative explanations can be offered? Proper Knob seems to be suggesting 'Egotistic'.[/b]
01 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIts deeper than that. His religious beliefs say he should not lie. So he can never admit to lying. However, he needs to attack the Theory of Evolution because it threatens his religious beliefs (he admits this threat). He sees evolution as materialism and believes materialism is a threat to spiritualism (and to himself and his religion).
"Amoralist", maybe?
01 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadShould not lie. Has to lie. Perhaps he's experiencing "cognitive dissonance" then.
Its deeper than that. His religious beliefs say he should not lie. So he can never admit to lying. However, he needs to attack the Theory of Evolution because it threatens his religious beliefs (he admits this threat). He sees evolution as materialism and believes materialism is a threat to spiritualism (and to himself and his religion).
01 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry.
At least give us a hint of what it is about. For some of us, bandwidth is expensive this early in the month.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer talking about his book Signature in the Cell.
Here he is again discussing the complaint that Intellgent Design is not scientific:
&NR=1
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Mar 11
Originally posted by jaywillUnfortunately, many people on both sides of this argument fail to see what science does and does not require.
Sorry.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer talking about his book [b]Signature in the Cell.
Here he is again discussing the complaint that Intellgent Design is not scientific:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy0_Mn1s1xo&NR=1[/b]
At about minute 5, he mis-characterizes naturalism as rejecting creative intelligence and eventually mis-characterizes science as requiring a metaphysical commitment to naturalism. He also treats the commitment of science to methodological naturalism as a circular argument, when nobody would use the circular argument he says they use. It isn't circular. It is a one-way street from a commitment to methodological naturalism as a required element of science. Science is not a required element of methodological naturalism.
A methodological commitment to naturalism is all that science specifies, which means that any alleged non-natural or supernatural aspects of entities that are proposed as answers to scientific questions, will not be referred to in the scientific explanations. If creative intelligence is pointed to by scientific investigation to be the best explanation, whatever creative intelligence is invoked will be investigated as a part of nature - a natural entity. So only those alleged aspects of creative intelligence that are supernatural, will be excluded by science, if there are any proposed. Further, science does not demand that any person use only naturalistic explanations when NOT doing science.
He hints that he gets it that creative intelligence requires a metaphysical commitment, when he says, who cares if it's called science, it could be called metaphysics, as long as it's true. I agree with that much.
02 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357=====================================
Unfortunately, many people on both sides of this argument fail to see what science does and does not require.
At about minute 5, he mis-characterizes naturalism as rejecting creative intelligence and eventually mis-characterizes science as requiring a metaphysical commitment to naturalism. He also treats the commitment of science to methodological naturalis called science, it could be called metaphysics, as long as it's true. I agree with that much.
So only those alleged aspects of creative intelligence that are supernatural, will be excluded by science, if there are any proposed. Further, science does not demand that any person use only naturalistic explanations when NOT doing science.
He hints that he gets it that creative intelligence requires a metaphysical commitment, when he says, who cares if it's called science, it could be called metaphysics, as long as it's true. I agree with that much.
==================================
Thanks for watching the video.
At first glance I can't agree with all of your analysis. But I hope to view that one again and see if I detect what you say you do.
================================
. He also treats the commitment of science to methodological naturalism as a circular argument, when nobody would use the circular argument he says they use.
=================================
What I recall him saying was that the Dover case was decided on that kind of circular reasoning on the part of the judge.
As for accepting ID but filtering out the supernatural, I think that would put you right on par with Dr. Meyer. That's seems to be all he is asking his colleagues to consider.
I only see Meyer requesting that his peers come up to that point. Metaphysical or theological implications are beyond the point he is laboring on.