GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2013, 05:00   #876
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Doc's position is hopelessly internally inconsistent, but he will never openly acknowledge it as such. To do so would challenge the worldview that he clings to with ardor and faith.
Oh look, another useless drive-by ad hom post.

Gek, we get it, certain taboo subjects make your skin crawl. Even the possibility of ID calls into question the foundation of your belief system. Don't sweat it, the way I see it, there is only about a 50 percent chance your entire world view is horribly flawed. But look on the bright side....

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-22-2013 at 06:27..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:13   #877
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Well, you can pretend its a logical fallacy if you need to. The fact is, when you stumble upon a highly organized structure that works very well, but would not work at all with just one of several slight differences, like a pickup truck, but a lot more complex than that, it's reasonable to at least consider that it is possible that it was designed to be that way. That's not proof, and neither are carefully controlled experients in a lab that result in "building blocks". In fact, if life is ever fully created in the lab, it proves that life can be created.

I do understand the need for each side to believe a certain way about the whole ID vs Abiogenesis debate.
The creationist "irreducible complexity" argument has been refuted.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:25   #878
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
The creationist "irreducible complexity" argument has been refuted.
Of course it has, by believers in abiogenesis. Believers in creation have refuted abiogenesis. I get the part that most people have chosen sides in the debate, and I see a lot of bias from both sides when evaluating the arguments from the other. There are a few obvious reasons for that. I'm not convinced one way or the other. It just seems logical to not jump to a conclusion from my perspective. I don't have a lot invested in the question one way or the other, and regardless of which beginning life actually had, it's not a problem for me.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:49   #879
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Oh look, another useless drive-by ad hom post.
To funny, I already effectively demonstrated the internal inconsistency in your position in the other thread and you had no meaningful rebuttal whatsoever. That's not an ad-hom, that's simply a point that you have argued and lost.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:52   #880
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,343


Ughh, nevermind. No point in opening that can of worms.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-22-2013 at 06:53..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:17   #881
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Of course it has, by believers in abiogenesis.
Yeah, they're called "scientists." And someone called "a judge" agreed with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Believers in creation have refuted abiogenesis.
No, believers in creation have offered logical fallacies like "that seems too complicated to have not been designed." An argument you yourself seem to think is evidence for creationism, but which doesn't refute anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I get the part that most people have chosen sides in the debate, and I see a lot of bias from both sides when evaluating the arguments from the other.
Yes, one side is biased in favor of examining the evidence, and the other in favor of trying to ignore the evidence. Which to choose? It's a pickle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
There are a few obvious reasons for that. I'm not convinced one way or the other. It just seems logical to not jump to a conclusion from my perspective.
Trying to reach a conclusion is how science pogresses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I don't have a lot invested in the question one way or the other, and regardless of which beginning life actually had, it's not a problem for me.
And yet, like so many things you claim aren't a problem for you, you go on and on about it, and constantly question the motivation of those examining the evidence while rarely questioning the motivation of those rejecting the evidence.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:26   #882
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Yeah, they're called "scientists." And someone called "a judge" agreed with them.
Obviously, that judge must have been an evangelical atheist. Wikipedia says he's a Lutheran. That must be the same thing.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:38   #883
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Yeah, they're called "scientists." And someone called "a judge" agreed with them.



No, believers in creation have offered logical fallacies like "that seems too complicated to have not been designed." An argument you yourself seem to think is evidence for creationism, but which doesn't refute anything.



Yes, one side is biased in favor of examining the evidence, and the other in favor of trying to ignore the evidence. Which to choose? It's a pickle.



Trying to reach a conclusion is how science pogresses.



And yet, like so many things you claim aren't a problem for you, you go on and on about it, and constantly question the motivation of those examining the evidence while rarely questioning the motivation of those rejecting the evidence.
I've learned that if someone asks a question, panties get bunched up quickly if you don't offer an answer.

And is it proper in science to conclude first and prove it later?

Abiogenesis is in the final running. It's got at least a 50% chance of being correct. I'm hopeful that research continues until the truth is known. What do think the final conclusive proof will look like?

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-22-2013 at 09:39..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 09:45   #884
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Obviously, that judge must have been an evangelical atheist. Wikipedia says he's a Lutheran. That must be the same thing.
Courts have found atheism is legally protected as a religion too, so if judges are the final arbitrators of truth, I guess we can settle that question now also??

Quote:
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:11   #885
fowl intent
Senior Member
 
fowl intent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 706
I realize I am coming to this party late, but I have to pipe in.
I think I understand the creationists' argument, that basically the human body is just too complex to have happened by random chance/mutations. But if you look at the simplest life forms, and follow them up to the most complex, there are undeniable, scientifically proven and accepted similarities in protein structure, cellular structure, cellular chemistry, physiology, genetics, anatomy etc., etc. that support the concept that life evolved from very simple organisms, into more and more complex organisms.

To me, the idea that we have evolved from simpler life forms is much less incredulous than thinking that some "supreme being" created myriads of different creatures, with all the above referenced similarities, especially when I am told that the "creator" fashioned all of this out of dirt. (or bone in the case of the female)

Last edited by fowl intent; 02-22-2013 at 10:13..
fowl intent is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:31   #886
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I've learned that if someone asks a question, panties get bunched up quickly if you don't offer an answer.
Is that why you answer questions not asked, to keep panties from bunching?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And is it proper in science to conclude first and prove it later?
Well, sort of. Observe, conclude something interesting is happening, hypothesize, test, theorize, test some more, remain open to new evidence, test some more, change conclusion if needed, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Abiogenesis is in the final running. It's got at least a 50% chance of being correct.
Again, that there are two possibilities doesn't mean likelihood is evenly split between them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm hopeful that research continues until the truth is known. What do think the final conclusive proof will look like?
Some natural process.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:34   #887
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Courts have found atheism is legally protected as a religion too, so if judges are the final arbitrators of truth, I guess we can settle that question now also??
We've been over this; it means atheism is treated as a religion in terms of constitutional protection, not that it is a religion.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:02   #888
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
We've been over this; it means atheism is treated as a religion in terms of constitutional protection, not that it is a religion.
"Those beliefs represent her religion"

That's pretty straight forward.


The point is, don't count on judges to be a final arbitrator of truth. Legal and scientific proof are very different.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:51   #889
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by fowl intent View Post
I realize I am coming to this party late, but I have to pipe in.
I think I understand the creationists' argument, that basically the human body is just too complex to have happened by random chance/mutations. But if you look at the simplest life forms, and follow them up to the most complex, there are undeniable, scientifically proven and accepted similarities in protein structure, cellular structure, cellular chemistry, physiology, genetics, anatomy etc., etc. that support the concept that life evolved from very simple organisms, into more and more complex organisms.

To me, the idea that we have evolved from simpler life forms is much less incredulous than thinking that some "supreme being" created myriads of different creatures, with all the above referenced similarities, especially when I am told that the "creator" fashioned all of this out of dirt. (or bone in the case of the female)
What you are saying is that the similarities in design indicate a single source for life.

Is that single source God or is that single source random chance?

I would vote for God as the most logical choice for the logic that appears in nature rather than the chaos that occurs with a lack of logic.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:53   #890
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by fowl intent View Post
I realize I am coming to this party late, but I have to pipe in.
I think I understand the creationists' argument, that basically the human body is just too complex to have happened by random chance/mutations. But if you look at the simplest life forms, and follow them up to the most complex, there are undeniable, scientifically proven and accepted similarities in protein structure, cellular structure, cellular chemistry, physiology, genetics, anatomy etc., etc. that support the concept that life evolved from very simple organisms, into more and more complex organisms.

To me, the idea that we have evolved from simpler life forms is much less incredulous than thinking that some "supreme being" created myriads of different creatures, with all the above referenced similarities, especially when I am told that the "creator" fashioned all of this out of dirt. (or bone in the case of the female)
Evolution is pretty apparent. But even the first living cell capable of maintaining homeostasis and replication is much more complex than most realize. It's not proof of a design, but it does open up the possibility.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 17:07   #891
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Evolution is pretty apparent. But even the first living cell capable of maintaining homeostasis and replication is much more complex than most realize. It's not proof of a design, but it does open up the possibility.
Just to be able to live is a feat in itself, but then also to replicate. If evolution is true one might wonder how many times a living organism appeared only to perish because it had no method of replication.

The complexity starts at the chemical level. Amino acids that are inorganic in origin are left and right hand. Just to form a single protein takes a stack of left hand and only left hand amino acids assembled in the right sequence of the right type of essential amino acids. How many times in a row can you flip a coin and have it come up heads? A hundred? A million? A trillion? Just to get the correct left hand amino acids together for the first protein out of many would require better odds than that and then you would have to do the same with the rest of the proteins and assemble them into a simple cell etc. Not possible. There would surely be some right hand amino acids in the mix somewhere. The ability to reproduce would at least double the complexity.

All of this would have to occur many many times until the level of complexity was sufficient to be compatible with life.

This is much less likely to happen than a tornado hitting the shop and manufacturing and assembling a 787 complete with fuel in the tanks.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-22-2013 at 17:12..
Vic Hays is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 19:53   #892
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
Just to be able to live is a feat in itself, but then also to replicate. If evolution is true one might wonder how many times a living organism appeared only to perish because it had no method of replication.

The complexity starts at the chemical level. Amino acids that are inorganic in origin are left and right hand. Just to form a single protein takes a stack of left hand and only left hand amino acids assembled in the right sequence of the right type of essential amino acids. How many times in a row can you flip a coin and have it come up heads? A hundred? A million? A trillion? Just to get the correct left hand amino acids together for the first protein out of many would require better odds than that and then you would have to do the same with the rest of the proteins and assemble them into a simple cell etc. Not possible. There would surely be some right hand amino acids in the mix somewhere. The ability to reproduce would at least double the complexity.

All of this would have to occur many many times until the level of complexity was sufficient to be compatible with life.

This is much less likely to happen than a tornado hitting the shop and manufacturing and assembling a 787 complete with fuel in the tanks.
I've yet to see a tornado hitting anything and creating something as crude as a tricycle.

The atheists will claim that irreducible or specified complexity has been proven false, but really. Most don't realize the complexity in a single living cell.

Just a simple graphic showing a simple version of the metabolic pathways needed for a single cell to survive.

http://web.expasy.org/pathways/

Religious Issues

Even the simple structures are more complex than most people imagine, the semipermeable membrane of a single cell contains active and passive transport mechanisms needed to maintain homeostasis, one small defect or flipped transport protein sequence, or receptor site, and it all fails.

Religious Issues


Now, that's not proof mind you, but is sure opens the possibility of a design, and a designer. Well, at least to those not deeply invested in there not being a designer it does.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 20:45   #893
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The atheists will claim that irreducible or specified complexity has been proven false, but really. Most don't realize the complexity in a single living cell.

Even the simple structures are more complex than most people imagine, the semipermeable membrane of a single cell contains active and passive transport mechanisms needed to maintain homeostasis, one small defect or flipped transport protein sequence, or receptor site, and it all fails.

Now, that's not proof mind you, but is sure opens the possibility of a design, and a designer. Well, at least to those not deeply invested in there not being a designer it does.
Interesting, when last I asked you about irreducible complexity, you declined to comment on where you stood in regards to whether it better supported the idea of intelligent design or not. Now, here you are presenting a treatise on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
CavDoc, I have a genuine and sincere question for you. In regards to intelligent design, where do you stand on the concept of "irreducible complexity"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
My stand on the issue is that none of us "know" for sure how what is came to be. But many have faith that they know.
Second, you have the arguments reversed, Doc. Christian apologists argue that the human body is irreducibly complex and that this suggests a designer (like one might infer from observing the operation of a car motor). Atheists are the ones that argue that we are excessively complex and redundant. So, the argument you present is actually not in support of intelligent design at all, but rather in support of abiogensis and evolution.

You've really stepped on your own !@#$ big time with this CavDoc. You've finally shown your true allegiance on this issue. You think excessive complexity supports intelligent design when in fact it supports a completely natural explanation for the development of life (e.g. evolution and abiogensis).
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-22-2013 at 21:01..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:08   #894
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Interesting, when last I asked you about irreducible complexity, you declined to comment on where you stood in regards to whether it better supported the idea of intelligent design or not. Now, here you are presenting a treatise on the subject.

Second, you have the arguments reversed, Doc. Christian apologists argue that the human body is irreducibly complex and that this suggests a designer (like one might infer from obeserving the operation of a car motor). Atheists are the ones that argue that we are excessively complex and redundant. So, the argument you present is actually not in support of intelligent design at all, but rather in support of abiogensis and evolution.

You've really stepped on your own !@#$ big time with this CavDoc. You've finally shown your true allegiance on this issue. You think excessive complexity supports intelligent design when in fact it supports a completely natural explanation for the development of life (e.g. evolution and abiogensis).
Gek, It is rather humorous that you are the poster child for evangelical atheism, and will never realize it.

You will probably never be anything but biased for your own faith. And it's your right to be that way, but don't get all bent when someone points it out. Be comfortable in your own skin, and declare your faith and belief. It will set you free from the deception that you are driven to adhere to.

I'm sure that some creationists believe that irreducible complexity is proof of the beginning of life by intelligent design, but it's not. It is simply something to consider. It only opens up the possibility.

Your attempt to misrepresent my position on the subject is just another proselytizing propaganda move on your part. You either missed my stand on the subject, or simply lied about it.

You can believe that an extremely complex machine is more likely to just happen than be designed, but that is a biased illogical position, necessitated by your other beliefs. The fact is that an extremely complex machine could have been designed, or it could have just happened. In fact, that's probably how the first living cell on Earth happened. Made or just happened. You only have a 50% chance of being completely wrong. Funny thing is that I have a 0% chance of being wrong on that issue.

I've kept an objectively open mind. It is possible that life just occurred, and it is roughly equally possible that life was designed and created.

In the big scheme of things, I still was able to choose the garlic Parmesan and buffalo boneless chicken wings for lunch today, without considering for a moment if hundreds of millions of years ago, the first living cell on the planet was made or just happened.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:17   #895
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The atheists will claim that irreducible or specified complexity has been proven false, but really.
Much like your declarations about climate change, your inability to comprehend biology is hardly a compelling counterproof.
Quote:
Most don't realize the complexity in a single living cell.
It seems likely that the biologists and geneticists who have debunked irreducible complexity are pretty aware of the complexity of biological processes. People like Jerry Coyne (Harvard PhD in Biology and professor at University of Chicago). Trying to imply that the problem is people don't realize the complexity of the system doesn't work when the people rejecting the assertions of irreducible complexity and ID in general are the same ones describing that complexity through their research.
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:22   #896
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Gek, It is rather humorous that you are the poster child for evangelical atheism, and will never realize it. You will probably never be anything but biased for your own faith. And it's your right to be that way, but don't get all bent when someone points it out. Be comfortable in your own skin, and declare your faith and belief. It will set you free from the deception that you are driven to adhere to.
A cleverly guised ad hom...

Quote:
Your attempt to misrepresent my position on the subject is just another proselytizing propaganda move on your part. You either missed my stand on the subject, or simply lied about it.
Then state your position clearly and set the record straight. The post I quoted clearly indicates that you think the positions are reversed. That atheists somehow deny that complexity is proof of intelligent design and that theists somehow think complexity supports it when in fact the positions are completely opposite.

Theists argue that a creator built the most efficient design possible (i.e. one that is irreducibly complex) and atheists argue that we are not irreducibly complex, but that natural processes bring us closer to that ideal but that we will never reach it. What you just posted was 180 degrees opposed to that.

Don't waste your breath attacking me, explain yourself and your position.

Quote:
In the big scheme of things, I still was able to choose the garlic Parmesan and buffalo boneless chicken wings for lunch today, without considering for a moment if hundreds of millions of years ago, the first living cell on the planet was made or just happened.
An internet meme, but appropriate.

Religious Issues
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-22-2013 at 21:27..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:34   #897
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
A cleverly guised ad hom...



Then state your position clearly and set the record straight. The post I quoted clearly indicates that you think the positions are reversed. That atheists somehow deny that complexity is proof of intelligent design and that theists somehow think complexity supports it when in fact the positions are completely opposite.

Theists argue that a creator built the most efficient design possible (i.e. one that is irreducibly complex) and atheists argue that we are not irreducibly complex, but that natural processes bring us closer to that ideal (i.e. we are not irreducibly complex) but that we will never reach it. What you just posted was 180 degrees opposed to that.

Don't waste your breath attacking me, explain yourself and your position.



An internet meme, but appropriate.

Religious Issues
You are intentionally misrepresenting my position yet again.

Atheists, the by definition atheists, are resistant to the possibility of ID. If ID is true, their entire religious belief system crumbles.

I simply consider ID possible. So is Abiogenesis. Both are a little hard to have faith in for me, but the faithful on both sides have a strong need to glom onto one belief or the other. If they are wrong on this little detail, their whole world view is invalidated. I understand religious faith, and why it is so important for you to believe in abiogenesis.


If Abiogenesis is wrong, where would you be in the universe.... except simply wrong.


Either way, I'm OK with it. Life was either made, or just happened. Tomorrow, I'll have lunch again, with no consideration of whether life was made or just happened.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:43   #898
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You are intentionally misrepresenting my position yet again.

Atheists, the by definition atheists, are resistant to the possibility of ID. If ID is true, their entire religious belief system crumbles.
LOL, physician heal thyself (pun intended)!

I must confess that watching you attempt to weasel out of your previously stated position is entertaining, but the matter at hand was not whether atheists oppose ID (an obvious truth), but rather what your postion was on irreducible complexity and how you got it 180 degrees opposed to what the the positions of theists and atheists actually are.

You know Doc, people remember when you say things like this.

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 02-22-2013 at 21:45..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:48   #899
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
LOL, physician heal thyself (pun intended)!

I must confess that watching you attempt to weasel out of your previously stated position is entertaining, but the matter at hand was not whether atheists oppose ID (an obvious truth), but rather what your postion was on irreducible complexity and how you got it 180 degrees opposed to what the the positions of theists and atheists actually are.

You know Doc, people remember when you say things like this.

The position that life just happened or was made as roughly equally possible???

Where is this imagined weaseling again?

Your faith is clearly demonstrated. It's cool, it's your right, even though you rebuke it.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-22-2013, 21:49   #900
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
"Those beliefs represent her religion"

That's pretty straight forward.
"Those beliefs represent her religion." NOT "are her religion." There's a difference.

And you left out "beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons" and "We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The point is, don't count on judges to be a final arbitrator of truth. Legal and scientific proof are very different.
,
ksg0245 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:46.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 728
197 Members
531 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42