Stephen Meyer. Here's the first line from his Wiki page:
tephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited.
First you let Google's algorithms do your thinking and now you ask us to believe that because someone said something on the internet, it's indubitably true. Your responses reek of desperation.
Your posts reek of appealing to the smallest, craziest members of the scientific community in an appeal to authority, in a process that unlike those of faith, recognized no authorities.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;
Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.
That's a separate proposition that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
If your standard of proof is that everybody that benefits from the subject believes in it, as paddler stated, then you would believe equally in both theories.
By that standard, AGW is just as valid as the theory of evolution.
If paddler is to be believed, all evolutionists would also believe in AGW.
Course, we know where paddler stands:
Originally Posted by DBT
Political agenda may come into it, but the actual issue is carrying capacity of the planet given a population of 7 billion plus consuming resources at the rate of developed nations.
Developing nations have every right to lift the living standard of their own citizens, but the question is: is it ecologically sustainable in the long term? Never mind politics or 'left wing agenda' this is purely and simply about long term ecological sustainability.
The evidence for the hypothesis called man-made global warming does not match the evidence for evolution.
If you wish to open a new thread on the former, feel free, we can debate it there. In this context, you are using global warming as a combination red herring and straw-man as a distraction from your inability to provide good evidence against evolution.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
You're the one that can't prove the theory of evolution.
paddler/dbt, the guy that's n your side, posted that if scientists agree something is true, like the theory of evolution, then it must be true.
That's the same argument proposed in support of AGW, and we all know that's bullshit.
If you want to waste your time arguing with paddler, that's your business.
I've just pointed out the fallacy in his argument in support of the theory of evolution, just as I pointed out the fallacy in your theories of micro- and macroevolution.
All you've done is highlight your ignorance on the subject.
Your faith compels you to reply in such a fashion.
But you can relax. I'm not trying to convert you.
My side doesn't need faith.
We have the fossils, we have the DNA.
You have a book written by bronze age goat herders.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You've cut and pasted in this thread the same tired old arguments that have been posted for years, have been rebutted and haven't proven the theory of evolution.
Then you pretend that they're proof of the theory of evolution, because *you* posted em.
There are no missing link fossils in existence.
There has never been any DNA that has morphed into a different species.
SOS.
But you have faith in it, just as the goat herder book gives others faith.
But you have no more than faith, just like the goat herders had.
You've cut and pasted in this thread the same tired old arguments that have been posted for years, have been rebutted and haven't proven the theory of evolution.
Then you pretend that they're proof of the theory of evolution, because *you* posted em.
There are no missing link fossils in existence.
There has never been any DNA that has morphed into a different species.
SOS.
But you have faith in it, just as the goat herder book gives others faith.
But you have no more than faith, just like the goat herders had.
It's good to have faith.
The issue is not that someone may or may not have pasted arguments, but whether the argument has evidence to support it. Evolution not only has evidence, the evidence is more than sufficient to prove the proposition.
Your objection is designed to deflect away from that fact.
Evolution is horseh it. Just considering the complexity of the human hand, the human eye (2) or the dragonfly's eyes (30,000) is enough to point to intelligent design.
Anyone that can look at the countless examples of virtual perfection in design and attribute it to 'chance' or some primordial soup is frankly an idiot.
Not true. Please do your research before making these claims.
The fossil record is thoroughly unDarwinian. Stephen Gould called it the "trade secret of paleontology". Even Darwin recognized the lack of transitionals in the fossil record and conceded it was a problem. However he held out hope that with more digging, the missing transitionals would be found. But they have not been found, which is why Gould and Eldredge had to posit punctuated equilibrium as theoretical patch to try to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with the disconfirming fossil record. The overwhelming characteristic of the fossil record is stasis, not change, which was what Darwinism predicts.
Naturally, I part ways with Ra on the issue of religion, but he's really good at debunking Creationists.
Its easy to set up the strawman of a six day genesis literalist and then debunk it. But doing so does not answer the real questions at all. Its a red herring.
[1/. Where was this creator before the universe existed? 2/. where is that creator located now?
Don't get stuck in three dimensions.There was no "where," He just was and still is.
That's all the stuff I see zero reason to debate. It just isn't something that can be discerned.
Hitchen's razor can be applied to those claims.
I take it you object to, "There was no "where," He just was and still is." That derives from an earlier post:
Quote
Start at the beginning. I exist. You exist apart from me. We each came into existence as separate individuals, how did that happen? There must have been an entity to cause that. Nothing happens without a mover, a causing force. Skip through the Thomistic proofs, the upshot is there must have been a prime, uncreated entity and there can only be one. That we call God. Whatever characteristics you want to add to God is another matter. You can argue that this mode of thought, metaphysics, came from ancient Greeks in their consideration of fundamental transcendent desires of man.
Then I said, somewhere, that unless this unrestricted reality who created the universe created himself which is absurd, he must exist apart from, outside, the universe. Up to here this is just a clumsy restatement of part of the five Thomistic proofs.
Since our understanding of "where" is a place in the universe it is not applicable to an entity outside the universe. So saying "Where was God before He created the universe and where is God now" is nonsensical except to say not within the universe.(before it was created) and now we don't know with certainty but probably outside the universe because we have no information to the contrary.
Outside of the assumption of existence and that everything must have a cause except the one unrestricted uncaused reality what's wrong?
Same for time since we know time as an artifact of our universe.
==========================
I'll amend that to say, "Where is God now?" to everywhere not in the sense of location but in the sense of being unrestricted.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
I will be the first to admit, I have no idea how the universe came into existence. There are theories, and there is some evidence to support some theories but the jury is still out and will be for a long time.
We do not know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite. We do not know if the universe is eternal or cyclic.
Was it once scattered across a trillion light years only to collapse upon itself due to gravitational forces until it became so dense it exploded again? Does it collapse again every few quadrillion years?
Did the Universe spring into being from nothing in the big bang? And will it continue to expand until every solar system dies in eternal absolute zero?
Or is the universe a case of "always was", "is now", "always will be"?
I do not know the answers to these questions? And I have no problem in not knowing. Someday man will discover the answers, if the species survives that long.
But if some can believe God is eternal and omniscient, how it it any more unreasonable to believe the universe is eternal?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
