Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Landothedead on February 18, 2011 at 12:45pm

My rebuttal:

1.       Shan’t! Do you have a phobia about talkorigins or something. Seriously, it takes 5 minutes to read these things, unlike all your forum posts (which still don’t credit Gitt) that are like 300 pages long. You have your own website. Surely you can organize all the points you make into something that’s a little easier to read.

2.       No, this is what you infer from looking at design. In your reasoning you observe design in designed things and then apply it to biology, not the other way around. You’re just replacing chemistry with supernatural causation, which has no place in science.

3.       “If we received codes from outer space tomorrow (like SETI has been watching for for many years) then that would show that codes can come from somewhere besides humans.”

-          Which would be designed, because they are codes.  Guess that alternative isn’t too easy to come up with after all. Go go gadget circular logic.

4.       What?!! Loosely garbled together sentences that collapse into tautology and circular logic aren’t serious arguments? Holy crap, I just won the argument!!!!!

-          What I’m trying to say is that if my logic fails then so does yours. I’m using the same line of inference as you with one extra point #1 that you’ve already admitted was sound.

-          If everything has a first cause, then so does god.

5.       “Apoptosis is teleological, just like you writing comments on my blog is teleological. God's constant intervention is not needed for either to happen.”

-          Which is fine theologically, but it’s not science.

 

The way I see it, he has nowhere to go but around in a circle from now on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 18, 2011 at 1:20pm

He may well have a phobia about talkorigins, I know of at least one person who refuses to visit that site or listen to any evidence listed there because they call it an 'evolutionist propaganda site'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Landothedead on February 18, 2011 at 2:59pm

Yeah, the guy is a marketer and his specialty according to his site, if Google ads, so for a while I was under the impression that he didn't want to drive up hits on evolution sites. Your explanation might make more sense though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on June 23, 2011 at 1:11am

If he wants to talk about codes then let him.....codes are structures which humans RECOGNISE...not necessarily create.

 

A simple example is ascii codes, the CODE 'M' is represented by 01000001, which is merely a pattern of 1's and 0's. There is NO REASON to believe that this pattern could not appear in nature. From this we can reason that DNA is merely a pattern of <whatever DNA is made up of>.

 

Athiests win this argument. BTW is there a name for this argument? "Just because something CAN be created does NOT mean it was created"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Landothedead on February 18, 2011 at 4:18pm

And here's the kicker:

"I’m about to go on vacation for the long weekend, so I’d like to clarify my #3 from earlier. Your inductional inference is wrong because it’s backwards.
If you look at something and see it has long legs, gray skin, flappy ears and a trunk you can infer it’s an elephant.
You can’t look at a cat, call it an elephant and then infer it has long legs, grey skin and a trunk. That’s silly.
You’re looking at something, calling it a code and then inferring it is designed instead of finding the design and then inferring we should call it a code, which is what you have to do if you want this to actually have any meaning. Dempski has been failing spectacularly at it for a while now."

My diagnosis: demolished.
Don't screw with scientists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on February 18, 2011 at 11:25pm

His argument is just another version of the "I don't know of a natural explanation for this, therefore god did it."  This reasoning is always wrong.  That should be your first response.  His reasoning is the same as that used to support all the other gods of the gaps.  Second, nature does indeed make patterns.  Nature also encourages the propagation of more and more complex patterns that provide the pattern with an advantage over simpler ones.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tor Hershman on March 6, 2011 at 4:14am

Did you say DNA?!?!?!?!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tor Hershman on March 6, 2011 at 4:14am

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page