(2017-11-12, 09:15 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]It's slightly bizarre that neither side of the debate believes in the suggested Christian god. Why then would you seek to introduce it - is it because you are a secret believer?
edit: this was slightly clumsily worded, but I will leave it, as it is concise.
Because some forum proponents use arguments that are indistinguishable from christian apologetics. There is also the ‘tell’ that the word god is usually presented in a capitalised form (not by you in this instance though
).
It seemed a little odd that one should propose a ‘God’ but automatically dismiss the one we already have. There is at least some evidence for this one... but Kamarling has addressed this to some extent and I’m happy to leave it there.
(2017-11-12, 06:38 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]You think anyone could listen to that and believe Dawkins was proposing it as a fact rather than a speculative hypothesis? I don't.
So the DI succeeded in their deception.
(2017-11-12, 07:55 PM)Sparky Wrote: [ -> ]So the DI succeeded in their deception.
I think Dawkins succeeded in saying some daft stuff - and apparently in thinking it was fine for him to indulge in wacky speculation, but not for anyone else. Whether the makers of the film were trying to deceive I have no idea, but in any case they must have been very pleased with the daftness that Dawkins provided them with.
(2017-11-12, 06:32 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]For all I know they may have been dishonest. But if someone is happy with speculation about extraterrestrials seeding evolution, they forfeit any claim to parsimony. Once they go into that territory, they need to say why their speculation is better than other people's. They can't just dismiss other people's speculations out of hand, if they are speculating wildly themselves.
There's a world of difference between the two, Dawkins is still supposing evolution took place. The Stein camp is supposing a supernatural cause aka the Christian God and Special Creation. Mention the word "designer" to Stein and I'm certain this isn't what pops into his head a technologically advance race.
[Image: Richards-Alien-491542.jpg]
Furthermore they would love to get their Christian religious view into public schools here in the states and into the science classroom. It may be different in your country, here though we've had many attempts by the ID'ers and creationists to do just that, mostly they've failed. It's also an attack against science. So when someone believes they see design that's an unwitting invitation a Pandor's Box so to speak to be anti-science and insert a religious position whether that's their intention or not.
Here's one among many timeline of how creationism has evolved and become ID.
http://www.pfaw.org/report/timeline-how-...s-evolved/
[url=http://www.pfaw.org/report/timeline-how-creationism-has-evolved/][/url]
Perhaps when sceptics rush to defend the concept of extraterrestrials having seeded evolution on earth, it's just nature's way of telling us the debate has become a bit too polarised!
(2017-11-12, 10:21 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps when sceptics rush to defend the concept of extraterrestrials having seeded evolution on earth, it's just nature's way of telling us the debate has become a bit too polarised!
No one is rushing. It not even a consideration.
Here it goes again. The Darwinist ideologues continue to pile on and insist on bringing the argument down to anti-religious mudslinging. The genetic logical fallacy - if you can't come up with any real substantive refutation of the arguments, you resort to attacking the person or persons making the arguments based on their origin or their belief system, a sort of ad hominem. Definition: "This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit." The genetic fallacy is committed when a proposition is accepted or rejected because of its origin, history, who speaks it, or who paid for it to be spoken.
Examples of the genetic fallacy:
"He was born to Catholic parents and raised as a Catholic until his confirmation in 8th grade. Therefore, he is bound to want to defend some Catholic traditions and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously."
"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 13. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a fascist program."
"Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."
"The newspaper editor homeschools his children. So, any claims he makes about the public school system are biased and untrue."
An ad hominem argument, definition:
"An ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument, but it is based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one’s character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. This type of fallacy can often be witnessed in individual debates, in court or in politics. Often, the attack is based on one’s social, political, or religious views, or on lifestyle choices of the person being attacked using ad hominem. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."
It just doesn't work - to be credible the critic needs to make relevant specific detailed refutations of the actual arguments, not angry rhetoric and ad hominems against the presenters based on their beliefs or background or what organizations they belong to. I have repeatedly made the challenge to come up with such refutations, and the neo-Darwinists here continue to come up empty.
(2017-11-12, 02:32 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]There are numerous fatal issues to the unproven beliefs proposed by the majority of those professionals who sheparded "evolutionary study" for generations. The sick and deceptive experiments of August Weismann to prove a metaphysical abstraction are one grave example. It set genetic research back for 100 years.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-maz...89146.html
Do you accept, now after the flood of evidence, that random mutation is not a primary cause of functional phenotypes? RM is a natural occurrence in organic information transfer and what is causal --- is its exploitation by natural bio-evolutionary processes.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're getting at, and I don't know what I said that set you off.
I would have guessed that the "Modern Synthesis", like most fields of study, reflects whatever advances continue to be made in the field of evolutionary studies. But I'm getting the impression that some think it's meant to be static?
Linda
(2017-11-12, 08:04 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I think Dawkins succeeded in saying some daft stuff - and apparently in thinking it was fine for him to indulge in wacky speculation, but not for anyone else. Whether the makers of the film were trying to deceive I have no idea, but in any case they must have been very pleased with the daftness that Dawkins provided them with.
Dawkins answered a question within the framework of a hypothetical situation.
The premise of the hypothetical was something like, " If we assume a designer, what could be the nature or identity?".
Within the constraints of that premise, what he said becomes less daft. I think he wanted to show the absurdity of the premise.
His comment becomes understandable, if we look at the basic idea behind ID creationism.
Since the claim is, that we recognize design in nature from comparing it with human design, we have to assume this designer is human- like.
It can't be humans though, they appear at the end of the story. So a plausible alternative that does not assume supernatural cause, are aliens.
It was probably meant as some kind of a reductio ad absurdum.
Of course it sounds daft out of context, but that the intent of the whole setup.