Argumentum ad populum

[tas8831]

Here is another expertly formulated speech.
I'm giving the experts my full attention. Please... tell me...
Why? What's the reason I should be ashamed?

Pretty much everything you've written in this thread, for one.

Then, there is my favorite....

 

[tas8831]

In other words Look and See Science is sufficient for extrapolation and interpolation. Who needs no stinkin' experiment?

Show us your "experiments" that led you to conclude that individuals grow a "broccas area".

Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

I assume that you understand how the internet works, and how you can, you know, look things up? As such, I am at a loss to understand why you prefer to retain these ignorance and fantasy-based notions about things that you self-education clearly failed you on.

Here you go, Genius:
Know your brain: Broca's area — Neuroscientifically Challenged

Read it and .... keep posting the same garbage you do.

I suppose you never considered the possibility that if the location of the Brocca's Area varies among individuals then we might not have been born with one.

I suppose despite me correcting you a dozen times, you still can't spell "Broca's area."

And no, I would never consider such idiocy, for I actually understand how development works.

"This varies in position from individual to individual because we are all at a loss to figure the best place for it."


But so cool how your position is now pretty much the opposite of what you'd rambled incoherently on before.

Read the link I provided to you. Read it and understand it - you might be able ot reduce the number of subjects that you make yourself a laughingstock in.

I believe this is the translator between the digital speech center and the now analog brain.

Who cares what you "believe" - where is the anatomical/physiological EVIDENCE?

If we still used digital language we'd need no such translation.

And if you understood the things you pontificate on, you might not so consistently make a fool of yourself.

 

[tas8831]

Things ignored/omitted in his reply in red.

Evidence please, Mr. "Grow a boccas area."

Appeals to authority and links to wiki pages are not evidence.

Repeating unsupported assertions that are easily and repeatedly debunked are not evidence, but you seem to think they are.

I understand you believe in gradual change in species but you don't seem to understand you can't support it as the major driver of change.

I understand that in your rich fantasy life, the things you merely dream up and fantasize about really are truth and factual.
But your mere repeated assertions are NOT evidence.

Where are your experiments (as you have oft demanded of others)?

Your stories are only evidence of your failings, not evidence that your assertions have merit.

I also understand that you rely on, among other unappealing antics, a little strawmanning to make your absurd notions seem to have the merit that they lack in real life.

Look at that dopey sentence you wrote:

" I understand you believe in gradual change in species but you don't seem to understand you can't support it as the major driver of change"​

What does that gibberish even supposed to mean?

I cannot support gradual change AS a major driver of change???? I cannot use a car as an example of a car?

Change is "gradual" because it takes time for new alleles to spread throughout a population. THAT is the 'driver' of gradual change.

There is actually a great deal of information on this out there, but you seem to think that reading other people's research is an 'appeal to authority" or something stupid like that, even as you hang on the every word of charlatan journalists like Graham Hancock - and, of course, your own confused, evidence-free rantings.

It's funny that I supply facts and reason and the one time I make a link it wasn't even followed.

"Facts" like Broca's area is all over the place?

What is actually funny is the fact that you think your mere utterances are "facts and reason."

There's a view counter on it! But when I follow your links all I get are irrelevancies; studies that do not support the contention that change in species is gradual.

I have never once linked to anything about the rate of evolution - lying again? I have provided links re: the logic and reason for accepting genetic data for evolution, and I linked to exposure of your ignorance on Broca's area, but nothing on the speed of evolution.

Of course, all you ever present for your laughable fake 'if I dream it up, it must be real' science is repeated unsupported assertions.

People get swept up by the "truth" because this is about the only thing any of us are looking for. Being Homo Omnisciencis we each find it. We start with our beliefs and then observe all our beliefs are spot-on. Of course being a social animal there are many who agree. Consensus is prevailing opinion, no more no less. The more unanimous this opinion is the more likely they are each wrong.

The less education and experience people have, the more likely they are to think they are right about everything, because they do not understand how little they understand.

This is documented - the Dunning-Kruger effect. You are their new poster boy.

When very few individuals survive because of a shared behavior that is unusual to that species they breed a new species.

Please demonstrate how you determined this, using published evidence in your support.

No sane person will accept you repetitive assertions as anything other than evidence that you cannot support your claims.

 

[tas8831]

Show us your "experiments" that led you to conclude that individuals grow a "broccas area".

Can't wait!

And he never did....

 

[tas8831]

well......in the scheme of superlatives

my previous post stands

if you like your cartoon rebuttal.....
good luck standing before him

Standing before Gigantor? I ain't a-scared.

 

[ecco]

my God is better than your god....because....

He is bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced

if your god has the same attributes....
it is the same God

I have no god that has any attributes. That should be clear to anyone who can comprehend English.

However, if you are trying to make the argument that Allah and Shiva and the Hebrew/Christian gods are all one and the same, I would suggest that you try to make that argument to a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew and an assortment of Catholics and Protestants.

Are you a Bahai by any chance?

 

[tas8831]

Remember that time I posted a bunch of molecular phylogenetics studies, and when you tried to rebut them, you made a complete fool of yourself?

I do. You thought you had made some serious points, but I handily demolished them, then you scampered off and put me on ignore - such is the intellectual power of the self-righteous, yet fragile, creationist ranter.
The Miracle of Water.
The Miracle of Water.

wrong second link -

The Miracle of Water.

 

[ecco]

And then, of course, it was you [cladking] that wrote:

"Individuals must "grow" a new speech center (broccas area) to translate the now analog higher brain functions with the still digital speech center near the ears."


Clearly, you [cladking] have no idea how naive and silly that sounds to someone that actually knows this material.

Actually, it sounds naive and silly to anyone who has any knowledge of physiology or anatomy.

 

[ecco]

If we still used digital language we'd need no such translation.

01010011 01101111 00100000 01110011 01100001 01111001 01100101 01110100 01101000 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100111 01100101 01101110 01101001 01110101 01110011 00101110

 

[nPeace]

The question is, what test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not.

Nowhere have you stated the test you use. You haven't, for example, said, 'I agree with your correspondence test' or 'I don't use a test, truth is anything I like' or 'Truth is anything uttered by someone I respect' ─ or anything else.

I assume that a world exists external to the self. I assume it because I can't give a sufficient demonstration that it's correct without first assuming it's true.

I also assume that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and I assume it for the same reason.

I also assume that reason is a valid tool, again for the same reason.

But that's not an impediment to our conversation, since you demonstrate by posting on RF that you share the first two assumptions, and if you don't share the third one, please let me know straight away.

Against that background, reality is the world external to the self. It's the same thing as nature, or the realm of the physical sciences, or the sum of things with objective existence. The test for whether something is real is whether it has objective existence, that is, exists in nature, would continue to exist whether you were aware of it or not.
I have a number of very good reasons to think so. But bear in mind that our emotions are generated by the interaction of our nervous system, not least the brain, and our hormones. Imagine how different you'd be without adrenaline, testosterone, oxytocin, and so on through a long list. Love is both an evolved thing ─ think of the survival benefits of pair bonding (in humans and in other species) and of child nurture and protection (found in humans and a great many other species) ─ and a cultural thing, so that eg society itself is changing as women's equality creeps closer.
in response to the biochemistry, we pay attention to specific others in particular ways; we have courting rituals, weddings and commitment rituals, birth and childrearing customs, grief and funeral rituals. So 'love' manifests itself as particular kinds of conduct between specific people, and I recognize it from a lifetime of experiencing it. (Charitable 'love' has a slightly different function.)
Given the human capacity for deceit, perhaps not infallibly, but we've all evolved to recognize it, respond to it, and ourselves demonstrate it.
Yes, of course ─ as above.
It's usually possible to show that specific classes of conduct by one person to another fit the concept 'love', yes. But not always.
No, I just checked the history books.
No, do what I do ─ actually check what we know and how we know it. You could start with the cosmology of the bible, if you like ─ a flat earth immovably fixed at the center of creation (there being no notion of 'solar system' or 'star' or 'universe' in the modern sense in those days) over which was a hard dome (the 'firmament') which you could walk on, and to which the heavenly bodies were affixed so that if they came loose they'd fall to earth. The records are there ─ you just have to look. (Did I give you this >link< earlier?) And of course that's consistent with the records of ancient beliefs we find for other cultures in that region. It's true that we find ideas among the Greeks that are noted without generally being adopted, like Aristarchus of Samos placing the sun at the center and the earth around it, and Eratosthenes demonstrating that the world was spherical and measuring its circumference (both 3rd cent BCE). But there's no evidence of such thinking in the bible.
That's a strangely evasive reply to the point being made ─ trying to dismiss it by waving your hand instead of addressing the substance of it.

(Incidentally, I don't reply 'Nope' to your question; I reply, 'I know what an imaginary god might be ─ anything you want ─ but I've never come across a coherent definition of a real god, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God, or a god, or not. If you have one, I'd be grateful to hear it.)
You've yet to say what truth is, what test you use, so we can compare notes between my idea and yours when you finally get to say it out loud.
In some senses, definitely. The earth was flat in biblical times (you've checked that link above, so this time I can add, 'As you know'); the air and earth and sea were full of gods, and spirits, and ghosts, and godlings; there was magic black and white, so you were commanded to put witches to death; madness was demonic possession; tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes were the judgment of one or other brainless and brutal god; and all these views are still alive in parts of the world today ─ for instance, check with Pat Robertson about the last one.
Because it wasn't wrong at the time. As I said, truth is never absolute, just retrospective.
My understanding of reality has definitely changed as I've grown up, been educated, and continue to read. How about you?
A very particular community, yes ─ people who've studied the matter as objectively as possible.
You're still groping around for absolute truths, aren't you. Yet you still can't give me an example of even one. (I've dealt with your purported example below.)
That's just an ordinary day in the history of science.
How is that an absolute statement in any sense? Bees, beavers, birds, build houses, and until you give me that meaningful definition of a real god, there's no sense in which that part of your statement is a statement about reality.

Honestly blü 2, you do tire me out.
I answered your question. This is exactly like the last time I answered your question and you kept repeating it post after post.
Remember this thread? You asked the same question repeatedly even though you got an answer.
This suggests to me, you either don't understand, don't care to understand, don't want an answer, other than what you want, or aren't interested in an answer.

#1
For the last time, there is no one test to carry out to determine reality.
Does my toe bleed if I hit it hard against concrete? Let me see.
Do cats always land on their feet when dropped from all heights? Let's see.
Is there a God who cares about us? Let's see.

I gave you the methods for testing. Please read and understand.
So to repeat... Concrete is a very hard substance. If it is well mixed, it takes a great deal of work and much energy to crack it, but steel... that needs a lot of time, and chemicals, to erode it. Or, we need a furnace.

#2
Thank you for mentioning this...
I also assume that reason is a valid tool
I was going to ask. I believe that using reason is reasonable, and I believe using logic and commonsense are also valid and important ways of coming to truth.

Hence, it causes me to wonder, why do you keep pressing with questions that cannot be answered with the same conclusion, since everyone does not use the same reason, logic, and common sense?
For example, I consider what you call reason to be foolishness, and I am sure you think my reason, likewise is foolishness.

#3
You said...
So 'love' manifests itself as particular kinds of conduct between specific people, and I recognize it from a lifetime of experiencing it.
You also say, you consider love for others an objective reality, and it can be demonstrated.

So you believe experience is an objective way of determining reality and truth.

You know blü 2, you also puzzle me.
If you believe all of that, why do you not accept that people have had experiences that allowed them to know what is reality, even though it has not been your experience?


#4
You say you checked the history books that allows you to say this...
Thus if you place yourself in, say, Babylon at the time of the captivity, and you ask the leading sages of the day whether the earth is flat, they'll reply, Yes, of course it is ─ use your eyes!

I have never come across such a history book. Could you provide a link to it?
I have not seen it in the Bible, so please forget about linking me to faulty, and obviously biased, and propaganda based websites, with faulty interpretations.
I told you a million times, they are wrong. It's not the truth.

#5
I have no desire to argue against scientific discoveries that can be verified by experiment.
Why would you think I am evading anything? I don't have to tell you I agree that fruit flies produce fruit flies, or that bacteria produces bacteria.
See my post here.

#6
I already explained how I view reality... why... and what it is.
Again, see #1 above.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for that. Happy to oblige.

Can we objectively tell design or not?
Depends what you mean by 'design'. Is intention essential, or do you think what evolution does can be called 'design'? Can landform be said to 'design' the course of rivers? Does the weather 'design' snowflakes? Does a plant developed by selective breeding count as 'designed'?

Does objective reality dictate that, design requires a designer?
Again that depends on what you mean by 'design'. My own view is that design requires a designer because I require 'design' to have an intentional element; but that's simply my definition. As far as I can tell, objective reality as such (as distinct from some of the beings in it) has no opinions of its own.

Does objective reality dictate that for us to have a system which is designed to carry out specific instructions, based on a "blueprint", or a "structure" of precisely coded instructions needed to be communicated... that an intelligent 'mind' must be involved? What objective reality is opposed to these?
No, biology provides endless examples to the contrary. (Do you keep track of progress on modern research into abiogenesis? We're not there yet but we're inching closer.)

And that leads directly into the central question about your own position, which ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ relies on at least one magical being wielding magic. We have not one single authenticated example of real magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, often just by wishing ─ so how can it be a credible alternative?


Oh, and this time don't forget to state clearly and specifically the test you use to determine whether any statement is true or not. If you claim you've already done so, quote that answer.

Thanks for addressing the questions.
Design to my mind, is quite simple.
We know what a factory is, don't we?
Factories arose with the introduction of machinery during the Industrial Revolutionwhen the capital and space requirements became too great for cottage industry or workshops. Early factories that contained small amounts of machinery, such as one or two spinning mules, and fewer than a dozen workers have been called "glorified workshops"

From this, it is clear that a factory does not exist without machinery. However, a factory is given the name workshop, when there is hardly any machinery, and or workers.

No matter the design discipline, design follows particular principles. See here.
For example... A ribosome is a biological machine

So even though objects natural or otherwise, vary in complexity, it seems obvious to me, that it is hard for one to be confused over whether the human body is a designed object or not. In the same way, we can tell a factory from a simple workshop.

So to mention things like a river, a snowflake, etc., seems to me, a non issue.

A programmer writes a computer program that creates or generates objects in an environment with randomness applied. The program works as it's designed to - produce an object... with random features, due to the environment never being the same. Like a snowflake.
The snowflake are simply elements being joined together. The river - water flowing from a source, and following a course carved out for it. Simple stuff.

What goes into design must be planned - like the program, or code. Both require a designer.

So you are saying that scientists are working on explaining how, and where genetic instructions originated.
No doubt they are, like how they are working on knowing everything.
I can see why your belief system would allow you to believe what their opinions and beliefs are.
However, using reason, logic, and common sense, I am not inclined to believe opinions that are in direct conflict with these, and scientific truth - resulting in what is not truth nor reality.
I believe the conclusion is obvious.
I have no problem with your choice of belief though.

 

[nPeace]

Even better, I'll let an actual expert tell you a bit more about it. Here's Ken Miller, professor of evolutionary biology (and if it makes you feel better, also a devout christian), explaining what we know about human chromosome 2 and what it tells us about our ancestry:

What functions the genes have today in a species, or what its counterparts in cousin species do today, is not relevant to their origins.

I understand, you can only assume

Misplaced sarcasm?
Don't tell me this is in fact really the first time you heared of this?



This isn't a mere claim. It's a fact. A testable, verifiable, commonly observable fact.



Watch the 4-minute clip. It gets quite detailed in explaining how we know this.

I have been hearing what scientists believe, for the past six or seven years now.
It is only then I learned that there was a belief system in the scientific community.
Before, I never paid much mind to science, really.

So, you merely make claims, and call them facts, and when asked to show that they are, you send me to watch a video, which is as old as the hills.
By the way, I saw the video - probably a year or two ago.

Do we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing"?
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
...30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. In this respect the MSY differs radically from the remainder of the genome, where 2% of chimpanzee euchromatic sequence lacks an homologous, alignable counterpart in humans, and vice versa. We conclude that, since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, sequence gain and loss have been far more concentrated in the MSY than in the balance of the genome. Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement: whole-chromosome dot-plot comparison of chimpanzee and human MSYs reveals dramatic differences in gross structure, which contrasts starkly with chromosome 21, the only other chromosome comprehensively mapped and sequenced in both species. Contrary to the decelerating decay theory, the chimpanzee and human MSYs differ dramatically in sequence structure.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study

I suppose though, by "missing", you are thinking "Ah, we now know why humans only have 46, when they should really have 48."
So we are related to tobacco, and potato. How swell. So long antelope.

Mice seem to be beating the chimps.
Humans and Mice Together at Last
In short, the human and mouse genomes are remarkably similar not only in the structure of their chromosomes but also at the level of DNA sequence.

Almost any gene in humans is going to be present in mice and vice versa, the team concludes.

The Celera team, led by Richard J. Mural, identified 11,822 short segments of mouse DNA that correspond to just one region of the human genome. The order and orientation of DNA in these segments is nearly identical in both genomes for 99 percent of the segments.

Good. A brain that receives oxygen is better at paying attention. ;-)



How did you prove it? And why isn't this world news?



Huh? What the heck are you talking about?



Not an opinion.



That is not at all what I said and how dishonest of you to pretend that I did.



No, the fossil record is completely consistent with evolution.

For crying out loud..........................................

Poor Picard.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't just take words as Gospel though, especially on debate forums

That's pretty much how I feel about the Gospels. Why would I take the word of the Gospel writers? I don't know those people, or their character, or their agenda.

is it wrong for a person to believes another opinion to be truth, or reality?

Without supporting evidence? Yes, it is a logical error.

What tests can we carry out in order to know what is reality?

What are you looking for apart for guidelines on living life successfully? Truth about reality has no meaning divorced from any eventual decision making process. The whole point of belief itself is to inform decisions and drive actions. Actions then influence events in the external world, and those effects lead to objective consequences. Take away any of these elements and truth immediately loses all relevance.

We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. Pragmatism teaches that the measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. If an idea is true, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition about reality is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences.

All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Either you agree that truth should be measured by its capacity to inform decisions and produce results or you don't. If you agree, then we can have a conversation. And if we disagree about some belief, we have a means to decide the issue.

And if that's not how you process information and make decisions, then your methods wouldn't be of interest.

So you believe experience is an objective way of determining reality and truth.

As I just described, there is no better way to learn about reality than to experience it and derive useful inductions from that experience. I once noticed by walking them that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. I can use that information to get to the pier from my front door without fail by walking five blocks south and three west. If that's not objective enough for you, then you require more than you need or can get.

Now days only Peers get a vote and the general public and every individual in it are ignored.

Exactly as it should be. Other demographics apart from experts in a given scientific field may have opinions such as rodeo clowns, crack whores, and mimes, but should the experts care what they think? They don't even care that some of us lay people happen to agree with them. We're not included in the discussion, and neither are anti-science religionists.

Then we get appeals to the "consensus" of the Peers.

If the peers are experts in the field of relevance and can reach a consensus, then smart people want to know what that is.

When very few individuals survive because of a shared behavior that is unusual to that species they breed a new species.

This is why we don't take our science from the religious. What could a person who makes a comment like this possibly have to add to any discussion on scientific truth?

If we have mutation in one individual, and it mates with a 'normal' individual, please explain what the odds are that the offspring will possess the new trait. I can wait.

I'm going to say zero if the mutation occurs in a somatic cell, and not much more if it occurs in one of millions of spermatozoa. If it occurs in an ovum that will be ovulated and possibly fertilized, the chances go up considerably.

 

[blü 2]

there is no one test to carry out to determine reality.

So you agree that 'truth' indeed is correspondence with reality? And the only problem is working out what's real?

Or you're saying that there's no such thing as truth?

Or you're saying that truth is anything you want it to be?

I also assume that reason is a valid tool

Good to have these things clear. We agree that reality is the world external to the self, and we agree that our senses are capable of informing us about that world and we agree that reason is a valid tool.

I was going to ask. I believe that using reason is reasonable, and I believe using logic and commonsense are also valid and important ways of coming to truth.

My own view is that logic is one of the fruits of reason, and that common sense intends to be reason used informally.

Hence, it causes me to wonder, why do you keep pressing with questions that cannot be answered with the same conclusion, since everyone does not use the same reason, logic, and common sense?

It's called 'debate'. I do it to make me think. Why do you do it?

You said...
So 'love' manifests itself as particular kinds of conduct between specific people, and I recognize it from a lifetime of experiencing it.
You also say, you consider love for others an objective reality, and it can be demonstrated.

Love is attitude and conduct generated by evolved biochemistry. Biochemistry has objective existence. Conduct, words, writing, and so on, have objective existence

So you believe experience is an objective way of determining reality and truth.

Experience is just another version of being informed, and in the case of sex, love and breeding, propelled by very evolved instincts regarding signals and responses, most of them not conscious. One simple example is the porn industry, because males in particular have evolved to respond to the sight (inter alia) of the female body and to become randy accordingly. A more elaborate version within the same class of things is attraction between A and B which may lead to bonding and generation within the norms of the society.

If you believe all of that, why do you not accept that people have had experiences that allowed them to know what is reality, even though it has not been your experience?

If you're talking about gods. spirits, miracles and so on, the question is whether such things are purely mental phenomena or whether they exist independently, as parts of the world external to the self. As I've already remarked, no one has a suitable definition of a real god, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God, or a god, or not. That's one of an armory of smoking guns that say gods are only found as concepts in the brains of individuals, have no objective counterpart, are purely imaginary. I've only met two people who said they'd had personal experience of god, and in both cases the 'meeting' was an emotional state which they found ─ attractive? stimulating? exhilarating? ─ with zero information content. No sensory input was involved (although I understand some people like a particular environment, semi-darkness, incense, soft couch, whatever). i can recall three occasions where I've had what I might call 'altered vision', a sudden different perceiving of what I was looking at, but I think it was simply odd, not marvelous, something human brains sometimes do.

You say you checked the history books that allows you to say this...
Thus if you place yourself in, say, Babylon at the time of the captivity, and you ask the leading sages of the day whether the earth is flat, they'll reply, Yes, of course it is ─ use your eyes!

No, it's just a handy way of making the point. The way to refute it is to point to a Babylonian treatise at that time which describes aspects of modern cosmology: a spherical earth, heliocentry, the concept of satellites, planets, stars, galaxies. None of that is there, as any history of science will tell you (and as the bible by its own statement confirms).

I have not seen it in the Bible, so please forget about linking me to faulty, and obviously biased, and propaganda based websites, with faulty interpretations.

There you go again, trying to get rid of things you find inconvenient by waving your hands at them, argument from wishful thinking. The smoking gun this time is that you think it's to a website as such, meaning you didn't even look at it before you slagged it.


Just to be clear: It's correct to say that you don't have a definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not, yes?

And if that's the case, it's correct to say that the only alternative to a real god is a wholly conceptual one, an entirely imaginary one, yes?

And an entirely imaginary god can do magic whereas entities with objective existence can't, yes?

 

[cladking]

Exactly as it should be. Other demographics apart from experts in a given scientific field may have opinions such as rodeo clowns, crack whores, and mimes, but should the experts care what they think? They don't even care that some of us lay people happen to agree with them. We're not included in the discussion, and neither are anti-science religionists.

And now they don't even care about the data either!

If the peers are experts in the field of relevance and can reach a consensus, then smart people want to know what that is.

I'm sure you're right but I'm far more interested in their disagreements.

This is why we don't take our science from the religious. What could a person who makes a comment like this possibly have to add to any discussion on scientific truth?

"Truth" arises only in Look and See Science and is recorded as "consensus".

 

[blü 2]

Thanks for addressing the questions.
Design to my mind, is quite simple. [...]
it is clear that a factory does not exist without machinery.

How is that relevant? Factories ─ buildings purpose-built for making things ─ have existed for millennia before there were machines. We know of watermills in the 3rd century BCE and windmills powering a machine in the 1st century CE. The English word 'factory' in the building-for-making sense is earliest known 1618, well before the steam age.

No matter the design discipline, design follows particular principles. See here.
For example... A ribosome is a biological machine

It's yet another example of a biological entity that does something, in this case stitch amino acids together. All your cells, all your organs, are 'biological machines' ─ if that's how you want to think of them.

So even though objects natural or otherwise, vary in complexity, it seems obvious to me, that it is hard for one to be confused over whether the human body is a designed object or not. In the same way, we can tell a factory from a simple workshop.

So you don't understand the theory, let alone the practice, of evolution?

So to mention things like a river, a snowflake, etc., seems to me, a non issue.

Like evolution, they're examples of complexity produced without intention, so they're actually center stage in this conversation.

A programmer writes a computer program that creates or generates objects in an environment with randomness applied. The program works as it's designed to - produce an object... with random features, due to the environment never being the same. Like a snowflake.

So you say the snowflake has its many forms because it's created by something analogous to a deliberately written computer program? You're joking, I take it?

What goes into design must be planned - like the program, or code. Both require a designer.

What if no one cares? What if the paint factory has leaks so various streams of color flow together and continually product different colors and shades by accident? What if the first biochemical thing on earth had merely the quality of reproducing itself under very particular circumstances? What if no one cared whether it existed or not, reproduced or not, reproduced in any particular way or not? The thing itself wouldn't care or plan or desire. It'd just keep happening.

And evolution explains the rest. Evolution also doesn't care, doesn't have a plan, doesn't pursue any particular purpose or outcome. It consists simply of the observation that if you're genetically better at surviving long enough to breed, the odds favor your genes being present in the next generation in larger numbers than those of the genetically not so good at surviving long enough to breed.

Whereas magic doesn't explain anything, unless you can tell us exactly how magic is done.

So you are saying that scientists are working on explaining how, and where genetic instructions originated.
No doubt they are, like how they are working on knowing everything.

You think there's something wrong with wanting to know as much about reality as we can? Why? What's the problem?

 

[Thief]

I have no god that has any attributes. That should be clear to anyone who can comprehend English.

However, if you are trying to make the argument that Allah and Shiva and the Hebrew/Christian gods are all one and the same, I would suggest that you try to make that argument to a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew and an assortment of Catholics and Protestants.

Are you a Bahai by any chance?

I have no religion

 

[Thief]

That's pretty much how I feel about the Gospels. Why would I take the word of the Gospel writers? I don't know those people, or their character, or their agenda.

and how could you know them?

so....if the parables are a fail....

what then will you believe?

 

[cladking]

Exactly as it should be. Other demographics apart from experts in a given scientific field may have opinions such as rodeo clowns, crack whores, and mimes, but should the experts care what they think? They don't even care that some of us lay people happen to agree with them. We're not included in the discussion, and neither are anti-science religionists.

NO INDIVIDUAL nor group of individuals have a monopoly on reality. Humans see what we believe and we engage in group behavior. Reason and facts drive true understanding of reality and not Peers. Understanding is experience and the Holy Trinity is Knowledge > Creation > Understanding.

The funny thing is that ancient people knew this more than 4000 years ago but now we just parrot whatever our masters tell us;

(43) "Don't let your heart get big because of your knowledge.
(44) Take counsel with the ignorant as well as with the scholar.
(45) (For) the limits of art are not brought,
(46) (and) no artisan is equipped with perfection.(12)
(47) Good discourse is more hidden than green stone,(13)
(48) yet may be found among the maids at the grindstones.(14)

It's no longer necessary to think at all because we can just read a book instead. Or just stream something mind numbing.

We have forgotten everything we once knew. Graham Hancock is right about at least one thing; we are a species with amnesia. Indeed, we are so different than Ptahhotep who is credited with writing these lines that I believe we are really a different species altogether.

ANCIENT EGYPT : The Wisdom of Ptahhotep