Argumentum ad populum

[nPeace]

Nope, your errors were explained to you. With links, all you had were either quotes out of context or worse yet quotes from a bogus source. You did not have any links so that others could check your sources and cliams. You had no answer, all you have is denial.

So you are right because every source that disagrees with you must be from a Creationist's website. How sad that someone could have such faulty thinking and opinionated bias.
So you didn't check the source then. How sad.
But then, you can't bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you. Someone always has to throw the truth at you, like a boulder.

 

[nPeace]

No one is bullying you. Correcting nonsense and not letting you get away with making false claims is not bullying.

This is a load of nonsense.
No one is correcting someone by repeatedly asking questions they asked in almost every post in multiple threads, for which they receive answers, and have been repeatedly told this.
No one can make another person understand anything - especially when they deliberately close their mind to understanding... but then you wouldn't know that, would you.

Perhaps you should also learn what bullying is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are right because every source that disagrees with you must be from a Creationist's website. How sad that someone could have such faulty thinking and opinionated bias.
So you didn't check the source then. How sad.
But then, you can't bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you. Someone always has to throw the truth at you, like a boulder.

You did not provide a link to your source. That is the act of a guilty person. I see three possibilities. You may have used a dishonest creationist source. You may have quoted a valid source, but out of context. Or you may have used an oversimplified source.

You really should know by now that quotes need to be supported by links.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a load of nonsense.
No one is correcting someone by repeatedly asking questions they asked in almost every post in multiple threads, for which they receive answers, and have been repeatedly told this.
No one can make another person understand anything - especially when they deliberately close their mind to understanding... but then you wouldn't know that, would you.

Perhaps you should also learn what bullying is.

And you have been shown to be wrong when it comes to the sciences countless times. And you will do nothing to fix that flaw in you. People correct you with valid links and all you can do is to use failed creationist arguments. People have genuinely tried to educate you, or tried to give you the tools to educate yourself. You may not like it, but that is not bullying. Correcting is not bullying.

 

[nPeace]

You did not provide a link to your source. That is the act of a guilty person. I see three possibilities. You may have used a dishonest creationist source. You may have quoted a valid source, but out of context. Or you may have used an oversimplified source.

You really should know by now that quotes need to be supported by links.

So now you don't know how to use google...
Google -> Naturalism

 

[nPeace]

And you have been shown to be wrong when it comes to the sciences countless times. And you will do nothing to fix that flaw in you. People correct you with valid links and all you can do is to use failed creationist arguments. People have genuinely tried to educate you, or tried to give you the tools to educate yourself. You may not like it, but that is not bullying. Correcting is not bullying.

This is nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are right because every source that disagrees with you must be from a Creationist's website. How sad that someone could have such faulty thinking and opinionated bias.
So you didn't check the source then. How sad.
But then, you can't bring yourself to admit when you are wrong, can you. Someone always has to throw the truth at you, like a boulder.

Creationist sites have been shown to be written by liars and loons. Cowards too. Real science is done through the process of peer review.

What "source"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you don't know how to use google...
Google -> Naturalism

Oh my! Epic fail. You never use a dictionary definition when discussing a complex subject. Far too often they are over simplified. I see that it was option three.

But you were right not to give that link. I would have been embarrassed too.

 

[Polymath257]

It's a vain and fruitless pursuit from all angles, because for one thing, no matter what scientists come up with, they cannot rule out an intelligent designer. All the models they set up, and the sparks they create to cause an effect, says this : it required an intelligent designer (in this case the scientists did it).

If the 'intelligent design' is simply to set up the conditions and see what natural laws lead to, then you might have a point. But that is NOT what it means.

It's the same with the multiverse idea....

How so?

No matter what idea you prefer, none can rule out an intelligence, for which the evidence points to.

Well, let's be clear. There *are* ways to test if something is intelligently designed. In fact, it is done all the time in archeology. We very frequently want to know if some artifact was made by humans or was simply the result of natural forces acting.

The *first* step to reaching the conclusion that an intelligent agent was involved is to know what can happen *without* an intelligent agent. In other words, study must be done as to what happens naturally, without some intelligence entering into things.

Only then can we look and see if some artifact can be explained by natural forces or requires the intervention of an intelligence.

Now, in the case of the universe, or even life on Earth, we are still in the middle of determining what can happen naturally. And, at every stage so far, it has been the case that nothing outside of the natural forces we know about has been required.

Imo, you are only saying one thing.... "I reject reality, because I don't like the fact that it includes a supreme authority that I have to answer to."

Nope, that is pretty much irrelevant. even if there was an intelligent designer, that in no way implies I'd have to 'answer to it'. It would not mean anything than some intelligence was involved in creating the universe.

As an example, suppose that some multidimensional race has discovered how to make universes. Suppose that, as an art project, one of these being created our universe. Than, after getting the grade for that course, they proceed to foget about what they created.

This would be an example of 'intelligent design'. It is even consistent with what we know about the universe. But it in no way produces a requirement to 'answer for' anything.

it is also much more reasonable, in my mind, than the scenarios you have proposed.

The thing about that, is that, by doing so, one is only choosing death over an opportunity to live eternally under the sovereignty of the universal designer.
To me, that's weird.

I have no desire to live forever. Anything more than a few million years would get horribly boring.

But, again, I see no reason to leap from an 'intelligent designer' to 'live eternally if you believe'. That is a HUGE logical leap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is nonsense.

Now, now. You are forgetting the Ninth Commandment again.

 

[nPeace]

If the 'intelligent design' is simply to set up the conditions and see what natural laws lead to, then you might have a point. But that is NOT what it means.

This is only because you assume the designer does not care about his design, that they would not specifically tweak it to their satisfaction. I am not assuming though.

How so?

Did each universe "bang" into existence?
Does that not mean the question remains of what "banged" it?

Well, let's be clear. There *are* ways to test if something is intelligently designed. In fact, it is done all the time in archeology. We very frequently want to know if some artifact was made by humans or was simply the result of natural forces acting.

The *first* step to reaching the conclusion that an intelligent agent was involved is to know what can happen *without* an intelligent agent. In other words, study must be done as to what happens naturally, without some intelligence entering into things.

Only then can we look and see if some artifact can be explained by natural forces or requires the intervention of an intelligence.

Now, in the case of the universe, or even life on Earth, we are still in the middle of determining what can happen naturally. And, at every stage so far, it has been the case that nothing outside of the natural forces we know about has been required.

From a naturalistic point of view, and from a limited perspective, where the best opinion, or ides, become the accepted theory, or truth, I can understand and appreciate your worldview.
Sadly, it appears to be biased to anything to the contrary, and is actually unfairly critical of such, imv.

Nope, that is pretty much irrelevant. even if there was an intelligent designer, that in no way implies I'd have to 'answer to it'. It would not mean anything than some intelligence was involved in creating the universe.

As an example, suppose that some multidimensional race has discovered how to make universes. Suppose that, as an art project, one of these being created our universe. Than, after getting the grade for that course, they proceed to foget about what they created.

This would be an example of 'intelligent design'. It is even consistent with what we know about the universe. But it in no way produces a requirement to 'answer for' anything.

it is also much more reasonable, in my mind, than the scenarios you have proposed.

I take your opinion, is contrary to the one I gave. No problem

I have no desire to live forever. Anything more than a few million years would get horribly boring.

But, again, I see no reason to leap from an 'intelligent designer' to 'live eternally if you believe'. That is a HUGE logical leap.

Again. I am not assuming.
You seem to keep forgetting.
The Bible says the heavens and earth were created. I believe it. What I am saying is not assumed. It is written.
So when I say A, it's because A is written.
Has A been dis-proven? To the contrary, it has not, but rather have been, to my mind, verified.

I just remembered, I have to address one of your comments.
Later.

 

[Polymath257]

This is only because you assume the designer does not care about his design, that they would not specifically tweak it to their satisfaction. I am not assuming though.

Yes, of course you are assuming. If nothing else, you are assuming the Bible is accurate.

Did each universe "bang" into existence?
Does that not mean the question remains of what "banged" it?

You always assume a cause. And that may well be a faulty assumption.

From a naturalistic point of view, and from a limited perspective, where the best opinion, or ides, become the accepted theory, or truth, I can understand and appreciate your worldview.
Sadly, it appears to be biased to anything to the contrary, and is actually unfairly critical of such, imv.

OK, what procedure would *you* advocate for determining if something is intelligently designed? We know complexity alone isn't enough: natural processes can easily produce complexity without intelligent intervention.

So what do you propose as a test?

I take your opinion, is contrary to the one I gave. No problem

And once again, it is simply an alternative 'intelligent design' possibility. But it shows that leaping from intelligent design to 'must answer to' is a HUGE step.

Again. I am not assuming.
You seem to keep forgetting.
The Bible says the heavens and earth were created. I believe it. What I am saying is not assumed. It is written.

You are assuming the Bible is reliable in this regard.

So when I say A, it's because A is written.
Has A been dis-proven? To the contrary, it has not, but rather have been, to my mind, verified.

In what way have you tested it? How have you attempted to show A is false?

 

[Thief]

You always assume a cause.

of course....

see a event.....an effect
and assume a cause

 

[Polymath257]

of course....

see a event.....an effect
and assume a cause

And that may not be correct. There are many uncaused events.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you believe there is no valid reason to believe in a designer?

It's the same reason why believe that there is no valid reason to believe in undetectable pink graviton pixies who regulate the forces of gravity.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, of course you are assuming. If nothing else, you are assuming the Bible is accurate.

No. I am not assuming.
If your aunt sent tells you she won the lottery of three million dollars, and you believed her, I think I would be quite unreasonable to say, you assume your aunt won the lottery of three million dollars... just because I don't believe your aunt won anything.
Because you don't believe what I do, does not mean I assumed it. I read it, and because I have confidential in what is written - not that I have not tested it - I believe it, or accept it as the truth.

I think it is more reasonable to say, 'you believe'.
For example...
Scientists believe ABCD about what they are seeing on XYZ.
Scientist assume that A is the case, when B may be the case.
To me, the difference, is that scientists see XYZ, so there is no need to assume XYZ. On the other hand, scientists do not see A, but they assume A.

I have seen and read A, and believe A, but I have not assumed A. That's the difference.

You always assume a cause. And that may well be a faulty assumption.

It's what I know. I can only go by what I know.
To me, it is better than assuming that there is some other explanation from what I know.
I find it interesting that those who are willing to make those assumptions, are so quick to dismiss any possibility, or even probability of miracles or supernatural stuff.

OK, what procedure would *you* advocate for determining if something is intelligently designed? We know complexity alone isn't enough: natural processes can easily produce complexity without intelligent intervention.

I already addressed this.
My argument is not that complexity equals design. However, design has various levels of complexity.
For example, a cardboard box is not as complex as a house, but both certainly are products of design.

Also, my argument is not about whether the design has a defect or is perfect. Designed things can become defective, damaged, etc. That's not the point.

The question is, is it a product of design?
We do see design in the mosquito, don't we?
When an error occurs in our computer's hardware or software, we don't reason that it had no designer, why would we apply that to living things?

If there is evidence of design in an object, then this indicates the object required a designer.
Objects have varying degrees of complexity. It is not the complexity alone that determines design. However, the level of complexity in the design, can strengthen the implications for a designer.

So what do you propose as a test?

I have gone through this before. Demonstrate that a very complex object requires no designer.
I can demonstrate that they do.

Spoiler: Can Science Answer?

Where did the information originate?
CRAIG VENTER: One of the exciting elements that people who are interested in the digital world here may find is we can use the genetic code to watermark chromosomes. You can use it in a secret code, or you can - basically what we're using is the three-letter triplet code that codes for amino acids. There's 20 amino acids, and they use single letters to denote those. Using the triplet code, we can write words, sentences, we can say, "This genome was made by Richard Dawkins on this date in 2008." A key hallmark of man-made species, manmade chromosomes, is that they will be very much denoted that way.

RICHARD DAWKINS: What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.

Not man-made. Not a product of human intellect. Mindless or Of a mind - an intelligence?
Where did instinct, and intelligence originate?

And once again, it is simply an alternative 'intelligent design' possibility. But it shows that leaping from intelligent design to 'must answer to' is a HUGE step.

I'm puzzled as to what you think I mean when I say intelligent design, or an intelligent designer.
What is intelligent design to you, and in your mind, what do you think I mean?

You are assuming the Bible is reliable in this regard.

How am I assuming this?

In what way have you tested it? How have you attempted to show A is false?

In many ways. If you need details, I will have to put them together for you, or link you to where they are posted throughout these forums.

 

[metis]

Why is it that some people think that scientists are so stupid? or so dishonest?

Every scientist well knows that (s)he must work through the "scientific method", which was designed to try and eliminate bias and assumptions. If any scientist didn't use that methodology, they would largely be ignored.

OTOH, religion doesn't work on that methodology but, instead, operates on the basis of "faith". While I tend to think that God created all, it's not on the basis of objectively-derived evidence that I tend to believe as such but, instead, on the basis of my religious faith, which I cannot objectively confirm as being accurate.

Therefore, if someone disagrees or questions what my religious "experiences" tell me, I cannot insist that I must be right and that they must be wrong.

 

[cladking]

Every scientist well knows that (s)he must work through the "scientific method", which was designed to try and eliminate bias and assumptions. If any scientist didn't use that methodology, they would largely be ignored.

Now days that "methodology" has adopted "Peer revue". (typo that's more accurate than "review" anyway)

Good Science

So any methodology and any assumptions not shared by Peers is automatically wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

No. I am not assuming.
If your aunt sent tells you she won the lottery of three million dollars, and you believed her, I think I would be quite unreasonable to say, you assume your aunt won the lottery of three million dollars... just because I don't believe your aunt won anything.

I strongly disagree. It would be quite appropriate to say I assume that she is telling the truth.

Because you don't believe what I do, does not mean I assumed it. I read it, and because I have confidential in what is written - not that I have not tested it - I believe it, or accept it as the truth.

Precisely. You have *assumed* it to tell the truth.

I think it is more reasonable to say, 'you believe'.
For example...
Scientists believe ABCD about what they are seeing on XYZ.
Scientist assume that A is the case, when B may be the case.
To me, the difference, is that scientists see XYZ, so there is no need to assume XYZ. On the other hand, scientists do not see A, but they assume A.

OK, I disagree here also. The scientists have found that whenever XYZ occur, then also ABC occur. We *conclude* the next time we see XYZ that ABC have occurred.

There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion.

I have seen and read A, and believe A, but I have not assumed A. That's the difference.

But you *do* assume that A is reliable.

It's what I know. I can only go by what I know.
To me, it is better than assuming that there is some other explanation from what I know.

OK, this only means that you won't be able to learn when another explanation comes along. That isn't a reasonable way to proceed in my view.

I find it interesting that those who are willing to make those assumptions, are so quick to dismiss any possibility, or even probability of miracles or supernatural stuff.

I don't do it *quickly*. I have looked at the evidence, at the definitions, etc, and have found nothing to support the existence of a supernatural.

You, however *assume* such a thing exists.

I already addressed this.
My argument is not that complexity equals design. However, design has various levels of complexity.
For example, a cardboard box is not as complex as a house, but both certainly are products of design.

Also, my argument is not about whether the design has a defect or is perfect. Designed things can become defective, damaged, etc. That's not the point.

The question is, is it a product of design?
We do see design in the mosquito, don't we?
When an error occurs in our computer's hardware or software, we don't reason that it had no designer, why would we apply that to living things?

No, I don't think we see it in a mosquito. We see the end result of evolution. The patterns are quite different between design and evolution and life shows the pattern of evolution.

If there is evidence of design in an object, then this indicates the object required a designer.
Objects have varying degrees of complexity. It is not the complexity alone that determines design. However, the level of complexity in the design, can strengthen the implications for a designer.

OK, so you realize you have not given any test for design here, right? You have said that *if* something shows design we can conclude a designer. But what is it that provides evidence of a design?

I have gone through this before

. Demonstrate that a very complex object requires no designer.
I can demonstrate that they do.

And what we know is that feedback loops, especially those having information transfer from one generation to the next, along with mutation, and selection *do* in fact, produce high levels of complexity.

I'm puzzled as to what you think I mean when I say intelligent design, or an intelligent designer.
What is intelligent design to you, and in your mind, what do you think I mean?

Well, I would assume you mean that there is some intelligent agent that decided how things should work and put that intent into practice.

How am I assuming this?

How are you NOT assuming it?

In many ways. If you need details, I will have to put them together for you, or link you to where they are posted throughout these forums.

So, you actually have evidence? Instead of vague feelings? Have you actually attempted to understand alternatives? Have you tried to show your viewpoint to be *wrong*?

 

[nPeace]

I strongly disagree. It would be quite appropriate to say I assume that she is telling the truth.

Precisely. You have *assumed* it to tell the truth.


OK, I disagree here also. The scientists have found that whenever XYZ occur, then also ABC occur. We *conclude* the next time we see XYZ that ABC have occurred.

There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion.

"There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion."
Okay. So... It irks me, but I manage a smile.
You always seem to make things so convenient for yourself. You make the example I use so distorted.

What you said there is nowhere near to what I said. However, let's consider your last sentence - "There is a difference between an assumption and a conclusion."
Here is what I said...
Scientists believe ABCD about what they are seeing on XYZ.
Scientists believe lack of genetic diversity is the cause for what they are seeing on the mass and sudden extinction of the short haired bumblebee.
Scientists believe crustacean evolves into a crab-like form from a non-crab-like form based on what they are seeing in their study of corresponding symmetry in the organisms.
Scientists believe the universe is about 13.8 billion years old based on what they are seeing as the best fit to Planck 2015 data.
Scientists believe there is a definite branching order at the base of the clade Bacteria based on what they are seeing about the order of phyla in Phylogenetic tree.
Scientists believe muscles cells evolved more than once based on what they are seeing about germ layers from which they believe muscles evolved.

I could go on a couple hours, but I'm tired.
I believe the Bible is true based on what I am seeing in the internal evidence - overall harmony, candor, practical and timeless wisdom, and external evidence - historical agreement, scientific support.

Since I am assuming, and not reaching a conclusion... according to Polymath257, then to be fair the scientists are assuming, as opposed to reaching conclusions.

I also said,..
Scientist assume that A is the case, when B may be the case.
Examples ...
Scientists assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction, when the cause was not yet known.
Scientists assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, when in fact, this heat had been continually replenished.
Scientists assumed... You get the point.

You disagree with me, is all. You consider both assumptions, so I really don't know what a conclusion would amount to be, in your view.
I understand a conclusion to be, as it says here...
a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

If you have a different definition that would help me understand what you are saying, then I would like to see it.

But you *do* assume that A is reliable.

So you say, but I don't see how that is true.

OK, this only means that you won't be able to learn when another explanation comes along. That isn't a reasonable way to proceed in my view.

That is far from the truth.
I know houses don't build themselves, but people do.
It doesn't mean that if I see houses building themselves the next minute, I would not accept that I know different.
Are you deliberately trying to be difficult?

I don't do it *quickly*. I have looked at the evidence, at the definitions, etc, and have found nothing to support the existence of a supernatural.

I suggest you have not really investigated. I believe you make that claim. I assume I am right.

You, however *assume* such a thing exists.

We wholeheartedly disagree.
I have investigated, and have come to a level-headed conclusion.

No, I don't think we see it in a mosquito. We see the end result of evolution. The patterns are quite different between design and evolution and life shows the pattern of evolution.

So you say. I don't see what you see.

OK, so you realize you have not given any test for design here, right? You have said that *if* something shows design we can conclude a designer. But what is it that provides evidence of a design?

Please see my first post here - What is Design?

And what we know is that feedback loops, especially those having information transfer from one generation to the next, along with mutation, and selection *do* in fact, produce high levels of complexity.

There is no evidence that mutations along with anything "produce high levels of complexity".
Please provide one of those evidences.

Well, I would assume you mean that there is some intelligent agent that decided how things should work and put that intent into practice.

So that intelligent agent can be viewed as alien to us. True?

How are you NOT assuming it?

If you are using assumption in in terms of not being able to prove a conclusion, then that applies to practically everything. Is this what you are saying?

So, you actually have evidence? Instead of vague feelings? Have you actually attempted to understand alternatives? Have you tried to show your viewpoint to be *wrong*?

Of course. Why do you assume that one who becomes a Christian, suddenly stops thinking and lose all sense of reason? Do you think this guy does not analyse and question things?

Why did he leave more than 20 years of Atheism to become Christian?
For one thing... He was open minded, and investigated.
This is just one of many.

I was searching for the post where you claimed the scriptures were from the 6th to 5th century BC.
Maybe if I am wrong about what you said. You can correct me.
I found opinion that says earlier.
Doesn't matter to me though, these opinions. Why should it?