Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Jan Ardena]

So if I saw you performing some task you would expect me not to ask "what are you doing" but rather "what are you trying"
Alex

It would depend on what I was doing.
But, I would be “doing”, regardless.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But, I would be “doing”, regardless.

Exactly..so do rather than try.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But you’ve done nothing to show that it is true.

Lie.

No real effort

Lie.

Not at all.
This thread alone refuted that.

Lie.

I’ve already told you what I mean.

Lie.

a world in which your mindset has the majority of power, would be a nightmare.

Lie

even though there are experts who do not accept it as the best explanation.

Lie.

Science does not back up darwinism,

Lie.

. As it stands, it has to be indoctrinated into the populace, continuously.

Lie.

They can only refer to pictures, and rhetoric like what you’re spinning here.

Lie.

No one here can give a simple explanation, including you.

Lie.

None of these explain anything.

Lie.

But you’ve offered nothing to show that it matters.

Lie.

the religion of darwinism

Lie

It is non different than the attitude that of Christians, who defend their belief, against those that don’t accept it.

Lie.
Alex

 

[James R]

I try and respond to most of your questions James.

By my count, so far you've managed one out of 19 questions I asked in the post to which this was your response, and there were no answers from you in that post.

Here's the link to that post you've ignored three times now. This is your 4th prompt on this one:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...retend-to-discuss.160197/page-61#post-3627746

Meanwhile, let's look at the one question you did make a half-arsed attempt at:

How do you recognise that natural things are designed?

I find your question confusing. So I’ll word it how so it makes sense to me.
“How do I recognise design in nature?”
I think it is a beyond my capability to recognise everything. But I can recognise design, period.
So can you, so can most people, if not everyone.

This almost reads like you're answering, but then we look closely we find that you have avoided the question entirely.

You claim you can "recognise design, period". So, tell me how you recognise design, "period". That is, try to answer the question:when presented with something novel, how do you decide whether it was designed or not? What's your process of investigation?

For instance, we both agree that your mobile phone was designed. I think that rocks found in river beds, to take an example at random, are not designed. Do you agree with that, or is it your position that everything in nature is specifically designed to be the way it is by your God?

Let's assume for now that you agree with me tht the river rock is not designed. Tell me how you reached that conclusion, and compare how you reached the conclusion that the mobile phone you also found in the river was designed.

After we're clear on your methods, we can explore why you think you know that a cell is designed, and a tree, and a human being.

On the other hand, if it turns out that you want to insist that everything, including the smooth river rock, is designed specifically by your God, then as far as I can see there's no point of dispute regarding evolution. Evolution, like everything else, would be designed by God. If God can do rocks, then God can do evolution. However, your objection to evolution, if I understand it correctly, is that things like cells and trees and human beings cannot evolve from simpler things, but must be specially created by God. You say the evolution that God created can't do the job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was referring to the origin of life.”, as thought of by proponents of abiogenesis.

I thought we were discussing evolution. Abiogenesis is a different discussion. Can we concentrate for now on your objections to evolution, and specifically your objections to "Darwinism"? (You still haven't told me what you mean by "Darwinism". Do you plan to tell me?)

I know my phone, my tv, my car, was designed.

Tell me how you know this. What's the process that leads you to that conclusion? How did you decide? What factors did you take into consideration in reaching that conclusion?

Even if I didn’t know who designed them?

The identity of the Designer, as the Intelligent Design proponents will quickly insist, is irrelevant. We can worry about that later. The first step is to be able to reliably distinguish designed things from things that have no "who" to design them.

Did you think those thing grow naturally unaided by intelligence?

TVs, phones and cars? No, I think those things are artificial. But I want to know how you reach that conclusion. I already know how I reach it. And I know that your process, whatever it is, screws up when it comes to things like trees, cells and human beings, so I want to dig down and find out where your reasoning goes awry and starts giving you the wrong answers.

I can’t tell if it is designed, but cell biologists can.

The vast majority of cell biologists don't think cells have a Designer. You are aware of this. So why lie about it, repeatedly?

Their description of the cell leads me to accept that it is obviously designed as opposed to arriving by chance.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Your process of decision involves considering the descriptions that other people give about things, does it?

 

[James R]

What about them?

What convinces you that Newton's laws of motion are true (if you are convinced of them)?

The answer for me is that no single piece of data or single fact convinces me that Newton's laws are true. Rather, it is the accumulated evidence from many different experiments and observations of the natural world, combined with the proven utility of those laws in making accurate predictions about the behaviour of physical systems.

Evolution is true for the same reasons. Accumulated evidence from many different experiments and observations of the natural world, combined with proven utility of the theory to make accurate predictions about the behaviours of living organisms.

One of your problems, Jan, is that you have blindingly obvious double standards. Instead of applying a single method consistently in deciding what is true and what is not, you pick and choose what appeals to you. The only consistent guide for you is your core religious beliefs, and those are next to useless in evaluating the truth of scientific theories.

There is the question about how I came to know about a lot of the evidence for evolution. The answer to that, for me, is mostly by reading about it, including reading many very helpful explanations (illustrated by evidence of various kinds) written by experts in the various biological sciences. In other words, I accept that evolution is true because I set out a long time ago to learn something about it, and I put in the necessary hours to come to have a better-than-average understanding of it.

Possibly this kind of process is unfamiliar to you. Did you learn everything about your religion via direct revelation from your God, or did you spend hours studying and contemplating and thinking about it? What would be your response if I ask you what convinced you that your favorite scriptures are true?

Such as?

Such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic studies, etc. etc.

Is it possible that they have to be seen to accept darwinism for fear of not getting funding, or losing their jobs?

There's a vanishingly small possibility of that, I suppose. But from inside the tent, the idea of a grand conspiracy of pro-evolutionists lording it over lowly religious biologists is a pretty screwy notion. It looks a lot like you're clutching at straws with that kind of thing.

It’s obvious that apes and humans share a community a designer based on the same genres.

Not obvious to me. But no doubt all will become clear once you tell me your process for recognising design. Either that, or we'll discover that your methods are problematic, or else non-existent; I can't tell which, yet.

How is that not a guess?

The accumulation and convergence of many different types of evidence means that guessing is not required.

Your opinion doesn’t carry much weight, unfortunately for you

It's not my opinion. It's the consensus of all the experts.

 

[paddoboy]

I’ve already told you what I mean.
I don’t trust statistics, especially when it comes to who does or does not accept darwinism.

Particulary when those statisitcs overwhelmingly suppor the facts of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.

Because it isn’t about science, it’s about politics.

Is that your standard cop out lie? or is that what your overlords tell you to say?

There you go again, telling me who and what I am. As I said earlier, a world in which your mindset has the majority of power, would be a nightmare.

So says the forum's proven liar, who has ironically told everyone they are atheists or god haters, or simply regurgitate scientific facts.

I am interested in what makes people accept Darwin’s theory. Because of this you assume I want to toss out the experts, even though there are experts who do not accept it as the best explanation.

Yep, of course you do and that's been yours and your overlords plan from day one. I accept Darwinism and the theory of evolution because mainly of the fossil records and the science of carbon dating, and naturally also due to the overwhelming expert opinions. Only a fool disregards expert professional opinions.

I don’t think you need to be religious to not accept darwinism. I think you have to be religious minded to accept it. Science does not back up darwinism, because science can’t back it up with experimentation or observation. If it could, nobody could deny it. No scientist could deny it.

So is this more lies or more dementia? Let me tell you again...There is no discipline in the world that ever has 100% support for it...as obvious as Earth is an oblate spheroid, we still have some believing it is flat...They are ratbags agreed? Just as the 3% of scientists that don't accept Darwinism and evolution are also ratbags.

If it were true, we would instinctively know. As it stands, it has to be indoctrinated into the populace, continuously. And even then the average person can’t explain what it is that makes them accept it. They can only refer to pictures, and rhetoric like what you’re spinning here.
Anything that requires you to be an expert, just to be able to give a simple explanation, is not something that I would personally regard as truth. No one here can give a simple explanation, including you.

Perhaps because you are too simple and too indicrinated with your sky daddy.
All you have done in this thread is regurgitate what you have been indoctrinated in and stuck your fingers in your ears with your tongue poking out when given the facts.
And Jan, those facts of Darwinism and evolution will not change.

 

[Jan Ardena]

By my count, so far you've managed one out of 19 questions I asked in the post to which this was your response, and there were no answers from you in that post.

I’m not on trial James.
You should try answering some of my questions, instead of fobbing irrelevant rhetoric and evasive questioning.
Use what I’ve given you.

You claim you can "recognise design, period". So, tell me how you recognise design, "period".

The same way you do. Period.

Do you agree with that, or is it your position that everything in nature is specifically designed to be the way it is by your God?

Regarding God. I think God is the origin of everything.
As for rocks, no they’re not intelligently designed. What do you think?
Which one is intelligently designed.

Tell me how you reached that conclusion, and compare how you reached the conclusion that the mobile phone you also found in the river was designed.

Intelligently designed.
The other is a result of nature.

If God can do rocks, then God can do evolution.

We’re talking about darwinism. Remember.

After we're clear on your methods, we can explore why you think you know that a cell is designed, and a tree, and a human being.

I’ve given you a link which explores the reasons why.

However, your objection to evolution, if I understand it correctly, is that things like cells and trees and human beings cannot evolve from simpler things, but must be specially created by God. You say the evolution that God created can't do the job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I’m asking what is it that makes you accept darwinism. I didn’t bring God into it. And there is no need to bring God unto it. Unless you believe that somehow God is a part of darwinism.

The answer to that, for me, is mostly by reading about it, including reading many very helpful explanations (illustrated by evidence of various kinds) written by experts in the various biological sciences.

How did you go from reading it to accepting it as obviously true?
Is reading about it the only way one can know that it is true?

I thought we were discussing evolution. Abiogenesis is a different discussion.

Maybe you should read the conversations, rather than just cherry picking statements that you don’t like.

The vast majority of cell biologists don't think cells have a Designer. You are aware of this. So why lie about it, repeatedly?

How do you know?
You seem some magical way of knowing what people think.

TVs, phones and cars? No, I think those things are artificial. But I want to know how you reach that conclusion.

The same way you or anybody does.
It’s hilarious, you think darwinism is so obvious, one only needs read about it, even though nobody can explain why they believe it is a scientific fact. But you act as though it is not obvious how people know a phone is designed.

And I know that your process, whatever it is, screws up when it comes to things like trees, cells and human beings, so I want to dig down and find out where your reasoning goes awry and starts giving you the wrong answers.

I don’t think you do.
I think you’re being emotional, and you’re taking my questioning and others failure to answer properly as an offence to your belief.
Now you just want to try and reduce the discussion to semantics, and information.
I don’t have time for that. I’ve already wasted enough time on respond to these long-ass, pointless posts.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Your process of decision involves considering the descriptions that other people give about things, does it?

Yes.
The information that we get from it, makes it obvious to me that there is a designer. Whereas the information we get (ordinary folk), is not obvious that darwinism took place.
The evidence is that nobody can give an explanation of why they personally accept darwinism as a scientific fact. Without appealing to pictures, and other testimonies, who only state, like yourself, that it is a scientific fact.

No one here, including you, can be bothered to give detailed explanation of what they believe, so neither will I.

It's not my opinion. It's the consensus of all the experts.

There’s no way you can know that.
But we know that it is possible that scientists may want to hold there tongue for fear of serious comeback. Didn’t you watch that movie 0no intelligence allowed”?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What convinces you that Newton's laws of motion are true (if you are convinced of them)?

I could care less if it was true.

Evolution is true for the same reasons.

Darwinism is different.
As far as I can see, it’s essentially about rejecting God. The fact that it doesn’t, hurts.
You say I’m blinded against it because of my belief.
I think you’re blinded against because of your lack of belief.

The only consistent guide for you is your core religious beliefs, and those are next to useless in evaluating the truth of scientific theories.

You are a terrible psychoanalyst.I know if you’re being truthful here. And you’re not.
You’re simply projecting .

Possibly this kind of process is unfamiliar to you. Did you learn everything about your religion via direct revelation from your God, or did you spend hours studying and contemplating and thinking about it? What would be your response if I ask you what convinced you that your favorite scriptures are true?

Why are you so disturbingly angry James?
Why don’t you try to be less personal?
It doesn’t help your inability to answer my question properly.

Not obvious to me.

Why not?

Such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic studies, etc. etc.

How do they?
I would imagine everybody would come to the same conclusion.
But they don’t.
And you cannot explain anything.
Hence the Emperor’s new clothes analogy.

The accumulation and convergence of many different types of evidence means that guessing is not required.

It would also mean acceptance across the board.
But we don’t see that, in any sense of the word, or in any specific genre. So I think you need to revise your answer.

 

[James R]

I’ve already told you what I mean.

Yeah. You mean the tiny proportion of people with a bachelor degree in something vaguely biological who, because of their religious convictions, have become mavericks who deny science. The people paid by the likes of the Discovery Institute (which so far hasn't discovered anything, by the way). Doesn't it seem obvious to you that these people you trust are hopelessly biased, with vested interests in promoting creationism and its trojan horse Intelligent Design? But no, you think that maybe the 97% of scientists employed by reputable institutions are probably all telling lies about evolution (and much else besides) to keep their cushy jobs and grants. Ho hum.

I don’t trust statistics, especially when it comes to who does or does not accept darwinism. Because it isn’t about science, it’s about politics.

You trust the statistics that led you to believe that "many" scientists don't accept the theory of evolution. You quote those statistics. Double standards, again.

Why are your Creationist buddies not about "politics"? Why is it only the scientific "establishment" that is dishonest and money-grubbing, according to you? I'll tell you why. It's because your Creationist buddies' views seem to be more compatible with your own religious views, so you're willing to overlook their obvious vested interests. Theirs are the same as yours (well, not completely, but you share a lot in common).

There you go again, telling me who and what I am.

If I am wrong about you, please correct me. I am drawing conclusions about you based on what I observe of you. I notice that you seldom correct me or deny that I am correct about you. Instead, you just post complaints like this one, about how upset you are when I draw sensible conclusions about who you are and what you believe from what you write.

As I said earlier, a world in which your mindset has the majority of power, would be a nightmare.

I don't think you have the faintest clue what my "mindset" is like, even after all this time we've known each other.

You assume they are false ideas.

Again, not an assumption. A conclusion based in many cases proof of Creationists telling lies knowingly. Some of these people have a long and reprehensible record of lying for their faith. The most prominent among them often do so while fully aware that they are lying. You must be aware of behaviours like Creationist quote-mining, for instance. Indeed, you stooped to that yourself in a recent post where you quoted Einstein selectively and tried to misrepresent his religious views. That kind of thing - telling half of the story, or just flat-out telling lies - is par for the course in Creationist circles.

I don’t believe it is down to the churches.

The churches are run by people. Different churches have different people running them. There are good people and bad people running churches.

I don’t think you need to be religious to not accept darwinism.

No, but it sure helps! See the poll we discussed earlier.

Science does not back up darwinism, because science can’t back it up with experimentation or observation.

There's that lie of yours again. You attempt to dismiss genetics, paleontology, geology, physics, comparative anatomy and other experimental/observational sciences with a wave of your hand. Sorry, it doesn't work.

If it could, nobody could deny it.

Nonsense. There are people who deny that the world is round. (I forget. What's your current position on that? Did you decide in the end that you're a true flat-earther, or was that just a rhetorical point you found convenient at that time?)

People are quite capable of denying even the most obvious and well-established truths, given the right motivation.

If it were true, we would instinctively know.

No. That's been a consistent problem you've had for as long as I've known you. Nobody "instinctively knows" truths about the world, beyond what is immediately accessible to the usual senses, and even those are not always to be trusted. You believe that you "just know" all kinds of things, as if by magic, but really you don't. What you have is a misplaced faith, combined with overconfidence in yourself.

Anything that requires you to be an expert, just to be able to give a simple explanation, is not something that I would personally regard as truth. No one here can give a simple explanation, including you.

Wrong. I can, and have, given a simple explanation of evolution by natural selection in the space of a few sentences. You don't need to be an expert to understand it or accept it. But you do have to be open to considering it.

“It obvious...”, is not an explanation.

Hold that thought!

Now apply it to "It is obvious that God exists" and "It is obvious that trees are designed" and such statements.

That’s your opinion.

Yes. Who else's opinion would I be expressing?

But you’ve offered nothing to show that it matters.

You brought up the topic of Alex and paddoboy's understanding of evolution, so you think it matters.

As far as I can surmise , you give them props purely because they accept darwinism, and reject God.
Would you still feel the same way if they rejected darwinism and accepted God?

I really don't care if they (or you, for that matter) believe in God or not. That should be irrelevant to whether somebody accepts science. In your case, that's obviously not true, because you feel that your denial of science is necessary - that for some reason your particular religion is incompatible with science in this respect. But just because this is the case for you, it doesn't mean everybody else is the same.

Or is accepting darwinism the criteria?

A certain prominent atheist is fond of saying something along the lines that his aim in life is to believe as many true things as possible and to avoid believing in as many untrue things as possible. I'm with him. If "Darwinism" was not true, I'd happily throw it away and believe the better alternative theory. Unfortunately for you, there is no better alternative theory and, as far as we can tell, "Darwinism" works.

So until I tell you, why make that assumption?

It's based on what you have written about your beliefs. The closest match to your belief system, as you have described it on this forum, seems to be the beliefs of the Hare Krishnas. I can only assume that at the very least you have been exposed to and educated in those beliefs at some point in your life. If I'm wrong about that, you're free to correct me.

Why are you so emotional about darwinism?

There are two kinds of things to be emotional about. One of those things is sort of abstract and impersonal. My emotions regarding the theory of evolution - the whole thing, not just "Darwinism" because that's just one aspect - are similar to the emotions I have in relation to other great scientific theories and discoveries. I get emotional about the beauty and order of our universe. I'm in awe at the power of scientific ideas like evolution and relativity. I'm happy that our universe is amenable to explanation, that logic works, that kind of thing.

The other kind of thing to get emotional about is human beings and how human beings behave. I don't like to see people hurting themselves or others. One of the things that hurts people is when they believe things that aren't true. Worse, when they teach other people to believe things that aren't true, because that hurts the other people and somebody is to blame for that pain. So, I get a bit upset at Creationists who knowingly tell lies about evolution, and I get a bit upset when people like you swallow those lies, to you own detriment. My nurturing instinct tells me to try to help fix things. I'd like to see a world in which most people believe true things. That would stop a lot of pain and hurt.

As regards you, I feel sorry for you. You're a reasonably articulate person. Clearly, you have the capacity to think critically about things. And yet, you choose to lock yourself away in a sort of fantasy world and waste your time listening to people who lie to you. For what? For an imagined eternity after this life ends? What if this is all you get to have?

Personally I don’t, and most probably won’t, discuss religion on here. I discuss theism and atheism.

Yes, ad nauseam. "A theist is somebody who believes in God", you tell us repeatedly, as if this is some sort of revelation that mere atheists are unaware of. Is there anything more to your beliefs in God, apart from those kinds of pointless truisms? Will we ever find out?

This discussion is rooted in theism and atheism.

Not the current diversion. Right now, we're mostly focused on your denial of evolution. I guess the reason for your denial are rooted in your theism, but we'll never get to discussing your real reasons for rejecting it, will we?

The only religion I’m discussing is darwinism.

Don't you know what religion is? Hint: "darwinism" ain't it.

I don’t mean religion as in the Christian, or Islamic sense (although it may well become), I mean by the attitude of its adherents. It is non different than the attitude that of Christians, who defend their belief, against those that don’t accept it.

The thing is, "darwinism" is not a "belief" in the same sense that Christianity is a belief. "Darwinism" doesn't require faith. It's a scientific theory. It can be tested. It has been tested. Quite unlike your God.

Since right now you obviously can't tell the difference between science and religion, don't you think it's time you started to learn some science?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Particulary when those statisitcs overwhelmingly suppor the facts of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.

The fact that there are no facts that support it, it becomes political.

Is that your standard cop out lie? or is that what your overlords tell you to say?

Yet you cannot give me an explanation.

So says the forum's proven liar, who has ironically told everyone they are atheists or god haters, or simply regurgitate scientific fact

You’re an angry, irrational man, Paddo.
Because you have nothing to say.
Your insulting is simply evidence of that.

I accept Darwinism and the theory of evolution because mainly of the fossil records and the science of carbon dating, and naturally also due to the overwhelming expert opinions. Only a fool disregards expert professional opinions.

Carbon dating shows dinosaurs to be thousands of years old. Do you accept that?

Perhaps because you are too simple and too indicrinated with your sky daddy.

Bye bye Paddo!

 

[Michael 345]

You claim you can "recognise design, period". So, tell me how you recognise design, "period".

I'm sure you have seen animals and other animals in zoos give brush / paint / canvas

The works they produce, are they designed? Was Mona Lisa designed?

In essence what is the difference?

OK forget Mona Lisa, write it off as a precision rendering. So back to animal works. I have seen human works which look like zoo animal works and the art world says designed

Sure anyone can recognise design?

It looks so precision rendered, or perhaps not

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

All I'm seeing from you is deflect and avoid, deflect and avoid, over and over. Why? Why do you avoid the hard questions?

I’m not on trial James.
You should try answering some of my questions, instead of fobbing irrelevant rhetoric and evasive questioning.

Deflect and avoid.

You are on trial, and you're failing, badly.

Use what I’ve given you.

I have. You'll have noticed a point-by-point response from me, detailed and informative. And in response to my pointed questions, what do we see from you? Deflect and avoid. Over and over again.

The same way you do. Period.

Deflect and avoid. I haven't explained how I recognise design, so you can't fob off the question onto me, or assume that you do it the same way.

Here's what I think. I think you have not given this any thought. You assume you know design when you see it. You "just know", like so many other things you claim you "just know". Therefore, it follows that you "just know" that life is designed and God is the designer.

Your appeals to your own innate magical knowledge have never convinced anybody but yourself, and they never will. Surely you must realise this?

Regarding God. I think God is the origin of everything.

I know you do.

As for rocks, no they’re not intelligently designed. What do you think?

I agree with you.

Good. We have eliminated at least one potentially annoying distraction from the issue at hand. You accept that not everything that is natural is designed.

Now let's think a little more carefully about that rock in the river. It is smooth and round, polished. Usually rocks are pointy and rough. But we know that people can polish rocks and sculpt them. Indeed, we know that there are specialist artists who work at polishing and smoothing rocks. So, how do we know the rock in the river wasn't designed and polished by somebody? After all, it looks just like we'd expect a rock to look after it had been polished and smoothed by a Designer using appropriate tools.

See if you can make a serious attempt at answering this, Jan. (I'm expecting deflect and avoid.)

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Intelligently designed.
The other is a result of nature.

A phone is a result of intelligent human design, and a smooth stone is a result of nature. That is the conclusion, but how did you reach it?

Is your conclusion based on complexity, perhaps? The phone has more discrete parts, arranged in a much more complicated and precise way, compared to the stone.

Is your conclusion based on personal experience? Every phone you have ever come across appears to have come from a human manufacturing process. Companies like "Samsung" exist and claim to make phones. Therefore, chances are that the mobile phone is designed and not natural.

Is your conclusion based on anecdotal evidence? You know a guy who knows a guy who is in the phone business, and he says they make the phones.

Is your conclusion based on the thing having a purpose? Phones seem perfectly designed to make phone calls and browse the web and stuff. They don't have many superfluous features that don't suit their purpose or which are actually detrimental to the purpose. On the other hand, the stone in the river doesn't seem to be there for any particular purpose. Natural forces most likely just washed it down from the mountains and wore it down.

Let's consider something like a tree now. Is it complex? Undoubtedly. Do we have a personal experience that trees come from tree designers? We can't say we do. They seem to come from the seeds of "parent" trees. Is there anecdotal evidence that a Designer makes the trees? Yes, there is. For instance, a guy wrote in an influential book that there's a sky fairy who made all of life. Do trees have a purpose? It's kinda hard to tell. The most obvious function of trees is to make other trees. Beyond that, there seems to be no clear purpose. A tree is useful to human beings in various ways, but then again so are smooth stones.

So here's my opinion, Jan. I see no evidence that trees are designed by a Designer. Complexity on its own does not indicate design, especially when there is a perfectly viable mechanism that is proven to produce complexity without a designer - namely evolution. Anecdotal evidence for God is unpersuasive. In our personal experience, trees aren't manufactured at a tree factory where God designs the trees. And trees have no obvious purpose, beyond that of spreading the genes for trees around the place.

Now tell me, Jan. Why do you believe that trees are intelligently designed?

I expect deflect and avoid from you on this, but let's see.

We’re talking about darwinism. Remember.

You know what? I'm done talking about "darwinism" (with a small "d") until you say what that word means to you. I'm sick of having to put it in inverted commas to show that we're discussing some as-yet-undefined Jan version of part of evolution.

What is "darwinism" according to you, Jan? Please don't deflect and avoid.

I’ve given you a link which explores the reasons why.

I want you to explain in your own words. I don't want to read about why somebody else believes cells or trees are designed. You are convinced they are, so tell me why, in your own words. You've spent a lot of time complaining that people here haven't said why they accept evolution. But you never say why you believe in intelligent design.

I’m asking what is it that makes you accept darwinism.

I've told you over and over again what makes me accept evolution, natural selection and all that. The evidence, the science.

How did you go from reading it to accepting it as obviously true?

It became obvious once I read enough. When so much evidence all points to a single conclusion, it would be obtuse not to accept it.

I'm not by any means saying that evolution by natural selection (say) is an "obvious" idea. Nobody thought of it (or published it, at least) until the 1800s. But then again, religion most likely delayed the "discovery" of evolution. Also, science as we know it only really got going in the 1700s in a systematic way.

Is reading about it the only way one can know that it is true?

How can you know that any moderately-complicated theory is true? You have to learn what the theory's ideas are, i.e. what the theory says, what it predicts, how it fits with other theories. Then you have to consider evidence and arguments for and against the theory. After you've studied the idea and the evidence for long enough, you can reach a conclusion about whether it is true.

Reading is not the only way to transmit information, as you're aware, Jan, but the steps are the same whether you learn about a theory from a book or from a video or via verbal communication or by morse code or whatever.

What's your process for deciding if an idea is true or false, Jan? Do you ask your God?

How do you know?
You seem some magical way of knowing what people think.

My magical way of knowing that 97% of scientists accept evolution is to ask them! That's how I know, silly.

The same way you or anybody does.

You're making assumptions. Stop deflecting and avoiding, and start thinking.

It’s hilarious, you think darwinism is so obvious, one only needs read about it, even though nobody can explain why they believe it is a scientific fact. But you act as though it is not obvious how people know a phone is designed.

You weren't able to explain how you know a phone is designed, so it's not obvious how you know. It might, in fact, just be an assumption you make by looking at things. And that kind of assumption could be why you think trees are designed, too. Understand?

Having never thought about the question, I'm not surprised you completely missed the point. Consider this part of your education.

I think you’re being emotional, and you’re taking my questioning and others failure to answer properly as an offence to your belief.

Your denial in the face of mountains of evidence, as well as your weak attempts at argument by ridicule are offensive. You dismiss expertise. You refuse to learn anything. You ignore mountains of evidence, and/or deny the only viable conclusion that can be drawn from it. You deflect and avoid in response to hard questions, over and over again.

You're a troll, Jan. You revel in your ignorance. You consider it a point of pride. You try to portray experts as being as ignorant as you are. I find all of that offensive.

I don’t have time for that. I’ve already wasted enough time on respond to these long-ass, pointless posts.

Deflect and avoid. Deflect and avoid. 19 questions in one post. You attempt to respond to one of them, but not with an answer to the question. There's a clear pattern in your behaviour.

Yes.
The information that we get from it, makes it obvious to me that there is a designer. Whereas the information we get (ordinary folk), is not obvious that darwinism took place.

What information are you referring to? What information is in a phone that tells you it is designed, and what information is a smooth stone that tells you it isn't?

Also, notice what your post is a response to. I asked you whether the "descriptions other people give about things" helps you to decide whether something is designed or not. But the descriptions other people give about things are not something you get from the object in question. Those descriptions are not intrinsic in the phone or the rock. They are hints from "outside the system of interest" that tell you the system is designed.

Perhaps you think that you know that trees are designed because you have "outside" information. Perhaps you think you can rely on the anecdotal evidence from the bible, or you think you have a direct line to a God who tells you he designed trees, or something. Is that it?

No one here, including you, can be bothered to give detailed explanation of what they believe, so neither will I.

I can't teach you everything I know about evolution from scratch. What are you expecting in terms of a detailed explanation? Why don't you go off and read some of the books I've read, then see how you go? Perhaps start with Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which fundamentally shook my world view and opened my eyes to what evolution is really about. Oh, yes, he's a scary atheist, but there's no mention of any of that in that book. It's a science book. Don't be afraid.

 

[James R]

I could care less if it was true.

Deflect and avoid.

It is telling that this one-liner is your only response to 6 paragraphs of text from me, and then only a response to the first sentence of all that. And a deflective, avoiding response at that.

Do you really think your lazy trolling is going unnoticed?

Darwinism is different.
As far as I can see, it’s essentially about rejecting God.

Bizarre. The theory of evolution says nothing about God. It's a scientific theory.

The fact that it doesn’t, hurts.

What?!

Are you saying that I'm upset that the theory of evolution doesn't make a point of rejecting God, and so therefore I believe the theory of evolution? You're not making a whole lot of sense.

You say I’m blinded against it because of my belief.
I think you’re blinded against because of your lack of belief.

You've lost me. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be blinded against (or not).

As it happens, I came to a mature understanding of evolution when I was a theist like you, Jan. I didn't find it incompatible with my religion. I didn't feel like the idea threatened the core of my faith in God. I didn't feel obliged by my religion to reject anything in science.

Why do you find evolution so threatening to your faith?

Why are you so disturbingly angry James?

I find your rather transparent efforts at trolling annoying. Also, see one of my previous posts regarding emotions.

Do you have emotions, Jan?

Why don’t you try to be less personal?

Because the problem here is not anything to do with the theory of evolution. The problem is you. I have to push a little to try to open the window to your dark room and let some light in.

And you cannot explain anything.
Hence the Emperor’s new clothes analogy.

It's not that I can't explain anything to you, Jan. It's that all efforts to explain things like the evidence for the evolution of whales to you fall on deaf ears, so it's a waste of my time. No matter what I present on that, you can always come back and say "that's just words from a book" or "that's just a photograph of a fossil" or "that's just a series of drawings". You can always deny that the evidence presented points to a particular conclusion.

I show you photographs of gray hairy skin. One shows a long trunk. Another shows a large curved back. Another shows a tusk. Another shows a club foot with rounded toenails. Another shows an eye. There's also a text describing a kind of animal called an "elephant". After being shown all this, you can still deny that elephants are real. You can say "But all you've shown me is some photographs. There's no proof that the trunk and the tusk and the foot all belong to the same kind of animal. And that description of 'elephants' just sounds like a story somebody made up to try to put the photos into a group. You've given me no reason to believe in elephants! The emperor has no clothes!"

Understand? Digging into the details of specific evidence is time wasted on you. I've learned my lesson. I know you.

What we need to attack is the core problem: your blockage.

 

[James R]

Carbon dating shows dinosaurs to be thousands of years old.

Please don't tell lies, Jan.

 

[James R]

Sure anyone can recognise design?

Jan thinks he can.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Well I have been thinking.

All of us are no doubt worried because of the virus. There are moments where I can imagine the whole world falling apart and in those dark moments I feel stressed and so I imagine others may feel stressed as well.

We are probably all reving our motors more than usual.

I can appreciate, I believe, how Jan feels.

Perhaps overwhelmed and a little confused and so he lashes out, I certainly lash out and we are all getting frustrated with each other moreover perhaps each of us enacting a little differently because of this terrible virus.

Jan is frustrated that his reality is not accepted and that frustration is causing him to act a little badly..I have acted badly because I have judged Jan and told him so ....further I have broken some of my rules.... first not to look down on anyone and second I forgot my rule that if I can't say something good about someone not to say anything at all..now these must be stressful times for me to act so badly and I fear my problem has become infectious.

Jan is perhaps more frustrated than usual because I have been stirring him up pretty badly.

So I think that may be the context to remember.

Jan has his beliefs and generally he is pretty good keeping them to himself but perhaps I have stirred him up such that he struck back at science as a way to frustrate me...I will take the blame.

What I would like to see is everyone chill out.

Perhaps Jan you are a little stressed and must know that you can believe whatever you like and there is no need to prove anything to others and certainly no need to attack science.

You believe there is a God that is all that you need to do, you need not try and attack anything that you feel threatens you belief and just enjoy the peace your belief brings to you.

However if you are going to involve yourself and ask questions perhaps be polite and take the answers provided and resist the urge to reject what good folk have put before you because you have asked.

I sense that you are hurting and that is not what I want to see at all.

But you could look at your methods and ask if they reflect the real Jan and if those methods can ever bring you victory or satisfaction.

I hope that you can forgive me for being so cruel and and disrespectful of your beliefs.

Let's try to be better, kind and honest.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

All I'm seeing from you is deflect and avoid, deflect and avoid, over and over. Why? Why do you avoid the hard questions?

You see what you want to see.

You are on trial, and you're failing, badly.

No I’m not.
Is this a snippet of a world controlled by your religion, and philosophy?
You’re the one that is in trial.
And you have yet put forward no explanation.

I have. You'll have noticed a point-by-point response from me, detailed and informative.

You may think you have, but you have not.

What?!

Are you saying that I'm upset that the theory of evolution doesn't make a point of rejecting God, and so therefore I believe the theory of evolution? You're not making a whole lot of sense.

You’re hurt that it cannot reject God.
This is why you’re all so emotional.

Deflect and avoid. I haven't explained how I recognise design, so you can't fob off the question onto me, or assume that you do it the same way.

You don’t have to explain. I know how you recognise design. The same way I , and everyone else does.

As it happens, I came to a mature understanding of evolution when I was a theist like you, Jan. I didn't find it incompatible with my religion. I didn't feel like the idea threatened the core of my faith in God. I didn't feel obliged by my religion to reject anything in science.

That’s nice to know, albeit irrelevant.

Why do you find evolution so threatening to your faith?

The only threat darwinism poses, is political one.

I find your rather transparent efforts at trolling annoying.

So it’s okay for you to try and analyse me?
But when I do it, I’m trolling?
The future looks grim indeed.

What information are you referring to?

I gave you a link that basically explains it, as if you didn’t know. The link actually explains something.

Do you really think your lazy trolling is going unnoticed?

Do what you have to do mate.
As far as I’m concerned darwinism cannot be explained. It is like a movement where people just accept what they are told, by scientist who they regard as scientists. Nobody here can explain why it is a scientific fact. Or when it became a scientific fact. Or what the thing that made it a fact was?

You’re posts are way to long, I don’t have the time to jump through your hoops, and I think I have an idea where this going. So unless you can answer, there’s really no point in carrying on this discussion.

 

[Michael 345]

Jan thinks he can.

Sorry was meant to be typed with the 'hint of sarcasm font' but couldn't find it

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perhaps overwhelmed and a little confused and so he lashes out,

You wish.

Jan is perhaps more frustrated than usual because I have been stirring him up pretty badly.

I know you’d like to think that, because you believe it is important to your stability.
But the truth of the matter is.
You accept darwinism because you reject and deny God. And the fact that He will not go away, has rendered you emotional, irrational, and erratic.

Jan has his beliefs and generally he is pretty good keeping them to himself but perhaps I have stirred him up such that he struck back at science as a way to frustrate me...I will take the blame.

You’re pretty sharp Alex, but you can’t stir me up. Not on these on these kind of topics.
Because of your position, I can always know how you’re likely to respond. As a atheist, you can only go so far. Same as a darwinist. You all react the same.

You believe there is a God that is all that you need to do, you need not try and attack anything that you feel threatens you belief and just enjoy the peace your belief brings to you.

You can believe it threatens theism if you want to. But you’re lying to yourself. Without political backing, darwinism would have died out long ago. Now it is a tool of indoctrination.
Where everyone is supposed to accept it, despite not being able to explain it, without appealing to made up drawings, and the continuous assertion that it is true, as so called evidence.

I sense that you are hurting and that is not what I want to see at all.

Wishful thinking Alex.

I hope that you can forgive me for being so cruel and and disrespectful of your beliefs.

What else could you be?
Your belief has come under fire.
And you cannot defend it with even an explanation. Which is why you try these silly tactics.

As far as I can tell thus far. Your problem is that you lie to yourself. Which goes as far as lying to yourself about darwinism. What is most fascinating, is that your so blatant with it.
That’s what I regard it as phenomenal.

What is not so fascinating, but still interesting is the way you chop and change, and think I can’t see it. You’ll try to act all nice, and respectful, then change, and act harsh and disrespectful. Then apologise. Then do the whole thing again.
It really surprises me how you think I don’t notice that.

To me you are an explicit atheist, and I cottoned on to your game within the the first few exchanges we had.
As an explicit atheist, there is no way you’re not angry about God. That is is the primary characteristics of all explicit atheists. You can’t help yourselves. No matter which platform you go in, you all say the same things, and act the same way.
Truly fascinating.

Let's try to be better, kind and honest.

Alex

Get outa here!!!!