why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?

[Jan Ardena]

Signal

What has not changed in all those years is you trying to have the upper hand.

Just words.
I realise you think you can say anything without having to give an explanation. And I've learned that you don't respond to questions that reveal, what for me has become your warped personality.

What has not changed in all those years is you still treating the discussions at this forum as a matter of theists instructing non-theists.

Examples?

What has not changed in all those years is you still per default interpreting questions as requests for help or guidance, as opposed to seeing them as attempts to discuss things.

Examples?

I have changed over the years; for one, I overhauled my communication style, which is connected to a change in my personal ontology and epistemology.

You forgot to add ''and various personalities''.

But you don't seem to see it. Probably because in order to see, you would have to have similar qualifications as I do.

What qualifications are those?

And you are the arbiter on what "is warranted" and what isn't ...

The other alternative is to pretend that they are warrented, and I don't see the point in that.

If we have been talking "about the same thing," this means that we haven't talked about it effectively, that the real issue hasn't been addressed.

How do explain posting the same threads with different titles over the years, and how does that not tie into your personalities??

I have tried to zero in on what that real issue is, numerous times, from numerous perspectives, and you have often derailed these attempts back into the same things, maintaining the status quo.

No you haven't.
Your threads give you away.

You haven't offered any new perspectives or approaches over the years, while I have.

Same as above.

You are behaving like someone who has "arrived," who has complete knowledge.

Examples?

I don't know why you're here, but you surely don't seem to be here to discuss and explore.

Examples?

You have so far shown that you have no understanding for them.

I'm begining to understand the ''complexity'' of your condition.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

@ Jan:
Still waiting...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2812972&postcount=248

 

[wynn]

Jan -

You are trying to make me think I am crazy!!

 

[wynn]

The other alternative is to pretend that they are warrented, and I don't see the point in that.

There are three ways to approach a challenging interpersonal situation:

1. "It is my fault."
2. "It is the oter person's fault."
3. "There is a reason."

The first two lock us into a downward spiral of contempt - contempt for oneself and for others.

The third response lets us communicate and achieve goals.


You seem to prefer the second option.


I believe in the third option.
I also believe that if God exists, God is good, and so are we, His parts and parcels.

I do not think anyone has a "warped personality" or a "condition."
I think there are always good reasons for why people behave the way they do, even when they behave criminally, and there is no need to blame it on "who they really are."

 

[Dywyddyr]

Jan -

You are trying to make me think I am crazy!!

That's what crazy people do.
Everyone's out of step but them.

 

[Rav]

You are trying to make me think I am crazy!!

Your latest avatar suggests that you may be identifying with the name of the show in which the pictured protagonist appears. But I think you'd be better served by adopting some of the elements of his persona, namely confidence and an expertly calibrated bullshit detector.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Not what I said.
But if that isn't meant as a claim (of some sort) you'll have start being more explicit about you actually do mean.

I'm afraid your going to have to explain why you feel I'm not being explicit.

I also note that you didn't dispute it in my earlier post:

Originally Posted by Me
While ignoring the fact that understanding (of anything) is only a small part of what humans do.


Originally Posted by You
A small part?

While I can understand that we need motor skills to get from A to B, and I certainly needed them to get to the computer, and type my response. I also realise that at every step of the way understanding is a crucial component.
Therefore, while you may see it as a small part of life, I don't.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your latest avatar suggests that you may be identifying with the name of the show in which the pictured protagonist appears. But I think you'd be better served by adopting some of the elements of his persona, namely confidence and an expertly calibrated bullshit detector.

Geesh!!! Get a room.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

I do not think anyone has a "warped personality" or a "condition."

You're kidding right?

I think there are always good reasons for why people behave the way they do, even when they behave criminally, and there is no need to blame it on "who they really are."

Who should we blame it on then?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm afraid your going to have to explain why you feel I'm not being explicit.

It's quite simple. If that ISN'T a claim that we are here to understand god then your previous denial of flaws in our design is invalidated since they still hold. And why did you bring it up at all?

While I can understand that we need motor skills to get from A to B, and I certainly needed them to get to the computer, and type my response. I also realise that at every step of the way understanding is a crucial component.
Therefore, while you may see it as a small part of life, I don't.

I see. How much "understanding" is required to swim? Run? Eat?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

It's quite simple. If that ISN'T a claim that we are here to understand god then your previous denial of flaws in our design is invalidated since they still hold. And why did you bring it up at all?

Are you suggesting that denial of flaws in our design is dependant upon whether that is a claim?

What is your actual claim of flaws in our design based on?

see. How much "understanding" is required to swim? Run? Eat?

Does it require thought, and knowledge, things like preferance, timing, enjoyment, direction, oops I think i'll have a drink of water. Where do I pay, why do I have to get changed, etc.....

You were kidding. Right?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Are you suggesting that denial of flaws in our design is dependant upon whether that is a claim?

Your own words:

f the human was designed with the ability to understand God, if it so chooses, then it is a brilliant design.

In other words, if that's NOT what we're here for then the "brilliance" is actually not so.

What is your actual claim of flaws in our design based on?

The facts. As previously given.

Does it require thought, and knowledge, things like preferance, timing, enjoyment, direction, oops I think i'll have a drink of water. Where do I pay, why do I have to get changed, etc.....
You were kidding. Right?

And you, as usual, are being disingenuous.
To actually swim, run, eat, how much understanding is required?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Your own words:

My own words implied a possibility.

In other words, if that's NOT what we're here for then the "brilliance" is actually not so.

No, that's you inferance.

The facts. As previously given.

Therefore you imply that the standard of perfection of the structure is determined by your own idea of perfection.

And you, as usual, are being disingenuous.
To actually swim, run, eat, how much understanding is required?

I've responded.
The ball is in your court.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My own words implied a possibility.

In other words, it wasn't relevant.

No, that's you inferance.

Then there is no "brilliance" in the design.

Therefore you imply that the standard of perfection of the structure is determined by your own idea of perfection.

False. See my earlier comment on design practices.

I've responded.
The ball is in your court.

Responded? Only by deflection.

Once more you resort to avoidance of saying what you actually mean, and refusing to address the point.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

In other words, it wasn't relevant.

It is relevant in the context which it was written, which was a response to
being ignorant of design principles.
It was a ''for example''

Then there is no "brilliance" in the design.

''Brilliance'' pertained to the possibility.
The discussion was centered around the design being flawed.

False. See my earlier comment on design practices.

Your comments is based on your idea of what constitutes a flawed design.
Show why the human design cannot reach it's full potential, IOW, show what the full human potential is.

Responded? Only by deflection.
Once more you resort to avoidance of saying what you actually mean, and refusing to address the point.

I showed how understanding is the cornerstone of activities.
Contradict them or not. The ball is in your court.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is relevant in the context which it was written, which was a response to being ignorant of design principles.
It was a ''for example''

Also wrong. It presumes a purpose which has not been demonstrated. And a better design for that purpose was given, as an example, in my later post.

''Brilliance'' pertained to the possibility.
The discussion was centered around the design being flawed.

Again, wrong.

Your comments is based on your idea of what constitutes a flawed design.

No: they are illustrative of ACTUAL flaws.

Show why the human design cannot reach it's full potential, IOW, show what the full human potential is.

"Potential"? Assumes purpose again.

I showed how understanding is the cornerstone of activities.

False, you simply claimed it.

Contradict them or not. The ball is in your court.

Avoidance again. or maybe ignorance, I'm not sure.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Also wrong. It presumes a purpose which has not been demonstrated. And a better design for that purpose was given, as an example, in my later post.

No it doesn't.
Read the relevant post to see why.

No: they are illustrative of ACTUAL flaws

"Potential"? Assumes purpose again.

The assumption of ''flaws'' assumes lack of perfection which assumes
an idea of perfection. What do we have to be to become flawless, and why are those things necessary.

The rest of your response is simply evasion.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No it doesn't.

This is blatantly dishonest of you:

If the human was designed with the ability to understand God, if it so chooses, then it is a brilliant design.

The design is NOT brilliant IF understanding god is not what we're here for. And understanding god has not been shown to be the case.

The assumption of ''flaws'' assumes lack of perfection

Previously addressed. No it doesn't.

The rest of your response is simply evasion.

On the contrary. How much "understanding" does a fish need to swim? A dog need to eat? A gazelle need to run?
Your deflection (paying, taking clothes off) applies to none of these.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

This is blatantly dishonest of you:

Wrong.

The design is NOT brilliant IF understanding god is not what we're here for. And understanding god has not been shown to be the case.

Let's keep with the actual claim of actual flawed design.
That is what we're discussing.

Previously addressed. No it doesn't.

No it hasn't.
Please explain why.

On the contrary. How much "understanding" does a fish need to swim? A dog need to eat? A gazelle need to run?
Your deflection (paying, taking clothes off) applies to none of these.

I was pertaining to the human form.
All forms need to understand incoming data.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Wrong.

Then it's ignorance.

No it hasn't.

This is dishonest of you:
Post #237

A poor design means the object cannot perform to it's full potential.

Post #238

A poor design is one exhibits flaws in its operation.

In other words your contention HAS already been addressed. And it has nothing to do with "perfection".

I was pertaining to the human form.
All forms need to understand incoming data.

False. As shown.
Unless you have some personal definition of understand.