Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

Well I'm not sure how else I can engage your attention. You make the claim that macroevolution is untestable, I reply with a link and brief explanation of how it is testable, and you ignore my post. If you won't defend your claims against a rebuttal beyond restating the same claims again, well, we're clearly not playing the same debating game.


I don't expect you to accept my opinion or reading material as proof but I do expect you to engage in debate. If you make a statement, and I provide a direct rebuttal, I expect you to provide a rebuttal to my rebuttal, continue the debate in some other way, or concede the point. Otherwise you're just pontificating.

Of course if the idea is not to try to get to the bottom of what's true, but rather to just keep saying what you personally believe, then you're doing it all the right way.

Double poned.

Well, Seifert, I scrolled back through this thread to see your reasoned questions that are yet unanswered.




To me debate is making a point and offering support to that idea. And listening to others, refuting points that seem worthy (some data can be ignored if it doesn't sufficiently refute the point made in debate or has already been addressed).

You seem frustrated that I don't find your data particularly compelling. I completely understand that frustration. Anything I bring in support of my argument against macroevolution is immediately denounced. Regardless of who the author is.

It is assumed that if one questions the religious tenet known as macroevolution, one should expect ridicule. Many sit on the sidelines waiting to pounce on any who dare suggest the Emperor has no clothes, if you know what I mean. Well, he has no clothes, and I'm saying it

As you may know, I have answered questions to many others on this topic, so if I skip yours, it may be I addressed it previously.

If you want me to agree that you are right, show me the examples of macroevolution that are verifiable. Please don't show me a lizard that had wings etc etc. I want to see the results of tests, and recreations of the "fact" of macroevolution. A lizard that has bird like features wouldn't convince me. I might even accept a progression that offers a slight resemblance of the prior creature, through to a new animal. Such as a frog type animal from a fish. Of course, there should be thousands of examples everywhere, if Macroevolution were fact.

Good night, enjoy Friday night

No, actually, not in most cases.

Some people seem to take it otherwise, one noteable poster around here in particular, but most athiests I know are simply athiest because they lack *any* devotion.

*edited to expound*

There are basicly, from what I've seen, two types of athiests.

One are atheist because they don't believe in god.

The other are thiest because they believe there is no god.

There's a fine line of distinction there, but they *are* distinct. The later take their athiesm almost (ironicly) to the level of religion, by claiming absolute certainty a fact that they can never prove or disprove - exactly the same as regular religious folk.

Most athiests I have met, however, simply don't believe in god... But they aren't devoted to the notion.

I was, of course, referring to questions from previous threads. For your benefit, here is what I said a number of times in the "Judge says No to ID" thread:

You have repeatedly made the statement that macroevolution cannot be tested. Here is a way to test it. You are correct that we cannot reproduce the millions of years of evolution that result in speciation. There are however other ways of testing a theory, namely that the theory makes predictions about things we can observe, and we then observe and see if the predictions are upheld.

You may choose to disbelieve in the theory of evolution, but you cannot claim that it is untestable, or that it isn't a science based on being untestable.


I think you are again seeing only reproduction of the phenomenon as a viable "test".

Such intermediary steps in the process are not alive today, so I'm not clear what you mean by the statement that there should be thousands of examples everywhere. There are fossils of those intermediary steps.

You're exactly right, Reitsuki. The former is called a "weak atheist" (aka agnostic atheist). The latter is called a "strong atheist" (aka gnostic atheist). The vast majority of atheists (myself included) are weak atheists. To claim absolute certainty about anything that can neither be proven nor disproven isn't rational. Since most atheists are strict adherants of rationalism, you won't meet many strong atheists. This has all been hashed out here before at great length on several occasions (which Kevn seems to have forgotten about).

I remember quite well the discussion, where a certain person insisted agnostics are really atheists in denial.

Let me re-post for you the deciding factor, the dictionary, the standard by which we all agree what words mean, so we can converse.
-------------------------------------------------------

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

------------------------------------------------------


a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

------------------------------------------------------

Do you see the difference here?

I see nothing under strong/weak atheist described in the dictionary.

I really don't understand why one would seek to be called what he isn't. If you aren't atheist, why claim to be atheist?

If you, as an agnostic, choose to be lumped in with those atheists, who you say are irrational, that's up to you.

From: Reitsuki Kojima

Most athiests I have met, however, simply don't believe in god... But they aren't devoted to the notion.
Exactly my beliefs. I'm not zealous in my belief of the lack of any god(s) - I just don't believe they exist. End of story. I don't attend any services on a weekly basis or hold any sort of 'silent thought' time to ponder the idea... I just don't think a supreme being exists, unless you count Siggy - then definately, one exists.

When I've told friends of mine my feelings, I get labeled with the 'athiest' tag - but I'm certainly not extreme in my devotion to it. I don't go around preaching that there is no god and I don't spend large amounts of time trying to prove that something I don't believe exists truly doesn't exist for those who do believe one exists, because life is far too short and I have better things to do with my finite amount of time here and, honestly, I don't give a shit what others think.

Because I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a god. However I do not assert that I have specific knowledge or proof that there isn't. I also wouldn't deny irrefutable evidence if any were to surface some day. I am at this point in time unconvinced there is a god, therefore I do not believe in god. Why do you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible?

The "atheist tag" is a stereotype based on gnostic atheism which is not what the vast majority of atheists believe. Rather than distancing yourself from the term perhaps you could explain to your friends that what they're doing is exactly the same as asserting that everyone who claims to be Christian is a fundamentalist. In both cases they're wrong.

If you believe there is no God you are an atheist, if you are unconvinced, but not positive there is no God, you are agnostic, if you use the dictionary to define the words.


The dictionary defines Christian correctly, and the word "Bible" never enters the definition, let me post it.

Christian: 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Do you see a requirement to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible? I just try to use words as defined by the average dictionary, so we can understand one another.

im·be·cile (ĭm'bə-sĭl, -səl) (medical term)
n.
A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

mo·ron (môr'ŏn') (medical term)
n.
A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

id·i·ot (ĭd'ē-ət) (medical term)
n.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

However,

From The Devil's Dictionary:

idiot
n.

A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot's activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but "pervades and regulates the whole." He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line.

Ah, I have big problems with (2.)

I know many people that would be de-facto Christians by that definition, but are not Christian in the least.

Show me 10 people in one place that actually live according to what they spout... and I'll show you a pig that flys.

Sigh. I don't know why I bother.

That's a logical fallacy... Appeal to authority, and in this case, a particularly bad one. The dictionary is (in)famous for being outdated in it's understanding of word useage.

Because you can't quite shake the feeling that you might be able to convince an admitted dogmatist that they are mistaken. It took me the better part of a decade to come to that unpleasant realization.

"Surely this person speaks of evidence and definitions therefore must be amenable to rational discourse" sometimes says more about the hopes of the one trying than the one they are trying to teach.

Perhaps some light reading may help with the exasperation. Oops sorry, even rationalists in 1895 got exasperated too.

The American Heritage Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary tells us the etymology for the word CRETIN:

cre-tin (kre-tin, kret'n) n. 1. One afflicted with Cretinism. 2. A fool; an idiot. [French, cretin, from Swiss French, crestin, CHRISTIAN,


And from another online dictiory

cre·tin (krtn)
n.
1. A person afflicted with cretinism.
2. Slang An idiot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christinus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian; see Christian.]


dontcha just love etymology

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach — and that for the sake of dishonest gain. Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith. (Titus 1:10-13)

I would say the moment one resorts to name-calling in a forum, that one loses any credibility. I won't respond to rude comments from anyone. So if one wishes to end any discussion with me, simply be rude. Assume I will AR rudeness though.

Doesn't this presuppose there is such a thing as "discussion" with you?

This is quite apart from the fact that I fail to see where anyone has been affirmatively rude to you. I have seen people citing dictionary definitions. Do you feel they were directed at you? That would be an assumption unwarranted by the texts of the posts.