27025Re: MGT2 v. Robert Baty on The Christian Post!
- May 1, 2012http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/new-study-of-ribosomes-programming-language-support-for-intelligent-design-concepts-9629/
Time/Date 9:33 AM EDT on May 01, 2012
To 107Objector -
Aah, how easy was that to prove my point?
I must say that going over my past comments is a bit much, don't you? It seems so personal. You are on a trip to prove something, but you are neither engaging what I say nor engaging the argument for ID outlined in the post.
Atheists like to speak condescendingly of theists as appealing to "God of the gaps", and mean for it to be derisive; instead of addressing the substance of the arguments, they mean to impugn the intelligence of anyone who do not subscribe to their naturalism.
This is exactly what is on display here. Yet, my statement remains the fact and is unaddressed. Those professionals in philosophy, philosophy of science and philosophy of religion recognize that the arguments of the theists are indeed rational. They know better than to make snide remarks and disrespectful comments such as are on display by amateur philosophers on the internet. They recognize that science is not the only way of uncovering truth. There is faith, intuition, memory, properly basic beliefs.
Indeed, scientists have presuppositions that science cannot prove - they go on faith; they interpret evidence from the point of view of their own biases; they ignore contrary evidence and fill in the gaps with naturalism.
Take the content of this post we are discussing. Without a doubt, an inference to the best explanation for the evidence of the ribosome study is intelligent design. The challenge for detractors is to prove otherwise. They may claim that it only "appears" to have intelligent input, but simply dismissing the ID argument as irrational and non-science without engaging the merits of the argument is only characteristic of "philosophers" of cyberspace.
From: 107Objector (aka Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 10:17 AM EDT on May 01, 2012
No, I don't!
But it's helpful to know you don't care to have your past statements regarding these important public issues referenced in regard to your present blundering.
My original point stands.
What you want to describe as an inference others have to prove not so is simply a disguised effort to modernize the watchmaker analogy.
You are as much admitting that your position is theological and not scientific and demonstrating why it is that ID as well as young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
For all you have to say to impress others with your alleged "holier than thou" reasoning and all of that, you remain with a failing grade when it comes to actually demonstrating you can handle the fundamentals such as are the substance of my "Goliath of GRAS" exercise.
I would that you would repent and openly, honestly complete the exercise; or find one of your fellows who is up to the simple task.
Here's that first step for you or your surrogate to take:
> Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argumentI say "yes"!
> so constructed that if its premises
> are true its conclusion will follow
> as true therefrom (e.g., is it
> logically valid)?
What sayeth MGT2 or his surrogate?
Please don't run off this time!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>