(May 20, 2016 at 11:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.
And it's on purpose, and it's not the first time he's done it:
Direct quote from AAA out of the most recent "Intelligent Design" thread back in November:
"It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?"
He knows exactly what he's doing.
Yep. And that's why I mock and condescend to him. And rather enjoy his "innocent" protestations.
I have no patience for people who refer to a generic chapter title, and use false equivalence arguments that have been debunked here (and everywhere else), and who disrespect the work of those scientists and authors by misrepresenting the claims they make.
People like this deserve nothing but scorn.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
