The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Silver]

Psychology isn't frightening.  That Breezy seems to be headed in that direction for a career is.

I remember posts where he kept stating that he studies science, but I must have missed where he specifically narrowed it down to psychology.

Besides, so long as he professionally separates himself from his personal beliefs while in the office, what would be the issue?

[The Grand Nudger]

-is there a difference, does it really matter?

I think so, sure. If a person still believes in id because they're incompetent - that's pretty much a wash. You can't expect an incompetent person to get things right or wrong for any particular reason. Heads like rocks.

If a person still believes in id because they think it's either unfalsifiable, or hasn't been falsified - then they're just wrong, and being wrong is a thing that can be cleared up, assuming a person doesn't have a head like a rock, as above.

-As a demonstration of the difference in action on the boards, let's take kloros bird pron from earlier.

If Kloro is incompetent, he doesn't know why he looks at those birds and believes that they were designed - but if he's just wrong..it's because he doesn't understand sex and breed linked traits. In the case of the former, debate or discussion, even from his own end, is pointless - he's simply incapable of expressing why he holds the belief he does on the basis of looking at a bird. The latter, easily cleared up. Shot in the dark, the barring is a z trait, lacing..w. A zz bird will always pass the trait to all of it's offspring, whereas a zw bird may pass the trait to roughly half of it's offspring, which can be zz or zw, and all recipients of that trait will be male. In general, females can only get the trait from their fathers, and can only pass it on to their sons. It's like male pattern baldness in humans - but on crack.

This is the thing that provides endless rounds of barred zz birds and laced zw birds for us to oogle at - not some genie painting feathers to it's hearts desire. Now, before we dive headfirst into the next nutbar proposition - that the process above -is- god's paintbrush and thats how he achieves the barred feathers he wants..no dice. The z barred genes can produce single bar, double bar.......or.....no bar at all.

(also makes it super easy to sort them from hatch into which pen and feed they need to end up in and eating - upwards of 80% effective even if your sexers are completely untrained)

[John 6IX Breezy]

I remember posts where he kept stating that he studies science, but I must have missed where he specifically narrowed it down to psychology.

That's because I don't study psychology; I study cognitive science. It's slightly different, but confusion is understandable.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If a person still believes in id because they think it's either unfalsifiable, or hasn't been falsified [emphasis added] - then they're just wrong....

Well, we know what you believe:

• "ID -has- been falsified"
  
• "Suppose that ID was about aliens...it's still been falsified."
  
• "I don't even know why you're wondering about falsifiability for ID, it's already been very publicly falsified."
  
• "Still babbling about whether or not your falsified theory is falsifiable."
  

That makes two of us that agree intelligent design is falsifiable.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you'd probably find that most would agreed that id was falsifiable - and comments to some other effect have more to do with what id nutters proceeded to then do, after their allegedly scientific and falsifiable theory was falsified.

Like this thread, and every other that came before it. 59 pages in, low energy.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think that you'd probably find that most would agreed that id was falsifiable.

Great. That debate is settled then.

---

You rely on the words of others and you really never say anything.

I've actually cut back my references to wikipedia articles to keep it a level playing field (I'm aware many don't have access to a database.)

[arewethereyet]

I think that you'd probably find that most would agreed that id was falsifiable.

Great. That debate is settled then.

---

You rely on the words of others and you really never say anything.

I've actually cut back my references to wikipedia articles to keep it a level playing field (I'm aware many don't have access to a database.)

Well that's progress of a sort.

[vulcanlogician]

That's because I don't study psychology; I study cognitive science. It's slightly different, but confusion is understandable.

So I guess no Freud or Jung then? Your loss.

Seriously man, I think you are too smart to be denying evolution. Not all Christians deny evolution. Not all Christians posit design. Design is a very bad argument now that we've been able to examine the fossil history. And I'm one of the people who thinks it was a very GOOD argument when William Paley made it back in the day. But since we've had a good look at fossils and the cosmic microwave background-- no. Terrible argument.

Have you heard of Biologos? Google it. I might be wrong, but I think biologos is what C.S. Lewis believed. It is not design. It accepts all of what modern science has discovered concerning evolution. But it's still Christian. I think you should give it a look-see and learn what it's all about.

And even if you DO want to stick with design. Please don't be an evolution denyer. The theory is WAY too good. There is simply too much evidence for it. Argue that God was the designer of the system that allowed microbes to evolve into complex life. It's far better.

If you want to be a Christian, take up your cross and follow Jesus. Don't be a contrarian about things that were settled in science long ago. Aside from that, doesn't your religion encourage truthfulness and honesty? Do some research. See how reasonable it is to accept evolution as a very, very, very good theory. The honest thing to do is admit how good the theory of evolution is. This design stuff is SO dishonest. It's manipulating people to believe in something that's decidedly false... just taking advantage of the fact that 1/3 or more of people didn't really pay attention in biology class. It's predatory.

I think you are an honest person, Breezy, but design is not an argument that is pushed by honest people (nowadays, anyway, in the post-Paley era). The only reason you accept it is because you are taking dishonest people at their word. Please go look up biologos and chat with some people about it, and stop this "irreducible complexity" nonsense. You can do better.

[John 6IX Breezy]

See how reasonable it is to accept evolution as a very, very, very good theory. The honest thing to do is admit how good the theory of evolution is.

I'll accept it as good when I see it do a better job with psychology and neuroscience. Until then, it is just a tool that has overextended it's use. I'll look into biologos with an open mind. Thanks.

[Peebothuhlu]

See how reasonable it is to accept evolution as a very, very, very good theory. The honest thing to do is admit how good the theory of evolution is.

I'll accept it as good when I see it do a better job with psychology and neuroscience. Until then, it is just a tool that has overextended it's use. I'll look into biologos with an open mind. Thanks.

Hello.

Must admit that reading this threw me for a bit.

My innitial thought was "Why should the theory of evolution do/say anything about the systems within an organism?"

The theory is more 'Over arching' isn't it?

More like "Here's the influence/feedback of the over all organism's life etc and not the force mechanics of how a Finche's beak cracks seeds."

 

Not at work.