Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:48:24 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1943@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<a0993103-971c-4114-bb6f-e6918d306ace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 7, 1:24 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:05:14 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<12e8bfd2-913d-4f74-8d00-019fcaece...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 7, 12:09 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:26:46 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<093548e5-cbb4-44d0-894a-1176b9f7a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 7, 8:50 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 19:22:09 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<ed24a06a-c40f-4872-9760-fe5d1dab2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

[snip]

The reason you react so irrationally is that you realize that the
apparent age argument cannot be disproved .

Then it's not science.

Of course if say 10,000
years ago such was the case in order to get the universe to operate
properly it might well be reasonable to embue it with characteristics
and properties typical of great age.

But an omnipotent designer isn't restricted, so it's no problem to
"get the universe to operate properly". So obviously, your designer
isn't omnipotent.

But its infinitely possible to get it to operate not at all or highly
improperly..............

How do you know? Besides, if it didn't operate, we wouldn't be here to
complain about it.

I don't have the responsibility to educate you Junior Birdman.

I won't trust you to do that anyway.

Read
Kauffman, Hawking, Penrose or any recognized cosmologist concerning
the fine tuning of some dozen physical constants, field
characteristics, etc.

Then why do you doubt some of them? For instance, the consistency of
radioactive decay? Why do you doubt the scientifically derived age of
the universe, which was derived *using* these constants?

Well?


the precision of the parameters atest to an
exactness in design.

"The precision of the parameters" is an unsupported claim on your
part.

God's universe is not particularly open to your criticism.....

This, from the person who wrote that "Of course if say 10,000 years
ago such was the case in order to get the universe to operate
properly...". Who are you to say that it didn't operate properly right
from the beginning?

He
hardly needs advice from you.

I'm not the one telling people how God *must* have created. Your lack
of humility is astonishing. I just look at the evidence. And the
evidence points to evolution.

Actually it doesn't

In fact, it does. Transitional forms are predicted, and transitional
forms are found, Archaeopteryx being a prime example.

..you choose to interpet it that way by
predisposition.

Too bad you can't demonstrate that. It's also too bad that your
allegiances to evidence change with the wind. One moment, constants
are important, the next they're not, if they conflict with your
theology.

Someone can't read my posts

I probably have, but just in case, could you supply some messages IDs
for these particular posts?


where I laid out fact that everything
which one observers is necessary for the universe to operate,
function, and to provide man with a consistent set of outcomes for his
intellectual exercises.

It's an unsupported assertion. Claiming that it's a fact doesn't make
it so. One has to wonder why a Flat-Earth-style cosmology wouldn't
provide man with a "consistent set of outcomes for his intellectual
exercises" as well.


As to any examples such as light .............."the absence of
knowledge is not conclusive as to purpose"

Alas, this is *exactly* what IDists do. They can't imagine how
something could have formed naturally, so it must have been
intelligently designed. The absence of knowledge is the essence of
their claim.


Evos forever.

Or until something better comes along.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: slightly OT, but still connected
    ... >> determined the age of the universe in the billions of years. ... > After looking at countless evidence. ... > the method has since been recalibrated against samples of *known* age. ... No matter what you do, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... apparent age argument cannot be disproved. ... "get the universe to operate properly". ... I just look at the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: slightly OT, but still connected
    ... > determined the age of the universe in the billions of years. ... After looking at countless evidence. ... > sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid? ... the method has since been recalibrated against samples of *known* age. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... apparent age argument cannot be disproved. ... "get the universe to operate properly". ... I just look at the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... between us is that I consider recognition of 'evidence of design' to ... They say, "Just give me the evidence, and give me the arguments, ... the universe is designed 'subjectively'. ... scientific objectivity. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading