Re: Ray Martinez
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:27:31 -0600
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:702ffd72-a9b9-48fb-894a-deb15a2b97be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 1, 7:24 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:snip
You use an impressive array of big words, Ray; one might almost
suppose that you knew what all of them meant.
There really are no array of big words in the above paragraph, which
renders your latter phrase ridiculous.
"continuium", "Rubicon", "mechanisms", contemplated, etc.. all used in a
questionable manner.
But if there were then the
latter phrase indicates your ignorance or a petty and unnecessary
insult.
Steven's ignornance is not on display here, Ray. Also, why aren't your
own insults you use regularly considered "petty" and "unnecessary".
But the entire
paragraph above comes down to a simple argument from personal
incredulity:
Initiating a charge of "argument from personal incredulity" means, if
we consider it and apply it objectively, that your acceptance of
alleged material processes that allegedly produce living things, could
result from the same phenomenon.
Again, here's another example of you using big words you don't really
understand. Material processes can, and do produce complexity. You have
been given many examples of this, yet you seem to ignore them all.
The charge is simply question
begging.
What question do you feel Steven is begging?
Why don't you address each point that I have made, that is,
why not answer the reasons I gave for rejecting the existence of these
material processes?
Because you haven't given any reasons for rejecting the existence of
material processes. You've asserted that they don't exist, but have not
shown any reason to hold that position, other than "I don't believe it".
That's the argument from personal incredulity.
....you cannot believe that unguided material processes can
both imitate intelligence and, step by step from unintelligent
responses to the environment to a capacity for abstract reasoning, can
build it.
True.
And I point out that you are *unable to see* the degree of illogical
insanity that your comment above proposes.
Ray, since material processes have been observed to produce material
effects, your comment itself is illogical, and insane.
Mindlessness cannot produce its antonym.
Why not? Note that, as Steven pointed out, "mind" and "mindless" are not
antonyms, but points on a continuium. Also, you claim that "mindlessness
can't produce it's antonym" but haven't shown any reason why it can't.
The central assertion of
evolution is DOA. Mindlessness, that is, matter and life occuyping the
same time and space (= alleged mindless material processes) cannot
create the minds that occupy or have occupied reality.
Why not? This is the question you keep avoiding, and passing off to your
own personal incredulity.
They do so
(listen carefully), that is, the short list of uncontested truisms
which comprise this so called "material mechanism" only when human
beings say they do.
This is what you need to support, rather than just assert. The mechanisms
of evolution have been observed to produce complex systems, and can be
observed in genetic algorhythms, repeated as necessary. Evolution works
whether or not humans say it does.
But the objective truth of the matter is that this
list of truisms working in tandem is self-evidently not what is being
claimed in its behalf; and the wonder of Nature falsifies the claim on
the other side of the coin (antonyms).
Argument by assertion. Perhaps you could show some evidence to support
this? The "wonder of nature" is certianly capable of being produced by
natural processes, as shown by numerous examples.
We do not need a person with a
Ph.D. to tell us they do.
May I remind you, that you are the one who claims that only Ph.Ds can
"produce facts". Whether or not we "need" someone with a Ph.D to tell us
that life evolves, life evolves anyway.
Evolution is an insult of intelligence: you
have no mechanism of causation to explain the connectedness of nature
that you claim to see.
Ray, the mechanism of evolution is well known. The connectedness of nature
is due to common descent, by variation and selection by differental
reproductive success of variants. Why do you claim that this doesn't
exist, when it can be directly observed?
Evolution IS an argument from authority - a
just-so story based on hatred of the God portrayed in the Bible.
Again, this is your own personal assertion, one not supported by any
evidence, and contradicted by many examples. Evolution is not accepted
because someone said so. Just because you accept the word of a Ph.D,
without question, that doesn't mean anyone else does. Evolution is based
on the evidence, not some assumed "hatred of God".
You offer no reason for this incredulity: it is, to you,
its own justification.
False.
I have.
Ray, you have offered no justification. All you have done is asserted your
own beliefs, without any kind of support.
You offer "mindlessness cannot produce minds"
as though it were a demonstrated fact of science,
True. It is false on its face and you are *unable to see it.*
Maybe if he can't see it, it isn't there. You claim to be able to see it,
just like the officials in the court of the Emperor claimed to see the new
set of clothes. You need to show some evidence to support your claim.
Before 1859 British Natural Theology controlled science and these
scientists determined that Mind was empirically observed in nature
causing its existence.
Again, Ray, before 1859, and after no one "controlled science". Theology
and science are different things, and while British Natural Theology may
have been a precourser to science, it's not the same thing. The belief
that "Mind was observed in nature" is a religious belief, not a scientific
observation. When actual scientists began looking, they saw that this
claim was not supported by evidence. That's why the scientific theory of
evolution replaced any creationist thought.
It is also a self-evident fact of logic: Mind produces minds, not
mindlessness.
Ray, this is not a "self evient fact of logic". You have no evidence that
"Mind produces mind". There is pleny of evidence that human minds are
produced by a process of natural forces acting over time.
Evolution demands a suspension of logic, and says
illogic is logical.
No, actually, that's what you do.
The evidence does not say this, your illogical
minds say this.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
There is no evidence of a material process.
Then what about the experimental evidence? There are literally thousands
of published studies showing evolutionary mechanism producing results.
What evidence do you have of supernatural processes?
This is
admitted when the short list of truisms that comprise natural
selection is provided.
How is this 'admitted'?
....and it is not.
There is no tiniest reason to suppose that anything but natural,
material, mindless processes produce each individual human being,
Self-evident Atheist non-sense.
How is this either "self evident", "atheist", or "nonsense". You have
made assertions that you can't and won't back up.
as
they produce each individual fish, each individual monkey, and each
individual worm or bacterium. Known sorts of mutations (single-
nucleotide substitutions, insertions or deletions of one to thousands
of nucleotides, duplication of genes or the entire genome) can, step
by step, alter any genome to any other genome. Natural selection can
affect populations in much the same manner as artificial selection,
and with a steady stream of mutation producing new variation, there is
no known inherent limit to how far a population can be modified.
Given all this, as well as the evidence that evolution (caused by
something) has clearly occurred, and your arguments from incredulity
require more support than can be provided by your own unsubstantiated
assertions.
When the needs of Atheism are present then the absurdity known as
natural selection is the Creator. A better explanation of nature is
created by God - directly.
Except that natural selection has been observed. God creating directly has
not been observed, ever.
-- [snip]
I've snipped everything in Jim Willemin's post that your answer didn't
address, except this last short paragraph, just in case you missed it
and would like to attempt to actually respond to it.
And after all that stuff and bluster, you still haven't said how you
decide if something is designed. That is the key question, and one
you
seem intent on avoiding. So here it is again: How do you know when
something is designed?
You might, perhaps, wish to answer this rather than evade it.
It would appear that Ray wishes to evade it.
DJT
.
- References:
- Re: Ray Martinez
- From: Jim Willemin
- Re: Ray Martinez
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Ray Martinez
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Ray Martinez
- Prev by Date: Re: AAT yahoo group more than 500 members
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Our falcons have hatched
- Previous by thread: Re: Ray Martinez
- Next by thread: Re: Ray Martinez
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
