Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

By my count, so far you've managed one out of 19 questions I asked in the post to which this was your response, and there were no answers from you in that post.

Here's the link to that post you've ignored three times now. This is your 4th prompt on this one:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...retend-to-discuss.160197/page-61#post-3627746

Meanwhile, let's look at the one question you did make a half-arsed attempt at:

This almost reads like you're answering, but then we look closely we find that you have avoided the question entirely.

You claim you can "recognise design, period". So, tell me how you recognise design, "period". That is, try to answer the question:when presented with something novel, how do you decide whether it was designed or not? What's your process of investigation?

For instance, we both agree that your mobile phone was designed. I think that rocks found in river beds, to take an example at random, are not designed. Do you agree with that, or is it your position that everything in nature is specifically designed to be the way it is by your God?

Let's assume for now that you agree with me tht the river rock is not designed. Tell me how you reached that conclusion, and compare how you reached the conclusion that the mobile phone you also found in the river was designed.

After we're clear on your methods, we can explore why you think you know that a cell is designed, and a tree, and a human being.

On the other hand, if it turns out that you want to insist that everything, including the smooth river rock, is designed specifically by your God, then as far as I can see there's no point of dispute regarding evolution. Evolution, like everything else, would be designed by God. If God can do rocks, then God can do evolution. However, your objection to evolution, if I understand it correctly, is that things like cells and trees and human beings cannot evolve from simpler things, but must be specially created by God. You say the evolution that God created can't do the job. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought we were discussing evolution. Abiogenesis is a different discussion. Can we concentrate for now on your objections to evolution, and specifically your objections to "Darwinism"? (You still haven't told me what you mean by "Darwinism". Do you plan to tell me?)

Tell me how you know this. What's the process that leads you to that conclusion? How did you decide? What factors did you take into consideration in reaching that conclusion?

The identity of the Designer, as the Intelligent Design proponents will quickly insist, is irrelevant. We can worry about that later. The first step is to be able to reliably distinguish designed things from things that have no "who" to design them.

TVs, phones and cars? No, I think those things are artificial. But I want to know how you reach that conclusion. I already know how I reach it. And I know that your process, whatever it is, screws up when it comes to things like trees, cells and human beings, so I want to dig down and find out where your reasoning goes awry and starts giving you the wrong answers.

The vast majority of cell biologists don't think cells have a Designer. You are aware of this. So why lie about it, repeatedly?

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. Your process of decision involves considering the descriptions that other people give about things, does it?

 

What convinces you that Newton's laws of motion are true (if you are convinced of them)?

The answer for me is that no single piece of data or single fact convinces me that Newton's laws are true. Rather, it is the accumulated evidence from many different experiments and observations of the natural world, combined with the proven utility of those laws in making accurate predictions about the behaviour of physical systems.

Evolution is true for the same reasons. Accumulated evidence from many different experiments and observations of the natural world, combined with proven utility of the theory to make accurate predictions about the behaviours of living organisms.

One of your problems, Jan, is that you have blindingly obvious double standards. Instead of applying a single method consistently in deciding what is true and what is not, you pick and choose what appeals to you. The only consistent guide for you is your core religious beliefs, and those are next to useless in evaluating the truth of scientific theories.

There is the question about how I came to know about a lot of the evidence for evolution. The answer to that, for me, is mostly by reading about it, including reading many very helpful explanations (illustrated by evidence of various kinds) written by experts in the various biological sciences. In other words, I accept that evolution is true because I set out a long time ago to learn something about it, and I put in the necessary hours to come to have a better-than-average understanding of it.

Possibly this kind of process is unfamiliar to you. Did you learn everything about your religion via direct revelation from your God, or did you spend hours studying and contemplating and thinking about it? What would be your response if I ask you what convinced you that your favorite scriptures are true?

Such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic studies, etc. etc.

There's a vanishingly small possibility of that, I suppose. But from inside the tent, the idea of a grand conspiracy of pro-evolutionists lording it over lowly religious biologists is a pretty screwy notion. It looks a lot like you're clutching at straws with that kind of thing.

Not obvious to me. But no doubt all will become clear once you tell me your process for recognising design. Either that, or we'll discover that your methods are problematic, or else non-existent; I can't tell which, yet.

The accumulation and convergence of many different types of evidence means that guessing is not required.

It's not my opinion. It's the consensus of all the experts.

 

Yeah. You mean the tiny proportion of people with a bachelor degree in something vaguely biological who, because of their religious convictions, have become mavericks who deny science. The people paid by the likes of the Discovery Institute (which so far hasn't discovered anything, by the way). Doesn't it seem obvious to you that these people you trust are hopelessly biased, with vested interests in promoting creationism and its trojan horse Intelligent Design? But no, you think that maybe the 97% of scientists employed by reputable institutions are probably all telling lies about evolution (and much else besides) to keep their cushy jobs and grants. Ho hum.

You trust the statistics that led you to believe that "many" scientists don't accept the theory of evolution. You quote those statistics. Double standards, again.

Why are your Creationist buddies not about "politics"? Why is it only the scientific "establishment" that is dishonest and money-grubbing, according to you? I'll tell you why. It's because your Creationist buddies' views seem to be more compatible with your own religious views, so you're willing to overlook their obvious vested interests. Theirs are the same as yours (well, not completely, but you share a lot in common).

If I am wrong about you, please correct me. I am drawing conclusions about you based on what I observe of you. I notice that you seldom correct me or deny that I am correct about you. Instead, you just post complaints like this one, about how upset you are when I draw sensible conclusions about who you are and what you believe from what you write.

I don't think you have the faintest clue what my "mindset" is like, even after all this time we've known each other.

Again, not an assumption. A conclusion based in many cases proof of Creationists telling lies knowingly. Some of these people have a long and reprehensible record of lying for their faith. The most prominent among them often do so while fully aware that they are lying. You must be aware of behaviours like Creationist quote-mining, for instance. Indeed, you stooped to that yourself in a recent post where you quoted Einstein selectively and tried to misrepresent his religious views. That kind of thing - telling half of the story, or just flat-out telling lies - is par for the course in Creationist circles.

The churches are run by people. Different churches have different people running them. There are good people and bad people running churches.

No, but it sure helps! See the poll we discussed earlier.

There's that lie of yours again. You attempt to dismiss genetics, paleontology, geology, physics, comparative anatomy and other experimental/observational sciences with a wave of your hand. Sorry, it doesn't work.

Nonsense. There are people who deny that the world is round. (I forget. What's your current position on that? Did you decide in the end that you're a true flat-earther, or was that just a rhetorical point you found convenient at that time?)

People are quite capable of denying even the most obvious and well-established truths, given the right motivation.

No. That's been a consistent problem you've had for as long as I've known you. Nobody "instinctively knows" truths about the world, beyond what is immediately accessible to the usual senses, and even those are not always to be trusted. You believe that you "just know" all kinds of things, as if by magic, but really you don't. What you have is a misplaced faith, combined with overconfidence in yourself.

Wrong. I can, and have, given a simple explanation of evolution by natural selection in the space of a few sentences. You don't need to be an expert to understand it or accept it. But you do have to be open to considering it.

Hold that thought!

Now apply it to "It is obvious that God exists" and "It is obvious that trees are designed" and such statements.

Yes. Who else's opinion would I be expressing?

You brought up the topic of Alex and paddoboy's understanding of evolution, so you think it matters.

I really don't care if they (or you, for that matter) believe in God or not. That should be irrelevant to whether somebody accepts science. In your case, that's obviously not true, because you feel that your denial of science is necessary - that for some reason your particular religion is incompatible with science in this respect. But just because this is the case for you, it doesn't mean everybody else is the same.

A certain prominent atheist is fond of saying something along the lines that his aim in life is to believe as many true things as possible and to avoid believing in as many untrue things as possible. I'm with him. If "Darwinism" was not true, I'd happily throw it away and believe the better alternative theory. Unfortunately for you, there is no better alternative theory and, as far as we can tell, "Darwinism" works.

It's based on what you have written about your beliefs. The closest match to your belief system, as you have described it on this forum, seems to be the beliefs of the Hare Krishnas. I can only assume that at the very least you have been exposed to and educated in those beliefs at some point in your life. If I'm wrong about that, you're free to correct me.

There are two kinds of things to be emotional about. One of those things is sort of abstract and impersonal. My emotions regarding the theory of evolution - the whole thing, not just "Darwinism" because that's just one aspect - are similar to the emotions I have in relation to other great scientific theories and discoveries. I get emotional about the beauty and order of our universe. I'm in awe at the power of scientific ideas like evolution and relativity. I'm happy that our universe is amenable to explanation, that logic works, that kind of thing.

The other kind of thing to get emotional about is human beings and how human beings behave. I don't like to see people hurting themselves or others. One of the things that hurts people is when they believe things that aren't true. Worse, when they teach other people to believe things that aren't true, because that hurts the other people and somebody is to blame for that pain. So, I get a bit upset at Creationists who knowingly tell lies about evolution, and I get a bit upset when people like you swallow those lies, to you own detriment. My nurturing instinct tells me to try to help fix things. I'd like to see a world in which most people believe true things. That would stop a lot of pain and hurt.

As regards you, I feel sorry for you. You're a reasonably articulate person. Clearly, you have the capacity to think critically about things. And yet, you choose to lock yourself away in a sort of fantasy world and waste your time listening to people who lie to you. For what? For an imagined eternity after this life ends? What if this is all you get to have?

Yes, ad nauseam. "A theist is somebody who believes in God", you tell us repeatedly, as if this is some sort of revelation that mere atheists are unaware of. Is there anything more to your beliefs in God, apart from those kinds of pointless truisms? Will we ever find out?

Not the current diversion. Right now, we're mostly focused on your denial of evolution. I guess the reason for your denial are rooted in your theism, but we'll never get to discussing your real reasons for rejecting it, will we?

Don't you know what religion is? Hint: "darwinism" ain't it.

The thing is, "darwinism" is not a "belief" in the same sense that Christianity is a belief. "Darwinism" doesn't require faith. It's a scientific theory. It can be tested. It has been tested. Quite unlike your God.

Since right now you obviously can't tell the difference between science and religion, don't you think it's time you started to learn some science?

 

Jan Ardena:

All I'm seeing from you is deflect and avoid, deflect and avoid, over and over. Why? Why do you avoid the hard questions?

Deflect and avoid.

You are on trial, and you're failing, badly.

I have. You'll have noticed a point-by-point response from me, detailed and informative. And in response to my pointed questions, what do we see from you? Deflect and avoid. Over and over again.

Deflect and avoid. I haven't explained how I recognise design, so you can't fob off the question onto me, or assume that you do it the same way.

Here's what I think. I think you have not given this any thought. You assume you know design when you see it. You "just know", like so many other things you claim you "just know". Therefore, it follows that you "just know" that life is designed and God is the designer.

Your appeals to your own innate magical knowledge have never convinced anybody but yourself, and they never will. Surely you must realise this?

I know you do.

I agree with you.

Good. We have eliminated at least one potentially annoying distraction from the issue at hand. You accept that not everything that is natural is designed.

Now let's think a little more carefully about that rock in the river. It is smooth and round, polished. Usually rocks are pointy and rough. But we know that people can polish rocks and sculpt them. Indeed, we know that there are specialist artists who work at polishing and smoothing rocks. So, how do we know the rock in the river wasn't designed and polished by somebody? After all, it looks just like we'd expect a rock to look after it had been polished and smoothed by a Designer using appropriate tools.

See if you can make a serious attempt at answering this, Jan. (I'm expecting deflect and avoid.)

 

(continued...)

A phone is a result of intelligent human design, and a smooth stone is a result of nature. That is the conclusion, but how did you reach it?

Is your conclusion based on complexity, perhaps? The phone has more discrete parts, arranged in a much more complicated and precise way, compared to the stone.

Is your conclusion based on personal experience? Every phone you have ever come across appears to have come from a human manufacturing process. Companies like "Samsung" exist and claim to make phones. Therefore, chances are that the mobile phone is designed and not natural.

Is your conclusion based on anecdotal evidence? You know a guy who knows a guy who is in the phone business, and he says they make the phones.

Is your conclusion based on the thing having a purpose? Phones seem perfectly designed to make phone calls and browse the web and stuff. They don't have many superfluous features that don't suit their purpose or which are actually detrimental to the purpose. On the other hand, the stone in the river doesn't seem to be there for any particular purpose. Natural forces most likely just washed it down from the mountains and wore it down.

Let's consider something like a tree now. Is it complex? Undoubtedly. Do we have a personal experience that trees come from tree designers? We can't say we do. They seem to come from the seeds of "parent" trees. Is there anecdotal evidence that a Designer makes the trees? Yes, there is. For instance, a guy wrote in an influential book that there's a sky fairy who made all of life. Do trees have a purpose? It's kinda hard to tell. The most obvious function of trees is to make other trees. Beyond that, there seems to be no clear purpose. A tree is useful to human beings in various ways, but then again so are smooth stones.

So here's my opinion, Jan. I see no evidence that trees are designed by a Designer. Complexity on its own does not indicate design, especially when there is a perfectly viable mechanism that is proven to produce complexity without a designer - namely evolution. Anecdotal evidence for God is unpersuasive. In our personal experience, trees aren't manufactured at a tree factory where God designs the trees. And trees have no obvious purpose, beyond that of spreading the genes for trees around the place.

Now tell me, Jan. Why do you believe that trees are intelligently designed?

I expect deflect and avoid from you on this, but let's see.

You know what? I'm done talking about "darwinism" (with a small "d") until you say what that word means to you. I'm sick of having to put it in inverted commas to show that we're discussing some as-yet-undefined Jan version of part of evolution.

What is "darwinism" according to you, Jan? Please don't deflect and avoid.

I want you to explain in your own words. I don't want to read about why somebody else believes cells or trees are designed. You are convinced they are, so tell me why, in your own words. You've spent a lot of time complaining that people here haven't said why they accept evolution. But you never say why you believe in intelligent design.

I've told you over and over again what makes me accept evolution, natural selection and all that. The evidence, the science.

It became obvious once I read enough. When so much evidence all points to a single conclusion, it would be obtuse not to accept it.

I'm not by any means saying that evolution by natural selection (say) is an "obvious" idea. Nobody thought of it (or published it, at least) until the 1800s. But then again, religion most likely delayed the "discovery" of evolution. Also, science as we know it only really got going in the 1700s in a systematic way.

How can you know that any moderately-complicated theory is true? You have to learn what the theory's ideas are, i.e. what the theory says, what it predicts, how it fits with other theories. Then you have to consider evidence and arguments for and against the theory. After you've studied the idea and the evidence for long enough, you can reach a conclusion about whether it is true.

Reading is not the only way to transmit information, as you're aware, Jan, but the steps are the same whether you learn about a theory from a book or from a video or via verbal communication or by morse code or whatever.

What's your process for deciding if an idea is true or false, Jan? Do you ask your God?

My magical way of knowing that 97% of scientists accept evolution is to ask them! That's how I know, silly.

You're making assumptions. Stop deflecting and avoiding, and start thinking.

You weren't able to explain how you know a phone is designed, so it's not obvious how you know. It might, in fact, just be an assumption you make by looking at things. And that kind of assumption could be why you think trees are designed, too. Understand?

Having never thought about the question, I'm not surprised you completely missed the point. Consider this part of your education.

Your denial in the face of mountains of evidence, as well as your weak attempts at argument by ridicule are offensive. You dismiss expertise. You refuse to learn anything. You ignore mountains of evidence, and/or deny the only viable conclusion that can be drawn from it. You deflect and avoid in response to hard questions, over and over again.

You're a troll, Jan. You revel in your ignorance. You consider it a point of pride. You try to portray experts as being as ignorant as you are. I find all of that offensive.

Deflect and avoid. Deflect and avoid. 19 questions in one post. You attempt to respond to one of them, but not with an answer to the question. There's a clear pattern in your behaviour.

What information are you referring to? What information is in a phone that tells you it is designed, and what information is a smooth stone that tells you it isn't?

Also, notice what your post is a response to. I asked you whether the "descriptions other people give about things" helps you to decide whether something is designed or not. But the descriptions other people give about things are not something you get from the object in question. Those descriptions are not intrinsic in the phone or the rock. They are hints from "outside the system of interest" that tell you the system is designed.

Perhaps you think that you know that trees are designed because you have "outside" information. Perhaps you think you can rely on the anecdotal evidence from the bible, or you think you have a direct line to a God who tells you he designed trees, or something. Is that it?

I can't teach you everything I know about evolution from scratch. What are you expecting in terms of a detailed explanation? Why don't you go off and read some of the books I've read, then see how you go? Perhaps start with Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which fundamentally shook my world view and opened my eyes to what evolution is really about. Oh, yes, he's a scary atheist, but there's no mention of any of that in that book. It's a science book. Don't be afraid.

 

Deflect and avoid.

It is telling that this one-liner is your only response to 6 paragraphs of text from me, and then only a response to the first sentence of all that. And a deflective, avoiding response at that.

Do you really think your lazy trolling is going unnoticed?

Bizarre. The theory of evolution says nothing about God. It's a scientific theory.

What?!

Are you saying that I'm upset that the theory of evolution doesn't make a point of rejecting God, and so therefore I believe the theory of evolution? You're not making a whole lot of sense.

You've lost me. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be blinded against (or not).

As it happens, I came to a mature understanding of evolution when I was a theist like you, Jan. I didn't find it incompatible with my religion. I didn't feel like the idea threatened the core of my faith in God. I didn't feel obliged by my religion to reject anything in science.

Why do you find evolution so threatening to your faith?

I find your rather transparent efforts at trolling annoying. Also, see one of my previous posts regarding emotions.

Do you have emotions, Jan?

Because the problem here is not anything to do with the theory of evolution. The problem is you. I have to push a little to try to open the window to your dark room and let some light in.

It's not that I can't explain anything to you, Jan. It's that all efforts to explain things like the evidence for the evolution of whales to you fall on deaf ears, so it's a waste of my time. No matter what I present on that, you can always come back and say "that's just words from a book" or "that's just a photograph of a fossil" or "that's just a series of drawings". You can always deny that the evidence presented points to a particular conclusion.

I show you photographs of gray hairy skin. One shows a long trunk. Another shows a large curved back. Another shows a tusk. Another shows a club foot with rounded toenails. Another shows an eye. There's also a text describing a kind of animal called an "elephant". After being shown all this, you can still deny that elephants are real. You can say "But all you've shown me is some photographs. There's no proof that the trunk and the tusk and the foot all belong to the same kind of animal. And that description of 'elephants' just sounds like a story somebody made up to try to put the photos into a group. You've given me no reason to believe in elephants! The emperor has no clothes!"

Understand? Digging into the details of specific evidence is time wasted on you. I've learned my lesson. I know you.

What we need to attack is the core problem: your blockage.

 

Please don't tell lies, Jan.

 

Jan thinks he can.