Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

and while we are all waiting for Alan to come back, here is something rather lovely :

https://twitter.com/JanFreedman/status/891778091927957504

Amazing what wonders a random generator plus selection can produce

[ippy]

A virus does not have the complexity of a human

No but they are some of our earliest ancestors, well, that's where the evidence points, you know, 'evidence', an unfamiliar subject to you Alan.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice one, Vlad!! I'll take
Justin Welby and challenge him to come up with one FACT about the God he believes exists!

You can write to him anytime to get his take on things.
As for the Westboro Baptist, I think they are working on a heaven with a great multitude of only 18 souls in it.

[ippy]

I am not ignorant of the subject.  I do understand the points you are making, and I have to say that I do not agree with your conclusions and deductions.

Sometimes the wording of my thoughts and ideas does not come across in the way I intend, so I am sorry for any confusion.

It all boils down to the question of realistic probabilities.

Alan you're so ignorant about how evolution works you don't even realise how ignorant you are on the subject, very similar to how successfully you've been indoctrinated with religious beliefs and like with any successful indoctrination you, the subject, are unable to recognise the depth of your indoctrination.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Pity! You were on a roll there, with forfeit suggestions!

Just to make a more serious point though, that anyone asks someone a direct question on here should in no way mean the person is obliged to answer it, or that any conclusion can be drawn from the not answering of it.

[ippy]

No doubt in nine months time it will still be being played out as AB isn't likely to change his tune.

Why nine months Floo?

ippy

[Shaker]

See #20775 ipples.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just to make a more serious point though, that anyone asks someone a direct question on here should in no way mean the person is obliged to answer it, or that any conclusion can be drawn from the not answering of it.

That’s true, but when someone makes a mistake about something, is corrected and then repeats the mistake in identical language over and over again at what point are others entitled to accuse him of wilful dishonesty?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That’s true, but when someone makes a mistake about something, is corrected and then repeats the mistake in identical language over and over again at what point are others entitled to accuse him of wilful dishonesty?

That seems like a complete non sequitur but as I have covered before, I think if someone's perception is so different that it is impossible to say they see the point, never mind that they are ignoring it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That seems like a complete non sequitur but as I have covered before, I think if someone's perception is so different that it is impossible to say they see the point, never mind that they are ignoring it.

Doesn’t wash. If someone has some command of language and is capable of grasping logical concepts in other areas of his life, what then should we make of it when the same language and the same use of logic to reach a conclusion he doesn’t like is just ignored? To take AB’s “totally random” nonsense for example, when it’s explained to him why that’s wrong he could readily attempt to counter argue but instead he just keep repeating “totally random” as a mantra as if the correction had never been made.

It’s not that it’s impossible for him “to see the point” (unless his use of language and basic logic has temporarily abandoned him) but rather that at some level he’s choosing to ignore it.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Doesn’t wash. If someone has some command of language and is capable of grasping logical concepts in other areas of his life, what then should we make of it when the same language and the same use of logic to reach a conclusion he doesn’t like is just ignored? To take AB’s “totally random” nonsense for example, when it’s explained to him why that’s wrong he could readily attempt to counter argue but instead he just keep repeating “totally random” as a mantra as if the correction had never been made.

It’s not that it’s impossible for him “to see the point” (unless his use of language and basic logic has temporarily abandoned him) but rather that at some level he’s choosing to ignore it.       

I refer you my various previous answers on this subject and indeed the thread I started on the general subject.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13903.0

[Sebastian Toe]

And you claim to understand TOE by natural selection!

I asl again, what makes you think you know better than evolutionary biologists?

Call out to our old friend Richard! AB would have him tearing his hair out by now!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I refer you my various previous answers on this subject and indeed the thread I started on the general subject.

But that’s not the issue. If, say, I was to say something like, “Page 23 of War & Peace begins, “It was a cold December day in Moscow” and AB pitched up and said, “Page 23 of War & Peace says “it was a hot sunny December day in Moscow”, what a bozo that Tolstoy was for writing such a thing” then he’d be wrong just on the facts of what page 23 actually says.

And that’s what’s happening here – the TofE says one thing, AB keeps mis-stating it as saying another thing. It doesn’t matter whether he can understand its position, or indeed whether he agrees with it – all that matters is that it doesn’t actually say the thing he keeps asserting it to say in order then to dismiss it.

No matter how many times it’s looked up and quoted verbatim or from other explanatory sources etc all that happens in response is the same mis-statement.

And that to my mind is dishonest. 

[SusanDoris]

And you claim to understand TOE by natural selection!

I ask again, what makes you think you know better than evolutionary biologists?
[/quote
That is]one of those direct questions that should be answered. In my opinion, it is bordering on, if not actually, impolite not to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But that’s not the issue. If, say, I was to say something like, “Page 23 of War & Peace begins, “It was a cold December day in Moscow” and AB pitched up and said, “Page 23 of War & Peace says “it was a hot sunny December day in Moscow”, what a bozo that Tolstoy was for writing such a thing” then he’d be wrong just on the facts of what page 23 actually says.

And that’s what’s happening here – the TofE says one thing, AB keeps mis-stating it as saying another thing. It doesn’t matter whether he can understand its position, or indeed whether he agrees with it – all that matters is that it doesn’t actually say the thing he keeps asserting it to say in order then to dismiss it.

No matter how many times it’s looked up and quoted verbatim or from other explanatory sources etc all that happens in response is the same mis-statement.

And that to my mind is dishonest.

Again I  refer you my various previous answers on this subject and indeed the thread I started on the general subject. I don't see we get any further here as I disagree that it isn't the issue. How many times would I have to say that before you think I was being dishonest?

[Nearly Sane]

That is one of those direct questions that should be answered. In my opinion, it is bordering on, if not actually, impolite not to do so.

How many direct questions is someone meant to answer each day to do their 'shift' in your view? There are a number of posters at any one time posting to AB, does he have to answer them all or get sent to bed without supper?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Again I  refer you my various previous answers on this subject and indeed the thread I started on the general subject. I don't see we get any further here as I disagree that it isn't the issue. How many times would I have to say that before you think I was being dishonest?

Again, that's not the point I was making. It's actually much simpler than that - it's just the (mis)quoting of words. A scientific theory says something using words to express its meaning - AB claims that it says something else no matter how many times the actual words are given to him.

That has nothing whatever to seeing something from another point of view, of disagreeing with the position being expressed etc.

And unless he's lost cognitive function, that seems to me to be as unavoidably dishonest as would be my claiming that you'd said the moon was made of cream cheese even though you'd never said it. At what point would I be dishonest for doing so?   

[SusanDoris]

How many direct questions is someone meant to answer each day to do their 'shift' in your view? There are a number of posters at any one time posting to AB, does he have to answer them all or get sent to bed without supper?

Most people here answer most questions, even if the answer they give is not the one the questioner likes and surely this is one of the main points of discussion.
AB very rarely posts something that is an answer to a question as far as I can see, so I suppose one answer a week might be a good start as far as he is concerned!

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Again, that's not the point I was making. It's actually much simpler than that - it's just the (mis)quoting of words. A scientific theory says something using words to express its meaning - AB claims that it says something else no matter how many times the actual words are given to him.

That has nothing whatever to seeing something from another point of view, of disagreeing with the position being expressed etc.

And unless he's lost cognitive function, that seems to me to be as unavoidably dishonest as would be my claiming that you'd said the moon was made of cream cheese even though you'd never said it. At what point would I be dishonest for doing so?

I don't read what he writes as if he is saying that, but I cannot rule out that even if he were writing what you say, that he isn't putting a different emphasis, interpretation or misreading on it.


To take the specific example, I think he sees/reads/ or interprets 'random' as central to the whole idea. He 'sees' it as synonymous with directionless, and his incredulity at how something as 'marvellous' as us can have come from something directionlesss/random. I think he doesn't make enough effort in his posts to make that clear - now I may be wrong, but that is how it reads to me. Indeed my issue with AB is that he appears to not read things properly but reverts to stock answers, but again he may not be able of properly understanding concepts because a pre believed ones.

Anyway, I have no idea why you feel the need to try and make me comfortable with your interpretation of AB's motives  here.

[Nearly Sane]

Most people here answer most questions, even if the answer they give is not the one the questioner likes and surely this is one of the main points of discussion.
AB very rarely posts something that is an answer to a question as far as I can see, so I suppose one answer a week might be a good start as far as he is concerned!

Very few people here spend as much time replying to so many people as AB does. I find many of his answers unsatisfactory but then I imagine on here every answer is looked on as unsatisfactory by someone. I think that there is a huge disjunct in what people think of as an answer because of massive differences in their preconceptions.

[SusanDoris]

Very few people here spend as much time replying to so many people as AB does. I find many of his answers unsatisfactory but then I imagine on here every answer is looked on as unsatisfactory by someone. I think that there is a huge disjunct in what people think of as an answer because of massive differences in their preconceptions.

He may be apparently responding to posts because said posts are quoted, but I wouldn't call what he writes then as being an answer to what he quotes.

[Nearly Sane]

He may be apparently responding to posts because said posts are quoted, but I wouldn't call what he writes then as being an answer to what he quotes.

I think some people need to deal more directly with AB rather than indulging in talking about him as it reads quite unpleasantly.

[Shaker]

I think some people need to deal more directly with AB rather than indulging in talking about him as it reads quite unpleasantly.

Why do you think people don't already do this?

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you think people don't already do this?

Didn't say that they weren't, so thanks for the straw,  or that such a thing is mutually exclusive, but AB isn't the subject of the thread.

[Sebastian Toe]

Please consider this illustration of my logic:

Imagine that a microscopic, but highly intelligent alien race came to this earth.

Do these microscopic aliens have souls?