@lemonjello said
There simply are no substantive points in your response to my legitimate criticism of Lennox’s boiling water example. The point is, it is very disingenuous to suggest that post hoc “explanation” invoking the agency of God with respect to whatever the current deliverances of scientific discoveries happen to be (the details matter not since the God at issue is unfalsifiable ...[text shortened]... superintending mind. Sorry, but your incredulity does not constitute evidence for the agency of God.

Yawn, okay, in your world (confined to what you want true) a bottom-up explanation is the only one you are prepared to take seriously, anything outside of that is not legitimate. I could have told you that without you misrepresenting Lenox's talk.

@lemonjello said
There simply are no substantive points in your response to my legitimate criticism of Lennox’s boiling water example. The point is, it is very disingenuous to suggest that post hoc “explanation” invoking the agency of God with respect to whatever the current deliverances of scientific discoveries happen to be (the details matter not since the God at issue is unfalsifiable ...[text shortened]... lar, there is a vast expanse of prior evidential basis for human agency; there is none for this God.

Let me ask you, evidence in any trial is submitted to be considered by both the prosecution and the defense correct? It all must be accepted by the judge as having to be relevant to the case. So evolutionary claims that it is a natural explanation because we see molecular structures becoming more complex over time. This has life becoming more than what was there before with additional lifeforms (body plans) and features cropping up. The question should be is that what we see in nature, we do see degrading due to entropy? So the term natural is defined by those who want only a material explanation, and in a circular sleight of hand also used to explain what can be used as evidence, acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Anything not deemed appropriate need not be looked at.

There is nothing disingenuous about claiming the genetic code is linguistic exactly like language, it carries meaning, executes activities, it is readable, within life, we see information processing so that level checking and start-stop mechanisms take place, and that type of thing only has one natural cause a mind, it is unnatural to suggest otherwise.

@vivify said
You posted someone who's a mathematician, not a scientist.

Didn't watch the video yet, but mathematicians are definitely scientists. As a statistician, I spent most of my career designing experiments, analyzing data, and estimating the likelihoods of various hypotheses.

One way to describe a scientist is as a skeptic who is always ready to change his mind when confronted with data - observed or experimental.

Analyzing data may not be digging up bones, but it's definitely science.

@kellyjay said
Let me ask you, evidence in any trial is submitted to be considered by both the prosecution and the defense correct? It all must be accepted by the judge as having to be relevant to the case. So evolutionary claims that it is a natural explanation because we see molecular structures becoming more complex over time. This has life becoming more than what was there before wi ...[text shortened]... ace, and that type of thing only has one natural cause a mind, it is unnatural to suggest otherwise.

Your first paragraph is word salad.

You seem to be saying that evidential interpretation of how things work is a biased process wherein one enters and leaves with his or her pet presuppositions, just contorting whatever evidence to spare them. No, that is apparently what you and Lennox strive to do; but that is not the way science and real explanation work. You and Lennox enter with your pet theistic presuppositions regarding the agency of God, and you post hoc stipulate them onto the back of scientific discovery with impunity and call that an act of “explanation”, similar to how one might try to call peeing on my leg an act of raining. Science and programs of real explanation cannot work that way because they actually have to deal with facts and the prospects of falsification on account of said facts. With science, to explain some set of observations, it is not good enough to just copy and paste some pet presupposition. Scientists actually have to make some effort. They put forth hypotheses with testable predictions. They test them, make confirmations and disconfirmations, impart refinements, etc, and basically converge on understanding through abduction. You and Lennox can then come along and say, well, all that hard unbiased work just shows how clever my God is. Sorry, but no. Your God claims are irrelevant to the whole explanative process; add precisely no explanation whatsoever; and deserve to be ignored when it comes to matters of explanation. You are of course welcome to hold your God views. But do not expect me to take them seriously, and please spare us all the nonsense about how they add explanative content.

Apart from that, the only other thing I can make out here is that you appear woefully miseducated on the evidential support for evolutionary theory.

@lemonjello said

Apart from that, the only other thing I can make out here is that you appear woefully miseducated on the evidential support for evolutionary theory.

Never a truer word spoken.

As an aside, science has also disproven the rule: “I before E except after C…”

@lemonjello said
Your first paragraph is word salad.

You seem to be saying that evidential interpretation of how things work is a biased process wherein one enters and leaves with his or her pet presuppositions, just contorting whatever evidence to spare them. No, that is apparently what you and Lennox strive to do; but that is not the way science and real explanation work. You and L ...[text shortened]... out here is that you appear woefully miseducated on the evidential support for evolutionary theory.

How you view the world is based upon what you think is true in it, you deny that? We can fool ourselves by looking for confirmation of our biases over things that contradict them. You will not correct someone's way of thinking if you don't think they are doing it wrong, for crying out loud you are doing it here with me and you fail to see that?

The way science and real explanations work, the correct way of doing it is what in your eyes, is one that conforms to your worldview which turns it into worldview compliance, or the explanation that covers all of the variables without contradictions?

What facts do you bring to the table to support your worldview and your way of looking at things that support reality as you see it? I think you are suggesting you have things you do not to prove points you cannot. Feel free to bring up some facts, not opinions, not something you believe occurred billions of years ago, something in the here and now. Just so stories are not facts, they are made-up explanations of what someone believes occurred, so the standard of facts should be simple to come up with, I will not hold my breath.

Not falling into compliance with your worldview is not something I strive for since I believe you to be upside down when it comes to reality, but feel free to bring some facts to discuss if you can come up with some. Woefully miseducated on the evidential support of evolutionary theory, I think the shoe is on the other foot. Explain the information within genetics that directs the processes please, and how a mindless process produces that, please stick with facts if you don't mind.

Naturally speaking, a mind produces specified functionally complex instructions, mindlessness doesn't, can you show the facts that dispute that without running in circles?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Never a truer word spoken.

As an aside, science has also disproven the rule: “I before E except after C…”

A mind is a terrible thing to waste and you waste yours.

@kellyjay said
A mind is a terrible thing to waste and you waste yours.

Well, to be fair sir, I don't hand mine over to a fictitious deity.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Well, to be fair sir, I don't hand mine over to a fictitious deity.

I don’t either. But we are talking about what is right in front of us we know a mind generates instructions that preforms complex functional processes within integrated systems.

Naturally speaking that is how those processes are naturally programmed, and within life the genetic code using biological features preforms complex processes to generate forms and functions, level checking, start-stop processes, information processing, storage, and on.

The complexity is far above our capabilities, and you turn your mind off to avoid acknowledging that and accepting mindlessness is capable of doing all of that.

@kellyjay said
What facts do you bring to the table to support your worldview and your way of looking at things that support reality as you see it?

What facts do you bring to the table to support your world view and your way of looking at things that support reality as you see it?

Can you not see the irony in what you posted?

@kellyjay said
I don’t either. But we are talking about what is right in front of us we know a mind generates instructions that preforms complex functional processes within integrated systems.

Naturally speaking that is how those processes are naturally programmed, and within life the genetic code using biological features preforms complex processes to generate forms and functions, lev ...[text shortened]... our mind off to avoid acknowledging that and accepting mindlessness is capable of doing all of that.

LemonJello would say this post by you is “word salad”; and he’s be correct, it is.

@kellyjay removed their quoted post

No, I don’t you’re an idiot, I think you just have little to say and use an unnecessary amount of words to say it.

@lemonjello said
Your first paragraph is word salad.

You seem to be saying that evidential interpretation of how things work is a biased process wherein one enters and leaves with his or her pet presuppositions, just contorting whatever evidence to spare them. No, that is apparently what you and Lennox strive to do; but that is not the way science and real explanation work. You and L ...[text shortened]... out here is that you appear woefully miseducated on the evidential support for evolutionary theory.

Kindly provide facts not opinions on what I have been talking about. You disagree with my point that only a mind can create integrated systems to do functionally complex tasks?

@kellyjay said
A mind is a terrible thing to waste and you waste yours.

You've been repeatedly told that using science to argue for Christ is a waste of time. Christ, as depicted in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, did not leave any written works authored by him as Jesus. He certainly did not convey any scientific facts nor use science to explain the nature of the Kingdom of God to his followers.

Do you ever seriously consider the point that if Jesus wanted to prove his divinity to everyone, not just those who saw him in person, he would have given a prophecy about a future scientific discovery? Perhaps indirectly, using codes that could only be understood in the distant future?

In the book of Daniel, there is a prophecy that could be vaguely construed as a future advancement in scientific technology. If Jesus is truly the son of God and God exists, it would not have been impossible for Christ to predict a scientific discovery to prove the existence of God and the unseen Kingdom to come. After all, the Gospels are the Good News of the Future coming of God's Kingdom down to Earth. Then, it will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven? Oh? Wait, gravity works the same on earth as it does in Heaven? The Will of God lies in the realm of absolutes. The absolute laws of Physics, for one, are seen only with the mind's eye and cannot be held by our physical hands.

And for Christ's sake, don't pay any attention to divegeester. He piles everything from the salad bar onto his plate, then tops it with all different salad dressings available.