The Moon and Design

Originally posted by humy
No, I clearly didn't.
Can't you read?
I said there are more of them, that is all.

"There are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't".

Your words.

Originally posted by chaney3
"There are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't".

Your words.

Are you having difficulty with the word 'more'?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Are you having difficulty with the word 'more'?

Does 'more' even matter?

If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?

Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.

Originally posted by chaney3
Does 'more' even matter?

If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?

Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.

Your mistake, a big one, is thinking they have evidence. They DON"T have evidence. They want to bend any science they can to fit a preconcieved agenda. That is NOT science. That is politics. Of course you will be unable to understand the difference.

Originally posted by chaney3
"There are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't".

Your words.

No he meant that "there are a greater number of extremely intelligent scientists.". Although it is not clear to me that weighing the scientists who are atheists and weighing the ones that are theists and then comparing the totals will get us very far.

The crux here is how to distinguish an artefact from something whose origin is a process without an agent. Order is not enough, if you take concentrated copper sulphate solution and grow some crystals then the crystals have an ordered shape. So order is not automatically a sign of design. I wonder if you could explain what your procedure for assessing whether a specimen is of natural origin or an artefact. For example the Rosetta Stone is clearly an artefact because the symbols carved into it, even if they could have come about by some natural process, have a level of information content associated with them (see informational entropy on Wikipedia) and deduce that it is a language. Basically we can know that the creation of the artefact involved an agent who had language.

Originally posted by chaney3
Does 'more' even matter?

If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?

Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.

Can you cite some examples of scientists who have found empirical evidence for design? I am not aware of any such evidence existing.

Originally posted by chaney3
Does 'more' even matter?

If a scientist finds sufficient evidence for design through his work, is it rendered useless because of 1,000 atheist scientists in line to drown his voice?

Earlier in this thread, wildgrass quoted Darwin about a bees honeycomb, and its perfection, and how evolution does not produce perfection.

Well, I certainly wish you would give 'more' thought to your posts.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Well, I certainly wish you would give 'more' thought to your posts.

Besides your arrogance, insults and sarcasm, Ghost, you have brought nothing to this thread, except one thing: alliance to your fellow atheists.

Oh yeah, and Elvis toast, pet hamsters and cats.

Originally posted by chaney3
Besides your arrogance, insults and sarcasm, Ghost, you have brought nothing to this thread, except one thing: alliance to your fellow atheists.

Oh yeah, and Elvis toast, pet hamsters and cats.

I deployed simplistic analogies of burnt toast and hamsters in the hope their meaning would reach you, where rational argument had failed.

You deserve to be victim to my arrogance, insults and sarcasm.

Originally posted by DeepThought
googlefudge?

Nope. I actually can't remember. I lost my sheet of paper with a bunch of login information...

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Well, I certainly wish you would give 'more' thought to your posts.

Ha. That's exactly what I was going to post.

Chaney, what are you saying, exactly? That quote about honeycomb was clearly not an argument in favor of intelligent design. Nor was anything Darwin ever wrote. Intelligent design is a purely modern idea, with no historical or religious context, which approaches the subject from a position of absolute ignorance. It's utter nonsense.

Do you think someone who rejects intelligent design must be an atheist? Why is that? To me it is clearly a false assumption.

The frustrating thing is that there are some very interesting teleological counterarguments you could be making but choose not to. The "watchmaker analogy" is particulary provocative, and has been around for centuries. Try reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Originally posted by chaney3
"There are more extremely intelligent scientists who don't".

Your words.

What about those words?
Are you saying that saying there are more of them implies they are more intelligent?
Or are you disputing that there are more of them?
If the latter, what has that got to do with the former?
If the former, how?

Originally posted by wildgrass
Ha. That's exactly what I was going to post.

Chaney, what are you saying, exactly? That quote about honeycomb was clearly not an argument in favor of intelligent design. Nor was anything Darwin ever wrote. Intelligent design is a purely modern idea, with no historical or religious context, which approaches the subject from a position of absolute ignoran ...[text shortened]... been around for centuries. Try reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

He is stuck on the idea that lunar eclipses are a direct result of intelligent design, and he needs go no further in his own mind.

Originally posted by wildgrass

The frustrating thing is that there are some very interesting teleological counterarguments you could be making but choose not to. The "watchmaker analogy" is particulary provocative, and has been around for centuries. Try reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

The thing about the Watchmaker Analogy is that it argues design by complexity. You are walking down the beach and see a watch, is it more logical to assume that this watch was created or that it occurred naturally? Of course, the former option is more logical. But if this scenario was true to reality, you would pick up a watch while walking down the beach of watches, looking at an ocean of watches, and so on. The watch wasn't obviously designed because it was complex, it was obviously designed because we know what watches are and that they don't occur naturally.

Originally posted by chaney3
Does 'more' even matter?

It does when its in a sentence that you claim means one thing but actually means something else. I could chalk it up to a mistake on your part if it wasn't for the fact that you have done it consistently throughout this thread which leads me to believe you are just a blatant liar not smart enough to realise he will be caught if he lies about a post right above him.