Joined: May 2006
|Quote (snoeman @ Sep. 13 2007,23:25)|
Gotta compliment you on this series of posts. Did you apply any anesthetic before dissecting? :)
They seem to be already numb intellectually, so I didn't bother.
|--Glen Davidson, |
About me your wrote, …“that you can’t discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.”
My purpose in zeroing in on a simple point was to provide a little focus for you because you don’t seem to be able to do it for yourself.--
What you don't know is that the interaction of science and philosophy is rather complex when it comes right down to it. It isn't simplistic like you and Dembski suppose.
-- Apparently, you didn’t get the hint, so I will come out with it. Writing forty of fifty paragraphs when one will suffice does not prove intelligence or knowledge, it only proves verbosity.--
The trouble is that you have no clue about what's involved, so you think that an argument from authority, along with some misapprehensions of philosophy, are sufficient. You can't discuss anything, so you want to make my learning into a problem.
--That your insufferably long posts do not even address the issue is even more annoying.--
You don't understand the issue, as has become painfully obvious.
--That is why I narrowed the issue to ONE ASPECT OF ONE TOPIC—hint-hint-hint—it’s your cue to make a point, shut up, and get out.--
This is how it always ends, we discuss the issues, you who don't know anything get angry that you have nothing to say, and get nasty.
--The idea is go straight to the issue—not to keep shooting arrows endlessly, hoping that one day you will hit a target,--
I'd like you to be able even to discern what the target is.
--Your latest offering shoots about thirty more arrows, none of which even make it to the outside ring. My original point was simple: YOUR EXAMPLE citing Dembski’s comment about the Logos theory of the Gospel as proof that ID is faith-based is illogical. Dembski’s statement was made in a theological/philosophical context, and therefore does not relate to the question about whether or not ID’s methodology is empirically based. I showed that your contention was wrong, and I made the point SUCCINCTLY.--
If stupid and succinct mean the same thing to you, go ahead and believe that.
--Incredibly, your interminable response ignores this one and only point. I am therefore left to wonder whether you just like to read your own prose or whether you have a problem with reading comprehension. --
Unfortunately, you are incapable of thinking from the evidence, and blither around the evidence that Dembski is theology-driven with a bunch of trivial side issues.
--Instead you weasel out by saying, “I didn’t suppose or claim that he ever defined (ID) it as dependant on religion.” Oh no? Well then, what was your point in raising the issue of logos theory in the first place? I didn’t bring it up, you did. Apparently, you will not allow Dembski to define his own theory. If he insists that ID is empirically based, you will simply say, “sorry, we don’t allow people to speak for themselves.--
He spoke for himself, and essentially said that ID is "Logos" of John 1. You can't accept that Dembski speaks out of both sides of his mouth, so you deny the most obvious fact, that, for Dembski at least, ID is religiously motivated.
--We accuse them of being so enamored with their Christianity that they lost all sense of judgment and can’t possibly know where religious faith ends and empirical observation begins.” What bigotry.--
Yes, you're incredibly bigoted, close-minded, and unable to make reasonable inferences from the data.
--Your mission, then, should you choose to accept it, is to defend your ridiculous and bigoted assertion that Dembski’s Theological comment about Logos theory proves that his science is not empirically based. Also, try to make every word count. If you can’t do both, do neither.--
Well, I've spent too much time responding to someone who can't begin to make a reasonable argument. Try a little bit of schooling, it might make you capable of at least reading what I write, if not of responding coherently.
The fact is that Dembski's "Logos statement" does not by itself show that ID isn't religiously based. Yours and his utter inability to come up with any kind of evidence that would actually pass muster in forensics or in science to demonstrate empiricism is what show that it isn't science. I made this point to you earlier, but you ignore whatever you don't understand, which is about everything. Since it isn't evidence-based, it must have some other motivation, and that religious motivation is altogether obvious even without Dembski's Logos statement, and more so with it.
I will probably not respond further to you, since you never properly address the issues involved, any more than that fatuous JAD does (which is sort of a response to him, I know, but if it's more than he deserves, it's still very little).
I suspect that I can at least have a decent discussion with Kevin Miller, unlike you who want authority to stand where you are incapable of any substance (haven't seen any yet from you).
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy