Robin
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
And, as if on cue, WJM validates my point:
| Quote | | Please note how you phrase your response as if objectively valid “true statements” exist, which is only meaningful if an objective arbiter of “what is true” exist. You statements assume a theistic premise, where “what is true” is not the province of “whatever colliding molecules happen to assert is true”. |
But then he gets twisted up in a mistaken strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem "Darwinist":
| Quote | | “Truth” can be nothing more, in essence, than “what views produce the most hardy and prolific offspring”. Theists are, in fact, “better off” when it comes to this issue, because under RMD, “true” can only mean “whatever produces the most successful, prolific offspring”. So, theism – by the RMD measure, is “true”, and materialism – which has produces and currently produces far fewer offspring – is false. |
Uggh...so many errors and inaccuracies here. William, just for your own edification, I'm fairly certain that every "Darwinist" (and certainly this "Darwinist") will happily agree that the vast majority of truths we recognize have zero to do with offspring production. But even if that were not the case, let's just examine one situation that falsifies your premise: any group of "Darwinists" who recognize that limiting birth rates is better for human offspring will work to have fewer offspring. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
That you are yet another of the UD/apologist crowd who seems think that individual actions somehow impact evolution is nearly a cliche at this point.
--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis
|
