GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2015,02:07) | All the available evidence indeed suggested to me that if there is a god, then he, she, or it must not be a very competent or pleasant designer, but this is a conclusion that I ended with, not one that I started with - it's part of why I became an atheist. So you've got cause and effect reversed there. I could not reach a conclusion of a good and benevolent and perfect creation from seeing the plethora of horrendous parasites and diseases and other nastinesses that are so prevalent in our world - cecidomyiidian gall midges, tongue-eating isopods; lampreys, dracunculiasis, elephantiasis, and we can keep going virtually forever, because the horrors offered by the natural world are nearly endless.
However, that does not affect how I approach your stuff or why I consider it to be nonsense. If you or someone can prove a deity, I'm willing to admit to being wrong and to revise my opinion. I'm not objecting to you for considering a supernatural origin for life - I consider it likely to be misguided and futile but if it floats your boat, go for it. What I'm objecting to is your massive dishonesty in what you do, claiming stuff that you haven't done, making assertions that you cannot support, never presenting valid evidence, making fundamental errors about the science you are trying to criticize, evading criticisms and questions, failing to define your terms, and using the resulting ambiguities and your too-often incoherent prose to smuggle in your desired conclusions rather than making an honest case for your arguments.
So, unadulterated BS on your part, again. |
I found that with only several minor word changes your strawman argument works equally well for me.
All the available evidence indeed suggested to me that if there is a natural selection deity, then he, she, or it must not be a very competent or pleasant selector, but this is a conclusion that I ended with, not one that I started with - it's part of why I became a non-atheist. So you've got cause and effect reversed there. I could not reach a conclusion of a good and benevolent and perfect creation from seeing the plethora of horrendous parasites and diseases and other nastinesses that are so prevalent in our world - cecidomyiidian gall midges, tongue-eating isopods; lampreys, dracunculiasis, elephantiasis, and we can keep going virtually forever, because the horrors offered by the natural world are nearly endless.
However, that does not affect how I approach your stuff or why I consider it to be nonsense. If you or someone can prove a deity, I'm willing to admit to being wrong and to revise my opinion. I'm not objecting to you for considering a supernatural origin for life - I consider it likely to be misguided and futile but if it floats your boat, go for it. What I'm objecting to is your massive dishonesty in what you do, claiming stuff that you haven't done, making assertions that you cannot support, never presenting valid evidence, making fundamental errors about the science you are trying to criticize, evading criticisms and questions, failing to define your terms, and using the resulting ambiguities and your too-often incoherent prose to smuggle in your desired conclusions rather than making an honest case for your arguments.
So, unadulterated BS on your part, again.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
