Blatant misrepresentations caused by the inability to refute. It is really a bad idea to misrepresent because, like I said, it indicates and corroborates the inability to address and refute. Maybe this is why you did not address each line and point in message 68.
Very well...
The degree of slander seen, that is, equating a Stanford Ph.D. to be a moronic Fundamentalist is equal to the degree that you perceive Dr. Scott to have invulnerably refuted your evolution theory; hence the reason and motive of the slander.
Without any religious texts a person can easily deduce that reality reflects the work of an invisible Designer based on the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature and organisms.
Those were the baseless assertion I mentioned, the first where you seem to think that you are able to read Rahvin's mind and the second, where you simply trot out an un-reconstructed argument from design. You must be aware of what most evolutionist members think of such arguments by now; why do you insist on repeating them? Why do you expect anyone to be impressed with this? Simply asserting that everything looks designed refutes precisely sod all.
Dennett, of course, is writing in the context that said designs were produced by the non-intelligence of natural selection. But the point and fact of the matter is that he, unlike most evolutionists, admits design to exist in nature.
As I said before, Dennett is not using the word design in the way that you do. He is using it as a kind of shorthand, or poetic way of saying "form that evolved through random mutation under natural selection". It's just less cumbersome. It is not some kind of admission of creationism. You are misquoting him. I suspect that you are doing so deliberately, with no regard for the dishonesty of your actions.
Creationists have a better explanation: this same "breathtaking design" corresponds to the work of intelligence or invisible Designer.
As I pointed out in my response to Buz, even if we assume this to be true, there is still no reason to assume that this designer is God, especially if we are working under the assumption made in the OP, which states that there are no holy texts available to provide inspiration.
But the point in this thread, based on Dennett, reality can be SEEN to be the work of a Creator or Designer
Based on your pathetic lie about what Dennett actually says. Here is what he does actually say, where you quote-mine from
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea";
Daniel Dennett writes:
It seems to skeptics like Bethell that there
is something willfully paradoxical in calling the process of evolution the
blind watchmaker" (Dawkins 1986a), for this takes away with the left hand ("blind") the very discernment, purpose, and foresight it gives with the right hand. But others see that this manner of speaking”and we shall find that it is not just ubiquitous but irreplaceable in contemporary biology”is just the right way to express the myriads of detailed discoveries that Darwinian theory helps to expose. There is simply no denying the breathtaking brilliance of the designs to be found in nature. Time and again, biologists baffled by some apparently futile or maladroit bit of bad design in nature have eventually come to see that they have underestimated the ingenuity, the sheer brilliance, the depth of insight to be discovered in one of Mother Nature's creations. Francis Crick has mischievously baptized this trend in the name of his colleague Leslie Orgel, speaking of what he calls "Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are." (An alternative formulation: Evolution is cleverer than Leslie Orgel!)
He is clearly not talking about concious, top-down design by an intelligent designer. He is talking about how the what some see as the appearance of design is in fact explained by evolution.
I've already addressed the last line, so on to
Message 113.
CFO writes:
Granny writes:
Much as it pains me to admit it, I pretty much agree with Iano on this one. Short of some first hand experience of the divine or miraculous (and possibly not even then), there is nothing in the natural world that would force us to conclude that god(s) exists.
Could we expect Atheists to say or believe anything else?
Yup, it's all part of the atheist conspiracy. Except that Iano, with whom I was agreeing, is a practising and rather devout Christian. Sorry to burst your paranoid bubble. From here you go on to repeat what you have already said in message 68, so I won't go through it again. This does stand out though;
EvC member Buzsaw has also buttressed the refutation with his contributions which have gone unanswered and ignored.
A blatant falsehood. I answered Buzsaw in
Message 112. You may not like my answers, but that is another matter.
Final thought....
There is no evidence supporting evolution - none. This is why over half of all adults in the U.S. are Creationists. There is plenty of evidence for evolution if one first presupposes that the presuppositions of Materialism are true. Since all Atheists support evolution the interpretation of evidence in favor of evolution or material causation is predetermined.
That is not a thought Ray, that is just the repetition of creationist conspiracy theory.
the miraculous story of apes mophing into men over millions of years? Are we to believe that you cannot tell that this claim is bullshit which Atheists MUST believe?
It certainly is bullshit, but it is your bullshit, since that is not what the ToE says. Nor MUST atheists believe it. That is another dreary paranoid fantasy of yours.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2
