I’m sorry for being blunt, but I can’t see an alternative. When you don’t listen, the only alternative I can think of is to try being clearer, or perhaps louder. But you seem delusional. There has been no progress, and there is no alternative model in sight.
I suspect that any reply, including this one, will make no impression on you, and for that reason I’m reluctant to go into any further detail.
5 Likes
One might almost suspect that he hasn’t read any of the things he cites and is just quoting them from some secondary source.
5 Likes
@Meerkat_SK5 continues to cite sources he hasn’t read, and continues to not cite his actual (secondary) sources.
No more porcine choir lessons, and I will no longer waste time checking his ‘quotes’. Any and all further ‘quotes’ from @Meerkat_SK5 should be considered to be misquotes taken from ID sources, and treated accordingly.
5 Likes
Just read what I said to Mercer for a response.
I would just switch " established" with “provided” to be more accurate.
Depending on what you mean, Yes, but I am not sure what your point is here.
It all depends on, which standard of proof we are talking about because there are more than one.
Because I realized the example i gave regarding his work was not necessary to mention when it comes to explaining my overall point.
No, but it doesn’t mean that we won’t find one in the future.
Can you elaborate on this or refer me to studies so I can adequately respond?
How so?
I am not sure what this has to do with my point, but I made an inference about there being a divine intelligence from those studies. However, I was not suggesting that those studies made that same inference.
Yes, as I mentioned above, why does this matter?
Unfortunately, just the abstract since it required me to pay for an subscription.
I would provide an actual citation.
You only provided a name and a year.
In general, someone complaining that scientists haven’t or can’t prove something is trying to fool someone (particularly him/herself). Science is about testing hypotheses, not proving things. That’s why it works so well.
You gave a misrepresentation of his tiny amount of work, ignoring vast amounts of more thorough work. Are you in the habit of providing citations that you later realize aren’t necessary, or did you maybe realize that I had a point?
You might learn something about real-world science if you presented the 2004 paper. Do you have it? I can send a PDF if you like.
Is anyone looking? And if not, what’s your point?
If I do, will you bother to read the studies, or just the abstracts?
You’re calling it a study. There’s no study there.
Then you shouldn’t be citing it.
2 Likes
Nothing you wrote to me would constitute a response to @nwrickert’s excellent points about your misunderstanding of scientists’ motivations.
2 Likes
I agree. This latest quote is actually from:
Given their propensity for repeating any quote they find in Creationist literature, I cannot help but think that @Meerkat_SK5 has named themselves after the wrong taxa: Parrot_SK5 might be more appropriate.
5 Likes
You’re really not reading the room correctly.
5 Likes
Yes, I have read that.
Sorry to say, but it had no value.
3 Likes
On second thought, I took your response here for granite because I think you are on to something. I just realized that this topic has been focusing more on whether it’s true or not rather than whether it’s useful or not, which I think is causing a lot of problems with my interactions with everybody. I will probably have to divide these topics in the future. For this reason, I have decided to end my engagement on this topic. Sorry for wasting everybody’s time again. Chow for now.
Ah, clarity of expression, and a well-turned phrase. I do miss those things, when I think of the pre-apocalypse world.
3 Likes
It is very important to understand that science is a pragmatic enterprise. It is not a truth seeking enterprise. Scientists are concerned about truth, and they won’t ignore it. But what they are doing is primarily pragmatic.
Suppose that divine intelligent design is actually true, and that common descent is actually false. If studying intelligent design does not help the scientist, but studying common descent is very useful for understanding biology, then the scientists are going to go with common descent – especially when actual truth is unknowable in this case.
Christians who are evolutionary biologists might even be assuming that there is a divine intelligent design underlying what they see, and that evolution is just the working out of that design. But they are going to continue studying evolutionary biology, because that’s what leads to new discoveries in biology.
A wise decision.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.