I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I don’t think you know either.
But feel free to try to explain what you mean by insurance agent. I’m sure everyone here would appreciate the entertainment.
1 Like
You offered this quotation:
“Official vocab guidelines state we no longer refer to these incidents as ‘accidents’, they’re now ‘collisions’ … ‘accident’ implies there’s nobody to blame.” - Nicholas Angel
The context suggests that the person writing was an insurance agent, or at least in the insurance industry, or in a branch of government concerned with auto accidents. I was too precise in specifying “insurance agent,” but whoever “Nicholas Angel” is, he sure isn’t a philosopher of science, and from my point of view, he can take his “official vocab guidelines” and, well, I’d better not complete the thought, but will settle for saying that I choose to ignore the opinions of the non-entity Nicholas Angel and whatever “official guidelines” he’s talking about.
1 Like
Entirely pointless, because we DO know how clocks arise.
Yes, sure. If we were constantly finding clocks littering the ground and we had no idea what these were or where they came from, then if we found one on the surface of Mars we also would not know how it arose.
But since we DO know, that would not be the case. And our knowledge could be extended to things that closely resemble clocks. For instance, if we found a clockwork toy of the sort that had never been produced on earth, we would still be justified in believing it had been designed.
You really need to get someone to teach you logic.
1 Like
So you have no idea who Nicholas Angel is, and prefer to guess badly and then pontificate at length from a position of wilful ignorance rather than take 5 seconds to find out.
Eddie, you’re an idiot.
4 Likes
You’re still avoiding the fact that your original argument was not sound. I don’t even need the clock analogy to show that it isn’t. If you read my original posting, it contained enough even without the clock analogy to show the defect in your reasoning. But it didn’t register, because your materialism provides the missing premise which justifies the otherwise invalid argument.
You’re the one who introduced Nicholas Angel, using his words as an argument from authority, so the onus is on you to tell us why the guy is so important that his thoughts on how governments and insurance companies define “accident” in the year 2019 trump the thought of people who have studied the historical use of the world in theology/science contexts for 40+ years. I don’t owe it to you or anyone here to spend even 30 seconds of my life trying to find out whether the guy is as important as you think he is. If you think he’s important, tell us why. If you think he knows something about how terms are used in philosophy of science, tell us why. Otherwise, don’t bother name-dropping him into the discussion, as if his word refutes anything, or settles anything.
This sort of low-class aggression lowers the tone of this site, but I imagine you don’t care about that, so I won’t linger on the subject.
You don’t seem to be keeping up with the ID Creationist literature. Doug Axe recently wrote a book called “Undeniable” which basically does nothing more than defend the position of " If it LOOKS designed to me, it must BE designed."
And if you are going to insist that ID has anything to offer beyond “Science can’t explain this to my satisfaction so ID wins!!”, then please provide a detailed summary of the process by which the organisms that arose during the Cambrian Explosion were designed as given by Stephen Meyer in “Darwin’s Doubt”, beyond simply describing what he believes to be flaws in the evolutionary account.
'Kay?
1 Like
It was not intended as a deductive syllogism. Once again, your ignorance of logic betrays you.
But since you are bringing up soundness, is the following argument sound? Is it even valid?
-
Computers are complex.
-
Computers are designed.
-
DNA is complex
Conclusion: DNA was designed.
Whaddaya think, Eddie?
1 Like
Same way a Christian psychiatrist would deal with a Muslim or atheist patient: I’m a professional and I know how to do my job.
1 Like
I didn’t think it was. But even as an informal argument it was weak.
If you are imputing that argument to me, you’ll have to show me where I made it.
And anyway, DNA is not very “complex”; it has a repetitive sugar-phosphate backbone and four nucleotide bases. It’s the cellular system within which the DNA molecular operates that is complex, more complex than any system devised by human minds. Its existence cries out for explanation. And the only explanation you’ve offered is a bad argument, i.e., that since this complex system can reproduce itself naturally, it must have come into existence from non-living molecules naturally.
Your position would have more credibility if you’d drop even the informal argument from DNA, and simply say you believe that life can emerge from non-life by wholly natural causes, and give your reasons for thinking so. Your reasons might be insufficient to persuade, but at least they wouldn’t necessarily entail flawed logic.
Are you suggesting that a psychiatrist’s world view, including his view of what a human being is, what a mind is, what a soul is, etc., have no bearing on the way he practices psychiatry? I could believe that of a bricklayer, a chartered accountant, a swimming instructor, an electrician, a civil engineer, and maybe even a chiropractor or physiotherapist or dentist, but a psychiatrist?
2019? What makes you think Nicholas Angel was talking about definitions used in 2019?
You’re still pontificating at length on something you clearly know nothing about.
Given your demonstration here that you prefer to invent ‘facts’ than cure your ignorance, why should anyone care what you say?
The point, which you obviously missed, was that real-world entities such as road collisions and biological systems can’t be pigeon-holed as being due to chance or law or design, because they have complex origins that may involve elements of all three. Thus your design filter is too simplistic.
3 Likes
The point, which you obviously missed, was that real-world entities such as road collisions and biological systems can’t be pigeon-holed as being due to chance or law or design , because they have complex origins that may involve elements of all three. Thus your design filter is too simplistic.
And the reader was supposed to get that out of your quotation about the use of the word “accident” regarding events involving automobiles? A clear communicator, you aren’t.
Roy:
2019? What makes you think Nicholas Angel was talking about definitions used in 2019 ?
This discussion here is taking place in 2019, and you introduced the quotation as if it contained up-to-date information about the usage of a word, implying that it described the usage of the word in 2019, or not too long before.
It would help if you would just admit that by tossing in a quotation lacking any explanatory framing, you did not bring any clarity to the discussion. That was your error. And my error was to try to conjecture about the possible relevance of the quotation, when I should have just ignored it. And to avoid further compounding that error, I am dropping this topic.
Yes. Those are non-scientific questions, and psychiatry is based on science.
I suspect you don’t know much about psychiatry. I know a bit.
No, they were supposed to get that from the second part of my post, which you completely ignored. The quote was merely to note that road collisions are not necessarily due to ‘chance’.
Riiiiiiight. Perhaps if I’d written: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” - Marcellus instead you’d have inferred that Marcellus was a modern politician commenting on the effects of Brexit on Danish traffic law.
Wrong. Your error was to try to guess the source of the quote when you could and should have simply looked it up, prattle on uselessly from a position of self-imposed ignorance, make yourself a laughing-stock to anyone who recognised or researched the reference, and devalue anything else you may write as potential blatherskite.
2 Likes
Should have? It’s obvious you have no academic training in the humanities. It’s the job of the writer to indicate the source of a quotation, not the job of the reader to figure it out. Don’t ask me to compensate for the fact that you were badly taught in school.
Yes, you should have looked it up rather than guessing. Or you could have asked.
It was a post on an on-line discussion board, not a published academic paper. Harvard style isn’t required.
Don’t ask me to compensate for the fact that you’re too dumb to use a search engine and too arrogant to ask.
1 Like
It’s your “computer on Mars” argument. Which, it appears, you have been making for years.
It surprises me, but only slightly, that you creationists need even your own arguments explained to you.
And therefore, by your “reasoning”, it must have been created by something like a human mind. Uh huh, right.
And then you wonder why people laugh at you creationists.
1 Like
“Based on science” doesn’t require an extension to “exhausted by science.”
Psychiatry, a word derived from psyche and iatros , means literally the “doctoring of the soul,” and implies restoring health to a wounded or damaged soul. You can’t restore health to a soul unless you have some prior conception of what a healthy soul looks like, just as you can’t restore health to a body without a prior conception of what a healthy body looks like. So a basic requirement for a soul-healer ought to be an understanding of the human soul. And the human soul can’t be understood on the basis of natural science alone. So dealing with “non-scientific questions” is a necessary part of any “psychiatry” worthy of the name.
I am telling you that it is an interpolation, a line drawn between points. LIving species are the end points of evolution. The results of evolution are the sequence differences between those endpoints. It is an interpolation. Genomes are a record of ancestry, including the mutations that have happened in that lineage.
I can also show you these interpolations in my thread on mutations.
In the link above I show how microevolutionary events are responsible for the genetic differences between species that are separated by macroevolution. Check it out yourself.
Like what?
Then go to the link above and show me how I am getting the evidence wrong.
Then what was the analogy meant to illustrate?
1 Like