18 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by convectFrankly I feel your position is ridiculous so you feeling my point of view
Sure. That's why it took three and a half billion years to happen.
Are you saying that, you don't believe in the rise of complexity from simplicity because things are just too complex? And you're seriously saying that the answer is that what is clearly a more complex being is the only thing that makes sense for how that complexity came to be? Do you understand how this seems ridiculous to us?
is doesn't surprise me nor do I concern myself about your feelings
either when I'm looking what I think is true or not.
You can show me examples of that level of functional simplicity
reaching such high levels of functionally complexity without someone's
intent making it happen today, without just claiming it did?
Kelly
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…Not sure why you keep using design terms to
You have repeated your position several times, and each time you did
it you were wrong. Not sure why you keep using design terms to
describe what you claim is without design, but I suppect is it because
you really do acknowledge design in the universe. I told you, the
proper way to describe the snow flake already from your intentless
point of view in t ...[text shortened]... ign and other words
that lean towards design with intent when speaking about evolution.
Kelly
describe what you claim is without design…
When did I claim that something was “without design”?
I repeatedly made clear countless times in my posts that life IS designed (by the unintelligent designing process of evolution of course).
-I fail how you could miss-read this simple message.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou claim your 'design' and 'designer' are without intent, and I've
[b]…Not sure why you keep using design terms to
describe what you claim is without design…
When did I claim that something was “without design”?
I repeatedly made clear countless times in my posts that life IS designed (by the unintelligent designing process of evolution of course).
-I fail how you could miss-read this simple message.[/b]
been telling you, you are redefining that word in ways that are the
exact opposite to its true meaning. I’m very happy you want to
use the word ‘design’ I’m just surprised you feel so incline to do
so, knowing that the meaning requires intent. You do seem to do that
while talking about evolution a lot now that I think about it in other
ways too, like constantly using the word choice or selection both also
require intent if you just simply look at the meaning of those words.
Kelly
19 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…You claim your 'design' and 'designer' are without intent, and I've
You claim your 'design' and 'designer' are without intent, and I've
been telling you, you are redefining that word in ways that are the
exact opposite to its true meaning. I’m very happy you want to
use the word ‘design’ I’m just surprised you feel so incline to do
so, knowing that the meaning requires intent. You do seem to do that
while talking about ...[text shortened]... ion both also
require intent if you just simply look at the meaning of those words.
Kelly
been telling you, you are redefining that word in ways that are the
exact opposite to its TRUE meaning.…(my emphasis)
“TRUE meaning” according to who? -creationists?
What non-arbitrary criteria are you using to decide what the “TRUE meaning” of the word “design” is?
I and scientists can define the meaning of the word “design” and any other word in any narrow technical context or narrow scientific context however we like and there is no “law of logic” or reason that says that this is logically wrong to do so.
…I’m very happy you want to
use the word ‘design’ I’m just surprised you feel so incline to do
so, knowing that the meaning requires intent.….
Why MUST the meaning “require intent”?
19 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHave you even bothered to look up the word, I can give you several
[b]…You claim your 'design' and 'designer' are without intent, and I've
been telling you, you are redefining that word in ways that are the
exact opposite to its TRUE meaning.…(my emphasis)
“TRUE meaning” according to who? -creationists?
What non-arbitrary criteria are you using to decide what the “TRUE meaning” of the word “design” is ...[text shortened]... knowing that the meaning requires intent.….[/b]
Why MUST the meaning “require intent”?[/b]
links that point to intent. I'm not the one changing the meaning to
suit my needs you and "other" like minded people who wish to avoid
the notion of intent have to have it mean something other than what
it does. I guess if you can redefine words to suit your needs logic need
not apply, you can redefine that too.
Why must it require intent, because that is how the word is defined,
look it up yourself do not trust me, and give me the links that back
your point.
Kelly
19 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI read your junk several times, I reject it each time I read it, and for
[b]…Not sure why you keep using design terms to
describe what you claim is without design…
When did I claim that something was “without design”?
I repeatedly made clear countless times in my posts that life IS designed (by the unintelligent designing process of evolution of course).
-I fail how you could miss-read this simple message.[/b]
the same reason, repeating an error does not make it correct, it is
simply repeating your error.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you really mean in your arrogance is the 'error' of thousands of hard working evolutionists building up a case that holds up in court after court case where the anti science creationists try to force their tired dogma onto the unsuspecting minds of the young in their ever more desparate attempt to prove their worn out 2000 year old scam.
I read your junk several times, I reject it each time I read it, and for
the same reason, repeating an error does not make it correct, it is
simply repeating your error.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWow, you got all of that out of me saying it takes a designer with
What you really mean in your arrogance is the 'error' of thousands of hard working evolutionists building up a case that holds up in court after court case where the anti science creationists try to force their tired dogma onto the unsuspecting minds of the young in their ever more desparate attempt to prove their worn out 2000 year old scam.
intent to have a designed process.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
Having looked up 'design' in a dictionary, and on wikipedia, it appears the dictionary definition implies a pre-planned result. In which case the results of evolution do not really fit.
However, I disagree with Kelly in that no English word has such a thing as a 'true meaning'. I do think that since the use of 'design' in a non-standard way, should always be qualified as such, and I do think the results of evolution are a very suitable target for non-standard use of the word.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot sure I understand you, could you expand on that last sentence?
Having looked up 'design' in a dictionary, and on wikipedia, it appears the dictionary definition implies a pre-planned result. In which case the results of evolution do not really fit.
However, I disagree with Kelly in that no English word has such a thing as a 'true meaning'. I do think that since the use of 'design' in a non-standard way, should alway ...[text shortened]... hink the results of evolution are a very suitable target for non-standard use of the word.
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell there you go, no words have a true meaning so we can call them
Having looked up 'design' in a dictionary, and on wikipedia, it appears the dictionary definition implies a pre-planned result. In which case the results of evolution do not really fit.
However, I disagree with Kelly in that no English word has such a thing as a 'true meaning'. I do think that since the use of 'design' in a non-standard way, should alway ...[text shortened]... hink the results of evolution are a very suitable target for non-standard use of the word.
all whatever we will, it doesn't matter.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, read what he wrote, words do not have a true meaning so they
Getting desparate?
can mean whatever you want them to it does not matter by that line
of reason. I said it does matter, words do mean things, and the word
design implies intent, to say otherwise is the suggest words do not
have any meaning that they can be held to, you may as well say
you will not raise taxes if you run for office the meaning will be the
same.
Kelly
20 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you take him for an authority when it furthers your so-called argument but cannot take for authority any humans' explanation for evolution. Nice dichotomy.
No, read what he wrote, words do not have a true meaning so they
can mean whatever you want them to it does not matter by that line
of reason. I said it does matter, words do mean things, and the word
design implies intent, to say otherwise is the suggest words do not
have any meaning that they can be held to, you may as well say
you will not raise taxes if you run for office the meaning will be the
same.
Kelly