Evolution of the evolution threads...

Originally posted by sonhouse
Now you belittle their education and extraordinary intellectual gifts. You would suggest Einstein, Marie Curie, Edison, Newton as "People just walking through life like any other"? Sure, they are born, they get married or not, get diseases or not, are crazy or not, and all die,but they leave their mark on civilization for hundreds of years and millions of ...[text shortened]... t just walking through life like any other. You just shifted the belittlement to another area.

Calling them human like any other is belittling them?
You have some warped idea of godhood among men in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Calling them human like any other is belittling them?
You have some warped idea of godhood among men in my opinion.
Kelly

…Calling them human like any other is belittling them?..…

that is clearly not what he said and you know it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Calling them human like any other is belittling them?..…

that is clearly not what he said and you know it.

Clearly go find a dictionary and start looking up the meaning of the
design and we will talk.

With respect to what he said, he was responding to me and I to him.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Clearly go find a dictionary and start looking up the meaning of the
design and we will talk.

With respect to what he said, he was responding to me and I to him.
Kelly

…Clearly go find a dictionary and start looking up the meaning of the
design and we will talk. . …

I have already repeatedly and clearly said that a word can have different meanings in a different context such as a particular narrow scientific context -do you deny this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Calling them human like any other is belittling them?
You have some warped idea of godhood among men in my opinion.
Kelly

There you go making assumptions again, thinking I attribute godhood to scientists, as if I worship them. I admire them, there is a big difference between admire and worship. I don't make them or science my religion. I make them an area of study. I also make an area of study to play the guitar and compose music for it as well as I can but I don't worship the guitar or music.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Clearly go find a dictionary and start looking up the meaning of the
design and we will talk. . …

I have already repeatedly and clearly said that a word can have different meanings in a different context such as a particular narrow scientific context -do you deny this?[/b]

Nope, but you are making one up to suit a belief you have by making
it means something that is the direct opposite of its meaning. I do
understand your need to say design, I agree with you life is so
complex design just seems like it is the right answer.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
There you go making assumptions again, thinking I attribute godhood to scientists, as if I worship them. I admire them, there is a big difference between admire and worship. I don't make them or science my religion. I make them an area of study. I also make an area of study to play the guitar and compose music for it as well as I can but I don't worship the guitar or music.

You want them more than human status not I, they are just people
filled with strenghts and weaknesses, prone to greatness and error.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope, but you are making one up to suit a belief you have by making
it means something that is the direct opposite of its meaning. I do
understand your need to say design, I agree with you life is so
complex design just seems like it is the right answer.
Kelly

…Nope, but you are making one up to suit a belief you have by making
it means something that is the direct opposite of its meaning...…

How so? -I couldn’t have made it any clearer of what I and evolutionists mean by that word in the narrow context of evolution -so in what way do we mean the “exact opposite”?

…I do understand your need to say design..…

I do not have a “need” to say design -I use the word design because it is the most obvious sensible word for it and, as I have already demonstrated to you, it is the word evolutionists use when they talk about body design etc. How would you think I should refer to, say, “body design” other than “body design” ? -I suppose I could use the word “anatomy” or “structure of the body” but these words just mean the same thing. So I suppose that, instead of talking about the “design made by evolution“, I could talk about the “anatomy made by evolution” -it doesn’t exactly role off the tongue and it is a bit too specific because when I talk about the design evolution makes I am not just referring to anatomy but biochemistry and instinct etc but, having said that, I don’t have a real problem with just saying the “anatomy made by evolution”.

-would that prevent you being so offended just because I don’t use the word “design”?

-would that make the slightest logical difference to the argument?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Nope, but you are making one up to suit a belief you have by making
it means something that is the direct opposite of its meaning...…

How so? -I couldn’t have made it any clearer of what I and evolutionists mean by that word in the narrow context of evolution -so in what way do we mean the “exact opposite”?

…I do understand your ...[text shortened]... ’t use the word “design”?

-would that make the slightest logical difference to the argument?

Then the argument would continue, 'well, what do you mean by Anatomy?' Are you going to use the 'true meaning' of the word or one which only suits your argument?🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then the argument would continue, 'well, what do you mean by Anatomy?' Are you going to use the 'true meaning' of the word or one which only suits your argument?🙂

He will throw a wobbly if I mention the words “blind anatomy” -did you not know that “anatomy” implies intent, plan, purpose, decision and intelligence? -go and look it up in the [Creationists] dictionary and then came back to me and then we can talk.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Nope, but you are making one up to suit a belief you have by making
it means something that is the direct opposite of its meaning...…

How so? -I couldn’t have made it any clearer of what I and evolutionists mean by that word in the narrow context of evolution -so in what way do we mean the “exact opposite”?

…I do understand your ...[text shortened]... ’t use the word “design”?

-would that make the slightest logical difference to the argument?

[/b]Design by definition means intent, your use of the word means the
exact opposite saying there was none.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Nope, but you are making one up to suit a belief you have by making
it means something that is the direct opposite of its meaning...…

How so? -I couldn’t have made it any clearer of what I and evolutionists mean by that word in the narrow context of evolution -so in what way do we mean the “exact opposite”?

…I do understand your ...[text shortened]... ’t use the word “design”?

-would that make the slightest logical difference to the argument?

[/b]You use "design" in my opinion because it is the best word for the
process moving from simple to complex, you just have a great dislike
for its meaning so you attempt to say it means something else.

As I pointed out to you countless time "design of the snow flake" and
now the "body design" is a function of pattern, when you speak about
how it was formed and use the word “design” you than take away your
argument and have started speaking to a process which either has
intent or does not. I have said this before as well, and do not know
how to make it clearer.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
He will throw a wobbly if I mention the words “blind anatomy” -did you not know that “anatomy” implies intent, plan, purpose, decision and intelligence? -go and look it up in the [Creationists] dictionary and then came back to me and then we can talk.

I'll take any dictionary you can bring to this discussion that speaks
to a process and says design doesn't have intent, bring one, anyone,
to this discussion. Without that you are just being insulting, and once
again you attempt to build up your weak position in a discussion by
bring my faith into this.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are either forum or 'aginum.

😉 Indeed!

And I liked your response several posts back about admiring but not worshipping scientists. Well said.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll take any dictionary you can bring to this discussion that speaks
to a process and says design doesn't have intent, bring one, anyone,
to this discussion. Without that you are just being insulting, and once
again you attempt to build up your weak position in a discussion by
bring my faith into this.
Kelly

You are the one bringing your faith into every statement you make. You have to see the world in creationist terms because of your faith. You denigrate the work of scientists of the last 300 years because of your faith. You equate your faith with what you think is faith in science when in fact science is an ongoing project, where you demand total certainty in results when in fact there is no such thing as total certainty in science, only high probability or low probability but that never sinks in your skull so blinded you are by your own faith.