subjective science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Are you pretending that I do know what you're talking about?

No, I'm accusing you of being dishonest in pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about when I'm laughing at the pomposity of Lemon Lime and him trying to defend the mistake you made in thinking that article supported intelligent design.

Originally posted by @fmf
As a matter of interest, what do you believe to be the component beliefs of "the belief system of a chimpanzee"?

Whatever they believe, whether it be scratching their armpits is cool or bananas are tasty.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Firstly, the lack of any credible evidence that 'your' particular God is responsible for creation. (Why not the Hindu God of creation?)

That wasn't what I asked!

Originally posted by @divegeester
No, I'm accusing you of being dishonest in pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about when I'm laughing at the pomposity of Lemon Lime and him trying to defend the mistake you made in thinking that article supported intelligent design.

Me and Lemon Lime obviously see elements of it that do. You are obviously welcome to disagree with us without telling us why you do or why we are wrong.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
No evidence for the non-existence of God will ever be good enough for a theist.

What evidence might that be? Assuming God really is non-existent what evidence could possibly prove that? For example how would you know there is no gold in China if you don't know what’s in every riverbed, in every rock, and in every tooth in China?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Me and Lemon Lime obviously see elements of it that do. You are obviously welcome to disagree with us without telling us why you do or why we are wrong.

I'm not talking about the article, its veracity, your claims about it, Lemon Lime's assertions about it or your exchanges with other posters on it.

I'm noticing your dishonesty in pretending you didn't know what I was talking about 😉

Originally posted by @divegeester
I'm not talking about the article, its veracity, your claims about it, Lemon Lime's assertions about it or your exchanges with other posters on it.

I'm noticing your dishonesty in pretending you didn't know what I was talking about 😉

Uhm maybe you would care to explain why an article that describes both intelligence and design in evolution is not evidence of intelligent design. Take your time. I'll get some popcorn.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Whatever they believe, whether it be scratching their armpits is cool or bananas are tasty.

What are you talking about? Bananas are tasty.
But armpit scratching is only cool if it's followed by the sniffing of fingers.

Originally posted by @dj2becker to divegeester
Uhm maybe you would care to explain why an article that describes both intelligence and design in evolution is not evidence of intelligent design.

He can just save time and the bother by reading our discussion.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Uhm maybe you would care to explain why an article that describes both intelligence and design in evolution is not evidence of intelligent design. Take your time. I'll get some popcorn.

As I said, I'm not talking about the article I'm talking about your dishonesty.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Uhm maybe you would care to explain why an article that describes both intelligence and design in evolution is not evidence of intelligent design. Take your time. I'll get some popcorn.

Have you tried reading Watson's own comments, in the link that FMF posted?

https://theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932

I don’t think invoking a supernatural creator can ever be a scientifically useful explanation. But what about intelligence that isn’t supernatural? Our new results, based on computer modelling, link evolutionary processes to the principles of learning and intelligent problem solving – without involving any higher powers. This suggests that, although evolution may have started off blind, with a couple of billion years of experience it has got smarter.

-Richard A. Watson, 2016

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Have you tried reading Watson's own comments, in the link that FMF posted?

https://theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932

I don’t think invoking a supernatural creator can ever be a scientifically useful explanation. But what about intelligence that isn’t supernatural? Ou ...[text shortened]... th a couple of billion years of experience it has got smarter.

-Richard A. Watson, 2016

You serious, a non-entity, but a process got smarter? Better said, that this is to functionality complex to have just happened, and acknowledge the complexity.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What evidence might that be? Assuming God really is non-existent what evidence could possibly prove that? For example how would you know there is no gold in China if you don't know what’s in every riverbed, in every rock, and in every tooth in China?

Let us begin with the existence of evil in the world, such as an innocent child dying of cancer, which makes belief in an all powerful and all loving God obsolete.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That wasn't what I asked!

In fairness Kelly, your question didn't follow on from what I had written.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You serious, a non-entity, but a process got smarter? Better said, that this is to functionality complex to have just happened, and acknowledge the complexity.

Watson uses "getting smarter" as a figure of speech.