28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeReally I thought it was spot on!
In fairness Kelly, your question didn't follow on from what I had written.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYes to describe the complexity he saw.
Watson uses "getting smarter" as a figure of speech.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI'm interested in his scientific findings, his religious beliefs are neither here nor there.
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
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterAnd yet you can only talk about dishonesty without actually mentioning it specifically.
As I said, I'm not talking about the article I'm talking about your dishonesty.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSo the only evidence you have is a strawman? I seriously thought you could do better than that.
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.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe core tenets (and philosophical underpinnings) of evolution were established before I was born. Punctuated equilibrium did not become an 'evolutionary' household word until after 1972.
I'm not "fussing over" the article, I am just pointing out it does not support intelligent design.
I suggest you read about the basics of the theory of evolution and learn what it says. This paper, like punctuated equilibrium, cannot ever "become an established part" of the core tenets of the theory of evolution because it does not address them in any way.
( I began studying evolution in the early '60s )
If this isn't enough information for you to voluntarily dismantle a strawman effigy of me, then I will leave you alone to play with yourself and your raggedy straw-man dolls.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHis "scientific findings" are paywalled by Elsevier and you have not read them.
I'm interested in his scientific findings, his religious beliefs are neither here nor there.
Pretending that a clickbait article is more representative of Watson's work than Watson's own words about his own article is rather peculiar.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2becker😕
And yet you can only talk about dishonesty without actually mentioning it specifically.
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limePerhaps your study of evolution would have been more productive if you hadn't presupposed that it's wrong. The idea is quite simple, really.
The core tenets (and philosophical underpinnings) of evolution were established before I was born. Punctuated equilibrium did not become an 'evolutionary' household word until after 1972.
( I began studying evolution in the early '60s )
If this isn't enough information for you to voluntarily dismantle a strawman effigy of me, then I will leave you alone to play with yourself and your raggedy straw-man dolls.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo you're saying the article is a lie and that Watson's work is not aimed at demonstrating the 'intelligence and design' of the evolutionary process?
His "scientific findings" are paywalled by Elsevier and you have not read them.
Pretending that a clickbait article is more representative of Watson's work than Watson's own words about his own article is rather peculiar.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @divegeesterAbout?
You are dishonest Fetchmybecker.
What is the ad hominem king on about now?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerA child dying of cancer is a strawman?!
So the only evidence you have is a strawman? I seriously thought you could do better than that.
Such an occurrence is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God, leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a deity does not exist. How more relevant can one get?
28 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou have an issue with creation due to a morality issue the creator may have?
A child dying of cancer is a strawman?!
Such an occurrence is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God, leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a deity does not exist. How more relevant can one get?