subjective science

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
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?

Attempt to answer why it is not compatible with a loving God and you should soon become aware of your strawman.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
About?

What is the ad hominem king on about now?

Are you, yet again, pretending you don't know what I'm talking about about?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you, yet again, pretending you don't know what I'm talking about about?

Are you yet again pretending to accuse me of something you either seem to know nothing about or can't get yourself to utter?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So 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?

I'm saying you don't understand Watson's work, and your attempts to see it as supporting intelligent design are misplaced.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You have an issue with creation due to a morality issue the creator may have?

I think I was quite clear in what i said.

The proposition of an all powerful and all loving deity is fundamentally discredited by a child dying of cancer, or a village wiped out by an earthquake.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Are you yet again pretending to accuse me of something you either seem to know nothing about or can't get yourself to utter?

No I'm pointing out your dishonesty.

I'm bored with you again Becker, so I'll leave you in the very capable hands of kazetnagorra and GoaD.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Attempt to answer why it is not compatible with a loving God and you should soon become aware of your strawman.

That's a very silly and naive thing to say, even for you.

A loving God (who is also all powerful) would not allow an innocent child to suffer so unjustly. If he does, he can not be both omnipotent and perfectly loving.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I think I was quite clear in what i said.

The proposition of an all powerful and all loving deity is fundamentally discredited by a child dying of cancer, or a village wiped out by an earthquake.

Again creation is the topic if the creator has issues is not the topic.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Again creation is the topic if the creator has issues is not the topic.

Why do you get to decide the topic? 😀

Night sir.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Why do you get to decide the topic? 😀

Night sir.

So creation was never the topic or even science, but God?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Perhaps your study of evolution would have been more productive if you hadn't presupposed that it's wrong. The idea is quite simple, really.

If you are presupposing I thought evolution was wrong then you are wrong. Perhaps evolution is not as simple as you first thought either.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
If you are presupposing I thought evolution was wrong then you are wrong. Perhaps evolution is not as simple as you first thought either.

Or perhaps you are wrong in thinking my presupposition that you are presupposing evolution is wrong is wrong.

At its core, the theory of evolution in the modern synthesis relies on these ingredients:
- DNA reproduces
- DNA mutates
- DNA affects the phenotype

For the theory of evolution to be incorrect, one of these ingredients must be incorrect. All research into evolution focuses on understanding the details of these mechanisms and mapping evolution's history. Your focus on things which are NOT one of these ingredients when attacking the theory of evolution implies you do not understand the basic idea of evolution.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I'm saying you don't understand Watson's work, and your attempts to see it as supporting intelligent design are misplaced.

Ah so like your pal Dive you can only resort to ad hominems.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Or perhaps you are wrong in thinking my presupposition that you are presupposing evolution is wrong is wrong.

At its core, the theory of evolution in the modern synthesis relies on these ingredients:
- DNA reproduces
- DNA mutates
- DNA affects the phenotype

For the theory of evolution to be incorrect, one of these ingredients must be incorrec ...[text shortened]... hen attacking the theory of evolution implies you do not understand the basic idea of evolution.

So still don't get it do you? Who said 'evolution' is wrong ? If you want to believe that you are the product of a brain dead, clueless and stupid mechanism be my guest.

Originally posted by @divegeester
No I'm pointing out your dishonesty.

I'm bored with you again Becker, so I'll leave you in the very capable hands of kazetnagorra and GoaD.

Ah Dive arrives swings a punch and leaves.

😴