Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: MarkE Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: To sum up Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:52:12 +1100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 68 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="78957"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:Say96LyN2+VVrY8fhw09L9bU+to= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id DC82522978C; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:52:29 -0500 (EST) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77448229783 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:52:27 -0500 (EST) by pi-dach.dorfdsl.de (8.18.1/8.18.1/Debian-6~bpo12+1) with ESMTPS id 51IMqKM5693983 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:52:20 +0100 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E4E60617 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:52:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: name/B8E4E60617; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com id 853F8DC01CA; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:52:18 +0100 (CET) X-Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:52:18 +0100 (CET) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+Ew2EYkln57e6eOm6wKJkUhzKly+7xeqQ= HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 smtp.eternal-september.org Bytes: 5782 On 19/02/2025 3:59 am, Martin Harran wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, MarkE wrote: > >> On 18/02/2025 8:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:37:06 +1100, MarkE wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/02/2025 8:15 pm, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent >>>>> Designer might have gone about this. >>>>> >>>>> The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its >>>>> ability and functions. Other species do not have those >>>>> characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as >>>>> Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes >>>>> be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you >>>>> think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around >>>>> with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up >>>>> with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone? >>>> >>>> Why the hostile, mocking tone, >>> >>> Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come >>> across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to >>> deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1] >>> >>>> and straw man depiction of God? >>> >>> It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by >>> pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean >>> God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God. >> >> I'm with many ID proponents who are openly Christians, but in the >> context of debating the interpretation and implications of scientific >> evidence, deliberately and correctly refer only to a non-specific >> intelligent designer interacting with this material world from outside >> of spacetime. > > Why do you feel the need to hide your religious beliefs; why not just > come out and talk openly about God? That seems to me a lack of > confidence in your religious beliefs or at least your ability to > convince other people. But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative) outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent about my personal belief. But when talking about science identifying potential inadequacy of a naturalistic explanation, it is appropriate to posit a non-specific agency in that context. I can see how this might construed as deceptive, but it's actually about disciplined argument and avoiding category errors. > >> >>> >>> >>> =========================== >>> >>> [1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you >>> promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction. >>> >> >> It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with >> posts like these. >