I'm not sure he has done that. Strawmen can be observations that are true, but irrelevant to the disputed point. Or, they may be hypothetical instances that do not apply, but are internally consistent. Neither seems to apply in this case. He is just wrong.
Well, in general a straw man argument involves creating a new argument that's different from the actual thing being argued (i.e. "setting up a straw man") then arguing against that instead (i.e. "knocking down a straw man") because the debater cannot find fault with the original argument. Here, the issue under discussion was abiogenesis. My argument was that there is nothing about abiogenesis that requires divine input (in Seti's terms, intelligent input) since there are several valid explanations that allow development of life through purely natural forces. He realized he could not argue against that, and thus changed the argument. His new straw man argument was that "science has determined that people cannot use their intelligence to alter nature" which of course is 1) patently false and 2) unrelated to the discussion.
It must be very difficult living a fantasy especially when reality is hitting you in the face every moment of every day. How do you manage to deflect it so well and with such ease?
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. James Tour Stephen C. Meyer Michael Egnor Michael Behe David Berlinski https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ Includes a list of over 1,000 Scientists. Dr. James Tour is particularly well suited to speak on the subject currently, if you are interested. Here are a few more just for fun... Joseph Lister Louis Pasteur Isaac Newton Johann Kepler Robert Boyle Georges Cuvier Charles Babbage Lord Kelvin Leonardo Da Vinci Blaise Pascal Francis Bacon
So Robert Boyle, who died in 1691, disagrees with Darwin's work, who was born in 1809? Fascinating! Did Plato, Pythagoras and Socrates disagree with Darwin's conclusions, too?
He was only a Scientist and a Creationist. Just as you already know. Yes, you are right, that I pulled the last set of guys from the back of the drawer. They were brilliant Scientists, and they were also Creationists, and I think that is about as far as we should go with those guys. That is why I added them “just for fun”. We could add in all of the oppressed Closet Creationists that are lurking about, in the fear of losing their careers, in the dark shadows, to replace that last group if you wish.
The sad thing is that you are serious with that claptrap. If you are going to argue your case you need to do it with material that is not an embarassment to Creationists specifically and the human race in general. Let's take your first pathetic list. Only a handful of the scientists on that list are relevant, since few are biologists, palaeontologists, genetecists, or those with similar backgrounds, backgrounds that are pertinent to evolution and the Origin of Man. The list has been parodied by Project Steve, which lists scientists who accept evolutionary theory and thus "where we came from". The list was up to 1,449 signatories named Steve by June of this year. This shows how ridiculous the supposedly "impressive" list from the Discovery Institute is. As noted in the link to Project Steve above, A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time." The poll also notes that 87% of all scientists believe that evolution of humans over time is natural. You may initially take some comfort in that, asserting that this means some scientists believe there was supernatural guidance/intervention. However, you also need to recognise that the doubters contain few biologists and the poll of is of Americans. America stands out in the so-called Western World by its prevalence of evolution doubters in the population at large. Your second list is, amazingly, even more ridiculous and makes you appear like a fool. Science has advanced a considerable distance since all of those on that list. More to the point, it is discourteous to provide a list of names with absolutely no reference to their writings that demonstrate their rejection of "Where we came from". I suspect you don't even know what their objections were, but are merely parroting a list you have read elsewhere. That is intellectually dishonest. Shame on you. Oh, and look, here is the list in plain sight. Ironic that it is located on a websight called inplainsight.org. You have omitted many of the names and excluded the fields they are associated with, but the order is the same. (I suppose omitting their specialities helped to conceal the fact that hardly any of them were biologists.) Now, I've looked and I've looked and I've looked again, but you don't appear to have credited your source. That's an offence called plagiarism. It is discourteous, dishonest and illegal. Shame on you. I'll give you a chance to redeem your reputation: provide links to the specific objections of each of the names on your list, or at least to a handful of them. Then I might just be able to accord your claims a modicum of attention.
I think that it's obvious that intelligence is a feature of the natural universe. Human beings are the proof of that (assuming for the sake of argument that humans are capable of intelligence and that humans are natural). I would personally guess (purely as a hypothesis) that humans aren't close to being the pinnacle of intelligence in the natural universe either. There may well be beings out there that would stand in the same kind of intellectual relationship to us that we stand to our dogs. It might arguably be even more profound than that. Natural causations aren't just one-damn-thing-after-another. Nature is perceived and imagined to be orderly. It conforms to what are usually called laws. The methods that science uses (Sciforums seems to think that there's only one method) are all proudly rational. So... why is reason seemingly the best way to understand the natural universe? Why does it seem that reason is somehow isomorphic to how the universe behaves? The universe certainly seems to embody or to otherwise express reason somehow, in some mysterious and poorly understood way. Why that is, nobody knows. Nobody is able to explain it. Some people say 'That's just the way it is!' and adopt it as an axiomatic given. Others suggest that it must have an explanation and be derived somehow from whatever the universe's unknown explanation might be. I don't think that one approach is more rational, more intelligent or obviously better than the other. The first version might claim the advantage of simplicity and parsimony (Ockham's razor.) The second might claim the advantage that it isn't begging reality's ultimate question and damnably closing its mind to any possibility of answering it. But in reality I don't think that anybody really knows. Certainly no human being on this particular planet. It doesn't matter to me whether that human is a religious believer or a discussion board advocate of scientism or metaphysical naturalism. They don't know. They shouldn't pretend that they do.
Lol, exactly as I predicted, you immediately post crap from the Discovery Institute without knowing a single thing about evolution, hence not even understanding what the idiots at the DI are whining about. Here's a hint, they have no clue what they're talking about. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of science and your willingness to be dishonest. That's an obvious lie for two reasons; 1) you haven't a clue what he's saying. 2) Tour is a well trained chemist, but is also a puppet for the Discovery Institute, a fraudulent creationist and a right wing activist, everything you would expect from dishonest Christians. Wow, you continue to stoop to new lows in intelligence.
Seti has posted that DI list several times before and each time it was explained to him it's irrelevancy, yet here he is posting it again demonstrating clearly his intention to be, as you say, intellectually dishonest. Up to four years ago, I wondered how folks like Seti could be so intellectually dishonest about facts and evidence, how they can so easily dismiss or deny anything that seems to jeopardize their faith based ideologies. But, after watching Trump and his supporters these past 4 years, it's easy to see just how selfish the right are and the fact they really don't give a shit about what happens to anyone or anything that isn't connected with their faith.
. . . during a time when you could be excommunicated, imprisoned or even killed for saying God did NOT create the Earth. That's a pretty strong incentive to say those things, wouldn't you agree? I bet if we passed a law that said you could be executed for saying that God created Man, your posts would suddenly line up with modern evolutionary theory.
Ok, So... 1. Naturalism is an unproven and unprovable assumption. 2. Naturalism is a faith position. 3. No one on Earth knows how, when, or where life began. Abiogenesis is an assumption. 4. Abiogenesis is a faith position. 5. Macro Evolution is an unproven and unprovable assumption. 6. Macro Evolution is a faith position. 7. Character Assassination is the standard response to anyone who disagrees with any of these faith positions. Got it! I think that about raps it up! Thanks Everyone!!!
As you are aware, this has been done many times by both Theists and Atheists, and continues to this day in Atheistic countries, like North Korea and China. Check out “Foxes Book of Martyrs” sometime. Let’s say you manage to kill off all of the Theists and have only Atheists left. And that Atheism reigns supreme in the minds and hearts of all men. You are still going to have North Korea, their nuclear arsenal, totalitarian rule, abuse of power, and their suppression of human rights to deal with. And many more like them. Good luck with that!
And in theistic countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan, you can go to jail for teaching evolution. Finding creationists there is a big "well . . . duh" moment.
It's like gravity. Can you prove that gravity always works the same way, everywhere? No, you can't. We've never been inside a neutron star, for example. Nevertheless, gravity (and evolution) are facts of life. Nope. Abiogenesis is a given. You are merely quibbling as to how it happened. Nope. Unless you believe that life as we know it existed since before the universe began, abiogenesis is a fact. Nope. There is no such thing as macro evolution vs micro evolution - just as there's no such thing as macro erosion vs micro erosion. Same thing, different time scales. Nope. Nope. Your character has not been "assassinated." You have not been banned. You are simply wrong. It happens to everyone.
Hey Seti this should make you happy: Some of your ilk are protesting that a Tucson area McDonald's has a dinosaur statue. A Christian group with the descriptive name "Christians against dinosaurs" are demanding that the T. Rex statue be taken down because of course dinosaurs are a left wing myth created by God-hating atheist scientists. "Call the manager and demand the removal of this blasphemy!" demanded the leader of this group via his Twitter page. https://www.mashed.com/245144/the-w...-mcdonalds-dinosaur-statue/?utm_campaign=clip https://patch.com/arizona/tucson/christian-group-calls-remove-dinosaur-tucson-mcdonalds
Hey thanks! I did enjoy seeing that! But, they are seriously crazy people!!! Oooops, just kinda did a Character Assassination myself there. Sorry folks!!! I am not perfect!!! More crazy even than I am, if that is possible? I love Dinosaurs ❤️!!! Dinosaurs, of course, lived alongside mankind. There are numerous historic accounts of people encountering and even killing them. We simply have relabeled Dragons... Dinosaurs and misinterpreted their time period. Eye witness Dragon accounts are pretty common historically and some of them are even still living unchanged today. In other words, without any evolution occurring in them at all, over those pretend millions of years with natural selection acting on them. They are living unchanged fossils. Save the Clock Tower!!! and Save the Dinosaurs!!! I need to have some signs made up! Are you with me?
Not at all. Their approach is: 1. Dinosaurs are an unproven and unprovable assumption. 2. Dinosaur are a faith position. 3. No one on Earth knows if, how, when, or where dinosaurs existed. 4. Paleontology is a faith position. 5. Saurian life is an unproven and unprovable assumption. 6. Saurian life is a faith position. 7. Character Assassination is the standard response to anyone who disagrees with any of these faith positions. (as you demonstrated!) You are thinking of Jurassic Park. But you are funny! That's even crazier than their position. Granny had a dino!