would you be more happy not knowing what you now know? (page 17)

ExBethelitenowPIMA

My view is agnostic that we will never know the full truth if intelligence was involved or was it all blind chance.

But please don’t mistake this view as denial of scientific discoveries or denial of well established facts.

You are not denying the good science to question if intelligence was involved or if it was all blind chance to begin with.

After all we have been through with the pandemic we should all question the scientists who tell us we have to swallow what they tell us without question

There are two kinds of scientists those who seek the truth and those who seek to control the truth.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

“Why are you STILL proposing a false dichotomy between intelligence and 'chance' despite my explaining this countless times.“

Cofty no matter how many times you try to force me or anyone into your narrow view it will never work.

It is not a false dichotomy as you try to force it to be, this is your big problem.

You think I’m challenging or denying things that I am not. I’m just questioning if intelligence was involved or was it all blind chance.

I can see this makes you uncomfortable so if you don’t want to go there then please don’t worry we are all free to ask any questions we want.

The problems come when someone tries to say you can’t ask those questions it’s a false dichotomy. I’m sorry cofty but we can ask those questions we won’t be forced onto your train track, we are free to question anything

cofty

we will never know the full truth if intelligence was involved or was it all blind chance ... please don’t mistake this view as denial of scientific discoveries or denial of well established facts

We absolutely do know. It is exactly the same as the 'full truth' that the earth is not flat- EXACTLY the same level of evidence. How are you in any position to comment since you have never read a single book on the subject?

You ARE totally in denial of some of the best established facts in the history of science.

It matters for lots of reasons.

There was no Adam and Eve
Humans were not a special creation
We did not fall from perfection

To name just three.

You can believe what makes you comfortable but you can't expect to be taken seriously when your worldview is predicated on the denial of simple irrefutable facts. 3.78 million scientific papers!

Your second post makes no sense at all because you don't understand the connection between design and natural selection. How could you unless you made some effort? I also think you should google 'false dichotomy'.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

Again you want to try to make this about something else. You would make a good politician. Trying to force a narrative down your one track.

The truth is there is a lot more to it than you think.

All the proof you think for chance theory could also be used as proof for intelligence.

It’s dangerous to be so dog minded that you will not ever consider an apposing theory

Im on another train track entirely and I want to keep critical thinking skills.

cofty

Word salad.

TonusOH

ExB: I’m just questioning

Asking questions is not always synonymous with seeking answers. Some people prefer to keep asking questions when they don't like the answers.

I cannot convince you how an automobile engine works, because I don't know enough about them. But there is no shortage of people who can explain the concepts, so that I have no excuse for assuming that it runs on some form of magical energy. The people who know, all agree on the concepts and the science behind them.

In the same vein, I can't convince you of how strong or accurate the theory of evolution is, because I don't know enough about it. But the people who do know appear to have no doubt and can explain it, as evidenced by the endless scientific papers, and books, and easily-accessible videos on the subject from scientists (and biologists in particular). If you're only seeking the outliers, the people who make claims but don't have the science to back it up, then you're not seeking answers, you only want to ask questions.

ExBethelitenowPIMA

“In the same vein, I can't convince you of how strong or accurate the theory of evolution is, because I don't know enough about it. But the people who do know appear to have no doubt and can explain it, as evidenced by the endless scientific papers, and books, and easily-accessible videos on the subject from scientists (and biologists in particular). If you're only seeking the outliers, the people who make claims but don't have the science to back it up, then you're not seeking answers, you only want to ask questions.“

This is such a good point and I can see how both sides are guilty of this. Some who believe in blind chance are set in their ways and not willing to seek answers from all the best scientists and evolution experts who make a case for intelligence being involved.

Some just try to say you can’t ask that question, it’s not even a question of blind chance or intelligence.

As I have said many times of all the experts in biology and evolutionary theory the same amazing points are used to point towards blind chance or intelligence far beyond human intelligence.

I have seen both sides use the same exact points saying look at this, this proves far more intelligence this is so clever how this happened over billions of years. Others simply say yes this is so amazing how this happened over billions of years but it was just blind chance.

It is very wrong to get set in your ways and not even open to the possibility that there is more to the story than you presently think.

TonusOH

ExB: all the best scientists and evolution experts who make a case for intelligence being involved.

Who would those be? You imply that there is as strong a case being made for either concept (chance versus design), but is that the case? There are evolutionary biologists who believe in god. How many of them are producing peer-reviewed papers on evolution that mention the role of god, or 'design'?

My point is that yes, bias is inherent in everyone's approach and opinions. Science attempts to minimize that through a rigorous process of testing, documentation, and peer-review. Science can get things wrong in the short term, but over a longer period of time it refines what it knows as more is learned and more people investigate. The theory of evolution has more than 150 years of such work put into it. Thousands of scientists, more than a century of effort, countless man-hours of research and review. No god. No intellect. No design.

I don't think the two approaches are anywhere near to being equally supported at this point.

cofty

Yes still waiting for you name these biologists who think intelligence might have been involved in evolution. What are their names and qualifications and where are their peer reviewed papers?

I gave you a link to 3.8 million papers that say otherwise.

Just like I'm waiting for you to name the books about common ancestry that you claim to have read.

slimboyfat

Simon Conway Morris, evolutionary biologist at Cambridge University

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

Share this