Re: To sum up

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:52:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/02/2025 3:59 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 18/02/2025 8:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:37:06 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> 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.

I must have missed that, can you point me to it?

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.