Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by Sean Pitman.
Dr. Pitman, take a deep breath and gain your composure. Please read my posts again. Did I ever comment on the sandstone rocks at all? Have I ever commented on SETI or are you conflating that with something else that I said? How can I be dishonest about something I haven’t even commented on?!!!
Wait a minute here. You’ve argued several times in this thread along the lines that various artifacts are not clear artifacts because, put side to side with the same shapes in other materials that are not true artifacts, you couldn’t tell the difference.
Now you’re telling me that you’ve never even suggested anything about the origin of granite cubes or the balanced rocks in the pictures I’ve shown you? That itself is being rather disingenuous don’t you think? I’ve asked you very direct questions about the origin of these particular rocks and rock formations and you’re telling me now that you never even intended to directly answer my questions? What? You refuse to walk down the conversational path with me by giving misleading responses to my questions? Why waste my time then if you really don’t want to have a serious conversation?
Look, I really do think you’re a nice guy, but that doesn’t mean I think you’re being honest with this particular topic or with me in this particular discussion. I really don’t think you are…
I don’t think I have ever accused you of being dishonest.
That’s because I’ve always been very honest and direct with you. I’ve never played games with you or refused to answer any of your questions as directly and honestly as I am able. You, on the other hand, have just told me that you’ve avoided honestly and directly answering my questions of you… That’s dishonest in my book, and no way to have a respectful conversation. If you don’t want to answer my questions, just say so up front. Don’t just ignore me or my questions or pretend like you’ve answered them when you yourself now claim that you haven’t.
You are so overcome with your zealousness that you are right and there cannot be any rational argument against intelligent design that you unfortunately have lowered yourself to an ad hominem attack. That is indeed unfortunate sir.
If you continually refuse to directly answer my questions, the answers to which are downright obvious to the vast majority of people (even my 5-year-old son knows the answers to these very simple questions), we aren’t really having a true and honest conversation then are we sir?
I have tried to patiently argue that apparent to the human eye design may not be intelligent design at all.
Exactly! Which comes across as a suggestion that it is impossible to really tell if any apparent artifact is really an actual artifact of intelligent design at all! It comes across as a suggestion that not even the rock formations pictured above are necessarily artificial – that you can still rationally remain agnostic regarding their designed or non-designed origin. That’s not an honest position or suggestion – and you know it!
I have given you examples of that. I have patiently explained to you on many occassions that hypothetical highly polished granite cubes of which there is no evidence are in my estimation are not particularily relevant to the issue of intelligent design.
I’m not asking you about biological evolution at this point or the origin of life or the universe. I’m just asking if you’re honest enough to answer a very very simple question – if your honest enough to tell me that things like highly symmetrical polished granite cubes or the rock formations pictured above are in fact “blindingly obvious” artifacts of intelligent design and would be recognized as such by any candidly intelligent mind regardless of where they might happen to be found in the universe? You evidently are refusing to answer that question – which strikes me as disingenuous. It really does. Why not honestly and directly answer this very simple question? Why be so disingenuous and coy?
I have patiently pointed out that scientists have presented evidence- disputed yes! – of a metaverse, but you conclude there is none.
The problem that you don’t seem to understand is that the way you and others are using the metaverse concept undermines the very basis of science itself. You claim to respect science while using the metaverse concept to argue against the value and usefulness of the very basis of all scientific methodologies – statistical predictive value.
Now you can call me dishonest or irrational but don’t you realize this is exactly the same type of attack people use against creationsits. So what does that accomplish to say the other side is not honest or crazy? How does that aid civilized debate?
What would really help is for you to honestly and directly answer my question. Otherwise, I don’t see us having an honest discussion or “debate” at all. You’re just not being honest with me – and I say that in all sincerity. I really don’t think you want to have a meaningful discussion on this particular topic.
If you think otherwise, then directly answer this question: Would you recognize a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, or any of the balanced rock formations photographed above, as true artifacts of intelligent design if you happened to see them anywhere in the universe? – Yes or No? It’s a very simple question.
I know you feel strongly about your position and I am prepared to treat your personal comments against my intellectual integrity as being stated in the heat of the moment. I’m quite fond of you Sean, so I don’t take any personal offence. I don’t think you alone have a franchise on intellectual honesty and rationality though 🙂
Look, you’ve generally been a decent person and very cordial in the various discussions you’ve carried out with various individuals in this forum. However, I’m not going to let you get away with avoiding key questions or being disingenuous in your discussions here. I’m going to call you out on these things because I really don’t think you’re being honest with yourself or with me. This opinion of mine has nothing to do with the fact that I think you’re a nice guy. I’m sure you are. I just don’t think you’re being honest with this particular topic.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Logic and our God-given reasoning abilities are what help us make sense of pictures like these and the world around us in general. And, that is why detecting the Divine Signature isn’t based on mere intestinal “gestalt” or indigestion after eating too many burritos at Taco Bell…
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
I’m not sure why you feel the need to repetitively inform me, over and over again, with these very same pejorative observations of yours? You keep “leaving for good” and then coming back again and again with nothing new. I’m just not interested anymore. If you want to be interesting beyond your intestinal “gestalt” feelings of faith or truth, present some actually evidence, a rational argument of some kind, that goes beyond your personal subjective fideistic feelings and arguments from authority for why I, or anyone else for that matter, should listen to much less favor your perspective above the church’s perspective or even my own personal perspective. Now that would be interesting for a change…
IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID
Of which I am fairly well informed, having read the available scientific literature extensively, and with a great deal of effort to honestly consider and understand it, over the past 20 years or so. I dare say I’ve read a bit more about the science and debates surrounding the topic of origins than you have – from authors arguing from both sides of the issue. In fact, I read far more from the mainstream evolutionary literature than I do from the ID or creationist literature. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right in my thinking. However, it does mean that at least I’m very well informed on the topic. In other words, I’ll know when you’re just blowing smoke. However, if you see some specific error in anything I’ve said on this topic, beyond your various forms of “gestalt” sensations or bald appeals to arguments from authority, by all means present a real argument. I will honestly consider it to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I’m just not interested in talking about your subjective fideistic “feelings of truth” on science or religion any further…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…