Wortfish wrote:Blackadder wrote:What an utterly futile argument this is.
If there is evidence of a Creator God, fucking produce it.
If you cannot, then quit whining about semantic crapdoodle in some badly drafted document. It is evidence of nothing other than bad drafting.
The authors did (or at least thought they had).....and had their paper retracted because of the conclusion reached.
The word you were hunting for is 'rejected'. The fact of the matter is that these people who had their paper rejected do know how to do some stuff that you don't know how to do. And the people who rejected their paper know how to do stuff that you don't know how to do. If you don't really understand what these people are doing, and how their system works, your comments are empty. You can't conclude a creator god from studying biology any more soundly than you can by reading tea leaves. You can pull the assertion out of your ass. You don't need to do a lot of science to conclude the existence of a creator god. You can conclude a creator god just as easily as anyone else can, and this is the problem with it. It's too easy. If you don't understand what I mean by this, then you are trying to ignore where the leap of faith is.
If the biological complexity we see was built in, what, 6000 years or so, then yeah, a creator god might be necessary. You don't believe it all happened in 6000 years or so. The fact is that the people who wrote down the idea of a creator god that you are trying to re-use here actually had no idea how old the universe is.
Wortfish wrote:But if you're going to pull papers for daring to conclude that a biological feature was created by a Creator, you have to pull all the pantheistic assertions that "Mother Nature" has created life.
Your problem is that you're too literal-minded. If that isn't actually your problem, and you think you have a way to win this argument, first stop treating metaphorical language as literal language. People who know how to do stuff you do not know how to do get away with metaphorical language. You don't even use it, and appear to be roundly disoriented in its presence, but if you want to win an argument, sometimes you have to be able to use it, because metaphors are more compelling, sometimes, than whatever it is you think you're using. If we could really win arguments by editing out the metaphors, this would be a more interesting argument.