Posted: Aug 11, 2010 1:59 am
by Calilasseia
Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Yawn. Unlike many thousands of people who suffered at the hands of the likes of Torquemada and other ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine, you were never in any "dungeon", so drop the specious hyperbole.


Spoken like Nero himself. I was in fact consigned to the dark abyss of cyberforum oblivion.


Oh boo fucking hoo. Perhaps if you hadn't engaged in rampant discoursive abuse, this wouldn't have happened.

Atheistoclast wrote:
The mere fact that you have to ask this question speaks volumes about your presuppositions. Not that it helps you, because as I've already pointed out to you repeatedly, the "design" processes humans engage in bear NO relation to the asserted "design" process ascribed by supernaturalists to their invented magic entities.


How do you know?


Oh, you mean you haven't bothered reading the posts in which I already told you this? You know, that business about trial and error as opposed to magical perfect foreknowledge? Which you tried to dismiss with the usual specious apologetic excrement, liberally sprinkled with a spicing of ad hominem attack?

Those comical early attempts to build aircraft are back to haunt you. And please, don't try to erect the specious argument that a mature technology that has benefited from a century or more of past mistakes somehow supports the sort of magic "design" processes asserted to exist by supernaturalists when they want to wheel in a magic man, because I already dealt with that specious objection.

Atheistoclast wrote:Certainly, humans do not design by ex nihilo creation.


They don't possess perfect foreknowledge either. Which is why prototypes are built, in order to find out if reality supports the ideas that those prototypes embody. When reality doesn't support those ideas, the prototype fails, and its back to the drawing board ... just as happened with all those comical early failures in the world of aircraft.

Atheistoclast wrote:But neither does the Creator.


Oh really? Why do I have the strange feeling you're about to erect an apologetic fabrication that quite a few of your fellow supernaturalists would regard as a heresy?

Atheistoclast wrote:If we read Genesis 1, as we should


Translation: "in accordance with my apologetic convenience" ...

Atheistoclast wrote:He fashioned Adam from dust and took a rib from the primordial man to make Eve.


Which of course is complete tosh. It's an indication of the neurotoxic effects of supernaturalist blind assertions, that when Vesalius established by dissecting actual human corpses, that males and females have the same number of ribs, that he ran the risk of being subjected to the Inquisition for daring to put reality before doctrine. That piece of mythological fiction about ribs has been known to be fiction since 1543.

Meanwhile, with respect to the matter of creation ex nihilo ass asserted to have taken place by supernaturalist, what extant materials did your magic man purportedly fashion the previously non-existent universe from? Only last time I checked the relevant supernaturalist assertions, those assertions do present this as creation ex nihilo.

Atheistoclast wrote:This is how engineers do things - they never reinvent the wheel.


Actually, in a sense, some engineers have. I'm reminded here of the drill that drills square holes. There's some interesting mathematics behind that, incidentally.

Atheistoclast wrote:
Already dealt with this specious objection. Those examples of failed pre-Wright Brothers aircraft are hardly examples of "technological wizardry".


You confuse purposeful design and rigorous testing with aimless trial and error.


Oh please, take this comedy line to the Improv. What part of "purposeful design and rigorous testing is simply impossible without the requisite body of knowledge in place" do you not understand? The only reason Boeing and Airbus Industries are able to engage in rigorous testing and purposeful design nowadays is because of those earlier mistakes. If humans hadn't bothered trying to build flying machines, and hadn't made those mistakes, there wouldn't BE a Boeing or an Airbus Industries extant today. :roll:

Atheistoclast wrote:
Which never happened. Observational reality says it never happened. My tropical fish laugh every time someone asserts that it did.


Your tropical fish are the descendants of those ancestors kept in Noah's aquarium aboard the Ark.


:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

And what recreational pharmaceuticals led to this piece of blatant fantasising and fabrication? The relevant piece of turgid mythology never mentions any fucking "aquarium", this is something you've pulled out of your rectal passage.

Atheistoclast wrote:This is as much a fact as that the moon orbits the earth.


Bollocks. This blatant piece of fabrication of yours is about as "factual" as George W. Bush's claims about WMDs in Iraq.

Atheistoclast wrote:
And I'm still waiting for a sueprnaturalist to tell me which of those rocks was the one shaped by human hand. Which makes rather a mockery of the blind assertion that "design" is easy to detect, doesn't it?


The Giant's causeway could have been made by men, but needn't have because natural processes alone suffice as an explanation. Therefore, there is no need to make a design inference for such a case.


Blatant evasion. The simple fact of the matter is, that one of those rocks in the photograph I presented originally, has been determined, by appropriately trained expert palaeoanthropologists, to have been shaped by human action. Now, if "design" is so purportedly "obvious", why can't you or any other supernaturalist tell me which of those rocks is the rock in question? Once again, when supernaturalists are required to put up or shut up with a concrete example, they're found wanting.

Atheistoclast wrote:
Oh look, it's the same specious example Polanyi is so fond of. What part of "we have evidence that humans were responsible for this" do you not understand? Such as the fact that film footage was shot of the sculptors in action? Here you go, I found this film footage with three mouse clicks.


And if no footage of its construction had been made? If an ET visiting earth were to inspect the site, would he not make an inference for design?


That depends upon a lot of factors. Such as whether that purported alien visitor notices that there are a lot of humans around, and that those rock carvings happen to bear a very close resemblance to observable human faces. At this point, if said alien is going to be rigorous about this, said alien will look for evidence connecting the two. Such as noticing that humans seem to have devoted a lot of effort to producing likenesses of themselves in stone. At which point, the connection starts to enjoy some evidential support. What part of this elementary process do you not understand again?

Atheistoclast wrote:
Bollocks. The only people in denial of reality are those who insist that magic entities are needed. 300 years of diligent scientific inquiry has rendered such asserted entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.


No. Science has described the various processes and laws but not the fundamental causes behind phenomena.


Oh, and you think a bunch of Bronze Age retards scribbling mythological fantasies did any better? Please, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Atheistoclast wrote: Indeed, it has only served to show how much we fail to explain...


Yeah, right, that's why science has given us famine-free, disease-free lives surrounded by expensive electronic toys, put humans on the Moon, built computers capable of 1015 floating point calculations per second, eradicated smallpox and probed into the heart of matter itself. Meanwhile, mythology has achieved ... sweet fuck all.

Atheistoclast wrote:like the existence of digital codes in DNA.


Oh dear, not this bullshit. What part of "DNA is a chemical molecule whose behaviour happens to be amenable to modelling as an information system" do you not understand? What part of "information isn't a magic entity" do you also not understand? Do I have to educate you with respect to the basics here?