Has TruthMuse become the new Noodles (flat earth guy) of the Evolution debate - anyone?
I can't find an account for 'Noodles' anymore but it was there until recently
The response you have is to accuse me of being someone else, you and another here spend a lot more time insulting than addressing points.
I don't like having discussions with you, because you spew insults without addressing specific points that don't address the issues I bring forward, you post a lot, but not on the specific things I have said, as your link did.
The irony. That is the problem I have with you. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that you post topics but don't stick to them. You always like to fall back on the "we-can't-explain-the-universe-through-a-mindless-process," which is fine but not when we're talking about something else. Your post here is on Johnathan Wells Icons of Evolution. I posted specific critiques of his book. You should now respond in turn with rebuttals of specific points in the critiques. Falling back on your usual blanket statements does nothing to advance the conversation or address the specific points of errors in Johnathan Wells' book.
What I have been talking about is instructions causing biology to act in very specific functionally complex manners in code, instructions in code are something I worked with for over 20 years, I've written it, I have worked with it, I've corrected it, I've had my life made easier due to it. You can claim it is a religious argument all you want, and the more you say it, you make it one as well. We are talking about something that is either mindlessness at the heart of the discussion or a mind, the ramifications have worldview implications correct, but that is not what is important, which is true, mindlessness or a mind?
NO, that is NOT the topic of this OP. You started this OP and it is on Johnathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. Why do you post these videos if you don't want to actually talk about the specifics in these videos? If you want to talk about "mind vs mindless processes," then fine. Start an OP on that. But don't post videos about Johnathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution and then avoid discussing the specifics of that book.
I get it, you want everything to fall back under the "mind vs. mindless process" umbrella, but then just talk about that. Don't post videos on specific topics if you're not going to have discussions on those specific topics.
This is how I feel when I have discussions with you:
*TM posts video on Icons of Evolution. I respond with specific critiquesof the book, but instead of discussing or rebutting these specific critiques, TM gives his usual "a mindless process can't explain it"-type blanket response, which fails to address the specific critiques of the book Icons of Evolution.
*TM posts a video on Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Dilemma book. I respond with specific critiques of the book, but instead of responding to these critiques, TM gives his usual "a mindless process can't explain it"-type blanket statement, which fails to address the specific critiques of Meyer's book.
*TM leads a discussion concerning whether all life appeared at the same time or at different times during earth's history. I give evidence to this point that regardless of the earth's actual age it is indisputable that different types of life appear at different times in the fossil record and that this is a basic observational fact that is true regardless of whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old. TM gives his usual "a mindless process can't explain it"-type blanket statement and accuses me of appealing to the "mindless process" of evolution when I said nothing of the sort and when we weren't even talking about evolution, but were simply talking about whether the fossil record shows all life appearing at the same time or different times, regardless of how it got there.
I don't like having discussions with you, because you spew insults without addressing specific points that don't address the issues I bring forward, you post a lot, but not on the specific things I have said, as your link did.
The irony. That is the problem I have with you. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that you post topics but don't stick to them. You always like to fall back on the "we-can't-explain-the-universe-through-a-mindless-process," which is fine but not when we're talking about something else. Your post here is on Johnathan Wells Icons of Evolution. I posted specific critiques of his book. You should now respond in turn with rebuttals of specific points in the critiques. Falling back on your usual blanket statements does nothing to advance the conversation or address the specific points of errors in Johnathan Wells' book.
I have looked at them, and outside of people disagreeing with him, what do you think is a strong point that debunks one of his points, your choice?
What I have been talking about is instructions causing biology to act in very specific functionally complex manners in code, instructions in code are something I worked with for over 20 years, I've written it, I have worked with it, I've corrected it, I've had my life made easier due to it. You can claim it is a religious argument all you want, and the more you say it, you make it one as well. We are talking about something that is either mindlessness at the heart of the discussion or a mind, the ramifications have worldview implications correct, but that is not what is important, which is true, mindlessness or a mind?
NO, that is NOT the topic of this OP. You started this OP and it is on Johnathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. Why do you post these videos if you don't want to actually talk about the specifics in these videos? If you want to talk about "mind vs mindless processes," then fine. Start an OP on that. But don't post videos about Johnathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution and then avoid discussing the specifics of that book.
I get it, you want everything to fall back under the "mind vs. mindless process" umbrella, but then just talk about that. Don't post videos on specific topics if you're not going to have discussions on those specific topics.
This is how I feel when I have discussions with you:
*TM posts video on Icons of Evolution. I respond with specific critiquesof the book, but instead of discussing or rebutting these specific critiques, TM gives his usual "a mindless process can't explain it"-type blanket response, which fails to address the specific critiques of the book Icons of Evolution.
*TM posts a video on Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Dilemma book. I respond with specific critiques of the book, but instead of responding to these critiques, TM gives his usual "a mindless process can't explain it"-type blanket statement, which fails to address the specific critiques of Meyer's book.
*TM leads a discussion concerning whether all life appeared at the same time or at different times during earth's history. I give evidence to this point that regardless of the earth's actual age it is indisputable that different types of life appear at different times in the fossil record and that this is a basic observational fact that is true regardless of whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old. TM gives his usual "a mindless process can't explain it"-type blanket statement and accuses me of appealing to the "mindless process" of evolution when I said nothing of the sort and when we weren't even talking about evolution, but were simply talking about whether the fossil record shows all life appearing at the same time or different times, regardless of how it got there.
Having someone write I disagree, doesn't disprove anything, you have something a little stronger?
Has TruthMuse become the new Noodles (flat earth guy) of the Evolution debate - anyone?
I can't find an account for 'Noodles' anymore but it was there until recently