Interested as in, you are open to the Creator God of the Bible? Or, interested simply to make counter arguments?
I am interested in having a rational discussion about it. It is not a belief I hold, so if someone wants to make the point to me they will have to face my counterarguments. Why? Because these are reasons why I don't believe in a designed cosmos. If you can't show me that my reasons for holding this position is invalid, then those are good reasons NOT to accept your claims.
I won't be making counterarguments just to win the argument. And if the person I'm discussing with isn't trying to get to the truth, (ie if it looks like they will say
anything just because it promotes their side) then I will not consider it an honest discussion. In summary: I'm interested in having an HONEST discussion about cosmic design. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm NOT interested in having discussions about flat earth, big foot, or alien visitation. I don't do conspiracy theories. Cosmic design is different. I've had honest intellectual exchanges about it. As it stands now the case for it is weak. But it isn't just a bunch of made up crap and circle squaring like flat earth.
*Would you agree that much of that science has helped confirm the Biblical account of a perfect creation that has been subjected to entropy?
No. Nothing has come close to demonstrating that. I've opened my mind to the possibility and found nothing compelling. If you think there is something I'm not considering, let's hear it.
* Would you agree that much of that scientific evidence has proven many evolutionary conclusions were shoddy... and not based on Science? And, that those shoddy conclusions were used to sell a belief system? (vestigial organs, junk DNA, poor design arguments / vertebrate eye, psuedogenes, speciation = Uphill evolution, useless organs / appendix)
Absolutely not. Science is not a belief system. It is an enterprise that collects empirical data and formulates conclusions from that data. Some people may develop their beliefs according to scientific conclusions, but science cannot and
does not promote belief.
One way of seeing the world is to only rely on facts that can be (yet have not been) falsified. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism. This philosophical approach is how people turn scientific data into beliefs about the world. Some people have found problems with it (most notably Thomas Kuhn) but by and large it's a pretty grounded and realistic way to approach knowledge. Your problem seems to be with logical positivism (and not science) if your problem is with people's beliefs. If your problem is with science, then your problem is with God (since, according to the Bible, he's the one who put things in the world to be observed).
So which is your problem? Science collecting data, or people forming conclusions about the world based on that data?
I see that argument at takkorigins and other sites. I always think it is a dishonest / straw man argument. Better if you can present, argue against real arguments, rather than hypothetical straw man arguments.
If you think at any time that I have used fallacious reasoning, let's stop the discussion right there and address it before moving on. I will do the same for you. The only thing I ask is that you show me exactly where my logic went wrong. For instance, if you believe that I've strawmanned, show me exactly where and how I've misrepresented your position. I will return the favor.
