Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design."

Daylight said:
OK, but where are the ID/creation scientists? They are very hard to find, ideas? Just to be clear, it needs to be a person with a PhD in ID/creation science obtained from an accredited school.
Click to expand...
Well they don't have Ph.d. in creationism, but of you're looking for evidence that Ph.D.s can be retarded too then This book should offer amble evidence.
 
csense said:
I would think that you could reduce this even further and say that intelligence is the ability to first recognize the existence of a/the problem, whether or not you succesfully solve it.
Click to expand...

Why? Because computers can help us solve problems but don't have any problems of their own?

What does it take to have a "problem"? To know you have a problem? Then to solve the problem?

Does a lab rat running a maze looking for cheese know it has a problem to solve? On some level, I think it does.

Does a virus injecting RNA into a cell know it's solving its reproductive "problem"? I doubt it.

Given Minsky's terms, it might be argued that in some way a computer is intelligent, but given mine, I would say it could not.
Click to expand...

What do you think it takes to recognize the existence of a problem? What would the lab rat have that the virus and computer don't?

That said, I just popped in here to read some of Hammy's posts and extend him a friendly hello.
Click to expand...

Hammy doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you?
 
This is on the Chris Matthews show right now, NBC.

ETA: Never mind, they spent a total of 5 minutes on it. :p
 
hammegk said:
Wrong as usual; I do have one 100% certain fact (as do you even though you don't grasp it).
Click to expand...
Who said I was done? You merely ran away before we could discuss it further. You now seem more or less content to post and run with highly leading and inferenced questions rather than engaging in actual discussion. This thread is the most I've seen you post in quite a while.

Leaving hammegk's ego and returning to the topic: It seems to me that most ID'ers use their arguments against evolution as evidence for intelligent design, which is of course a huge logical fallacy. What, then, is the evidence for design? What testable predictions does ID put forth? How is designed measured and how does one control for erroneous human pattern recognition?

And really, the biggest question in my mind, if some things are so irreducibly complex that they must have a designer, the designer must be one of these irreducibly complex things. Without relying on supernatural phenomenon to explain, who designed the designer?
 
Kerberos said:
Well they don't have Ph.d. in creationism, but of you're looking for evidence that Ph.D.s can be retarded too then This book should offer amble evidence.
Click to expand...

I’m just looking for real ID/Creation scientists to ask my questions or read up on it. I’m not looking for opinions from ID/Creation scientist want-a-be’s that don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.

I’m beginning to suspect since I’ll never be able to find any real ID/creation scientists or an accredited school that offers a PhD program in ID/creation science. They don’t appear to exist.

If there are no ID/creation scientists, and there are no schools that offer a PhD program, is there really such a thing as ID/creation science?
 
Upchurch said:
Without relying on supernatural phenomenon to explain, who designed the designer?
Click to expand...
What in reality might "supernatural phenomena" be, other than obfuscation tossed into discussions by materialists and/or dualists?

Please demonstrate that Thought is material. And yes Uppie, I agree that if what we perceive as your brain is not operationg Uppie blather will not appear on crt screens; that would not prove Thought material, only that Uppie blather ceased to annoy.

But, does Thought exist? ;)


normie said:
Hammy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that you don't know what i'm talking about. :p

You have joined a quite large group. :D
 
hammegk said:
What in reality might "supernatural phenomena" be, other than obfuscation tossed into discussions by materialists and/or dualists?
Click to expand...

I thought the "supernatural" was, by definition, a place where science couldn't go. It's something "non-material" yet still something.

To say there is no "supernatural," to be a materialist, is to say there is no place science can not go... eventually.

Please demonstrate that Thought is material.
Click to expand...

Well, let's do an experiment where we remove material from your brain and see if you can still think as well.

It is obvious that you don't know what i'm talking about.
Click to expand...

And who's fault is that?
 
Daylight said:
I’m just looking for real ID/Creation scientists to ask my questions or read up on it. I’m not looking for opinions from ID/Creation scientist want-a-be’s that don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.

I’m beginning to suspect since I’ll never be able to find any real ID/creation scientists or an accredited school that offers a PhD program in ID/creation science. They don’t appear to exist.

If there are no ID/creation scientists, and there are no schools that offer a PhD program, is there really such a thing as ID/creation science?
Click to expand...

It's all an elaborate conspiracy perpetuated against the public by the secular humanist-atheist-liberal-communist elitists running the university system. The ideology of Darwin is on its way out, and the truth of the Bible -- oops, I mean the science of intelligent design -- cannot be suppressed much longer.
 
hammegk said:
What in reality might "supernatural phenomena" be, other than obfuscation tossed into discussions by materialists and/or dualists?
Click to expand...
Ah, the ol' "Avoid answering a question by asking a different question" evasion.
[fquote]Please demonstrate that Thought is material.[/fquote]Show that an immaterial construct is made of matter? Sure. After that, I'll show that invertibrates have a backbone and that 1 + 1 = 4.
[fquote]But, does Thought exist? ;) [/fquote]You're the one who is making the positive claim that the existance of thought is 100% certain. You're the one responsible for backing the claim.
 
normdoering said:
I thought the "supernatural" was, by definition, a place where science couldn't go. It's something "non-material" yet still something.

To say there is no "supernatural," to be a materialist, is to say there is no place science can not go... eventually.
Click to expand...

Well, I had to look up the term "materialism" and it's not a precise fit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

It's close, but to be precise the opposite view to supernaturalism is simply "naturalism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(Philosophy)

W. V. Quine describes naturalism as the position that there is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself. There is no better method than the scientific method for judging the claims of science, and there is neither any need nor any place for a "first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology, that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia definition of materialism carries a lot of baggage.

There are, in a way, non-material "things" that exist. For example: information. Think of a novel. It can exist as ink on paper, as a pattern of magnetic charges on a floppy disk that has to be read by a computer or by light reflecting bumbs on a CD that also needs to be read by a computer. Every version of the novel "War of the Worlds" is that same novel and they all have a material existance but we're not talking about a material thing when we talk about a specific novel. We're talking about an information pattern.
 
normdoering said:

There are, in a way, non-material "things" that exist. For example: information. Think of a novel. It can exist as ink on paper, as a pattern of magnetic charges on a floppy disk that has to be read by a computer or by light reflecting bumbs on a CD that also needs to be read by a computer. Every version of the novel "War of the Worlds" is that same novel and they all have a material existance but we're not talking about a material thing when we talk about a specific novel. We're talking about an information pattern.
Click to expand...

I think about that a lot with folk music that has survived by oral tradition alone. The songs exist...and yet, when no one is playing them or even thinking about them, where are they?

I know..stored in brains. But how? Where exactly? How are they called up when needed?
 
 
 
normdoering: Congratulations; as opposed to the likes of the tbk-Uppie axis, you seem to be at least approaching the question rather than continuing to mindlessly babble materialist doxology.


Uppie: I agree that in your case the existence of Thought is unproven.


Orwell: Do you think I deny that what we perceive as brain influences Thought? I don't.
 
hammegk said:
... I agree that in your case the existence of Thought is unproven.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's not unproven, it's undefined. "Thought" is one of those terms, like consciousness, that Marvin Minsky would call a "suitcase term" because it actually packs a lot of other things... memory, information processing, instinct, desires...

To understand thought you have to open the suitcase and start examining its contents.

If thought doesn't exist then what are they reading here:

'Thoughts read' via brain scans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4715327.stm

If thoughts can't be done by a computer then what is happening here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/business/yourmoney/07techno.html?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725115.300
 
hammegk said:
Orwell: Do you think I deny that what we perceive as brain influences Thought? I don't.
Click to expand...

I think that you seem to lack a sense of humour. And I don't have much patience for pseudo-philosophical argumentation (aka sophistry), so please don't try to drag me into the argument.

Signed:

Convinced materialist who took a bunch of biology classes at university. :p
 
Orwell said:
I think that you seem to lack a sense of humour.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so .... :(

Or is it a "suffer fools" problem .... I wonder???? :p


And I don't have much patience for pseudo-philosophical argumentation (aka sophistry), so please don't try to drag me into the argument.
Click to expand...
The attempts to deceive rest squarely with those who pretend the assumption that materialism is correct is more than an assumption.


Convinced materialist who took a bunch of biology classes at university. :p
Click to expand...
If you have convinced yourself that the essence of *you* is nothing more than a Turing machine and some i/o sensors & servers, your choice. ;)




normd.: I'd say you are conflating Thought with human consciousness -- a fact not in evidence. :)
 
Hammegk:

Sterile discussion. You will be unable to find one logical argument convincing and compelling enough to make a materialist question his beliefs. And the reverse is probably also true.

Materialism is simply the view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical. What you believe "materialism" to be is clearly a silly caricature.

So please, change the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom