Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

[stamenflicker]

Instead of telling me what I think, in a made-up language, why don't you ask me what I think, in English?

Testy aren't we? I didn't use made up language, I used your language almost word for word, nevertheless what do you think Mr. Adequate?

Flick

 

[arthwollipot]

Since I start with the assumption that God is, then yes that about sums it up for me. Logic and knowability therefore stack as 2 more reasons, not 2 less reasons for my assumption.

I was going to post something here about circular arguments and self-fulfilling prophecy, but I thought I'd just let it stand as an example to others.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Since I start with the assumption that God is, then yes that about sums it up for me.

If I were to say: "If the lesser spotted Paraguayan tree frog is poisonous, then that proves the theory of evolution, and if the lesser spotted Paraguayan tree frog is not poisonous, then that proves the theory of evolution, since I start with the assumption that the theory of evolution is true" --- would you be able to see the flaws in my reasoning?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Testy aren't we? I didn't use made up language, I used your language almost word for word

No, you didn't. In particular, I didn't say "postulate", "making", "justify", or "Know-ability". And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Know-ability" with a capital K and a hyphen in the middle --- it seems to be a technical term of your own.

... nevertheless what do you think Mr. Adequate?

I think that calling me "Mr Adequate" is mild impertinence --- call me "Dr A", everyone else does --- but if you mean what do I think of the propositition you've put forward, I have already told you that I don't know what it means.

ETA: If you think I've said something which means the same as "I postulate that Know-ability can justify its own making", why don't you just quote the place where I said that in my own words?

 

[RandFan]

Since I start with the assumption that God is, then yes that about sums it up for me. Logic and knowability therefore stack as 2 more reasons, not 2 less reasons for my assumption.

I start with the assumption that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist.

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

would you be able to see the flaws in my reasoning?

Hmm... since you put it that way, it never really occurred to me before. Guess I need to rethink my reasoning, I mean my assumption. No wait! Dang....

I didn't say "postulate",

Yes you did.

"making", "justify", or "Know-ability".

Hence the word, "almost."

And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Know-ability" with a capital K and a hyphen in the middle --- it seems to be a technical term of your own.

So basically what you are saying is that I can't use these words in the discussion? I'll provide a Dr.nition if one is needed.

Know-ability is the state of thing to be known.

call me "Dr A", everyone else does

If you prefer its no problem by me (please see above).

If you think I've said something which means the same as "I postulate that Know-ability can justify its own making", why don't you just quote the place where I said that in my own words?

Again, no problem if its not a theory you hold. My mistake. Either evolution is not-knowable, or the knowing of evolution did not evolve, or then again maybe knowability can justify its own making. It doesn't matter which to me. It would be a great discussion whichever way we chose to go.

I start with the assumption that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist.

Groovy!

Flick

NETA -- I likely be spending time in the Lewis thread, no offense.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes you did.

As in "If ... you also want to postulate..."? Doesn't sound much like I'm postulating anything.

Hence the word, "almost."

One out of four, out of context isn't bad... I guess. That's "almost word for word". If you reeealy stretch the word "almost". Now you know why I'm "testy". I never said any such thing, did I? "Almost word for word" or otherwise?

Know-ability is the state of thing to be known.

So substituting the definition for the thing defined, we now have: "But you also want to postulate that very same state of thing to be known can justify its own making".

I may be better informed, but I'm none the wiser.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hmm... since you put it that way, it never really occurred to me before. Guess I need to rethink my reasoning, I mean my assumption. No wait! Dang....

Your reasoning, at least.

The relevant rule may be stated like this:

An observation tends to confirm a hypothesis if and only if the opposite observation would tend to disconfirm it.

This works for everything, not just for theology.

 

[P.S.A.]

And he started out so reasonable..., but now he's descending into Iacchus-land. Oh well, never mind. I now have 2 more posts to confirm my belief that Stamenflicker is just an immature mind seeking the reassuring Sky Daddy who'll explain everything to him. And if he posts sensibly again, well now I have another reason to believe that he's just an immature... etc, seeking Sky Daddy but sensibly this time.

 

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick
Thanks for the invite to a 4-page thread. On ID no less! Actually, I read some interesting stuff. No adjective could do justice to the rest!

But I'm not making an argument, I'm making assumption. As to it being worthless, worthless to who? You? But then its not your assumption, so why would it have any value to you?

And of course, argument follows any statement of an assumption like knight follows knave.

You may not need to have your assuamption justified, nor feel the need to convert. But then what kind of evangelism is that? If you feel you are right and others mistaken, do you not then have the duty to correct the others' misconception?

So here's my sermon
In the other thread, Dr A made the criticism "Lewis's difficulties with science were factitious, but possibly, to do him justice, this is because he met "science" not in science books but in the writings of his philosophical opponents"

I'm sure that Lewis was taught some science at school. But perhaps not at the level to understand it philosophically. That is certainly my case when I compare A-levels (18yrs old) to degree level science.

Science needs to be understood as a philosophy, not just as a list of theories and assumptions. Debating on websites won't give you the required depth. The challenge of having to prove your understanding of other people's ideas is undermined by the safe fallback of saying "my ideas are enough for me, and I don't ask anyone to accept them." Which I think is what you're doing in this thread.

Case in point:

Hmm... since you put it that way, it never really occurred to me before. Guess I need to rethink my reasoning, I mean my assumption. No wait! Dang....

Making assumptions doesn't relieve you of the burdon of reason, it is merely a prelude to reason.

 

[Ossai]

Iacchus

Do you have "faith" that the sun will shine tomorrow? That doesn't sound too far-fetched does it? ... yet it is faith nonetheless.

No, it’s not faith, it’s trust. A subtle but very distinct difference.

And why it so necessary to spell it out in absolute terms? Because you have faith in your beliefs that God doesn't exist? There's a world of difference there you see. Are you saying God can never exist, merely because you don't believe He does?

I have no faith. What I do have is varying degrees of trust. The probability of god/goddess/gods/IPU/Gremlins/LGM/Large Purple Entity of Dancing Insanity/GTITS existing is so close to zero, it’s indistinguishable from 0. Now if the GTITS appeared to the world tomorrow and announced to the entire world in each person’s native language that using ketchup was a sin, I’d be reassessing my level of trust in the GTITS and it’s holy message.

Kitty Chan

Re the fire
…
If God is actually God and was unloving, we would have been dirt long ago, no need for the heartaches, he would have moved on.

Wrong on so many levels. Just a couple to start.

1. You can’t torture a dead person. (assuming that death is the end)
2. If death isn’t the end, hell is a great big torture chamber with new attendees arriving every minutes.
a. It may be more fun to torture living people.
b. Once a person reaches hell, they may get ‘used up’ and you would want to keep a fresh supply handy.

stamenflicker

Since I start with the assumption that God is, then yes that about sums it up for me.

Which god?
List and define some traits so that predictions can be made as to how god would have used/not used evolution.

Ossai

 

[Vagabond]

How is the Earth the real question? It's nothing special... there are billions upon billions of planets in the Universe, billions of which will be Earth-like. And many of those will also be quite happily churning out "cogs". As could planets which are clement for the theoritically possible sillicon based life. Aren't you ignoring the real question, which is the factory of the universe which creates these planets?

Silly person.<<<<

This is utter crap. We don't know there are any planets in the universe other than the ones in our solar system. We certainly do not know if even one of any of these imaginary planets is earthlike. You can't counter my logic so you resort to stupidity and insults.

 

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Stupidity and insults, eh? After my last post some time back, I was going to refrain from posting again because it is very clear, Vagabond, that you really did not know what you were talking about. Once again, you prove me right.

From a couple of quick Google searches, here are a few links about planets outside our solar system:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3856401.stm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/super_earth_040825.html

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/12_new_planets.html?1822005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7357501/

And to go back for a moment to stamenflicker’s analogy between evolution and the Long Island ice tea: simple put, this is a false analogy. There is no need to merely assume that a bartender exists because you can verify it. If you order a Long Island or a Manhattan (my preference, and a better drink IMO), you can go to the person who made the drink, introduce yourself, thank the person for the drink, carry on a conversation with him or her, exchange phone numbers, and so on. How do you verify the intelligent designer in ID? You can’t. But I suppose assuming something rather than thinking does make dealing with tough questions much easier.

 

[stamenflicker]

Hey Dr. A,

Let me start off with an apology. I was having way too much fun last night and I'm not going to blame the Sam Adams Hefeweizen, although that certainly did lighten my evening mood. I don't know, part of good discussion should be enjoying it a bit... sorry if I crossed the lines and got snippy.

Part of the ID stuff (which by the way as I said before I'm not a wholehearted subscriber to), or at least the part of ID that I find interesting, is the notion that life is not only knowable, but also that we (as assumed products of its development) can know it. It's much like saying, rather reduntantly, that an English man happens to uncover a book written for the man who happens to read English. That the universe would evolve in such a manner as to be capable of making an appeal to itself is very interesting to me. Again, I don't debunk nor accept that it has or does; I only find it interesting and I believe it likely has some deeper philosophical considerations.


Os,

List and define some traits so that predictions can be made as to how god would have used/not used evolution.

The whole (hole) point of an assumption is that it is a starting point as FG noted. From there we'd probably need a new thread to discuss traits that distinguish my assumption from RandFan's IPU. To keep with this thread, why not simply take the trait of "a movement toward complexity, or a movement toward knowability, or a movement that is Life directed in the first place?

FG,

But then what kind of evangelism is that?

While "evangelism" in my Christian tradition is quite important, I don't see a thread on science as a good jumping off point. Mostly because one is bound to arrive at the wrong answers when the wrong questions are asked. Faith is 99.9% wrong in areas of science because it attempts to impose its structure (usually biblical inerrancy) upon a field which neither needs its assistance in discovering, nor desires it. Where the theist in general contributes in my opinion is not in the "how" or "what" questions, but in the "so what" and "now what" questions.

Flick

 

[P.S.A.]

Stupidity and insults, eh? After my last post some time back, I was going to refrain from posting again because it is very clear, Vagabond, that you really did not know what you were talking about. Once again, you prove me right.

From a couple of quick Google searches, here are a few links about planets outside our solar system:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3856401.stm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/super_earth_040825.html

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/12_new_planets.html?1822005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7357501/

This needs repeating. Are you paying attention Vagabond? I was just about to do the same for you too. But as Oregon_Skeptic has so kindly pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about, so here's instead a nice simple round up on cosmology for you;

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html

And don't come back until you've educated yourself at least to this standard, because I've reached up and just got my university copy of "The Dynamic Universe" down, and I will be asking you questions as to the known values of various terms within the Drake Equation if you persist in being this silly.

 

[Kitty Chan]

original statement from Kitty

By the time it gets to that one has already made up their mind about things. So really, one is only getting what they have already decided after discussing the issues.

A dog doesnt know the issues.

The whole thing is taking forever because God isnt rushing because He is Love, just waiting for all of us to get through the issues.

If God is actually God and was unloving, we would have been dirt long ago, no need for the heartaches, he would have moved on.

Kitty Chan

Wrong on so many levels. Just a couple to start.

1. You can’t torture a dead person. (assuming that death is the end)
2. If death isn’t the end, hell is a great big torture chamber with new attendees arriving every minutes.
a. It may be more fun to torture living people.
b. Once a person reaches hell, they may get ‘used up’ and you would want to keep a fresh supply handy.

This is like the conversation thats going on in the corner

Anyway, I could see if God had the nature you imply, combined with a unloving attitude. He actually could torture a dead person! Raise them up, torture, kill, repeat. So there would be no worry about using up people, wouldnt need a fresh supply.

Even then it would probably be easier to just erase the whole thing and start from scratch again, pulling the wings off flies can only be entertaining so long. Better to move onto other things.

Problem with what your suggesting is, it does not reconcile itself with other aspects of Gods nature. Kind of like looking at a person of ethnic origins and assuming they are out to rob you. They have the same sort of hopes, dreams, problems we all share.

What of love your neighbour more than yourself? Have the little children come to Him, because we should see how they see as they are special? Adam and Eve messed up but when Eve gave birth she said With the help of God I have brought forth a man. Just a little forgiveness on each side there. We say it was horrible what Job went through, but to him we would only be the friends who were sent to torture him. Job had no problem with God but he did with those friends. Who are we to judge how Job felt about things.

If I see you get mad at the other driver on the road, can I assume you are always mad, so probably kick the dog and beat the wife. To judge you because of it, would be to miss the rest of your nature, which is who you are as a whole.

 

[Vagabond]

Stupidity and insults, eh? After my last post some time back, I was going to refrain from posting again because it is very clear, Vagabond, that you really did not know what you were talking about. Once again, you prove me right.

From a couple of quick Google searches, here are a few links about planets outside our solar system:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3856401.stm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/super_earth_040825.html

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/12_new_planets.html?1822005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7357501/

And to go back for a moment to stamenflicker’s analogy between evolution and the Long Island ice tea: simple put, this is a false analogy. There is no need to merely assume that a bartender exists because you can verify it. If you order a Long Island or a Manhattan (my preference, and a better drink IMO), you can go to the person who made the drink, introduce yourself, thank the person for the drink, carry on a conversation with him or her, exchange phone numbers, and so on. How do you verify the intelligent designer in ID? You can’t. But I suppose assuming something rather than thinking does make dealing with tough questions much easier.

Bite me idiot children. These "planets" are speculation of the highest order that aren't even widely accepted by other astronomers much less lay persons. Also even if this is correct it doesn't make any of your BS correct. You don't know how to discuss properly you use logical fallicies in lieu of facts. Oh yeah you never actually presented any actual facts. Then question my education. Then resort to insults. You have given me a solid indication of your lack of intellect and maturity. Save it you aren't capable of insulting me. I hold your juvenile opinions in no regard.

 

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Originally quoted by Vagabond:
I hold your juvenile opinions in no regard.

Really? Then why bother responding at all?

Moreover, please show me where I’ve used logical fallacies to help make a point or further an argument. Seriously, if I’ve done so then show me so I can learn from my errors.

 

[arthwollipot]

Bite me idiot children. These "planets" are speculation of the highest order that aren't even widely accepted by other astronomers much less lay persons. Also even if this is correct it doesn't make any of your BS correct. You don't know how to discuss properly you use logical fallicies in lieu of facts. Oh yeah you never actually presented any actual facts. Then question my education. Then resort to insults. You have given me a solid indication of your lack of intellect and maturity. Save it you aren't capable of insulting me. I hold your juvenile opinions in no regard.

I'm afraid the facts are against you Vagabond, and your getting huffy about it won't make a lick of difference. The fact is that most astonomers and planetary scientists do accept the existence of extrasolar planets.

There is an extensive discussion of the evidence on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planets

In case that's not authoritative enough for you, here's what NASA has to say:
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/

Or the European Space Agency:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMYZF9YFDD_index_0.html

Lastly a few random links from various sites (found by Google), which demonstrate that the search for extrasolar planets is taken very seriously in the astronomical community.

http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sciref/exoplnt.htm
http://obswww.unige.ch/~udry/planet/planet.html
http://exoplanets.org/
http://www.iac.es/proyect/tep/tephome.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/afoe/espd.html
http://ethel.as.arizona.edu/~collins/astro/subjects/srchplanet1.html

If you have a look at these links, you will find that they are from organisations that are not normally given to hyperbole (Harvard, University of Arizona, the Paris Observatory).

Vagabond, you are wrong. Admit it, and move on.

 

[P.S.A.]

Tut. He didn't even pretend to read that article... not even to complain that it didn't address anything to do with planets, because it starts with ancient cosmology and it's sooooo hard to click "Forward". Just straight into the temper tantrum... And I was so looking forward to having a good chuckle over seeing him try and explain R* and Fp, especially as we can watch this directly. Oh well!