Intelligent Design

[kmortis]

Okay, so what's your excuse? ...

What, for continuing my conversation with you? um...[sarcasm]I'm a pisces so I'm supposed to get into self-sacrificing situations[/sarcasm]

If you'd like yet another person on this forum to simply snipe at you, then I'll be happy to stop conversing and join the crowd. I just figured that you might actually enjoy a conversation for once.

Yes.

Ok...now we're getting somewhere.
Now, can you understand that your viewpoint requires the a priori position that a god exists? And for those of us that don't believe in a god, this position is not acceptable. It doesn't lend itself to testing, nor any other objective measure any of us can think of.

That design you talk about, to me, is simply a pattern that has evolved from the interaction with the DNA of the various life forms and/or the various physical laws and theories that govern phenomena. There is still much that is random about these processes. The tree grows according to its DNA and its environment. The moutain forms due to tectonic forces working upon the plates, not a design. Even electromagnetic waves follow physical patterns, and yet are unpredictable in their intricacies; the math used to describe EMR is some of the nastiest around.

I'll freely admit that it's really easy to antropomorphize natural phenomenon. It makes it easier to deal with. This doesn't mean, however, that there is necessarily a thought (and therefore a thinker) behind it all.

 

[Iacchus]

I've never said anything of the sort. It's your statement, back it up or retract it.

eta: or ignore it in a cowardly way.

And basically all you're doing is nitpicking that which is insignificant and trivial. Are we "bored" for some reason today?

 

[Upchurch]

And basically all you're doing is nitpicking that which is insignificant and trivial. Are we "bored" for some reason today?

No, I'm challangeing some of your rediculous and evasive statements and making you accountable for what you say.

So, care to support your position or is faith all that you have?

 

[Iacchus]

That design you talk about, to me, is simply a pattern that has evolved from the interaction with the DNA of the various life forms and/or the various physical laws and theories that govern phenomena. There is still much that is random about these processes. The tree grows according to its DNA and its environment. The moutain forms due to tectonic forces working upon the plates, not a design. Even electromagnetic waves follow physical patterns, and yet are unpredictable in their intricacies; the math used to describe EMR is some of the nastiest around.

Yes, we can't deny that these things exist, in their "current" state.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, we can't deny that these things exist, in their "current" state.

That was almost funny. Shame you can't channel that energy to something more productive.

 

[Tricky]

If you'd like yet another person on this forum to simply snipe at you, then I'll be happy to stop conversing and join the crowd. I just figured that you might actually enjoy a conversation for once.

A noble goal, kmortis. All of the snipers here started with the same goal. After you've seen the act one or two times though, there's not much to do except laugh and point.

 

[kmortis]

Yes, we can't deny that these things exist, in their "current" state.

True. They are there.
The issue here is where you seem to want to attribute the Existance Of Everything^tm to a deity; where as I don't have that desire.

 

[kmortis]

A noble goal, kmortis. All of the snipers here started with the same goal. After you've seen the act one or two times though, there's not much to do except laugh and point.

Thanks, Tricky. I do realize that some of you have probably have been down this, or a similar path before. But, WTH, it helps me avoid doing real work.

 

[Iacchus]

A noble goal, kmortis. All of the snipers here started with the same goal. After you've seen the act one or two times though, there's not much to do except laugh and point.

And as always, you seem so sure of yourself.

 

[Tricky]

Thanks, Tricky. I do realize that some of you have probably have been down this, or a similar path before. But, WTH, it helps me avoid doing real work.

Oh, by all means, continue. You won't get anything but gobbledygook out of him (yes, I am certain of myself about that) but the fact that I still exchange posts with him must mean that I find some enjoyement in it.

I always was a lazy fisherman. It is so much easier if they are in a barrel.

 

[kmortis]

And as always, you seem so sure of yourself.

To be fair to Tricky, as of yet, you haven't actually HAD a discussion on the subject about ID. We've just been laying down definitions so far so we can understand WTF each other is saying.

I have noticed that you do seem to have a penchant to draw upon confusing analogies that you continuously change as the subject evolves. So, if you want to really show Tricky, Merc et al up, try going for ten posts without arguing by anology.

 

[Mercutio]

bets?

 

[Iacchus]

True. They are there.
The issue here is where you seem to want to attribute the Existance Of Everything^tm to a deity; where as I don't have that desire.

Thus far all that I have acknowledged (really), is that it all comes from the same place. And, to get away from the notion that any of it is arbitrary, and didn't come from the same place, that "origin" would have to be "irreducibly complex." I really don't see much else to argue about, do you?

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, by all means, continue. You won't get anything but gobbledygook out of him (yes, I am certain of myself about that) but the fact that I still exchange posts with him must mean that I find some enjoyement in it.

I always was a lazy fisherman. It is so much easier if they are in a barrel.

And might I suggest that the only person you're arguing with here is yourself?

 

[kmortis]

Thus far all that I have acknowledged (really), is that it all comes from the same place. And, to get away from the notion that any of it is arbitrary, and didn't come from the same place, that "origin" would have to be "irreducibly complex." I really don't see much else to argue about, do you?

I honestly didn't understand that.

Ok, so the Sum of All, comes from a singularity? and if that singularity isn't arbitrary, then it has to be "i.c."? (Why yes, I am too lazy to type that out...)

Well, I was trying to get to a place where we might be able to discuss ID, however, if you do honestly believe that your designer could "guide" the evolutionary process, then we're at a non-debatable point, as we'll just have to agree to disagree as to the existance of that designer.

If, OTOH, you maintain that that designer is a neccessary predicate for existance, I think we might have a debatable issue....for tomorrow (unless I'm able to wrest the home computer away from Mama Mortis).

 

[Tricky]

bets?

Well, I'd say its possible. Besides bad analogies, he has other tools at his disposal. One of his favorites is the non-sequitur. Here's how it works. When someone asks you a question, ignore the question completely and respond with a question back to them that has no bearing on the previous one asked. You'd be surprised how effective this is. Quite often, the new question is so ludicrous, that the person trying to talk to Iacchus will simply follow off in the new direction that the conversation has taken. But even if you remember to get back to the original question and ask it again, you'll just get another wild goose chase.

Another tried-and-true technique is to just babble. It is a tool used by holy men since time immemorial, and Iacchus has it honed to razor fineness. His line of babble has just enough of the original words to make it appear that he is addressing the issue, and by the time you realize that it is entirely vapid, he has moved on.

But the tool that ires the most people is his seemingly endless supply of strawmen. Whenever he says "in other words, you are saying..." you can be certain that nothing of the original meaning of your post will remain. Quite often, it will be the exact opposite of what you were saying. Foremost among his strawmen is the dreaded scarecrow, "So you are saying something comes from nothing..." This one has been trotted out so many times that the stuffing has been beaten out of it and even the crows are laughing at it.

Analogies? That's actually when he's most creative and entertaining. He has a certain writing style that reminds me of Rod McKuen under heavy sedation. If he would just split his metaphoric meanderings into verses, he could probably have them published by some new age rag. I've seen people buy worse stuff.

 

[Iacchus]

To be fair to Tricky, as of yet, you haven't actually HAD a discussion on the subject about ID. We've just been laying down definitions so far so we can understand WTF each other is saying.

I have noticed that you do seem to have a penchant to draw upon confusing analogies that you continuously change as the subject evolves. So, if you want to really show Tricky, Merc et al up, try going for ten posts without arguing by anology.

No, it's the, "See, I told you so all along," bit that doesn't work with me. Which is to say, there's nothing to discuss, really. Tricky, like a few others around here, just likes to hear himself talk.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, I'd say its possible. Besides bad analogies, he has other tools at his disposal. One of his favorites is the non-sequitur. Here's how it works. When someone asks you a question, ignore the question completely and respond with a question back to them that has no bearing on the previous one asked. You'd be surprised how effective this is. Quite often, the new question is so ludicrous, that the person trying to talk to Iacchus will simply follow off in the new direction that the conversation has taken. But even if you remember to get back to the original question and ask it again, you'll just get another wild goose chase.

It's all "interconnected" ... Tricky.

 

[Iacchus]

I honestly didn't understand that.

Ok, so the Sum of All, comes from a singularity? and if that singularity isn't arbitrary, then it has to be "i.c."? (Why yes, I am too lazy to type that out...)

Fair enough.

Well, I was trying to get to a place where we might be able to discuss ID ...

Which aspect? Actually, I don't know much more about ID than what I've described. Neither am I a follower of those who are proponents of it. How does their version differ from mine?

... however, if you do honestly believe that your designer could "guide" the evolutionary process, then we're at a non-debatable point, as we'll just have to agree to disagree as to the existance of that designer.

Well yes, this in effect is what I have said.

If, OTOH, you maintain that that designer is a neccessary predicate for existance, I think we might have a debatable issue....for tomorrow (unless I'm able to wrest the home computer away from Mama Mortis).

So, how could the Universe just invent itself -- prior to its creation that is -- without an Inventor?

 

[Mercutio]

So, how could the Universe just invent itself, prior to its creation that is, without an Inventor?

Ah, words...

It could not invent itself without an inventor. It could not create itself without a creator. Those verbs presuppose those entities.

It could not begin without a beginning. I think both sides agree it began. But a beginning does not presuppose any outside entity, as creation or invention do.

Why use "create" or "design", words which presuppose your conclusion, when "begin" works just as well but makes Occam a lot happier?

Then you can get to work amassing evidence of a Creator or Inventor, without merely writing one into the language from the start.