Human Intelligence

That answer certainly dodged my question. Ok, I'll play. If it's "accidental in a philosophical sense", is it also accidental in a "factual" sense?

I don't see how you arrived at that. It's a good argument, but it doesn't apply here. Ok, so now you're dodging me too. Ok, I'll play. Instead of full blown evolution, let's talk your terms: Mutations. This only leads me to ask the same basic question again: Are mutations accidental or intentional? Did the mutation happen by itself? Or if the mutation was "caused", what was the "effect"?

All terms are human; does anything exist at all? If a tree falls in the forest.... does it make a sound? To pursue this, we would need to start a topic about Clinton-speak (...that depends on what the word "is" is....)But to your comment that is more in line with this topic: You are so right. But what caused the cause? And the cause before that? Maybe we're asking "where did it all begin?" Where did the energy orignate that caused the first "thing" to build up speed to "knock" into another "thing"? Maybe we're asking where did the "superatom" come from? Or the energy to make it spin? Or explode? Or where did God come from? Who made God? Where did God get his energy? What is the real purpose of our question here?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-03-2004]

Thank you giving a direct answer to the question. So, life is the end result of an event or events that were set into motion by accident?

If it rained on the rocks for millions of years, then one day lightning struck the ground (or the water, or whatever) and suddenly there was a living microbe, would you consider the living microbe to be the intentional result of a "cause"?

At least someone has the decency to admit that I'm not being given a straight answer. But actually, I can't get a straight answer because the people who are expected to answer know precisely where I'm going with this and choose to derail the conversation by invoking the power of semantics (cut to a scene with Bill Clinton answering "...that depends one what the definition of "is" is....)
"Accident" in the context of this discussion is simply the opposite of "intelligent design". Again, it's all in the "context" of the discussion, which takes a little common sense (something which a few of us think doesn't exist). The answers that have been posted to my basic question so far are clearly dodging the obvious, again, by playing the semantics game. But at least you admit that the whole concept is a "phenomenon" (which defies explanation). Awesome example, but it certainly doesn't apply here. If you take 1000k tickets, and draw one (1), then it's obvious that one (1) win will. But what we're talking about here is an immense amount of hydrogen gas eventually evolving into a rock (and many other things, of course), then clouds (?) raining on the rocks for millions of years, then unavoidably producing life. I don't see how life being produced from wet rocks can be labeled as inevitable. Again, how in any possible thought process can you say that life is inevitable simply because it exists? With that reasoning, we could say the Grand Canyon was dug out by now-extinct giants playing in the sand millions of years ago and referencing the existence of the Grand Canyon itself as evidence? Or just because the woodshed sitting in your neighbor's back yard exists isn't proof that it was inevitable, even if you back up your claims with data describing the amount of available lumber and steel. You would need to employ a couple of carpenters, and that's where the intelligence comes into the formula, which is also the issue we're trying so hard to avoid.

No. And my guess is that you know it doesn't. Your frustration seems to lie in fact that you can't explain the origin of evolution while avoiding the requirement of an intelligent presence.

Yep. You nailed it right on the head! The formula requires intelligent intervention. That's the point I've been trying to get to all along. Thank you.

First you tell me: Then tell me: ?? Remember that we're talking about the origin of life (which is where the evolution that you're talking about, begins. In your above statement, the "certain crystal shape" isn't life and neither is a snowflake. Even the most simple living cell is an astoundingly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself, and must develop these capabilities almost immediately after its appearance or its species will quickly disappear. At best, it might leave a fossil record of itself, but only if the proper conditions exist.And you point the finger at me for presenting a fallacy?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-04-2004]

Crashfrog wrote: So now I'm being accused of playing the semantics game? I don't think so. The evidence is right before you eyes as to who is playing the semantics game. Go back and look at my posts. Shortly after I used the word "accident" I detected that several of you put your hooks into it and tried to make the definition of it the issue. Check my posts; I quickly shifted course and tried staying away from the word "accident" on its own and used directional qualifiers like "not on purpose" and "unintentional" and "opposite of intelligent design", etc. Check the posts yourself.
Eventually, to steer clear of the semantics game, I reduced my question to a basic "...would you consider the living microbe to be the intentional result of a 'cause'?" in which I completely left out any reference to "unintentional" or "accident". However, it was several of you who kept coming back and successfully prompting me into somehow explaining or defending the word virtually abandoned term "accident". Since you wouldn't let go of the term "accident", I wound up trying to explain it from a context aspect, but you refused to understand that as well. Have we run this low on arguments that we just argue over definitions?Crashfrog wrote: I suggest you stop using the term "accident", just as I have except after being forced to offer different aspects of what the word might mean. Check the last 20 posts and see who has used the term the most. Just let it die. Let's see, how about if we use the term "random processes"? I doubt it won't matter much, because someone will put their hooks into that one as well.

I didn't dodge the question. I just didn't see it as a question that you really wanted answered.
But as to your question: No, and no. But yes it did require intelligence to design water with the ability to do what it does. Even highschoolers are taught the amazing qualities of water, which I won't mention here. When you turn the key to the ignition of your car, the engine starts (hopefully, anyway). The engine doesn't start because the sparkplug had the intention to ingnite the fuel. The engine started because the car manufacturer designed the engine to do what it does. The intent is not found in the engine, rather in the designer. While insisting that this argument was a fallacy, you were actually the one using flawed reasoning. I didn't address your "question" because I thought it was intentionally too absurb to even attract my attention. I apolgize for this.But, as if that wasn't enough, you proceeded to ask another question: Again, same basic answer. No, he doesn't design each and every snowflake by hand, but he did design water (we're speaking now in layman's terms to stay simple) to do what it does when it reaches a certain temperature. Exactly the same as Toyota not having to have a mechanic on hand to re-assemble your engine for you each time you want to start your car. Again, the absurdity of the question just caused me to miss it, and I apologize for this. You are the one who resorted to false alternatives, as I've already pointed out. You have one finger pointed at me, while three are pointed back at you on this one, too. And that's not to mention your red herring attacks on terms (Bill Clinton's favorite), and of course your well crafted "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" attack that I also refuted above.Last but not least, and probably all in the same breath, you resorted to the congressman's favorite, the "ad hominem" attack: Your fallicies are so blatant, I'm guessing you crafted them on purpose just to test my knowledge of the subject. Idunno, did I miss any? I never mentioned God. Which God are you talking about? (Fallacy alarm! Beep! Beep! Beep!) Joke! That was just a JOKE! [This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-04-2004]

Ah, yes; there's the rub. But let me spin it a little differently. You don't believe God did it. But I do. You can't explain where the superatom came from, and I can't explain where God came from. We seem to have the same problem. But your frustration is fed by the fact that you can't explain the existence of the superatom in natural terms, simply because nature is incapable of it. But from my end, I consider it to be axiomatic that a building has a builder. A tornado in a junkyard can't assemble a battleship even if all the necessary parts are available; the forces that form tornados weren't designed with the intelligence or ability to assemble a battleship or even so much as a ballpoint pen. But, unlike the superatom, I believe that our origin can be explained by the supernatural. This leads me to believe in the afterlife and that an intelligent creator will be there for waiting for us. And no, I'm not driven by fear. I obey my boss because I'm loyal, not afraid. As a child, I obeyed my parents because I loved and respected them (I grew up in a great home), not because I feared them. I already pointed out the absurdity of your reducto ad absurdum. Do you think the effect is lessened if you admit to it yourself? Not only was it absurd (as you say), but the content was also wildly in left field in relation to the issue itself. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc was simply embedded in your reducto ad absurdum. Sort of a well crafted hybrid, actually. I really didn't I had to explain that one. And since you actually admit to using this technique, it makes me wonder if you're even posting your views in good faith or just to demonstrate your ability to argue either side of any issue.Um, and the ad hominem attack? Was that your last resort? Or did I mis-evaluate that too?

Yep, you nailed it. God sure is awesome, isn't he? It's the reason I love him but and simply let him be God. But, tragically, it's the same reason you apparently don't. But back to your point; imagine two 3-year trying to explain to each other how dad's snowmobile works. Neither of them have any comprehension of the mechanics of snowmobile science whatsoever. All they know is that Dad can really make that thing go. But to reduce Dad's (who, let's say, is a design engineer for Ski-doo) abilities to a 3-year old's level by saying the snowmobile's workings and origins are a phenomenon, would only bring a smirk to Dad's face. To deny Dad's hand in the snowmobile's existence would first require absolute knowledge on their part.But as to the rest of your post #39, it seems that you have reduced this issue to a fourth grade level only brings a smirk to my face. You're obviously out of arguments, and your one-liners make that obvious.But now that you hopefully have that off your chest, did you really think I would let you get away with ignoring how quickly your reducto ad absurdum crumbled? Or maybe you just missed it completely? Sorry, but I had to test your perceptive abilities. I trolled that one across your screen, and you snapped at it like a steelhead. As far as fallacy detecting goes, you were caught off base and probably still don't realize the inning is over. But since you've demonstrated that fallacy detection is still a little over your head, I'll just drop the subject and let you rave on about it while I smirk in the background.Cheers.

Evolution is the study of origins. The original question was, where did it all start (in this case, human consciousness)? Or, what started the ball rolling? I made my point many posts earlier, not sure if you saw it and subsequent ones. I can't repeat everything for the sake of space. Who said neither answer was correct? I didn't see it that way, and still don't, as is revealed in several of my posts. Um, are you following along with me here, or just drawing conclusions from out-of-context sound bites? The underlying question to all this is, perhaps, did the boeing 747 require intelligent intervention, or did the raw materials process and assemble themselves over billions of years. My guess is that you already know the answer to this, but continue to weave and bob to avoid facing the prospect of "....in the beginning, God...."

Tell me, do YOU think you're smart? Already did. Are you following the posts here, or did you just join after crash tried to reduce this tread to a debate of who can get in the last word, no matter how silly the word? Um, how did flooding get into this topic? Did someone mention flood zones? Did you accidently post this question to the wrong board?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-04-2004]