Human Intelligence

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]

Ah, but what it is is an extremely complex arrangement of matter. So don't dodge the question. You claim that you can't have complex arrangement without intelligence. So does God sit down and design every snowflake by hand? The simplest cell that is alive today, yes. Nobody's suggesting such a cell just sprung into being. Unless the cell creates some kind of mineral deposit, it's not ever going to fossilize. You've hit on the biggest problem in origin of life research. Yeah, I still am, because you committed the fallacy of false alternatives. Tu coque is another fallacy. Plus you've dodged a question. So, that's three marks against you so far.For somebody who calls himself "skeptick" you might endeavor to aquaint yourself with the basics of informal logic.

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]

And the majority of Christians agree with that. They believe a creator 'designed' water that way, or rather that he operated at an even more sophisticated level and designed the laws of physics so that the constituents of water would have the right properties to make waster than way.They also believe he didn't 'design' each individual species of life on earth. But just like the snowflakes the designed the grand stage for them to come into being on. He is, to them, a very sophisticated designer indeed.If that is your belief then science has nothing to say that you need worry about. It has no comment on the nature of that God.There are some who have a different belief. This belief would have to disagree with you and say that God 'designs' each and every living thing and each and every snowflake. They have a very unsophisticated God. They want scientific proof of their beliefs or they loose faith.

---

Common sense isn't

I did. You are.The minute you started saying "accident", we explained to you that that wasn't a term that was applicable.What was your response? You continued to use the term. A reasonable person, eager to avoid semantics debates, would have opted for a different term - "undirected", "without guiding intent", etc. - that everybody could agree on. That's the mature response.What you did was persist in your game. You insist that we use your terms, because of course they're stacked in your favor. You've loaded the question in such a way that, no matter what we answer, you win. Much like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"The only correct answer is not to answer, which is what we did. I tried to do the mature thing - explain to you how your terms were loaded and in error - but you're so keen to play your games that you spat it back in my face. You've stopped? That's news to me. You were defending its use in the post that I replied to before.If you're really done with "accident", then the discussion can move on. But I find it disingenuous at best that you accuse us of playing semantics games when it appears that's what you've been doing from the get-go. Nonetheless I'm willing to drop it if you are.Is the life we see the result of purposeless, natural cause? Yes. Does that answer your question? I'll say it again - there is no purpose that has guided the course of evolution on Earth.

Maybe I should have stressed its importance. My bad. Maybe you didn't recognize it as a rhetorical technique called "reducto ad absurdum" where you take your opponents argument to its most absurd logical extreme. God having to design every snowflake is the absurd logical extreme of the argument "intelligence is the only source of complexity." Sure. and you know what? I can't prove that God didn't design the universe 13 billion years ago with initial conditions in such a way as to guarantee that life would arise 9 billion years ago, kind of like the ultimate trick billiards shot. I can't prove that what we see today wasn't God's plan all along. I don't believe it, but I can't prove that it didn't happen.What I can prove isn't necessary is any kind of divine intervention 6,000 years ago to result in the formation of the diversity of life that we see today. Evolution and the historical cosmological model are compatible with theism, especially with a kind of theism called Deism. Evolution and the Big Bang aren't proof of atheism. You'll have to show me where I concluded "after this, therefore because of this" or else I'll have to conclude you don't understand the fallacies of informal logic. Nice try, though. It's not yet apparent you understand what the logical fallacies are, yet. You've committed several and erroneously accused me of two more. True. My bad. Instead of God, feel free to substitute any designer you feel capable of designing life.

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?

Oh, I know I can't. The thing is, you can't explain anything in supernatural terms.The minute you've allowed "God did it" as a valid explanation, you've stopped the advancement of science dead in it's tracks, because "God did it" explains literally any phenomenon whatsoever. There's nothing "God did it" can't explain, and as a result, it truly explains nothing.I would think that a guy who calls himself "Skeptick" would know better than to invoke the Argument from The God of the Gaps. I'm not clear by what authority you make pronouncements about what nature is and isn't capable of. No, it just draws into sharp relief that fact that you don't know what you're talking about: See? Why wouldn't I admit to using a time-honored, valid rhetorical technique? What ad hominem attack? Exactly what do you think I called you? Apparently. If I had leveled an ad hominem against you, you'd know. Trust me.

Words have meanings. If you ask an either-or question and neither answer is correct, how are we supposed to respond? Perhaps if you state what you think, and where you are going with it, we could get some meaningful discussion?I believe this started off with a question about human consciousness. I take it you wish to argue human consciousness could not have evolved? Go ahead, argue it. We're reading.

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...."

The Theory of Evolution covers only the study of biological life after it first emerged. Do you mean what caused the big bang? I have no idea. I have no idea if it even has a cause.Do you mean where did the first replicator come from? Simple chemistry, probably acted out in a geothermal vent. Probably. We're not really sure yet.Do you mean how did human consciousness evolve? We don't really now. We don't know how consciousness works yet or, indeed, what it is for. Now, there's a few interesting ideas around, but none of them are anything more than that at this time. Whether you see it that way or not. I don't. Therefore I cannot answer your either-or question with either of your answers. The Boeing 747 was designed, as you know. I imagine your hoping that we'll let you generalise from that to life. Trouble is, life has only the tiniest similarity to a Boeing 747, and we have compelling evidence showing it needs no designer. I used to be a Christian. I gave it up because I found the concept of god not only totally redundant in explaining the world, but actively contradictory to the world we observe around us.(Obligatory sidenote pointing out that evolution does not require or imply atheism)There's another thing I don't know. How is that saying 'god did it' is any more satisfactory than saying 'I don't know'.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 02-04-2004]

You seem to think you're awfully smart, Skeptick. How about you answer the question inherent in this thread (that is if you think there was a flood). Fossil sorting for Simple

---

Common sense isn't

Out of arguments? Looks to me like you're out of rebuttals. Here are the points that you've failed to rebut, in order of recentness:1) "God did it" is useless as an explanatory framework, while science provides useful answers and makes accurate, testable predictions.2) Complexity cannot be used as an indication of intelligent design unless intelligent design is to be taken as the source of all complexity. (This would be the reducto ad absurdum that you claim "crumbled" - rather, it is you who seem to have abandoned any attempt to rebut it.)3) The complexity of the cell is not a rebuttal of evolution, because evolution does not propose full cells springing into being.4) "Accident" is not the appropriate term to refer to any natural, biological phenomenon, and a demand that one choose between "accident and intent" is to commit the fallacy of false alternatives.5) You've accused me of practically every logical fallacy in the book, while remaining obviously and laughably ignorant of what those fallacies mean, as evidenced by your total inability to actually substantiate your accusals.I'm hardly out of arguments. I have infinite patience when it comes to rebutting nonsense. It's pretty clear, however, that we've exceeded your ability to keep up, so there's no shame in your attempt to drop out here. What is shameful is the lack of intellectual honesty that prompts you to wave a flag of victory while yourship sinks around you. Cheeky, but laughably transparent.