Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 5 of 702 (569088)
07-20-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
07-20-2010 8:31 AM


He decided to create a world in which there will be mystery; in which we can not understand many of the things that go on in it until after we leave this level and proceed to the next. He didn't want us to know everything right now.
Now, is that any more ridiculous to believe this, then to believe that a chaotic whirl of cosmic chemicals settled down in the right place in the right order to then cascade into a random spiraling of carbon mixing, using a mechanism that we don't know, and which have no empirical evidence for, and one in which we can just create just so stories about how a turtle turned into a Tiger then turned into a monkey, then turned into Richard Feynman-in a world perfectly tuned to allow this to happen, because we can also fabricate more just so stories about this being one of zillions of other universes that we can't see-but somehow some are more wiling to believe in than believe in a spirit?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-20-2010 8:31 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 9:16 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 7 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-20-2010 9:16 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 07-20-2010 9:23 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2010 9:35 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 17 of 702 (569107)
07-20-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Granny Magda
07-20-2010 9:35 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Ha, the "Real Theory of Evolution"! As if there even is such a thing. And a consensus none the less. What an even more gratuitous bit of nonsense.
A supposed theory which accounts for altruism except when it accounts for evil. Which accounts for slow minute changes, except when it accounts for rapid, extreme ones. Which accounts for beauty except when it accounts for ugliness. Which explains why species die out except when it explains why they didn't. Which explains disease resistance except when it doesn't. Which explains for strength except when it explains for weakness. Which is a tree of life, except when it is a bush. Which developed from a single lineage, except if it developed from multiple starting points. Which doesn't know what mechanisms drive it, except that it knows that it must be materialistic.
Spare me the pompous argument from, and of ignorance. Your Theory can't be proved wrong, because it doesn't even know what it says. Before you start telling me to know what it says before I disagree with it, perhaps YOU should first decide what it says-because so far, with each and every year that it changes, all it really says is, well, its materialistic in nature-but don't ask us why, or how, or how we know.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" except when it is evolutionists claiming that they know how life came to be, and that they have a consensus-then no proof at all is required.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2010 9:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 07-20-2010 10:46 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2010 11:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 12:42 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 1:04 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 19 of 702 (569111)
07-20-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
07-18-2010 10:39 PM


When its intelligent
To answer your question, I say a design is intelligent, for as long as that design exists without someone being able to give some other CLEAR and exact explanation for how it came to be.
Until that happens, it is intelligent in origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 07-18-2010 10:39 PM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 07-20-2010 11:50 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2010 12:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-20-2010 12:58 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 07-20-2010 6:14 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 31 of 702 (569224)
07-21-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by onifre
07-20-2010 6:14 PM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, is it perfectly acceptable to assume that something is derived from purely materialistic, or naturalistic causes simply because that is a default position? Even if there is no empirical evidence for this, and even if it does nothing to explain the precise fine tuning necessary for the stars and the planets and for life to exist. Is it really enough to just say that well, maybe its only fine tuned because it is one of zillions of universes (infinite universes even can you imagine), most of which are not fine tuned for life to exist, but this one just happens to be? Isn't that a flight of fanciful dreaming, the kind that you claim to be so opposed to?
Is it reasonable to say that this intelligence which enables us to ponder the origins of our path to existence, is derived entirely from un-intelligence And the only reason we have to assume that this intelligence arose from un-intelligence is simply because some have proclaimed that only unintelligent explanations can be considered? No matter how absurd the idea of intelligence spontaneously arising from un-intelligence is, even without a shred of evidence to prove it so, it is the only acceptable answer. And this is considered scientific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 07-20-2010 6:14 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:14 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 36 by articulett, posted 07-21-2010 3:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 07-21-2010 12:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 33 of 702 (569226)
07-21-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Granny Magda
07-20-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
I see, so you actually have a book that proves the exact lineage of man, from bacteria all the way until Richard Feynman? Well, that's really great Granny-why not just share the name of that book, so that everyone on this website can know that that exact puzzle is solved-and we can put the whole issue to rest. What is that book that unlocked all the secrets of the universe and revealed so much authority to you? Surely you can't be so selfish as to want to hide that empirical evidence all for yourself, could you?
I mean, its not like you would just make up that you know the path of humanity from flecks of sand to Feynman-right? Because that would be fucking stupid to make that claim. And you are not fucking stupid are you?
Or perhaps its just that you are so brain-washed by your own believes, that you are only capable of repeating the same ritualistic mantra so famous for people of your mindset-"Just read a book, just read a book, I am a fucking stupid evolutionary robot, just read a book..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2010 11:06 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:12 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 5:26 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 38 of 702 (569231)
07-21-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 3:14 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Perhaps because that is the way it was designed?
What's your explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 39 of 702 (569232)
07-21-2010 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 3:14 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Perhaps because that is the way it was designed?
What's your explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:14 AM crashfrog has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 41 of 702 (569236)
07-21-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by articulett
07-21-2010 3:15 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, its a good speech. When you actually HAVE facts to back up the extraordinary claims made by evolutionists it will be so much more convincing.
Of course, you can always just claim like Dr. A and Granny that the facts are all in a magic book, and then just run away from the responsibility of proving that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by articulett, posted 07-21-2010 3:15 AM articulett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 3:49 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:58 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 4:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 47 by Parasomnium, posted 07-21-2010 4:43 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 10:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 54 of 702 (569256)
07-21-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 3:16 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, is it perfectly acceptable to assume that something is derived from purely materialistic, or naturalistic causes simply because that is a default position?
Yes.
Even if there is no empirical evidence for this ...
But, of course, there is. That's why it's the default position.
Please support this with evidence, as per the rules of the forum.
Or just stay out of the discussion entirely....or is Granny too old to fight her own battles?
Actually since you can't adhere to the first rule, adhere to the second.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 9:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 55 of 702 (569260)
07-21-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Granny Magda
07-21-2010 5:26 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
That would help. By the evidence you've presented do far, I'm guessing that wouldn't be English.
Did you mean by the evidence of do do? Sorry, you are right I can't understand your English, but it sure does smell of do do.
But yes you are right about one thing, its not my first language, its my fourth. I guess that makes two of us. Which one do you normally use?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 5:26 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:54 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 702 (569274)
07-21-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Granny Magda
07-21-2010 5:26 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
We're no more descended form flecks of silicon than we are from turtles.
Again, we are using English, so I realize the challenges you also face; but yes, I agree, that is "fucking stupid" as you like to put it, but then many things Richard Dawkins says is stupid, so its no real surprise is it?
So, BTW, which chemical element are you claiming life arose from, since you also think Dawkins is so fucking stupid?
In fact, if anything, the sand comment is even dumber and more ignorant than the silly turtle comments.
Did you mean dumb and redundant? Or perhaps ignorant and repetitious? Or in your language, those are two different concepts? Its cool, perhaps that is the case in Borneo. I am only passingly familiar with Malay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 5:26 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 9:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 702 (569281)
07-21-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 9:32 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
So ignorant is not lacking in intelligence? I see. And dumb is not lacking knowledge? Ok.
And so what word do I use to describe you, imbecilic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 9:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 9:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 63 by jar, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 10:06 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 70 of 702 (569330)
07-21-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Huntard
07-21-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
The topic is about when do we decide that something that appears to have design and to be intelligence is derived from an intelligent source.
Now, as many of you say that its silly to subscribe an intelligent source for something if you can't see that intelligent source, I submitted that it is no more silly than attributing all of life to a materialistic source, when you have no more proof of that then the ones who feel the source is intelligent. In fact, I would argue you have even less proof, because things are indeed intelligent, in the way we understand intelligence, so saying that this came from absolute un-intelligence is less logical than the belief in a designed world.
Now, after making these observations, and condensing the basic tenets of your theory down to its essence, that turtles, and tigers and monkeys and Richard Feynman all come from the same source, and an unintelligent one at that-I have to first listen to GM say that is fucking stupid I have to then listen to her claim that the empirical proof for the ToE exits in books without her giving any evidence to support that. I then have to listen to Dr. A repeat the same banal, meaningless crap.
I then have to listen to Ringo say nothing other than it takes intelligence to understand the explanation. And that's his entire contribution to the discussion.
I then have to listen to Dr. A AGAIN vomit his same tired lines-"Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory" as his entire contribution.
I then have to listen to Jumped Up Chimpanzee add his all important contribution to the subject "Why don't you read some books on the subject (written by evolutionary biologists who have constructed the theory, and not by creationists) and then come back with some intelligent questions about anything you may not understand?" Gee read a book-great debate stuff! You guys sure do know how to make an argument.
I then have to endure Dr. A again saying "If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?" without his acknowledging that modern medicine NEVER uses the ToE to achieve its medical advances-besides of which what the heck does it have to do with this discussion?
Dr. A's next contribution is to blatantly proclaim that there is empirical evidence for ToE again without providing a shred of evidence to back that statement. Is this the point when I should begin to respond to the argument that they have presented (because there isn't one yet).?
Or should I wait for this gem, "Halfwitted religious bigots who don't know science from a hole in the ground consider it unscientific." No I can start debating the subject?
But it gets better, you chime in with the oh so valuable contribution, "They never claimed that." Now is the time for rebuttal to nothing?
So now, after GM and Dr. A BOTH refuse to show any evidence in a book for their claims that the evidence is there, I get to read, "You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar. " Is this the point where I should begin the intelligent discourse with the enlightened?
But it gets better, if not even more vacuous. Dr. A: 'I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome." The intelligent dialogue has begun?
Now so far, what is your contribution to this discussion? Oh, here it is: "Yes, they're quite the enigma, aren't they? " Powerful stuff I realize, but not much grist for discussion yet, now is it?
But of course we can't skip Parasomnium's valuable input: "Do they actually have to make you read it?"
Next we get to wade through Granny's spelling lesson, as she misspells "from" and "so'.
This is the debate I should engage? Oh, but there's more great stuff here to mull over:
Dr. A: "Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"
Because that's what he says! Is that a good enough reply?
So should I take Theodore's advice to argue the points that were made? Whose points is he referring to? Who has addressed my initial point up til now with any intelligence at all? I suppose I could answer Blue jays points, if I could somehow summarize what they are-but I must do so while reading all this other horseshit first?
So you are going to tell me there is rational material here worth replying to? There is a discussion worth having here? With who? Ok, Bluejay at least gave an answer, that's the only one I have seen so far.
So should I respond to you, since your responses lack as much substance as any?
Ok, then my response to you is, fuck you too, dick! When do your contributions start?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 9:59 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 12:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 73 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-21-2010 1:20 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 1:23 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2010 2:03 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 142 of 702 (569536)
07-22-2010 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Granny Magda
07-21-2010 1:23 PM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Again, Dawkins has never said that we are descended from silicon or sand or any such thing. You just pulled that one out of nowhere.
But if "that's what he says!", I guess you'll be able to show us where he says it, right? Of course again, you won't be able to show us that, because it's nonsense, but I am curious to see you try...
From: Origin of Life - A. G. Cairns-Smith - references
"Cairns-Smith's ideas were favourably mentioned in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", 1976:
The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the latter case we might say that their survival machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace of them remains in modern survival machines. Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals-minerals, little bits of clay.''
Further:
The Selfish Gene, page 21:
"Cairns-Smith believes that the original life on this planet was based on self-replicating inorganic crystals such as silicates. If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role."
So, just how curious are you Granny? Curious enough to get your own lazy ass to do a little research and actually read a book yourself before you start throwing around all your rabid baseless claims about things you don't even know? Or are you too dumb (or is it ignorant, or perhaps stupid) to actually comprehend that he put it in his own book because he must hold some validity to the notion.
Secondly, since you apparently are not as well read on the subject of evolution as you claim, let me explain to you that many Darwinian evolutionary theories paint a picture of life beginning perhaps in the sea, spreading to a land reptile type of creature (is a turtle an amphibian or a reptile, I can never remember-oh, right, it's a reptile), which then lead to the first mammals. From these first shrew like mammals came bigger ones, some that started to look like a cat (what is a Tiger again, hell who can remember all these biology class facts) and then life began developing larger mammals, some which look a lot like monkeys, and then......well no nevermind. This is baby talk isn't it. I mean is baby talk the level I need to talk things with you, since you are either as dumb (imbecilic, ignorant, stupid, moronic, take your pick) as a reptile, or did you in fact know exactly what I was saying, and you are actually just as intellectually dishonest as a snake?
But the whole point of that explanation, which obviously went right over your head is that it doesn't matter what Tree of Life you choose, because that's one of the problems with the supposed ToE-there is no tree of life that can be shown to be true, there are just so stories. And that's why you can't point to a book that has any empirical proof of the origins of life. So instead you hide from your own demands of providing evidence, by simply saying.."Oh, well, go read Why Evolution is True".
So maybe you can go start reading a few books, try Richard Dawkins for a start-you can perhaps learn just how full of shit he is, and how much you two have in common. Then you can read some philosophy books, if you can find some in a language you understand, then you can try some books on logic. That should keep you busy for a while.
But keep it classy Granny, let me know if you find any spelling mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 1:23 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2010 7:09 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 145 by Huntard, posted 07-22-2010 7:30 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 152 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2010 9:04 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 146 of 702 (569548)
07-22-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Granny Magda
07-22-2010 7:09 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
No Granny, in an HONEST discussion, when you say. "Again, Dawkins has never said that we are descended from silicon or sand or any such thing." those words have meaning, that you can't try to weasel out of by saying its old, or by saying that he discussed it but doesn't believe it. That is just pure horseshit debating, and shows just what lengths you will go to to be dishonest.
I think anyone with even a shred of honesty who reads what you wrote, and the evidence I provided which proves you utterly wrong can see the truth. Do I expect you to admit you were wrong, and apologize? Of course not. Because you do not display the character to do so (nor does Huntard).
But when someone writes in a PUBLISHED book, discussing the exact possibility of such a scenario (that you claim they never believed), you do not have the intellectual right to say they 'never said any such thing"..and to call someone a liar! Your slimy tactics to worm your way out of of the case is there for all to see. You even have the temerity to now say, "We are talking about clay not sand!" Were you drinking when you wrote that or is it another case of your English language comprehension skills? Did you see where I wrote the word silicon? Did you see where the articles mention the word silicon? Coincedence???!!!!
So yea, I may engage Bluejay, when I have more time to consider his points, but that has nothing to do with you, so don't go telling me about not understanding things, or obedient civil discourse and personal abuse. Everything I said to you was taken directly from your choice of debate style. I never begin a conversation with anyone in the rude manner that YOU choose. Sorry if I find it necessary to shove it back in your face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2010 7:09 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Huntard, posted 07-22-2010 8:28 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 151 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2010 8:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024