Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 12:33 AM
382 online now:
Dredge, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 379 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,266 Year: 18,872/21,208 Month: 1,631/3,111 Week: 426/707 Day: 2/120 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3738
39
40414243Next
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5899
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 571 of 638 (737182)
09-18-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Percy
09-18-2014 8:32 PM


Definitions again
This is what you have yet to explain, so why not get on with it?

How about this?

He can go over to Faith's blog and they can argue about definitions until the cows come home. Then the winner can come back here and we can get on with the real discussion?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 8:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 572 of 638 (737183)
09-18-2014 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Percy
09-18-2014 8:32 PM


Re: The Tao
Ok,
Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread, I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.

If you don't understand intellectually honest debate, look it up.

Sorry for having wasted your time.
You are excused for wasting mine.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 8:32 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2014 8:46 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 9:39 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 575 by Omnivorous, posted 09-18-2014 10:05 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 583 by Taq, posted 09-19-2014 3:54 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5899
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 573 of 638 (737184)
09-18-2014 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by taiji2
09-18-2014 8:42 PM


Re: The Tao
I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.

If you don't understand intellectually honest debate, look it up.

Sorry if you feel you have to leave.

However, a large part of what we do involves science and the scientific method. That is based on evidence. So far, you have not been able to supply evidence.

And as for being prickly when your view is challenged, welcome to the world of science! That's the way it works.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 574 of 638 (737185)
09-18-2014 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by taiji2
09-18-2014 8:42 PM


Re: The Tao
Hi Taiji2,

In the proclamation in your signature about what a debate is and is not you could add an item about a debate having a topic for discussion to center on.

You might want to reexamine the way you approach discussion, which seems designed to irritate everyone, even those who might agree with you. Visit some other discussion boards - if you act the same way you did here you'll encounter the same difficulties. It's a pretty safe bet that when you think everyone's against you, it's not them, it's you.

You began by arguing that an idea could be shown true without supporting evidence, so when you think the time is right why don't you come back and resume discussion. If you keep your focus on defending that idea instead of on keeping everyone on your idea of the straight and narrow you'll have a lot more success, and a lot more fun, too.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 435 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 575 of 638 (737186)
09-18-2014 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by taiji2
09-18-2014 8:42 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Ok,
Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread, I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.

If you don't understand intellectually honest debate, look it up.

Well, I'm disappointed.

Apparently whatever else the Tao designed, it designed you overbearingly and stiffly proud.

All of us here find our ideas challenged as boldly and sharply as yours were. No one was dishonest in their discussions with you.

In your search for intellectual honesty, don't bother holding your lamp to the mirror.

Sorry for having wasted your time.
You are excused for wasting mine.

The Tao wept.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by Stile, posted 09-19-2014 1:00 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13313
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 576 of 638 (737203)
09-19-2014 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by taiji2
09-18-2014 4:46 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience

Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.

Do you find the word "experience"?

"Evidence" is some thing that we "experience" - the key word being "we". You may expereince feelings subjectively but we experience evidence objectively.

"Fanciful" is not restricted by reason or (objective) experience, while science is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 4:46 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2924
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 577 of 638 (737205)
09-19-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Omnivorous
09-18-2014 10:05 PM


Current Summary
Omnivorous writes:

Well, I'm disappointed.

Heh, yeah. I was hoping to have a nice conversation with the fella.
But he's just too hypocritical.

His last message says:

taiji2 writes:

Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread, I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.
Message 572

However, in his reply to me just a few posts before he states:

taiji2 writes:

Stile,
That was superbly stated. Your ideas and statements absolutely do strike a chord with me.
Message 537

...but he never engages anything I talked about.
He wasn't looking for intellectually honest debate. He was trolling. Really, it was obvious from just a few posts from him. But, well, we have nothing better to do, do we? So, really, we trolled the troll. He thinks he's wasting our time or having his own fun weaving through our posts acting like an upstanding citizen or something. But in all actuality, every single one of us was just posting to see what sort of ridiculousness he'd say next

Even in his reply to me he contradicts himself:

taiji2 writes:

I respect logic, reason, and the power of deduction.

...

If your personal conclusion is that there is no legitimate argument for design, then that is your conclusion.

He talks about respecting logic and reason, and then totally brushes off my "personal conclusion"... which was entirely explained to him using logic and reason.
The hypocrisy was strong in this one.

The only thing resembling evidence for design was the talk of "front loading" for the very first cells (or whatever). It was a short discussion about front-loaded evolution coming from junk DNA.

At first glance, this seems to separate "designed front loading" from "blind evolutionary processes." But if we look at how evolution works, we see that front loading isn't required for this sort of evidence to exist at all.

The 'front loading' argument is that new abilities are always present, and just 'turned on' when required. Therefore, any 'turning on' of abilities when required is evidence of "designed front loading" and therefore evidence of a Designer! Weeeeee!!!

Well, not really...

Evolution is driven by random mutation... which results in random new abilities.
Therefore, at any given time every being/animal/organism on the planet may or may not have certain newish random abilities that aren't being used (because their environment doesn't change) and just pop up every now and then.
Then... something happens and the environment changes.
This then causes a bunch of critters to die.
It also causes some critters to make use of their random new abilities to adapt to the new environment.

And... voila! We have the 'turning on' of new abilities when they were required except it was not front loaded from the beginning of time. It was simply randomly developed before it was required. That's all. Just regular old evolution.

Evidence of front loading from a designer would be if every organism could 'turn on' the new abilities whenever they were needed.
But that doesn't happen. There's always a whack of them that die. In fact, most of them die. What's the number? 99.999% of all species ever are now extinct? That's not front-loaded design at work.

That's regular evolution, some organisms get random new abilities... and some of those abilities become useful when the environment changes to kill off those without it. That's why a bunch die, but some live.

That's evidence of regular old evolution, not front-loading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Omnivorous, posted 09-18-2014 10:05 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2014 2:02 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 579 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-19-2014 2:06 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 580 by taiji2, posted 09-19-2014 3:16 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11535
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 578 of 638 (737207)
09-19-2014 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Stile
09-19-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Current Summary
But he's just too hypocritical.

That's what I was thinking after I saw this:

quote:
Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread...

after he posted this:

quote:
Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.

Oh, that is intellectually honest?

Here's what Ringo provided, and I'll oblige his intellectually honest request:

quote:
taiji2 writes:

ringo writes:

Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.


I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned.

That's odd. I consulted Merriam-Webster and I found:
quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link

"Experience" would be evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Stile, posted 09-19-2014 1:00 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1514
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 579 of 638 (737208)
09-19-2014 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Stile
09-19-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Current Summary
Stile writes:

Evidence of front loading from a designer would be if every organism could 'turn on' the new abilities whenever they were needed.
But that doesn't happen. There's always a whack of them that die. In fact, most of them die. What's the number? 99.999% of all species ever are now extinct? That's not front-loaded design at work.

WOW!

Stile, this is the best refutation of front-loading and ID I have ever seen, simple and obvious, well done.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Stile, posted 09-19-2014 1:00 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 580 of 638 (737210)
09-19-2014 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Stile
09-19-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Current Summary
Since you people have taken your parting shots, I shall take mine.

From my experiences as a soldier in Viet Nam, a very good analogy to the behavior I see on this forum comes to mind. We (U.S. Army) sometimes worked joint operations with ARVN (Army Republic of Vietnam) troops - south Vietnamese.

One evening, just after dark, our unit (C Troop, 1st Squadron, 1st Armored Cavalry Regiment) had our tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) circled into a defensive position for the night. Inside our perimeter was a company of ARVN troops who were working the mission with us. We came under attack from the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). We received mortar fire, rocket propelled grenade fire (RPG), and small arms fire.

The American troops of my unit mounted their vehicles and returned fire until the NVA broke off the attack and withdrew.

When the firing stopped, not a single ARVN soldier was in sight. They had all crawled under the tanks and APCs to hide. Talking to my fellow soldiers after the firefight, none had observed any ARVN soldier engage in the battle. They had all acted like cowards. These are the same ARVN soldiers we had been working with for days. Those previous days had involved no combat, the enemy had not been found.

These same ARVN soldiers in the days prior had strutted, brandished their weapons, and were convincing in looking tough and appearing to be soldiers. When it came time to be soldiers, when the bullets started to fly, they proved themselves cowards and ran. Interestingly, the next day, they resumed their peacock strutting, pretending to look like soldiers, acting as if nothing of moment had happened.

How is this analogy pertinent? What I have seen on this forum is intellectual cowardice. Any time a relevant issue is raised, if you cannot respond logically, you "crawl under the tank" using intellectually dishonest debate tactic to avoid the question, blow smoke up my ass, and pretend that it is me causing the problem.

There are some very good articles on intellectually dishonest debate tactics. I would suggest you read them, but it appears you already have and use them to great effect as your modus operandi.

You may further argue that I have misconstrued what is going on here. I make my statements not without independent verification. My wife is a lawyer. I had her read some of what has gone on here and asked her opinion on whether the debate was honest. She concurred that what she had seen was not proper debate, and that such tactics would not be allowed in a court of law. In a court of law, objection would be raised and the judge would sustain.

She further said that the legal system would not work without rigidly enforced rules of debate.

Now, before any of you clever people take my analogy out of context and claim I am the one to run from this discussion, let me be clear......... I am willing and would like nothing better than to continue a discussion of creation versus evolution.

But I will do so only in the format of intellectually honest debate. A venue which promotes intellectually dishonest debate tactics is suitable only for mind-fuck games and I am just not interested.

Specific shot to PERCY........ if a forum moderator is not there to guarantee honest debate, what is he there for?

Specific parting shot to Stile: Thank you, you verified with specific comment "we trolled the troll" my observation coming into this discussion that what was going on here was not debate but a game in which you people assume a troll, you people exhibit your own troll behavior ( intellectually dishonest debate), then you wave your troll flags in the air when the first party leaves (having or having not exhibited troll behavior along the way). Your observed ritual is to always claim "he was a troll" at the end. Like the sage Percy once told me...... maybe you should look deep within yourselves.

Specific shot to everyone... this forum could be an excellent platform for debate. There are some smart people here. There are interesting issues to be discussed. Truth could manifest if allowed. But it "ain't gonna happen" as long as you continue to play this ridiculous game.

My comments stand as a warning to anyone entering this forum. You will find only intellectually dishonest debate here. What they do here is play a game of what might be called "shoot the troll in the barrel". If they do not have a troll, they seek to turn you into one by their own troll behavior. Even if they do not succeed, they will end the game by calling you troll. That is how it works. Enter at your own risk. It is a mind game only. Finding truth is irrelevant to these people.

Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.


The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Stile, posted 09-19-2014 1:00 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2014 3:46 PM taiji2 has responded
 Message 582 by Admin, posted 09-19-2014 3:51 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 584 by Percy, posted 09-19-2014 3:56 PM taiji2 has not yet responded
 Message 586 by Omnivorous, posted 09-19-2014 4:05 PM taiji2 has responded
 Message 588 by Tangle, posted 09-19-2014 5:23 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9721
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 581 of 638 (737212)
09-19-2014 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by taiji2
09-19-2014 3:16 PM


Re: Current Summary
Any time a relevant issue is raised, if you cannot respond logically, you "crawl under the tank" using intellectually dishonest debate tactic to avoid the question, blow smoke up my ass, and pretend that it is me causing the problem.

Seriously dude. Every time I questioned your position, you wilted under the least bit of heat. I'm really not sure what you expected.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by taiji2, posted 09-19-2014 3:16 PM taiji2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by taiji2, posted 09-19-2014 4:01 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 582 of 638 (737213)
09-19-2014 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by taiji2
09-19-2014 3:16 PM


Re: Current Summary
Hi Taiji2,

I'm replying with my moderator account so I can respond to this:

taiji2 writes:

Specific shot to PERCY........ if a forum moderator is not there to guarantee honest debate, what is he there for?

Moderators have dual accounts. One is a normal account with no privileges. My normal account name is Percy. My moderator account name is Admin.

Members with dual member/moderator accounts are strongly discouraged from participating and moderating the same discussion. Since I was participating as Percy I could not also moderate as Admin.

I will likely not post to this thread again as Admin. I did so only to make the difference between the two accounts clear to you.

Sometimes we're short of moderator resources at a time when a thread could use some moderation, and in that case a moderator can post a note that he is recusing himself from discussion in that thread and then will rejoin as moderator after the passage of a couple days.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by taiji2, posted 09-19-2014 3:16 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6787
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 583 of 638 (737214)
09-19-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by taiji2
09-18-2014 8:42 PM


Re: The Tao
Having found no potential for intellectually honest debate on this thread, I will leave all you good people to go about whatever it is you do.

The intellectual honesty left the debate when you asked for something that was not spectacularly designed, and when examples were given you decided that we were no longer able to determine if something was well designed or not.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by taiji2, posted 09-18-2014 8:42 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 584 of 638 (737215)
09-19-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by taiji2
09-19-2014 3:16 PM


Re: Current Summary
taiji2 writes:

When the firing stopped, not a single ARVN soldier was in sight.

When the firing stopped, the only one not in sight was you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by taiji2, posted 09-19-2014 3:16 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
taiji2
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 585 of 638 (737216)
09-19-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by NoNukes
09-19-2014 3:46 PM


Re: Current Summary
Seriously dude,
All that i ask of anyone new entering this thread is to go back over the old posts and form their own judgement.

The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.

The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.

The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.

The purpose of a debate is NOT to win.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2014 3:46 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3738
39
40414243Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017