|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You're obfuscating my argument. I implicated observations in my arguments. It is beginning to appear that you don't know the meaning of the word "obfuscation". It is amusing that the second sentence above is a light example of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Okay Buz, whatever.
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
It is beginning to appear that you don't know the meaning of the word "obfuscation". It is amusing that the second sentence above is a light example of it. It means to confuse, to misconstrue, darken, obscure etc, and you, Ned, are obfuscating my charges of jar's obfuscative post by isolating a short statement outa context from my post. That's dirty pool, somewhat like the thread title, implicating creationists as ignorant because we think and interpret what is observed differently than you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I don't have time right now, but later today I'm going to try to explain the issue with your position. I'm going to have to spend a bit of time seeing how close to your viewpoint I can get myself first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
If all the kings wise men, with all their combined trillions of neuronic brains working together can't make a brain, imo, mindless Mr. Natual Selection and his cohort, dead headed Ms Radom Mutation never did it. This might be a reasonable assumption in say, oooh, a billion years or so, when you can begin to compare things without ignoring huge differences of several orders of magnitude in timescale. If mankind could produce something as complicated as the human brain within a million years of now would you concede that RM/NS might do so given a billion? This is obviously a hypothetical question. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First, if you will look at my posts I believe you'll find that I was trying to figure out what your position really is. I was asking questions.
You claim that you are talking about observations yet what you actually write is quite different. Is this what you wrote?
1. What we observe in our daily lives is that complex things like computers, televisions, airplanes, etc is that in order to become complex to do what we want them to do, masterfully precisioned and designed by thousands of INTELLIGENTindividuals go into making them the complex machines which function to serve us as they do. 2. By the same token, scientists observe the brain, it is discovered that some 100 billion neurons, served by around a trillion service agents function with great precision to operate the nervous systems of each of billions of people. Each neuron interacts with at least 10 other neurons in the process. I believe the human mind is far more complex than anything man-made. No amount of co-operative human intelligence can make one from scratch. 3. The thread title is "Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists. It is the notion of some of us more ignorant Biblical fundamental creationists that no amount of time nor natural selection nor random mutation with out a smidget of intelligence would be able to produce such a precisely designed and super-highly complex wonder as the human brain, no matter how you cook up your math and rig up your theories. Do you mean to say that complexity can only come about with God's intervention? PRECISELY! If all the kings wise men, with all their combined trillions of neuronic brains working together can't make a brain, imo, mindless Mr. Natual Selection and his cohort, dead headed Ms Radom Mutation never did it. And don't forget also that the kings wise men have models to observe and work from/copy, where NS and RM, had nothing atol to begin to put it all together, not even anything whatsoever to motivate them to do it. If so, then then let's parse it together. Item one is a stement about machines. No one argues with that statement. But beginning in statement two, you move from observation to beliefs, from science to faith.
I believe the human mind is far more complex than anything man-made. No amount of co-operative human intelligence can make one from scratch. You are saying that your belief is that the mind is more complex than anything made and that regardless of evidence YOU do not believe something comperable could be made. So it seems to me that you are saying it is simply a matter of your beliefs. Then, in statement 3, you say:
It is the notion of some of us more ignorant Biblical fundamental creationists that no amount of time nor natural selection nor random mutation with out a smidget of intelligence would be able to produce such a precisely designed and super-highly complex wonder as the human brain, no matter how you cook up your math and rig up your theories. So in this statement you affirm that it is simply your belief and that it is based on your interpretation of the Bible. You also say that you will hold that belief regardless of the math or theories. There is no mention of evidence. Finally, in your summation you say:
PRECISELY! If all the kings wise men, with all their combined trillions of neuronic brains working together can't make a brain, imo, mindless Mr. Natual Selection and his cohort, dead headed Ms Radom Mutation never did it. And don't forget also that the kings wise men have models to observe and work from/copy, where NS and RM, had nothing atol to begin to put it all together, not even anything whatsoever to motivate them to do it. Again, you include "imo" which implies that it is your opinion. Is that a reasonable summation of what you have said? edited to add requisite spelling errors. This message has been edited by jar, 11-19-2004 10:25 AM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Rot in a nursing home, jerk!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Children!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think this paragraph is at the centre of our differences:
Buz writes: But YOU ALL ARE INSISTING THAT I SUPPORT IT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT. I'M NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???? I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST. I REPEAT, I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST. CAN YOU SPELL CREATIIONIST FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD? BESIDES THIS IS NOT A SPECIFIC SCIENCE TOPIC. I REPEAT11 I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ON THE SCIENCE OF THIS OFF TOPIC THING. I MADE SOME OPINIONATED STATEMENTS BASED ON MY IDEOLOGY AND YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON DOG PILING ON ME RATHER THAN SIMPLY ADDRESSING MY REMARKS AND MOVING ON. I hope that you understand that many non-believers(but not all) here don't have a particular arguement with pure religious belief. If you choose to believe something is true for your religious reasons that is fine with most of us. In that case, you also should understand that there is no common ground for a debate. You may say that because of the Bible or some personal religous feeling or experience you have had something is true for you but it will make no difference what-so-ever to us. If you make those claims and then try to make any other arguments about why our understanding of the natural world is wrong or why we should accept your views you start to step into a realm where evidence and logic apply, not faith. It was, IIRC, you who brought up the concept of complexity as if it is some sort of basis for an argument supporting your religious views. This concept is not a religious one. It can be subject to critical analysis. If you don't like that then simply do not bring it up. You have done this sort of thing a number of times. If you step outside of the realm of faith you are subject to critical analysis. It is your choice. While most of us don't have a specific disagreement with faith most of us do have a disagreement with anyone pretending that they can support that faith with natural-world evidence that is subject to examination and testing through the methods of science. We disagree especially strongly that children should be lied to about that. ABE I believe you have suggested that the issue is a matter of "differences of interpretation". If so, perhaps you'd like to give some examples? In this thread WT was asked for examples of how the same facts can be interpreted differently. However, when asked to be specific he never did. Can you?
The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-19-2004 03:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
If mankind could produce something as complicated as the human brain within a million years of now would you concede that RM/NS might do so given a billion? This is obviously a hypothetical question. No I wouldn't. Look how far ID technology has been advanced via humanity (ID) in just the last two centuries. It's ID that does complex things with precision. I don't think RM/NS, void of ID is capable of producing a human brain in a trillion years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Item one is a stement about machines. No one argues with that statement. But beginning in statement two, you move from observation to beliefs, from science to faith. Jar, you people "believe" certain things based of your observations just as we creos do, though we interpret differently. Just because I used the word "believe" you are spinning the argument set forth in my post as based on faith. So by the same token aren't you implicating that things you "believe" involves "faith?" Please note the word "observe" in item one and the same word "observe" in item two. My point which you are avoiding is that my position is based on observation of how ID is operative in our daily lives to produce complex things with precision and using that observation I go on in item two to say, "by the same token scientists observe......." What in item one or item two makes you think I am moving from science to faith? I believe the human mind is far more complex than anything man-made. No amount of co-operative human intelligence can make one from scratch.
You are saying that your belief is that the mind is more complex than anything made and that regardless of evidence YOU do not believe something comperable could be made. So it seems to me that you are saying it is simply a matter of your beliefs. Again you're obfuscating/spinning my argument by the way you masterfully rephrased my statement. My argument goes thus: 1. What we observe in our lives is that humans, via ID produce complex things with precision.2. What science observes is that the human mind involves far more complexity and precision than anything man made. 3. As intelligent as men are, all the minds of men combined are unable to produce a living human operative brain. 4. Based on the above observations, I believe it would be impossible for mindless RM/NS void of ID to produce a human living operative brain. If all our intelligence and capabilities combined can't do it, how in the world is it going to simply come to be randomly? So far, how can you construe my argument to be faith based? I believe the human mind is far more complex than anything man-made. No amount of co-operative human intelligence can make one from scratch.
So in this statement you affirm that it is simply your belief and that it is based on your interpretation of the Bible. You also say that you will hold that belief regardless of the math or theories. There is no mention of evidence. Another spin job by the masterful spinster. Please cite where in item 3 my argument set forth "is based on your interpretation of the Bible." I am a fundamental Biblical Creationists,, yes, but all my statements in this argument are based on what is observed by all of us and by science.
Again, you include "imo" which implies that it is your opinion. Is that a reasonable summation of what you have said? Oh, come now, jar. You're really scraping the bottom here. Are you implying you have no opinions about how things are? You surely do. No, it's not a reasonable summation. It's a spun up obfuscation of what I posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz, I quoted what you said exactly. Folk can read your posts and my responses and then make their own decisions.
Again you're obfuscating/spinning my argument by the way you masterfully rephrased my statement. I rephrased nothing, I quoted what YOU wrote. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Buz, I quoted what you said exactly. Folk can read your posts and my responses and then make their own decisions. Again you're obfuscating/spinning my argument by the way you masterfully rephrased my statement. I rephrased nothing, I quoted what YOU wrote. I didn't say you missquoted me. I said you spun and obfuscated quotes of mine and in at least one place this was done by rephrasing words from my quotes so as to spin my position. So are you going to admit that my argument was indeed based on things observed, as I am contending and not on faith, so we can move on to better use of our time and bandwith, or are we moving on further into this strawman notion of yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz, the readers can decide what you are saying.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I would say that it is primarily an apologetic argumnet - i.e. one intended to back up a preconcieved view rather than assessing the actual evidence.
The essential problem is that it utterly refuses to even consider the capabilities of the processes it is supposedly about. Instead it assumes that human intelligence must do better than any natural process could ever achieve. However genetic algorithms, using processes similar to those of evolution are used precisely because human design skills are inadequate and can be bettered(an example) http://tetra.mech.ubc.ca/CFD03/papers/paper29PB2.pdf While not so obviously wrong as invoking the 2nd Law of Thermodynaimcs to limit Natural Selection, the argument still lacks any value and certainly cannot be used as a valid excuse to set aside the evidence for evolution
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024