|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
I do copy that. I guess I do need to read the guide lines.
I was just trying to be a little creative when I made the 'advertisement'. It gets so serious around here. If you look over the corrispondance sense I became a memberI think you will find that I have been the target of insults much more than the arrow of. I have listed lots of evidence of why I think the human body is a an intelligent design and I'm tired of being accused of not giving any when all they do is sit around and quote rhetoric from a book. IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
sidelined writes: I am asking you to explain why the notion of Id being required for explaining complexity falls apart when we apply the statement to the intelligence itself? Since the purpose of Intelligent design is to offer an explanation for complexity then it must also be able to explain the complexity of the intelligence itself regardless of whether they live outside of time or not. Why? We design and build computers but what does a computer know about us? I'm afraid that I don't accept your basic premise, at least when you talk about us physically. Spiritually I believe that we do know something about the designer but that isn't part of this discussion. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
jar writes: But those who argue that we cannot make judgments of GOD's competency by looking at critters are just looking for an easy copout. Of course we can make such judgments. If someone claims that the final products we call living things are the direct result of some Intelligent Designer, then it is absolutely right to judge the product in relation to the other intelligent designer we are aware of. Well, I don't think we can make a final judgement of God's competancy by looking at critters. The human body does not measure up to the standards we ascribe generally to some Designers. That is an issue that has been dealt with in religion already. What was not dealt with was the thought that there was no 'plan' for the flaws. The post you made about engineering and that experience goes a long way in explaining intelligent design to a new initiate, or at least getting them to think. Is is not without use to make these judgements, and I only responded to the reiteration of the idea flaw = no design because of the (perceived) feeling that this was being presented as something that would be a great stumbling block to ID. From the point of view of a recent 'convert' in creation views, there are simply too many ways around the issue to make it very significant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
I will be more than happy to help you set up a Great Debate topic. There are a couple of criteria, however:
1. You need the agreement of the person you wish to debate, in this case Crashfrog, I presume. 2. You need to specify exactly what topic you wish to discuss. One way to do this would be to propose a PNT with an opening discussion. Let me know what you want to do. By the way, tu quoque - literally "you too" - is a fallacy we try and suppress on this forum. Simply because someone else acts like a jerk doesn't give you license to act similarly. If you have specific complaints about a particular post/poster, you should take it to the moderation thread listed in my signature block. One (or even more) of the admin personnel will take a look, and take appropriate action if warranted. Although we try, unfortunately we don't always catch every single violation. We rely a lot on members to give us the heads up. We (that's not an imperial "we", that's a generic statement of board intent, from the Big Boss on down) want your stay here to be enjoyable as much as possible. Please do read the Forum Guidelines. Those are about the only things that admins here will jump on if violated. We literally don't care what your position is - but we do require you to abide by the guidelines. "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
GDR
Why? We design and build computers but what does a computer know about us? I'm afraid that I don't accept your basic premise, at least when you talk about us physically A computer does not ask questions relating to us who build them and until they do we cannot know if their postulations makes any sense either. However,the concept of Intelligent Design is quite well established sir.The roots of it have been traced to Thomas Aquinas who framed it thus "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" Now the fact that a designer is also complex means that according to the Intelligent Design postulate this designer must also be intelligently designed since this is the crux of the ID arguement.If the arguement cannot explain the complexity of the intelligent designer then it logically fails to withstand critical examination of its claim and is therefore an incorrect assumption. The fact that you seek to hand wave away is this. If we adhere to the arguement Aquinas proposed, then the Intelligent designer must also have been intelligently designed and so on ad infinitum. Do you still therefore agree that the arguement is consistent with itself sir? ``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.'' - Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
sidelined quoting Aquinas writes: "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" Now the fact that a designer is also complex means that according to the Intelligent Design postulate this designer must also be intelligently designed since this is the crux of the ID arguement. I understand the logic of your argument so let's use the same argument from another perspective. A computer is a complex design. Therefore the computer requires an intelligent designer namely us. Using your argument then means that we require an intelligent designer. The same postulation can be used to show that an intelligent designer is either impossible or necessary. Can we call it a draw? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3373 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
The roots of it have been traced to Thomas Aquinas who framed it thus "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" Aquinas' statement is clearly foolish; his first premise is unsupported. He was merely trying to justify his superstitions. As one would expect, much has been learned in the long period since he wrote. Consider evolution as a counter-example. It is easy to see how the evolutionary algorithm would produce increasing complexity, since changes accumulate with time, and it does so without any intelligence being involved at all. Indeed, it is hard to see how that could be prevented from happening. I wish we could free ourselves from the errors of these ancient so-called authorities. They muck up our thinking, especially among the gullible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4058 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I know this is from way early in the thread, but...
Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life? By the way where ARE all the accidents that should be all around us? How come ,for instance, we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing? As a creationist (of some sort, since I believe in a Creator), my question is, do you really want to know the answer to this question? There were a couple short answers to this given, but these particular questions are pretty easy, the answers are easy to understand, and even I could answer them. The answers you got to those questions were pretty short, because no one really believes you want to know the answers to those questions. So my question is, do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You wrote, in Message #73:
quote: This is another way of saying that evolutionary forces could not have created the first cell. Please do not be coy.
quote: So what do think Cellular Evolutionary Biologists do all day? Twiddle their thumbs? Here's a link to a TalkOrigins page which is very well referenced with citations from the professional literature regarding current research in cellular evolution. CB010.2: Origin of the first cells Perhaps, before making bold claims about what science can or cannot discover in the future, you should familiarize yourself with, I don't know, science?
quote: OK, then, what is the standard that you are using to judge if something is "too complex" to have been designed by purely naturalistic forces?
All of these congnitive features are known to have natural, biological origins. Read some Cognitive and or Social Psychology sometime if you are interested in learning about current research. quote: Those theories, GDR, are based upon empirical research. If those theories exist, it is becasue the evidence has led scientists to them. That's how science works. But I will back off of my claim just a little, as I stated things a bit strongly when I said that these things are known to have natural origins. I should have said that there is empirical evidence that supports a biological, naturalistic basis for all of those things, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the item. Just because we may not currently (or ever) understand the biological basis for a given phenomena does not in any way constitute a logical basis to conclude that an IDer exists.
quote: That's silly. "Memes" are an abstract concept, like "morality" or "love". Do you expect to "find" "morality" lying around somewhere?
quote: We have only just begun studying conciousness from a naturalistic perspective; literally, the field has only existed for a few decades at most. However, there is a lot of evidence, especially now that we have the ability to look inside people's brains and observe activity through the use of MRI scans, that consciousness is natualistically based. Read some Dennett.
quote: They can and are tested. Every day. Funny how someone who says he is unqualified to comment upon science since he is ignorant of much of it is so comfortable making proclamations about what it can or cannot do.
quote: quote: Why? Based upon what evidence do you base this opinion?
quote: Look, isn't your point in listing all of those things (consciousness, love, morality, etc) and saying that purely naturalistic forces cannot account for them is to support your claim that an IDer must be invoked to account for their existence? If you list these things because you believe that there isn't any evidence (I believe that there is evidence) to say they are naturalistic, the logical conclusion is to say, "I don't know". Yet, you haven't done that. You have gone beyond logic and used the "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy. Edited by nator, : fixed quote boxes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
nator writes: This is another way of saying that evolutionary forces could not have created the first cell. Please do not be coy. Talk about being coy. Here is the entire quote of mine that you are referring to.
You see the same things and come to a different conclusion. I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell, and although you may come up with a theory of how the first cell was formed I would suggest that there is no empirical method of proving it, just as there is no empirical method of proving my conclusion. Where in there have I said that it couldn't have been done that way. I'm just saying that I don't see it having happened that way but that we can't prove it one way or another. It is strictly my opinion and I'm not trying to present it as fact.
nator writes: Here's a link to a TalkOrigins page which is very well referenced with citations from the professional literature regarding current research in cellular evolution. OK. Here is a quote from that site.
Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001). This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. We don't know. T are theories, as I said, but at this pointit has not been solved. Sure, saying that God did it is a God of the Gaps argument. However, saying that it is impossible that it has an IDer behind it is a Science of the Gaps argument. The difference of course is that if you are right you might eventually be proven correct whereas my opinion can never be proven. Here is another quote from Talk Origins
For a claim that is so obviously false, {evolution is atheistic} it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth. Your link supports my argument. We are left to form our own opinion of whether there is an IDer or not. You have come to one conclusion and I to another.
nator writes: Just because we may not currently (or ever) understand the biological basis for a given phenomena does not in any way constitute a logical basis to conclude that an IDer exists. OK, but it doesn't give a logical basis to assume one doesn't exist either.
nator writes: Look, isn't your point in listing all of those things (consciousness, love, morality, etc) and saying that purely naturalistic forces cannot account for them is to support your claim that an IDer must be invoked to account for their existence? If you list these things because you believe that there isn't any evidence (I believe that there is evidence) to say they are naturalistic, the logical conclusion is to say, "I don't know". Yet, you haven't done that. You have gone beyond logic and used the "IDer of the Gaps" fallacy. I agree that I can't know, at least not in the way that we normally use the word to know something. There is no empirical proof. You seem to keep suggesting that because people are researching things like consciousness using scientific techniques means that the we will eventually find an answer. (Science of the Gaps) We may, and we may not. In a way though it can eventually become the other side of sidelined's argument. {If an IDer exists then that IDer would require an IDer and so on.} If the first cell was found to have natural origins then where did the stuff come to produce that result? I have opinions, but I do not know what science will or will not eventually be able to find out. Who could have conceived of what we now know of particle physics just a few years back. In the end I guess it all comes down to, "why is there something instead of nothing". (Whatever nothing is. ) Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
AdminQuetzal,
Thank you for your feedback and offer for assistance. I was out of line and had more of the same in my plans. I was getting too offended by some of the jeers lobbed in my direction. Their is some good wisdom in the guidelines and I need to follow them. I need to give some thought about a debate and how best topursue my foreward path on this website. I'm very new at all this and have a lot to learn about being on the ropes. I will be in touch if needed. ICDESIGN
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Can I make a suggestion?
Assume for a moment that the reason you consider evolution to be flawed is because the way scientists understand evolution is a lot different than the "evolution" you're familiar with. Assume for a moment that sources like creationists, and the Discover channel, and movies and stuff, weren't accurate in showing you what the theory of evolution really is and what it really says. Assume all that for a second, and start asking questions. Questions like: How do scientists think one kind of organism can evolve from another? What are fossils? How are they formed? What do they tell us about the history of life? Why don't we see fossils of one organism changing into another? How do new organs and body structures evolve? How does an organism survive with "transitional features"? Why would an organism evolve something like a primitive wing, which doesn't seem to have any purpose until it's fully evolved? Why do scientists believe all organisms are ultimately descended from a common ancestor? What evidence do they have for this, and what other explanations could there be? It's questions like these that I think you would find most illuminating. Maybe you'd change your mind, or maybe not, but you'd at least begin to understand the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: How do new organs and body structures evolve? How does an organism survive with "transitional features"? Why would an organism evolve something like a primitive wing, which doesn't seem to have any purpose until it's fully evolved? Oh, oh, I have a question! Actually, how do scientists tell if something is vestigial, or still evolving into something functional? A penguin for example has a useful 'wing' but it's not useful for flight. Is it assumed that is no longer needs flight? That we no longer need tails, due to better balance? The tails is maybe more obvious. We don't need them now. But if all things are transitioning, they must be adapting to their environs. I am still a bit lost when it comes to adapting and extinction. I assume that some species are not adapting fast enough to meet sudden changes. So, when it comes to transitional features, I understand 'left-over' but not forward looking. Are there creatures which science considers to have useless parts that WILL serve a purpose rather than DID? THis is just a curiousity, if it is not on topic you needn't respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I assume that some species are not adapting fast enough to meet sudden changes. those species face extinction. those who end up not adapting quickly enough to meet changing environments, or those who adapt slower than others and find their niche overtaken tend towards extinction.
Are there creatures which science considers to have useless parts that WILL serve a purpose rather than DID? this is something we can't really predict (as far as I know).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Crash,
Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful post. I do need to learn a lot of things about various aspects of evolution- and the suggestions you made are good topics to study. I know that a lot of things in the science are indeed true and relevent to a limited extent. When I made the statement that I will never believe evolution-I was refering to macro-evolution or one species crossing over into an entirely different species. Can I say at this point that I respect you much more than I've been letting on. I have checked out some things you talk about with other membersbesides me and I have to admit you seem like one of the most articulate members of them all, very smart. Of course being smart doesn't make you right. A lot of very smart people of the past were proven to be way off in their conclusions. I haven't talked much about my relationship with God becausemy main goal is to prove that the human body is an intelligent design. I believe that evidence leads to the door step of God almighty because He is the only one qualified enough to be that genius. I belive the bible when it says His voice is obeyed by every atom in the universe. Many ask who designed the designer- the thinking goes, if hecould have a beginning-so could we, and I agree with that. He has revealed to us that he is eternal- with no beginning or end. I know that is true to the point of staking my life on it yet its very hard to put our minds around him having always been their with no start. Above what any book says- He has revealed Himself to me andproven many hundred times over he is very real and everything the bible claims. Their are very sound reasons why we see flaws in his creation. He told us they are only temporary while He works the "kinks" (if you will) out of the system. It seems like a long time to us but one day is as a 1000 years to Him and a 1000 years as one day. Anyway Crash, this is where I stand. I apologize for the mean things I have said and I wouldlike to start anew and do things the right way OK? IC Edited by ICDESIGN, : forgot to put 1000 years as one day
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024