Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 304 (391158)
03-23-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by anastasia
03-23-2007 5:25 PM


Re: IC vs. Usea
Hi, anastasia.
Oldtimers will know who I am talking about. Karl Crawford was (and is...he's recently popped up again at NAiG as "Curious George") an especially dimwitted creationist poster on evolution/creationism debate forums. He doesn't even understand basic scientific principles and is very unamenable to explanation on even these basic matters -- which is what makes him amusing.
Karl's favorite phrase is "evo-babbler" and ending messages with
NEXT
which is why IC reminded me of him.
Now, I don't actually think IC is Karl. For one thing, Karl mostly cuts'n'pastes the exact same messages again and again. Also, Karl's messages are full of caustic insults, far more risible than IC's. (Of course, when Curious George first showed up on NAiG, he was extremely polite -- but the old instincts couldn't be suppressed for long, and good ol' Karl finally manifested himself.)
Anyway, this is all off-topic -- just wanted to explain the "in-joke".

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 5:25 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by anastasia, posted 03-23-2007 6:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 212 of 304 (391165)
03-23-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ringo
03-23-2007 4:11 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
That's just the point: Nothing impacts on what's beyond our horizon. If there is "existence outside of the physical universe", it could be anything, any speculation, any hallucination. We have nothing to go on. Your "God" is no more valid than my Tooth Fairy. Your "Intelligent Designer" is no more valid than my Tinker-Toy Kid.
Maybe my Intelligent Designer doesn't exist, but on the other hand there have been billions of people over the centuries that would agree with me that He does.
Can you name me anyone over the age of 5 who believes the tooth fairy exists?
From a scientific point of view that of course proves nothing but from a philosophical point of view it gives the position credibility.
Ringo writes:
What's woo-woo is what hasn't been discovered (yet). Radio was woo-woo a hundred-odd years ago. Steam power was woo-woo in the Middle Ages.
Intelligent Design will be woo-woo until you find something to unwoo-woo it.
Radio is physical. It can be scientifically tested and verified. I don't think anybody including myself is suggesting that the IDer is physical, therefore by your criteria an IDer can never be un-woo-wooed.
Ringo writes:
Sure. And we might learn something about unicorns or hobbits too. But the first step in learning about something is not conceding that it "might" exist. The first step is deciding where to look for it.
Any suggestions?
To be honest I do but that isn't the subject of this thread and in addition I do have a life outside of EvC and I've already dialoguing with 4 of you guys just on ID.
I must be on to something as I seem to have attracted a swarm of you heathens.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 4:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 6:56 PM GDR has replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 213 of 304 (391171)
03-23-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Chiroptera
03-23-2007 5:57 PM


Re: IC vs. Usea
Chiroptera writes:
Karl's favorite phrase is "evo-babbler" and ending messages with
NEXT
which is why IC reminded me of him.
Now, I don't actually think IC is Karl.
Well, thanks for 'in'-cluding me! I wonder why the quotations around IC's post anyway?
And I didn't actually think it was Rob.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2007 5:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 214 of 304 (391178)
03-23-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by GDR
03-23-2007 6:21 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR writes:
... there have been billions of people over the centuries that would agree with me that He does.
What's that fallacy again about appeal to popularity?
From a scientific point of view that of course proves nothing but from a philosophical point of view it gives the position credibility.
How can a philosophical point of view have any credibility unless it relates to the real world?
Radio is physical.
We didn't know that until we could detect it. Before it was detected, how was it different from your "supernatural"?
I don't think anybody including myself is suggesting that the IDer is physical....
If you don't know what it is, how can you know if it's physical or detectable? It seems to me that your "supernatural" is just a galloping goalpost designed to never be detectable.
(And by the way, I think IDers do grudgingly admit that their Intelligent Designer could be a physical super-alien. They shy away from "supernatural" causes to avoid being labeled a religion.)
I must be on to something as I seem to have attracted a swarm of you heathens.
And there's that I-must-be-right-because-you-disagree-with-me fallacy.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 6:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:53 PM ringo has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 215 of 304 (391183)
03-23-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
03-23-2007 5:11 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
crashfrog writes:
Why wouldn't the origins of our existence, being something that happened here in the physical universe, be a matter for scientific inquiry?
I agree. If science can find the solutions to these questions all the more power to the scientists who can do it. It hasn't happened yet and until and if they do the question remains open. We can go for "God of the Gaps', or Science of the Gaps". We can all take our pick as to which is most reasonable.
crashfrog writes:
Did Plato ever test his conjectures against reality? No. That was, in fact, the specific reasoning that he rejected.
It still doesn't mean he is wrong, only that it can't be verified scientifically. I recently read "The God Particle", (Higg's boson, nothing theological about it), by Leon Lederman. He talks a lot about the ancient philosopher Democritus who forecast the basis of QM hundreds of years ago.
crashfrog writes:
So clearly somebody's wrong. The problem with philosophy and theology is that they have no idea who it is. In science, we eventually find out.
There are lots of grey areas in the world. I agree that science and math is attractive for the reasons you give. I like the certainty that 2+2=4. You can count on it so to speak. Unfortunately life isn't always like that.
crashfrog writes:
Won't your actions prove it?
Not necessarily. Maybe I'm really nice to her because she's loaded. There is no scientific test for or measurement of love. It's another one of those grey areas like philosophy.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 5:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 9:31 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 223 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:31 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 9:33 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 216 of 304 (391204)
03-23-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ringo
03-23-2007 6:56 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
What's that fallacy again about appeal to popularity?
I don't offer it as any kind of conclusive evidence. All it means is that it has a degree of credibility that the tooth fairy doesn't.
Ringo writes:
How can a philosophical point of view have any credibility unless it relates to the real world?
On the assumption my beliefs are correct it very much relates to the real world.
Ringo writes:
We didn't know that until we could detect it. Before it was detected, how was it different from your "supernatural"?
There was never any question about the fact that radio was a natural phenomena.
Ringo writes:
If you don't know what it is, how can you know if it's physical or detectable? It seems to me that your "supernatural" is just a galloping goalpost designed to never be detectable.
Maybe it is detectable but I'm inclined to think not. As I've said I'm just trying to sort out what I believe is truth like everybody else. Like they say; "It Ain't Science".
Ringo writes:
And there's that I-must-be-right-because-you-disagree-with-me fallacy.
Sounds like a rock-solid argument to me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 6:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 8:20 PM GDR has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 217 of 304 (391208)
03-23-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by GDR
03-23-2007 7:53 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR writes:
All it means is that it has a degree of credibility that the tooth fairy doesn't.
No, it's based on exactly the same logic as the tooth fairy. Hence, equivalent credibility.
On the assumption my beliefs are correct it very much relates to the real world.
You can't just assume your beliefs are correct. That's the antithesis of a real-world connection.
There was never any question about the fact that radio was a natural phenomena.
Of course there was. Lightning was once thought to be supernatural. Fire was once thought to be supernatural.
The god of the gaps keeps shrinking as we learn more about the gaps.
Edited by Ringo, : Reconjugation.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 8:57 PM ringo has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 218 of 304 (391212)
03-23-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ringo
03-23-2007 8:20 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Ringo writes:
No, it's based on exactly the same logic as the tooth fairy. Hence, equivalent credibility.
OK If you say so.
Ringo writes:
You can't just assume your beliefs are correct. That's the antithesis of a real-world connection.
It was an assumption to make a point. Let's assume your views are correct then. Now I would agree that it doesn't relate to the real
world.
Ringo writes:
The god of the gaps keeps shrinking as we learn more about the gaps.
Gaps may keep shrinking but it seems the more we learn the more we realize that we don't know.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 8:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by ringo, posted 03-23-2007 9:31 PM GDR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 219 of 304 (391213)
03-23-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
03-23-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
"if a red dragon fought a mind flayer sorcerer, who would win?"
If it is an ancient red dragon, my money's on her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2007 12:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 03-27-2007 10:45 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 220 of 304 (391215)
03-23-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by GDR
03-23-2007 2:47 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
Obviously if you believe the physical is all there is
That's not what I believe.
My position is that there is no evidence that there is anything beyond the physical.
There very well might be something beyond the physical, but as there's no way to test for it, we can't know.
People who say they know are, literally, making it up.
Personally, I'd rather not know something than believe in something that isn't knowable just because I want or need to believe it.
quote:
then you will dismiss the views of all of the philosophers as their views are based on something other that what is scientific.
Not all of the philosophers, since not all philosophers base their philosophy exclusively on non-science. Daniel Dennett, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Ruse are all Philosophers that I have read and not dismissed (in fact, they are all authors you should read, in my opinion).
quote:
I believe that there is something other than what we can learn through the scientific method. I believe that life is more than just what is contained in the physical world.
That's great.
There's no rational or logical basis to those beliefs, but you are welcome to them.
quote:
This puts us at something of an impasse.
If by "at an impasse", you mean that you have been unable to support any of the substantive claims that you've made in this thread, then I guess we are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 2:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 9:33 PM nator has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 221 of 304 (391218)
03-23-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by GDR
03-23-2007 8:57 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
GDR writes:
Let's assume your views are correct then. Now I would agree that it doesn't relate to the real world.
Huh?
Gaps may keep shrinking but it seems the more we learn the more we realize that we don't know.
On the other hand, we do know a lot that we thought we would never know. The more we close the gaps, the less excuse there is for thinking there is something we cannot know.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 8:57 PM GDR has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 304 (391219)
03-23-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by GDR
03-23-2007 7:07 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
If science can find the solutions to these questions all the more power to the scientists who can do it.
I thought you said it wasn't a scientific question?
We can go for "God of the Gaps', or Science of the Gaps". We can all take our pick as to which is most reasonable.
To argue from this basis would be an argument from ignorance, which I won't engage in, but it's clear that science has a track record of disproving explanations of natural phenomena by divine providence.
But, hey. I guess the God guys can't be wrong all the time, right? (Or maybe they can...)
It still doesn't mean he is wrong, only that it can't be verified scientifically.
It means he's worse than wrong - he's unfalsifiable.
Look, anybody can make up an infinite number of statements that can't be disproven, by definition. I could sit here all day and imagine traits about Invisible Ninjas from Beyond the Universe, and there would be no empirical evidence you could bring that would prove me wrong.
But who on Earth would confuse that with a process of truth-gathering? Making stuff up? The predominant characteristic of things that are made up is that they usually don't turn out to be true. It's only when you restrict yourself to the evidence that you stand a chance of getting it right.
There are lots of grey areas in the world...
These are just platitudes. Life's uncertainty isn't an open license to make up whatever you want and act like you've just discovered a truth.
There is no scientific test for or measurement of love. It's another one of those grey areas like philosophy.
I disagree. Love, like anything else, is detectable by its effects. Gravity makes me fall. Love makes me rise again. The dilation of my pupil and the rise in heart rate give the lie to your position that love is something we can't detect.
And that's not even getting into love's observable biochemical effects on the brain. The existence of love in humans can't be denied, and it's certainly not something that's a great mystery to science. It's a common platitude to assert that something or another is "beyond the reach of science." Thankfully scientists don't usually listen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:07 PM GDR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 304 (391220)
03-23-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by GDR
03-23-2007 7:07 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
quote:
There are lots of grey areas in the world. I agree that science and math is attractive for the reasons you give. I like the certainty that 2+2=4. You can count on it so to speak. Unfortunately life isn't always like that.
Excuse me, but you've got things wrong here.
Math, and religion actually, are "certain". Math is, like religion, a bunch of axioms that one adheres to to participate in the activity.
Science, on the other hand, is totally Gray Area Land.
It is never completely certain of anything as a fundamental operational tenet.
If you were truly comfortable with "gray areas" in life, you would stick with methodological naturalism to tell you what is rational, instead of hanging your certainty of faith on the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:07 PM GDR has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 224 of 304 (391221)
03-23-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by GDR
03-23-2007 7:07 PM


dupe post
dupe post
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 7:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by GDR, posted 03-23-2007 9:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 225 of 304 (391222)
03-23-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by nator
03-23-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
nator writes:
My position is that there is no evidence that there is anything beyond the physical.
nator writes:
If by "at an impasse", you mean that you have been unable to support any of the substantive claims that you've made in this thread, then I guess we are.
The thing is I have supported my position but then nothing of what I have provided is verifiable scientifically so you don't accept it as evidence.
Let me know though when you find scientific proof of love or hate, beauty or ugilness, joy or sorrow, pride or shame etc.
Edited by GDR, : sp

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 9:16 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 03-23-2007 10:08 PM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024