Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 233 of 304 (391291)
03-24-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2007 11:13 AM


Re: evolutionfairytale.com
Don't you find it hilarious that theirs is the position that asserts the literal existence and historical accuracy of:
1) a talking snake responsible for all sin
2) a magic Sky-Man who grants wishes if you just ask hard enough
3) an 800-year-old man who builds a boat, single-handedly, big enough for an entire planet's-worth of species
4) an Egyptian with the power to part the Red Sea
5) a man who rode around inside a whale for three whole days
6) a tower so tall that it could have been heaven's basement
7) and so on
and, yet, the position supported by mountains of scientific evidence is what they choose to call a "fairy tale?"
It's an endless source of hilarity for me, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2007 11:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 235 of 304 (391296)
03-24-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by ICdesign
03-24-2007 11:45 AM


Re: known & unknown
I still contend you are a complete moron to make such a statement!
Yes, we're all very aware of the low esteem in which you hold my intelligence, but that's irrelevant.
Can you show me how the statement is wrong, or not? Do you understand how just calling me a moron isn't an argument? It's just playground antics?
Here you clearly admit the human body IS an intelligent design
but that because you evolutionists don't know God you have to
look for "a source of design that is non-intelligent"!
You're committing a logical fallacy of equivocation on the word "intelligence." An "intelligent design" can mean two things:
1) a design created by an intelligent entity
2) a design that exhibits cleverness or "intelligence" in terms of complexity and function
so when I say the human body is "intelligent", I only mean that the human body obviously has complex functions. Since there were no intelligent entities on Earth during the origin of humanity, we know that the intelligent design of the body can't be the result of intelligent entities designing it.
However, we do know that natural selection and random mutation was operating at that time, and that those processes can create designs that are "intelligent"; thus, we conclude that the human body is the result, like all other living things, of natural selection and random mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 11:45 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 12:30 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 237 of 304 (391307)
03-24-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by ICdesign
03-24-2007 12:30 PM


Re: known & unknown
Prove to me how natural selection or random mutation can be
responsible for cleverness or design!
By creating random designs, each closer or farther away from a successful implementation; then selecting from among those designs only those closest to the successful implementation, then creating from those designs copies with random changes that bring each copy closer or farther away from the successful design, then doing it all over again, over and over.
Natural selection and random mutation is a way to search the design space, in other words. It's the way this radio was created - completely by accident.
Surely a radio counts as something clever? If natural selection and random mutation can't account for complex design, then where did the radio come from? Read the article - none of the researchers were trying to build a radio. Where did the radio come from, if not selection and mutation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 12:30 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 242 of 304 (391326)
03-24-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ICdesign
03-24-2007 2:13 PM


Re: known & unknown
Here we go again with man-made computers and computer programs
again.
Because computers are a good way to simulate the real world.
I can't answer
how 'this radio' thing happened.
Why? Because you don't understand how random mutation and natural selection work?
The researchers who discovered the radio explained it by mutation and selection, because that's what they programmed the computer to simulate. What makes you think they're wrong? What do you know that they don't?
Prove to me how you can generate design
with NATURAL (being the key word) selection and RANDOM mutation.
The same way. Organisms mutate; these mutations cause variation among individuals.
The individuals vary in regards to how adapted they are to their environment. More adapted individuals survive and reproduce; lesser individuals don't. Each subsequent generation is the descendants of those who were more adapted. They carry on these characteristics (because offspring inherit characteristics from their parents) but mutations happen, so these offspring vary as well. Some of them are better adapted than others. The process reiterates.
Name one thing that appears random about the human body.
There are more than 100 mutations in your body, as many as 500, that you didn't inherit from either of your parents. I can say this without having met you because you're a human being, and this is true of all humans.
Again, their are 112,000,000
links at Google that testify of a design with purpose and
intelligent genius.
I doubt you checked every link, so I know this is a false claim. Even were it true it would be irrelevant, because science isn't done by Google link. Even if it weren't irrelevant, I could find millions more links that would inform you that the human body, like all living creatures, is the result of the processes of natural selection and random mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 2:13 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 4:42 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 304 (391339)
03-24-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by ICdesign
03-24-2007 3:52 PM


Re: known & unknown
You can't have the appearance of design in
the real world. It is either design or it isn't.
Is it? I recall presenting an example with pennies that proved this isn't true; in that case, you had purposeful design that had the appearance of being random. Why couldn't the reverse be true?
You're asking us to accept that appearances can never be deceiving, but everybody knows the opposite is true.
And this is
the last of the evo-babbling I will address.
Until you tell us how we're wrong - how consensus biology has been wrong for over 150 years - you haven't addressed anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 3:52 PM ICdesign has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 249 of 304 (391343)
03-24-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by ICdesign
03-24-2007 3:59 PM


Re: known & unknown
If you'll notice- Crash didn't
deny he said that and if he does I will then prove he did- so why don't you sit down and shut up.
Well, then do so, because I never said that the laws of physics were a computer.
What I told you is that things in the real world happen according to physical laws, just like the way things in a computer simulation happen according to the laws programmed into the simulation. When you program laws in the computer that represent the laws of physics in the real world, then your program is a simulation of the real world.
It's difficult for me to understand why your missing these really basic points. Are you sure you're reading my messages closely, not simply looking for statements that you can misrepresent for your own purposes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 3:59 PM ICdesign has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 252 of 304 (391348)
03-24-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by ICdesign
03-24-2007 4:42 PM


Re: known & unknown
No Crash, because I'm not a computer expert.
It's not necessary to be one. The programmers told you how their program worked - by simulating the processes of evolution. Random mutation and natural selection.
You don't have to know how the computer works; it's sufficient to know that the program models those processes. Radios weren't pre-programmed in the software. A radio was generated by mutation and selection, the same processes that have been proven to be at work in the natural world.
round and round and round it goes where it stops...is when you
die and have to face the One you deny..."and their will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth"! Matthew 13:42
Religious threats don't constitute an argument, and this isn't a forum for comparative religious studies. Biology is the subject of discussion here.
I'm done here.
You keep saying that, but you keep coming back. It's just a idle threat, isn't it? Like the spoiled kid who says he's going to take his ball and go home, but never does.
Beleive it or not, this is the one and only reason I came to this
site was to try to help people see the truth.
We've seen the truth. We know that the best explanation for the complexity of life on Earth is evolution, not creationism. You haven't brought evidence; you've just quoted the Bible and called people names. I think you have a lot to be ashamed of in regards to your conduct here, especially for someone who told me that he endeavored to be pleasing to God in all things.
Remember what I first told you in email? You've proven me right at every turn by refusing to act honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 4:42 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ICdesign, posted 03-26-2007 4:52 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 271 of 304 (391701)
03-26-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICdesign
03-26-2007 4:52 PM


Re: either way- you lose
As I stated, I am done debating.
Yet, here you are again!
The reason I quit
debating is because I quickly realized it is impossible
to win.
Indeed - it's impossible to successfully defend wrong ideas.
No matter what I come back with you would find
a way to keep putting your faith in Darwin
I don't put my faith in Darwin. He was just a scientist.
I have
reasons to not waist my life getting drunk and using drugs.
So do I - the reason is, I don't want to do those things, because the cons outweigh the pros.
A follower of Darwin is all about the survival of the fittest
has no moral standard because right and wrong is in the eye
of the beholder only ie;Moral relativism.
That's not really moral relativism, but moral systems aren't the topic of this thread. You'll have to take the word of a moral relativist that your description of MR is completely false.
If what Jesus Christ said is true and
you die in your sins- you will be completely seperated from
your maker for all of eternity and sent to a place HE called
the 'lake of fire.'
Sure enough, if you're right, I will. And if the Muslims are right we're both screwed.
I fail to see a long term up side.
If you're not motivated by a desire for truth, then no, there's no upside to atheism.
On the other hand, if you've made a commitment to evict nonsense and wishful thinking from your mind - two things that have never been any use to anyone - then atheism is the most natural conclusion, and the "up side" is that you aren't fooling yourself every minute of every day.
Like it or not I will be praying for all you members
Feel free to waste your time, as long as you're not wasting ours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICdesign, posted 03-26-2007 4:52 PM ICdesign has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 274 of 304 (391723)
03-27-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
03-26-2007 11:44 PM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
I understand this is one man's opinion, but it is a man who has the scientific credentials that very few people have.
Sure. Credentials, he has plenty. Evidence? I don't see that he has any. If his conclusion is only true because he assumes the premises that lead to it, then he's engaged in circular reasoning. He claims considerable knowledge that he couldn't possibly have (prior conditions to the universe, the freedom of variation of various physical constants, and of course the leap to the conclusion that all of the above supports the Biblical God rather than any other).
Most importantly, though, he doesn't claim supernatural intervention. Maybe you didn't notice that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-26-2007 11:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 12:31 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 304 (391728)
03-27-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by GDR
03-27-2007 12:31 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
If random chance is also a factor causing these mutations then, assuming the supernatural does exist,(if you can suspend your disbelief for a minute), isn't it plausible that instead of random chance there could be supernatural intervention?
Wouldn't we be able to detect the intervention by means of its effects?
What you're suggesting is that God can "load the die", so that certain outcomes are preferential to others. But by the same token that you can detect a loaded die by it's deviation from the truly random output of a fair die, wouldn't we be able to detect God's intervention in supposedly random events by how non-random they wind up being?
Or, perhaps you take a different tack. Perhaps it's your idea that God can influence the outcome of supposedly random events, but he doesn't do it often enough to be detected by the wide suite of statistical tools statisticians have to detect departure from randomness. But that's akin to a Vegas gambler who claims to have the "amazing" power to make a die roll "6" whenever he wants, but he doesn't do it (on average) more than 1/6th of the time, and he never does it a bunch of times in a row to avoid being accused of cheating.
We wouldn't take that guy seriously. Between the explanation of amazing, undetectable powers that the gambler refuses to use and just the regular randomness of dice, it's pretty easy to determine which is the most reasonable.
Unless you're desperate for some kind of gap, any gap, into which to tuck your rapidly shrinking God.
Natural selection is one of the driving forces behind these genetic mutations.
It's not at all clear to me where these sorts of astounding misunderstandings come from. Natural selection has nothing to do with mutation; it doesn't cause them, it's not the source of them. Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)
Random mutations are caused by the fact that DNA replicates in a physical, chemical system which is not perfect. This system introduces random errors - changes, really - into the replication product, so that the DNA copy is not exactly the same as the template.
I comprehend natural selection but random chance doesn't seem to me to make much sense to me.
Why? It's no more difficult to understand than the fact that, if you tried to copy this whole message down on to paper quickly, you'd find that you'd made a number of errors - spelling, grammar, etc - that didn't appear in the source. When you copy things over and over again - particularly if you're not making multiple copies of the original, but rather, copying each previous copy - it's not surprising to see that small changes will occur and accumulate.
Is it just that you aren't familiar with the chemical process by which DNA is replicated? It's actually surprisingly simple, but nonetheless, there are a number of steps where mutations can be introduced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 12:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:26 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 285 of 304 (391765)
03-27-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by GDR
03-27-2007 2:26 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Without any divine intervention in the evolutionary process, I'm talking about a God who was able to design a process that designs itself, but more importantly has given us a physical home for a spiritual being with a moral code and the free will to choose.
I'm curious how that works. What's the putative selection mechanism for being a spiritual being? Are all humans spiritual beings, or is it possible to have a mutation that renders a human non-spiritual? Could we find the spirit gene and disable it?
The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.
The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.
Not really.
It's important to understand that evolution is the process where mutation and selection work together to give rise to diversity, new traits and body forms, and ultimately new species. Darwin's finches acquired their beak traits by mutation and selection. First, individuals mutated more advantageous beak traits; then, those individuals were selected because those traits were advantageous to their survival. Ultimately, the entire population of finches were the descendants of the individuals that originally mutated those traits.
Where do new species come from? New species arise when subpopulations are separated from the main population; over time genetic changes from selection, mutation, and even genetic drift accumulate to the point where the individuals in the subpopulation are no longer genetically compatible with the parent population, and a new species is recognized. While the process has much to do with mutation, it isn't strictly caused by mutation; it's caused by reproductive isolation between two populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 2:26 AM GDR has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 286 of 304 (391766)
03-27-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by GDR
03-27-2007 10:06 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.
Yet, somehow, we're able to come to agreement in the sciences. Occam's Razor, for instance, is a basic tool that informs us how to interpret evidence. It informs us that the most parsimonious explanation that the evidence supports is the preferred one.
I don't really see a disagreement about "what constitutes evidence." I see you persistently dodging the question of evidence by asserting "I have all this evidence but I'm not going to share it with you because you wouldn't believe me." It's getting a little transparent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 10:06 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 11:39 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 288 of 304 (391776)
03-27-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Larni
03-27-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Evolution -- God's Design
Would'nt even have to be ancient: red dragon's Will save is through the roof.
I should have probably specified equivalent Challenge Ratings; that would suggest perhaps a mature adult red dragon (CR 17) and a mind flayer with 9 levels of sorcerer (9+8 = 17).
You're right that the Will save on the dragon is just slightly higher than the DC of the flayer's mind blast attack. But 9 levels of sorcerer give pretty substantial benefits. I'd use animate dead and summon monster IV to outnumber the dragon and provide flanking benefits from monsters immune to the dragon's fear aura. I'd use greater invisibility and fly to sneak up to the dragon's cranium, and haste and true strike spells to make grapple checks to apply my mouth tentacles.
Once I had four, game over. There's no save for brain extraction. Man, a mature red dragon brain? I'd be full for weeks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 03-27-2007 10:45 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Larni, posted 03-28-2007 3:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 290 of 304 (391779)
03-27-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
03-27-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Atheism vs disagreeing philosophies
See -- nothing up my sleeve.
If we know that all of those things have simpler explanations than "a divine deity", then what's reasonable about ascribing those things to God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 11:39 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by GDR, posted 03-27-2007 4:06 PM crashfrog 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