|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4826 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Of course.
Well of course not. That goes without saying. I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome.
Yes, they're quite the enigma, aren't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes: Of course, you can always just claim like Dr. A and Granny that the facts are all in a magic book, and then just run away from the responsibility of proving that. And how are they supposed to prove that to you? Do they actually have to make you read it? "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
I see, so you actually have a book that proves the exact lineage of man, from bacteria all the way until Richard Feynman? Well, that's really great Granny When you go and get that book - y'know, the one with the scientific consensus on evolution and common descent - try to make sure it's in a language you actually understand. That would help. By the evidence you've presented do far, I'm guessing that wouldn't be English.
I mean, its not like you would just make up that you know the path of humanity from flecks of sand to Feynman-right? Right, I wouldn't make that up. Because that would be silly. We're no more descended form flecks of silicon than we are from turtles. In fact, if anything, the sand comment is even dumber and more ignorant than the silly turtle comments. Luckily for me though, I have no need to make anything up. You are doing a good enough job at making up silly gibberish to keep us going for months.
Or perhaps its just that you are so brain-washed by your own believes "Beliefs". Not "believes". Is English your native language? Perhaps you might be better off discussing this topic in a dialect you can comprehend. Although I'm not sure what that would be... Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
articulett writes: Regarding your weird hypothetical. If a bacteria (or any life) had no means of reproducing, then naturally, they'd die out. So would you, if your cells could not copy themselves. You enforce my point. The first life nessecarily allegedly endured a relatively long period of life having not yet developed a means of reproducing itself. Isn't there supposed to be models for things scientific? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Says who? Everything I've ever read about this says that early life could reproduce. Where do you get the idea that it couldn't?
You enforce my point. The first life nessecarily allegedly endured a relatively long period of life having not yet developed a means of reproducing itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The first life nessecarily allegedly endured a relatively long period of life having not yet developed a means of reproducing itself. Who alleges this, and in what psychiatric institution are they confined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DrAdequate writes: Buzsaw writes: The first life nessecarily allegedly endured a relatively long period of life having not yet developed a means of reproducing itself. Who alleges this, and in what psychiatric institution are they confined? Are you alleging that the very first life relatively instantly had the means within itself to reproduce itself? Can you cite a model for this or substantiate it scientifically? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you alleging that the very first life relatively instantly had the means within itself to reproduce itself? Can you cite a model for this or substantiate it scientifically? It's true by definition. Without chemicals that catalyze their own synthesis (i.e. self-replicate) you don't have life. You've just got ... stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, is it perfectly acceptable to assume that something is derived from purely materialistic, or naturalistic causes simply because that is a default position? Yes. Even if there is no empirical evidence for this ... But, of course, there is. That's why it's the default position. Please support this with evidence, as per the rules of the forum. Or just stay out of the discussion entirely....or is Granny too old to fight her own battles? Actually since you can't adhere to the first rule, adhere to the second. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
That would help. By the evidence you've presented do far, I'm guessing that wouldn't be English. Did you mean by the evidence of do do? Sorry, you are right I can't understand your English, but it sure does smell of do do. But yes you are right about one thing, its not my first language, its my fourth. I guess that makes two of us. Which one do you normally use? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate writes: It's true by definition. Cool. Well then by that token I can allege that the designer is true by definition and be scientific. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Cool. Well then by that token I can allege that the designer is true by definition ... You can, if you don't mind being wrong. If I told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you reply "Cool. Well then by that token I can allege that 9 + 3 = 4"? I wonder what you think the phrase "by that token" means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Did you mean by the evidence of do do? Sorry, you are right I can't understand your English, but it sure does smell of do do. Such scintillating wit! Sir, you should be buried next to Oscar Wilde!
At the earliest possible opportunity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
We're no more descended form flecks of silicon than we are from turtles. Again, we are using English, so I realize the challenges you also face; but yes, I agree, that is "fucking stupid" as you like to put it, but then many things Richard Dawkins says is stupid, so its no real surprise is it? So, BTW, which chemical element are you claiming life arose from, since you also think Dawkins is so fucking stupid?
In fact, if anything, the sand comment is even dumber and more ignorant than the silly turtle comments. Did you mean dumb and redundant? Or perhaps ignorant and repetitious? Or in your language, those are two different concepts? Its cool, perhaps that is the case in Borneo. I am only passingly familiar with Malay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Again, we are using English, so I realize the challenges you also face; but yes, I agree, that is "fucking stupid" as you like to put it, but then many things Richard Dawkins says is stupid, so its no real surprise is it? So, BTW, which chemical element are you claiming life arose from, since you also think Dawkins is so fucking stupid? Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"; and whom do you hope to deceive?
Did you mean dumb and redundant? Or perhaps ignorant and repetitious? Or in your language, those are two different concepts? In the English language, to be ignorant is to lack knowledge and to be dumb is to lack intelligence. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024