Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 46 of 702 (569241)
07-21-2010 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 4:01 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Dr Adequate writes:
Well of course not. That goes without saying.
Of course.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 4:01 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 47 of 702 (569243)
07-21-2010 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:48 AM


Re: When its intelligent
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 48 of 702 (569244)
07-21-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:03 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:03 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 8:43 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 9:27 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 702 (569249)
07-21-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by articulett
07-21-2010 2:51 AM


Re: Logical Answer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by articulett, posted 07-21-2010 2:51 AM articulett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 7:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 7:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 50 of 702 (569250)
07-21-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Logical Answer
Buzsaw writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 702 (569251)
07-21-2010 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Logical Answer
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 8:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 702 (569253)
07-21-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Logical Answer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 7:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 702 (569255)
07-21-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 8:05 AM


Re: Logical Answer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 8:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 8:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 54 of 702 (569256)
07-21-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 3:16 AM


Re: When its intelligent
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 9:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 55 of 702 (569260)
07-21-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Granny Magda
07-21-2010 5:26 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 5:26 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:54 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 702 (569262)
07-21-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 8:26 AM


Re: Logical Answer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 702 (569264)
07-21-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 8:48 AM


Re: Logical Answer
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 8:48 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 702 (569265)
07-21-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 8:43 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 8:43 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 702 (569274)
07-21-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Granny Magda
07-21-2010 5:26 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 5:26 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 9:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 702 (569277)
07-21-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 9:27 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 9:27 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 9:42 AM Dr Adequate 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