Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

Nice cut and paste job Philip. Now perhaps you'd care to pick one or two points that you personally feel are the most compelling support for your position and restate them in your own words with your own comments. We might then have something resembling a debate or discussion. Since, as you stated...

quote:

---

I, Philip, do not necessarily agree with nor refute these many selected pro-ToE-ID evidences (below).

---

...it seems fairly pointless to discuss the "evidence" if you don't agree with it. The tactic you used here - a massive cut-and-paste with no comment - is usually the last gasp of someone who has no argument. I wasn't aware that you were so desperate.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--Relax Quetzal, do I appear gasping?

---

Actually, the tactic you employed above is a common one used when someone runs out of arguments. It's a variation of the "Gishian gallop". To wit: posting a huge, all encompassing, multiple subject, out-of-context essay written by someone else without comment. The essay covers so much ground that it is, functionally, impossible to refute. Therefore, the poster feels justified in claiming that s/he has presented "irrefutable proof" of whatever s/he is arguing about. The reality is that the "proofs" are SO broad and would take SO much time, effort and words to answer that it simply isn't usually worth the effort.

quote:

---

Are you out of order with this all-too proverbial form of intimidation? John doesn’t require pissy lurking responses; you’ve jumped in the argument out of nowhere.

---

On the contrary, you essentially "invited" a response by posting a link to this massive essay to a thread on which I WAS active. Since the essay has little or nothing to do with the topic of this thread - how intelligent is a putative designer - my request that you pick something significant out of the myriad bits covered is certainly legitimate. I agree on one thing though: John certainly doesn't appear to need any help in shredding your arguments.

quote:

---

Admit it, we’re both desperate with our novels. Wanting to make the world a better place, etc. Clinging onto our fabulous faith biases.

---

Desperate? I don't know about you, but that would not be how I would describe my participation here.

quote:

---

Albeit, I always welcome your input. I had to cut and paste this stuff from other sources than the web. I shrunk the font to make it arbitrary enough, barely readable (not very desperate); I was ashamed of the OEC implications if you really want to know.

​

--But to update you, Quetzal: Louw Alberts supports the ‘God-of-the-gaps’-ID necessity for Evos and OECs. As such it all ‘appears’ refutable to various extents, especially to me, a YEC. I don’t require a God-of-the-Gaps. I scientifically believe the gospel-model of creation according to the Bible.

---

Since you don't agree with the post you made, I guess my only question is, "Why on earth did you post it in the first place?"

quote:

---

--Please, you pick a couple points, and we’ll try to ‘discuss’ it in John’s context of ‘How’ intelligent must the ID be. (A.K.A., welcome back to your worst Fundy-YEC nightmare).

---

If you don't support the contentions made in the post, why discuss them? I certainly don't support them. I also see little in the post that speaks toward the "intelligence" or lack thereof of any designer. Perhaps you could point out how the essay advances your argument.BTW: With reference to my "worst fundy-YEC nightmare", I detect a highly over-inflated sense of your own importance. You are far from a "nightmare".

This is kind of a non-sequitur, so I am not replying to any particular message. Could someone please define "aperceptive" for me in the context of this conversation? The only reference I've ever heard for this term is "aperceptive agnosia", a rare brain disorder that leads to blindness (IIRC). The root word means "lack of perception" or "lack of the ability to perceive", so I don't really understand the term as Philip and John are using it. Pardon my ignorance if there is some accepted definition. Thanks.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Phillip threw me with this one too. If you scan the thread you'll see some discussion on the definition, but basically it means, in context, something like "there is more going on inside or heads than logic. ie.. we have emotions, etc."

​

Take care.

---

Ahh, thanks John. Now I've got it. He's using aperceptive in the context of some intrinsic, non-physical, immaterial property of living organisms. Something that literally cannot be perceived. I thought I recognized the argument. Philip just managed to drag in a new term again that threw me. It's the old essentialist argument I ran across in the other thread - the unproven and unprovable existence of a vague Platonic "essence" in all things (a triangle has a ineffable essence of triangle-ness, a horse an essence of horse-ness, etc). The soul, in this case, I suppose. Archimedes himself couldn't move him off that platform, no matter how long the lever. Good luck.