Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design and the intelligence hypothesis
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 62 of 109 (231703)
08-10-2005 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Evopeach
08-10-2005 1:48 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Some points of critique:
A proposition followed by three corrollaries - one of which is actually a definition - then followed by a conclusion constitutes bad reasoning.
The proposition needs proof. You haven't been to other parts of the universe where life might exist based on other chemistry than life as we know it.
Since [there is] no naturalistic explanation for the essentiality of carbon in life there is no viable alternative other than supernatural and the scientific complexity of the carbon atom makes it logically an ID system. {grammar correction mine}
First, the fact that no naturalistic explanation has been found for something does not mean that one does not exist. Second, what is the meaning of "scientific complexity of the carbon atom"? Are you saying that if the complexity of the carbon atom were not scientific, it would not, logically speaking, be an ID system? Or are you just putting some polysyllabic words in a sequence in the hope of impressing the more gullible among us?
[...] no scientific inquiry has ever demonstrated the development of the carbon atom from simpler "things" in a step by step process [...]
Maybe you've missed the following when you did your research before writing your post:
More information can be found here.
[qs][...] by removing all carbon from the subsystem, by extension component or organ of which it is a part;that enstity [sic] will in every case cea[s]e to function, cannot function with any other type of atom other than carbon and cannot be arrived at from a previous state where carbon would not have been necessary for its function.[/qs]
So, in effect you are saying that prostheses cannot function if they contain no carbon?
Your post may seem reasoned and logical to you and perhaps other ID-ists, but putting it in a legalistic form and giving it an aura of deductive reasoning is not in the least convincing. Not to me, anyway.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 10-Aug-2005 12:29 PM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 1:48 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Wounded King, posted 08-10-2005 4:46 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 71 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 10:08 AM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 65 of 109 (231713)
08-10-2005 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wounded King
08-10-2005 4:46 AM


Re: Evopeach's position tacitly accepted?
One argument anti-evolutionists often parade is the fact that evolutionists don't always agree among each other. To evolutionists themselves, this is not a problem, but rather a boon, because it stimulates further research and in the end results in a better understanding of the matter at hand.
But anti-evolutionists see it as a weakness of science; one that proves evolution wrong. I think that's the reason why we see so little open disagreement among anti-evolutionists: they think that to disagree among themselves, is to lose credibility.
Also, I think that creationists in general lack sufficient understanding of scientific concepts to put forward a well reasoned, scientifically sound argument, let alone pick one apart. If they read the words "irreducible complexity" in some pro-ID prose, they need not read further, because what follows cannot but promote their cause, they think. Let's not forget that doing science isn't the first priority of ID-ists. In fact, they don't do science at all. ID is just rhetoric with the express intent of driving down their "wedge". Their priority is to promote unadulterated Christian creationism, nothing else, despite what they say.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wounded King, posted 08-10-2005 4:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 75 of 109 (231830)
08-10-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Evopeach
08-10-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Evopeach writes:
As to the appeal of fusion based arguments for carbon formation I admit not considering triple neutron collision reactions in the core of stars a billion light years away or in a nuclear reactor as being appropriate to the presumed processes of evolution, namely biosphere based mutation and natural selection
I am unaware of Darwins work in nuclear physics as it might relate to fusion temperature speciation ... whatever.
You really don't have a clue, do you? Where do you suppose the carbon atoms in your own body come from? You said:
[...] no scientific inquiry has ever demonstrated the development of the carbon atom from simpler "things" in a step by step process [...]
The illustrations I gave you describe just that step-by-step process. It happens inside stars and is the source of practically all the carbon in the biosphere - in the entire universe for that matter. I just thought I should tell you this, so that when you return from your suspension, you are just a tad less misinformed than you were before, perhaps enabling you to avoid another suspension. Glad to be of help.
As to your favorite or most convincing form of debate or argument I am not interested in playing twenty questions, so perhaps you could just state whether you prefer true rhetoric or some form of sophistry.
I prefer neither. What I like is sound reasoning based on evidence, something I haven't seen from you yet.
I suspect few will be impressed by the logic that if a phenomenon has not yet been observed that is no reason to suggest it is not right around the corner.
You're wrong. About 95 percent of the world's population are very impressed by such 'logic'. The phenomenon in question is "God". Anyway, that's not what I meant. I don't think I'll bother explaining it to you, though.
Another thing: just as I don't think that irreducible complexity in nature necessarily points to an intelligent designer, do I also not think that the contrived complexity of your sentences necessarily points to an intelligent writer. In other words: I think you're intelligent, but not because of your style of writing, so you can drop the pretense.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 10:08 AM Evopeach has not replied

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


Message 100 of 109 (232552)
08-12-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Evopeach writes:
Little Percy Cat Bird, [etc.]
This is absolutely unbelievable. I know I haven't always been very polite to everyone, but this behaviour is really inexcusable. If I were Percy I'd find a way to shunt 10.000 amps through this person's keyboard.
But the funny thing is that he doesn't even get what he expects (and deserves!): a permanent suspension. The admins are too kind. (Or... it's a bit of a mean streak and they won't let him off the hook, good for them!)
Anyway, if Evilpeach stays away, good riddance, we don't need his kind here. And if he decides to return, I for one will ignore him until he's apologized to Percy and the rest of those whom he's insulted. He's really not worth our time.
There, I feel a lot better now.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 11:12 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 08-15-2005 12:51 PM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 105 of 109 (233597)
08-16-2005 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Evopeach
08-15-2005 12:51 PM


Evopeach writes:
Conditional Apology;
You have to tell me [...]
I don't have to tell you anything. Conditional apology is not acceptable.
Apologize in full - and mean it - or go away.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 08-15-2005 12:51 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024