Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,760 Year: 4,017/9,624 Month: 888/974 Week: 215/286 Day: 22/109 Hour: 3/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 37 of 304 (390174)
03-19-2007 7:52 AM 		Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM

logical fallacies #1 & #2

Fallacy #1

​
... the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!! ... I (still) CDESIGN
​
The mistake you are making falls into the category of a logical fallacy of the following type:
​
All {A} is {B}
{B} exists
therefore {A} exists
​
The problem is that {B} also includes not{A} so the existence of {B} does not prove {A}.
​
You have been given several example of apparent design accomplished by natural means: apparent design does not imply a designer.
​
Think of a kaleidoscope: look in one end and see a pretty pattern; look at the other end and see a random jumble of bits and pieces, a fogged glass and the ends of mirrors.
​
Where I come from (called the real world),...
​
The real world includes the smoked glass and mirrors, not just the view from one end. Science uncovers how apparent design occurs.
​
'True science follows the evidence wherever it leads ...
​
True science looks at the smoked glass and mirrors to see how things work, versus looking at the pretty pattern and going "oooh".
​

Fallacy #2

​
This is why we Creationsts call a person smart enough
to come up with a design as intelligent as the human body GOD!!!
​
Let's compare gods:
​
(A) yours (standard YEC Creationist?) - includes several mistakes where god had to go in and re-design things to cover for his mistakes: (1) angels (oops rebelled ended up with nemesis satan - big mistake), (2) eden (oops forgot mate for adam, have to make new addition), (3) eden revisited (oops planted attractive nuisance and told kids not to play there), (4) noah (oops whole thing went to hell and have to start all over - reboot), (5) christ (can't these people do anything right?? have to send in repairman) .... pretty bad design work imh(ysa)o.
​
(B) mine (deist) - god got it right from the get-go, creating the universe 13.7+ billion years ago in such a way that 4.5+ billion years ago it involved the formation of the solar system and 3.5+ billion years ago it involved the formation of life on this planet, life that has since evolved to it's current level and is not done yet.
​
Now based on your argument, because the deist version is more intelligent, it must be the right one.
​
Or your assumption of the conclusion is wrong and totally unsupported by the evidence.
​
Enjoy.
​
Edited by RAZD, : or
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Doddy, posted 03-19-2007 8:02 AM RAZD has replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 39 of 304 (390178)
03-19-2007 8:14 AM 		Reply to: Message 38 by Doddy
03-19-2007 8:02 AM

Re: logical fallacies #1 & #2
It's the same - {B} includes not{A}
​
quote:
Usually 'B' can be true for other reasons, not just 'A'.
​
see also http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm
​
quote:
In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A.
​
Showing not{A} exists within {B} disproves the conclusion that {A} must exist if {B} exists.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Doddy, posted 03-19-2007 8:02 AM Doddy has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 156 of 304 (390825)
03-22-2007 7:51 AM 		Reply to: Message 152 by ICdesign
03-21-2007 10:51 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design
The theory of evolution proposes we are here by accident ie;
​
False. See if you can tell me why?
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICdesign, posted 03-21-2007 10:51 PM ICdesign has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 157 of 304 (390827)
03-22-2007 8:01 AM 		Reply to: Message 150 by ICdesign
03-21-2007 9:54 PM

Re: Thanks Crash
When I made the statement that I will never believe evolution-
I was refering to macro-evolution or one species crossing
over into an entirely different species. Can I say at this
point that I respect you much more than I've been letting on.
​
Perhaps you'd like to participate on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? by explaining what you think "macro"evolution is and how it is different from "micro"evolution.
​
Enjoy.
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICdesign, posted 03-21-2007 9:54 PM ICdesign has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 195 of 304 (391003)
03-22-2007 10:13 PM 		Reply to: Message 193 by crashfrog
03-22-2007 8:07 PM

Re: Evolution -- God's Design and Occam's bloody razor
Mind you I still don't accept that Occam's Razor applies to this argument anyway.
​
Oh, my apologies. I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of scientific theory.
​
Occam's razor does not tell us what is true, all it says is that in the absence of sufficient evidence to judge between two different theories that we should start with the simplest explanation first. If that is not helpful then we can move to more complicated theories to see if they provide more degrees of explanation, even if the first is not falsified.
​
The problem here is that this is moving from science to philosophy where invalidation is not always possible, and the results will be different for people with different philosophical approaches.
​
That's my two pennies in a random pattern ...
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2007 8:07 PM crashfrog has not replied
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 246 of 304 (391337)
03-24-2007 4:07 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.
​
When you look through a kaleidoscope what design do you see? Can you tell me who the designer is for this image?
​
​
And this is the last of the evo-babbling I will address.
​
In other words you cannot address the other arguments and think that this flimsy excuse for your inability is an answer.
​
Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith, nor is it an argument. It is
​
de·lu·sion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
​
Enjoy.
​
Edited by RAZD, : added image
​
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ICdesign, posted 03-24-2007 3:52 PM ICdesign has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024