Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolutionary Problem of Evil

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:37:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

You mean UnitedAndy or... am I missing something? And isn't that a debate on PoE, not a teleological argument?
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:53:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

I personally have a similar idea:

There are things that indicate a creator.
There are things that indicate randomness (i.e. No creator.)
To me, the most logical conclusion which fits both premises, is that there is a god, who, for some reason hides. Now at 1st this seems to be somewhat a cop-out to say that he's hiding. But in reality, if there is a God, the most basic, obvious, certain, & fundamental, thing we know about him, is that he is hiding to some extent.
I find it interesting that the title of Dawkins book "The blind watchmaker" seems to acknowledge/admit that some "watchmaker" must exist, but just that he is imperfect or blind. (I would just add that perhaps it is we who are blind, rather than God.) At the end of the day Fine tuning does indicate a creator of some sort.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:57:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:53:34 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

I personally have a similar idea:

There are things that indicate a creator.
There are things that indicate randomness (i.e. No creator.)
To me, the most logical conclusion which fits both premises, is that there is a god, who, for some reason hides. Now at 1st this seems to be somewhat a cop-out to say that he's hiding. But in reality, if there is a God, the most basic, obvious, certain, & fundamental, thing we know about him, is that he is hiding to some extent.
I find it interesting that the title of Dawkins book "The blind watchmaker" seems to acknowledge/admit that some "watchmaker" must exist, but just that he is imperfect or blind. (I would just add that perhaps it is we who are blind, rather than God.) At the end of the day Fine tuning does indicate a creator of some sort.

I think you misunderstand the title of that book. The "blind watchmaker" is, as he explains, the process of evolution guided via natural selection.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:26:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:57:07 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/12/2013 3:53:34 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

I personally have a similar idea:

There are things that indicate a creator.
There are things that indicate randomness (i.e. No creator.)
To me, the most logical conclusion which fits both premises, is that there is a god, who, for some reason hides. Now at 1st this seems to be somewhat a cop-out to say that he's hiding. But in reality, if there is a God, the most basic, obvious, certain, & fundamental, thing we know about him, is that he is hiding to some extent.
I find it interesting that the title of Dawkins book "The blind watchmaker" seems to acknowledge/admit that some "watchmaker" must exist, but just that he is imperfect or blind. (I would just add that perhaps it is we who are blind, rather than God.) At the end of the day Fine tuning does indicate a creator of some sort.

I think you misunderstand the title of that book. The "blind watchmaker" is, as he explains, the process of evolution guided via natural selection.

This is weird, because that is, word for word, the reply i was about to post to devil.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:05:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Either

"Dude, don't you know that the multiverse can, like, explain all of that, bro? No need for you imaginary fairy tale God lol"

or

"Wow dude 'Dr.' William Lane Craig is just so dishonest, man. I don't trust a word that comes out of that lying, dishonest fairy-tale worshiper who pretends to use logic to trick his faith-head audience lol"

That's the typical flair I've come across from internet/village atheist, at least.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:07:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:37:17 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

You mean UnitedAndy or... am I missing something? And isn't that a debate on PoE, not a teleological argument?

This is an objection by my current debate opponent, IllegalCombatant. And yes it seems to be a problem of evil argument to counter the fine-tuning argument.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:14:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:53:34 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

I personally have a similar idea:

There are things that indicate a creator.
There are things that indicate randomness (i.e. No creator.)
To me, the most logical conclusion which fits both premises, is that there is a god, who, for some reason hides. Now at 1st this seems to be somewhat a cop-out to say that he's hiding. But in reality, if there is a God, the most basic, obvious, certain, & fundamental, thing we know about him, is that he is hiding to some extent.
I find it interesting that the title of Dawkins book "The blind watchmaker" seems to acknowledge/admit that some "watchmaker" must exist, but just that he is imperfect or blind. (I would just add that perhaps it is we who are blind, rather than God.) At the end of the day Fine tuning does indicate a creator of some sort.

Interesting take.. I more or less agree.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:17:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Observational Selection Effect replies (OSE)... sometimes called the anthropic principle, that because we couldn't observe anything else but a finely tuned universe, then therefore we shouldn't be surprised about it.

I deal with this objection in the debate though.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:27:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:05:36 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Either

"Dude, don't you know that the multiverse can, like, explain all of that, bro? No need for you imaginary fairy tale God lol"

or

"Wow dude 'Dr.' William Lane Craig is just so dishonest, man. I don't trust a word that comes out of that lying, dishonest fairy-tale worshiper who pretends to use logic to trick his faith-head audience lol"

That's the typical flair I've come across from internet/village atheist, at least.

Wow, no straw-manning here at all. How about,

"Yo dude, where are these probabilities coming from?"

Or,

"What, like, totally, no question-begging reason to think that the universe values life in the first place?"

Also,

"what about the totally awesome fallacy of understated evidence, where the evidence for FT must be weighed against the scale/age of the universe (and the remarkable lack of sentient life) or what seems like a totally unguided, indifferent process in cultivating life (one where pretty much every organism has been wiped out)?"
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:35:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:27:43 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:05:36 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Either

"Dude, don't you know that the multiverse can, like, explain all of that, bro? No need for you imaginary fairy tale God lol"

or

"Wow dude 'Dr.' William Lane Craig is just so dishonest, man. I don't trust a word that comes out of that lying, dishonest fairy-tale worshiper who pretends to use logic to trick his faith-head audience lol"

That's the typical flair I've come across from internet/village atheist, at least.

Wow, no straw-manning here at all. How about,

"Yo dude, where are these probabilities coming from?"

Or,

"What, like, totally, no question-begging reason to think that the universe values life in the first place?"

Also,

"what about the totally awesome fallacy of understated evidence, where the evidence for FT must be weighed against the scale/age of the universe (and the remarkable lack of sentient life) or what seems like a totally unguided, indifferent process in cultivating life (one where pretty much every organism has been wiped out)?"

Don't mind me, Andy; I was just having some innocent fun at the village atheists' expense.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:07:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

So says some idiot.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:25:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:17:12 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Observational Selection Effect replies (OSE)... sometimes called the anthropic principle, that because we couldn't observe anything else but a finely tuned universe, then therefore we shouldn't be surprised about it.

I deal with this objection in the debate though.

Well, I don't know. The argument seems to me as if someone is calling you out for framing a deck by pulling out one set of cards in millions of possibilities.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:26:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

Seems like too quick an emotional response. Plus it's been the case in the past that what we once thought was poor design, turned out to be actually pretty good given the feasibleness of the function of parts in the diversity of environments.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:33:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:25:07 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:17:12 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Observational Selection Effect replies (OSE)... sometimes called the anthropic principle, that because we couldn't observe anything else but a finely tuned universe, then therefore we shouldn't be surprised about it.

I deal with this objection in the debate though.

Well, I don't know. The argument seems to me as if someone is calling you out for framing a deck by pulling out one set of cards in millions of possibilities.

If you read my response to the OSE objection, I think you'll see that's not the case.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:34:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:07:14 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

So says some idiot.

Now now.. no need to make things personal.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:33:38 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:25:07 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:17:12 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Observational Selection Effect replies (OSE)... sometimes called the anthropic principle, that because we couldn't observe anything else but a finely tuned universe, then therefore we shouldn't be surprised about it.

I deal with this objection in the debate though.

Well, I don't know. The argument seems to me as if someone is calling you out for framing a deck by pulling out one set of cards in millions of possibilities.

If you read my response to the OSE objection, I think you'll see that's not the case.

I'll take a look at it sometimes. I need to read more debates :/
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:31:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:07:14 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

So says some idiot.

You're right. Single points of failure, functionless organs, and optical blind spots are signs of engineering genius.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:32:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:26:42 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

Seems like too quick an emotional response.

Saying it "seems like too quick an emotional response" is, itself, a quick emotional response.

Plus it's been the case in the past that what we once thought was poor design, turned out to be actually pretty good given the feasibleness of the function of parts in the diversity of environments.

For example?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:46:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:27:43 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:05:36 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Either

"Dude, don't you know that the multiverse can, like, explain all of that, bro? No need for you imaginary fairy tale God lol"

or

"Wow dude 'Dr.' William Lane Craig is just so dishonest, man. I don't trust a word that comes out of that lying, dishonest fairy-tale worshiper who pretends to use logic to trick his faith-head audience lol"

That's the typical flair I've come across from internet/village atheist, at least.

Wow, no straw-manning here at all. How about,

"Yo dude, where are these probabilities coming from?"

Or,

"What, like, totally, no question-begging reason to think that the universe values life in the first place?"

Also,

"what about the totally awesome fallacy of understated evidence, where the evidence for FT must be weighed against the scale/age of the universe (and the remarkable lack of sentient life) or what seems like a totally unguided, indifferent process in cultivating life (one where pretty much every organism has been wiped out)?"

All these responses are answered in my debate.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:01:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:26:42 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

Seems like too quick an emotional response.

Saying it "seems like too quick an emotional response" is, itself, a quick emotional response.

Saying that "saying it 'seems like too quick an emotional response' is, itself, a quick emotional response" is itself a quick emotional response.

First, you cursed, and it scared me. Second, it's quick because you failed to keep in mind the distinction between optimal design and intelligent design. Third, suppose an electrical engineer uses a negative feedback loop to trade amplifier gain for stability. An naive observer may note the suboptimal gain of the amplifier and conclude the engineer made a mistake. But the low gain was intentional; it appears to be a mistake only because the observer is unaware of the engineer's design goals.


Plus it's been the case in the past that what we once thought was poor design, turned out to be actually pretty good given the feasibleness of the function of parts in the diversity of environments.

For example?

I gave the example of the bones in our forearms, some complained that they're easily broken given how humans tend to fall forward and brace themselves in a way that cause our arms to break. So it was said that forearm bones needed to be thicker if our designer was so intelligent. Which of course misses out on the point of trade-offs, the same dexterity that causes vulnerabilities also frees us to function in other unique ways, such as my ability to type this message, to play the piano, to use tools, etc.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 4:38:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:01:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:26:42 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

Seems like too quick an emotional response.

Saying it "seems like too quick an emotional response" is, itself, a quick emotional response.

Saying that "saying it 'seems like too quick an emotional response' is, itself, a quick emotional response" is itself a quick emotional response.

Yes. Then again, I'm not the one who originally brought it up like it's relevant.


First, you cursed, and it scared me.

Then the internet isn't a place for you.

Second, it's quick because you failed to keep in mind the distinction between optimal design and intelligent design.

No I didn't. If we're designed, then our designer is a fvcking idiot.

Third, suppose an electrical engineer uses a negative feedback loop to trade amplifier gain for stability. An naive observer may note the suboptimal gain of the amplifier and conclude the engineer made a mistake. But the low gain was intentional; it appears to be a mistake only because the observer is unaware of the engineer's design goals.

Ok. I've supposed this. My conclusion is unchanged.



Plus it's been the case in the past that what we once thought was poor design, turned out to be actually pretty good given the feasibleness of the function of parts in the diversity of environments.

For example?

I gave the example of the bones in our forearms, some complained that they're easily broken given how humans tend to fall forward and brace themselves in a way that cause our arms to break.

Who complained?

So it was said that forearm bones needed to be thicker if our designer was so intelligent.

Said by whom?

Which of course misses out on the point of trade-offs, the same dexterity that causes vulnerabilities also frees us to function in other unique ways, such as my ability to type this message, to play the piano, to use tools, etc.

Ok. Show me that the trade off was the intention of the Intelligent Designer. Because that's the only way that works.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:35:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:46:21 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:27:43 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:05:36 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/12/2013 9:23:08 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
What's the usual reply to the argument from fine-tuning?

Either

"Dude, don't you know that the multiverse can, like, explain all of that, bro? No need for you imaginary fairy tale God lol"

or

"Wow dude 'Dr.' William Lane Craig is just so dishonest, man. I don't trust a word that comes out of that lying, dishonest fairy-tale worshiper who pretends to use logic to trick his faith-head audience lol"

That's the typical flair I've come across from internet/village atheist, at least.

Wow, no straw-manning here at all. How about,

"Yo dude, where are these probabilities coming from?"

Or,

"What, like, totally, no question-begging reason to think that the universe values life in the first place?"

Also,

"what about the totally awesome fallacy of understated evidence, where the evidence for FT must be weighed against the scale/age of the universe (and the remarkable lack of sentient life) or what seems like a totally unguided, indifferent process in cultivating life (one where pretty much every organism has been wiped out)?"

All these responses are answered in my debate.

From what I've gleaned, you've said that evolution is irrelevant and on probabilities, that Slezak's point is mistaken. In short, the only point responded to (unless I've missed it) is point 3. Slezak's point isn't mine and the implicit value problem (point 2) isn't touched.

On evolution, to say it's irrelevant strikes me as absurd. If you want to argue design, you can't just ignore the data which seems to contradict it. Evolution by natural selection seems pretty implausible on theism. Why? Because it's wasteful, time-consuming, brutal, short-sighted and has all the appearance of being naturalistic.

Also, you didn't respond to the point about scale or the fact that this finely-tuned universe is so empty of life (a huge number?).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:35:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

Is there any possible arrangement of matter in living organisms that could be discovered that would you lead to conclude bad design or no design has occurred?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:06:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 5:35:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:13 AM, Apeiron wrote:
In this debate,

IllegalCombatant brought up an interesting, but irrelevant objection to the argument from fine-tuning. He cites supposed evidence from Neil Tyson to suggest that we aren't the product of some extra cosmic plan:

Earth

1) Earth quakes tsunami's, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lighting strikes
2) Mass extinctions, disease, climate shift, killer asteroids
3) 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct


Humans

1) Aggressive child hood leukemia, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's
2) We eat, drink, breath though the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death each year, more common in babies & children.


Now this question is answered here,

http://www.debate.org...

... but it seems to me that everything in biology is in terms of "trade-off" and not a "best possible function." For the same fragility of our forearm bones that causes us to easily break our wrists while skateboarding, also allows us ease of movement for playing the piano and other multi-functional roles.

Nevertheless, even if our air holes allow us to choke easily, what we can do with such air holes appear as trade-offs as well as good design for other functions. But even if it was a bad design, that still goes nowhere to prove that it wasn't in fact designed by initial conditions which required agent causation. IllegalCombatant wholly misses the point of the fine-tuning argument here in that does an end run around evolution!

Is there any possible arrangement of matter in living organisms that could be discovered that would you lead to conclude bad design or no design has occurred?

Probably, got any?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 5:35:07 PM, unitedandy wrote:
From what I've gleaned, you've said that evolution is irrelevant and on probabilities, that Slezak's point is mistaken. In short, the only point responded to (unless I've missed it) is point 3. Slezak's point isn't mine and the implicit value problem (point 2) isn't touched.

On evolution, to say it's irrelevant strikes me as absurd. If you want to argue design, you can't just ignore the data which seems to contradict it. Evolution by natural selection seems pretty implausible on theism. Why? Because it's wasteful, time-consuming, brutal, short-sighted and has all the appearance of being naturalistic.

Maybe God didn't want to, you know, just kinda go "POP" and suddenly produce humans and place them on a barren rock. Besides, doesn't evolution serve a purpose? As in it provides for the vast diversity of life-forms necessary for man's survival and for successful predation? Perhaps God has good reasons for preferring a naturalistic process to allow to unfold (and perhaps intervene in) in order to produce free agents and not make it too obvious he authored it to bring about genuine belief in Him? Either way, speculating why God may have done x is, as with the problem of evil, I think, an expression of arrogance; to think that a finite mind would, could or should be able to see or understand all the possible reasons why God allows X.


Also, you didn't respond to the point about scale or the fact that this finely-tuned universe is so empty of life (a huge number?).

Who knows if there is other life somewhere else in the universe? If there is, great, if there isn't, sucks, have another beer. I don't see how that is relevant to the existence of God.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:01:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:26:42 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

Seems like too quick an emotional response.

Saying it "seems like too quick an emotional response" is, itself, a quick emotional response.

Saying that "saying it 'seems like too quick an emotional response' is, itself, a quick emotional response" is itself a quick emotional response.

First, you cursed, and it scared me. Second, it's quick because you failed to keep in mind the distinction between optimal design and intelligent design. Third, suppose an electrical engineer uses a negative feedback loop to trade amplifier gain for stability. An naive observer may note the suboptimal gain of the amplifier and conclude the engineer made a mistake. But the low gain was intentional; it appears to be a mistake only because the observer is unaware of the engineer's design goals.


Plus it's been the case in the past that what we once thought was poor design, turned out to be actually pretty good given the feasibleness of the function of parts in the diversity of environments.

For example?

I gave the example of the bones in our forearms, some complained that they're easily broken given how humans tend to fall forward and brace themselves in a way that cause our arms to break. So it was said that forearm bones needed to be thicker if our designer was so intelligent. Which of course misses out on the point of trade-offs, the same dexterity that causes vulnerabilities also frees us to function in other unique ways, such as my ability to type this message, to play the piano, to use tools, etc.

Why didn't god just make our arms stronger?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 4:38:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2013 3:01:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:32:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:26:42 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/12/2013 1:01:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
@Ape:

You seem to have forgotten the "Intelligent" part of intelligent design. If we were designed, the designer was a fvcking idiot.

Seems like too quick an emotional response.

Saying it "seems like too quick an emotional response" is, itself, a quick emotional response.

Saying that "saying it 'seems like too quick an emotional response' is, itself, a quick emotional response" is itself a quick emotional response.

Yes. Then again, I'm not the one who originally brought it up like it's relevant.

bleh.


First, you cursed, and it scared me.

Then the internet isn't a place for you.

I think you don't know how to curse. You even spelled the word wrong.

Second, it's quick because you failed to keep in mind the distinction between optimal design and intelligent design.

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

If we're designed, then our designer is a fvcking idiot.

How so? ... have you seen Olivia Munn? ... also, you spelled your potty-mouth word wrong again. Are you Russian or something?


Third, suppose an electrical engineer uses a negative feedback loop to trade amplifier gain for stability. An naive observer may note the suboptimal gain of the amplifier and conclude the engineer made a mistake. But the low gain was intentional; it appears to be a mistake only because the observer is unaware of the engineer's design goals.

Ok. I've supposed this. My conclusion is unchanged.

Haha, sure buddy.



Plus it's been the case in the past that what we once thought was poor design, turned out to be actually pretty good given the feasibleness of the function of parts in the diversity of environments.

For example?

I gave the example of the bones in our forearms, some complained that they're easily broken given how humans tend to fall forward and brace themselves in a way that cause our arms to break.

Who complained?

So it was said that forearm bones needed to be thicker if our designer was so intelligent.

Said by whom?

Dissenters from Design.

Which of course misses out on the point of trade-offs, the same dexterity that causes vulnerabilities also frees us to function in other unique ways, such as my ability to type this message, to play the piano, to use tools, etc.

Ok. Show me that the trade off was the intention of the Intelligent Designer. Because that's the only way that works.

Haha maybe in your own little world yea.. I'm not claiming that multi-dexterity was the Designers intent, but rather that it can't count against the claim that it wasn't.