Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The blind watchmaker

Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:36:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism?

Yes, I've read the Bible.

From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:38:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

You know the watchmaker analogy? The one creationists often cite?

Dawkins basically deconstructs it, by showing how complexity can arise naturally. He then makes a leap to try and disprove God because of his implied complexity; YMMV on whether that's justified.
janesix
Posts: 3,438
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:42:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

It's good to look at arguments from all sides. That's the only real way to see what is right.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 9:18:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.

It's a metaphor for an undirected process, not a literal watchmaker; as you would know if you had read the cover notes, leave alone the book.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 9:18:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.

It's a metaphor for an undirected process, not a literal watchmaker; as you would know if you had read the cover notes, leave alone the book.
Up until I made the thread I didn't knew it was a book. I thought it was a statement that he made.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:18:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 10:02:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 9:18:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.

It's a metaphor for an undirected process, not a literal watchmaker; as you would know if you had read the cover notes, leave alone the book.
Up until I made the thread I didn't knew it was a book. I thought it was a statement that he made.

Would you think it likely a prominent atheist, proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design and supernatural creation would propose that there is actually an intelligent being that created life but primarily differed from your own by his lack of visual acuity?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:26:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 10:18:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:02:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 9:18:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.

It's a metaphor for an undirected process, not a literal watchmaker; as you would know if you had read the cover notes, leave alone the book.
Up until I made the thread I didn't knew it was a book. I thought it was a statement that he made.

Would you think it likely a prominent atheist, proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design and supernatural creation would propose that there is actually an intelligent being that created life but primarily differed from your own by his lack of visual acuity?
I'm having trouble following the last part. Can you explain?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 10:30:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 10:26:16 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:18:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:02:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 9:18:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.

It's a metaphor for an undirected process, not a literal watchmaker; as you would know if you had read the cover notes, leave alone the book.
Up until I made the thread I didn't knew it was a book. I thought it was a statement that he made.

Would you think it likely a prominent atheist, proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design and supernatural creation would propose that there is actually an intelligent being that created life but primarily differed from your own by his lack of visual acuity?
I'm having trouble following the last part. Can you explain?

Your argument strongly implied that Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent and most vehemently anti-religion, anti-Creationism, anti-Intelligent-design and Anti-life-was-created-by-someone-or-something and anti-God-exists Atheists in the world; was proposing that some form of intelligence created life....

I was just hoping you could walk me through the thought process by which you came to that conclusion, rather than simply assume you may not fully understand the argument....

(Oh, and btw, I'm waiting for a response on the Mac vs Ram thread!)
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 11:24:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 10:30:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:26:16 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:18:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 10:02:43 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 9:18:52 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/15/2015 7:34:11 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:56:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

Why? You've already concluded it's wrong. If the book in its entirety isn't going to convince you, the book summed up in a few sentences won't. You choose to be prejudice. So be it.

Otherwise, do your own homework.

Well, would you read a x number book talking about young earth creationism? From what I gathered the blind watchmaker is saying that the creation only LOOKS designed but in fact it's not because of the blind watchmaker. If that be the case then the fact remains that it still took a watchmaker to make it. It didnt jump up and made itself.

It's a metaphor for an undirected process, not a literal watchmaker; as you would know if you had read the cover notes, leave alone the book.
Up until I made the thread I didn't knew it was a book. I thought it was a statement that he made.

Would you think it likely a prominent atheist, proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design and supernatural creation would propose that there is actually an intelligent being that created life but primarily differed from your own by his lack of visual acuity?
I'm having trouble following the last part. Can you explain?

Your argument strongly implied that Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent and most vehemently anti-religion, anti-Creationism, anti-Intelligent-design and Anti-life-was-created-by-someone-or-something and anti-God-exists Atheists in the world; was proposing that some form of intelligence created life....

I was just hoping you could walk me through the thought process by which you came to that conclusion, rather than simply assume you may not fully understand the argument....

(Oh, and btw, I'm waiting for a response on the Mac vs Ram thread!)
Thanks, I answered in that thread.

Here's what I heard from the blind watchmaker:

The blind watchmaker makes a watch without ever seeing the parts and such. I'm probably butchering this very badly. That's why I'm asking for a summary. I don't have the cash nor time to read the book.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 11:58:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

There's really not much to summarize. Creationists have said that the intricate design of the human body is evidence of an intelligent creator, just as an intricate watch is evidence of a skilled watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, being a neo-atheist, suggests that the "watch", or the creation of man, didn't necessarily require a designing intelligence. I don't know that the word "blind" was the best word to use, but that's the one he chose.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:01:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 11:24:13 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I don't have the cash nor time to read the book.

I doubt you've missed much. I tried reading "The God Delusion" once (also by Richard Dawkins). It was very boring.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 8:09:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
They are very, very different books. I am a huge fan of 'early' Dawkins )Selfish Gene, Blind watch maker etc) because he wasn't attacking religion but explaining the science for the 'intelligent layman'.

When his books were reviewed for papers like the church times the quality of his arguments was noticed, and a small controversy ensued. A few TV interviews and newspaper columns laterDawkins was transformed from an obscure Oxford lecturer to the medias favourite 'Poster boy' for rationalism.

God Delusion is a product of his transformation from donnish academic to media super-star, and is as different from his 'proper' books as that suggests. God Delusion is rubbish, seemingly written to maximise sales by courting controversy. I say that as a commited atheist and (ex?) Dawkins fan. I'm not saying what the says in GD is wrong, but instead of a sober well researched exposition of the science we got a mouth-frothing polemical rant with very little actual information. Boring is a good word for it. Blind watchmaker is never boring - it makes you think.

In short, don't let GD put you off reading early Dawkins - GD has nothing in common with his early stuff, which is brilliant. 'Selfish Gene' and BW are much more persuasive arguments for Darwinism than Delusion. Delusion only annoyed the pious by playing to the gallery. It made - I suspect - fewer converts than dollars, the direct opposite of his early stuff.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 1:08:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

The epitome of stupidity (rhymes too!). Not reading something because you disagree with it is a great way to ensure ignorance. Can't you imagine the progress mankind would have made if everyone had embraced this idea?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 1:35:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 1:08:29 PM, Floid wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

The epitome of stupidity (rhymes too!). Not reading something because you disagree with it is a great way to ensure ignorance. Can't you imagine the progress mankind would have made if everyone had embraced this idea?

Not really. Uou can only read a small fraction of the books in the world, so you have to choose what you give your time to.

And I think, btw, that macabee is not the only one thrown off by the title. It is very difficult to avoid anthropomorphize-ing the alleged mechanisms of evolution, and Dawkins doesn't pull it off. It's been this way since Darwin himself - "fit" and "survive", for instance, are anthropomorphic concepts. They have no analog in the physical sciences, so evolution has not been a purely scientific concept since day one. I've come to realize that evolution is a modern origins myth. It is a totem for the modern culture.
This space for rent.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 7:52:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 1:35:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Not really. Uou can only read a small fraction of the books in the world, so you have to choose what you give your time to.

This is irrelevant to my statement. If you could only read 1 book what would make you smarter: a book from a viewpoint counter to your own or reading a book that reaffirms what you already think to be true? A smart person will expose themselves to viewpoints counter to their own and either create reasoned arguments why their view is superior or change their mind.

It's been this way since Darwin himself - "fit" and "survive", for instance, are anthropomorphic concepts. They have no analog in the physical sciences, so evolution has not been a purely scientific concept since day one. I've come to realize that evolution is a modern origins myth. It is a totem for the modern culture.

Google used random variation and a fitness function (common AI techniques based off of evolutionary theory) to realize a reduction in word error rate on their search engine from 23% to 8%. It is much more than a concept, the ideas of random mutation and fitness are used every day to improve computers in the areas of speech/image/handwriting recognition, machine learning, and plenty of other areas.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 8:05:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
One of the few things the Bible got right is Eccleasiastes 12:12

"Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body."
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 8:06:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 1:08:29 PM, Floid wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:49:47 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:45:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/15/2015 6:37:32 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Please explain this and why it disprove a creator.

Read the book.

I'm not going to read a x number page book that I disagree with in the beginning. Can you give a summary?

The epitome of stupidity (rhymes too!). Not reading something because you disagree with it is a great way to ensure ignorance. Can't you imagine the progress mankind would have made if everyone had embraced this idea?

As I stated later I don't have the time or money to read it. I also stated that up until I posted the thread I thought it was just a statement Dawkins made. Going from statement to entire book can really put a blanket over the fire. So in light of that what is the blind watchmaker is suppose to say?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 8:06:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 7:52:22 PM, Floid wrote:
At 12/17/2015 1:35:27 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Not really. Uou can only read a small fraction of the books in the world, so you have to choose what you give your time to.

This is irrelevant to my statement. If you could only read 1 book what would make you smarter: a book from a viewpoint counter to your own or reading a book that reaffirms what you already think to be true? A smart person will expose themselves to viewpoints counter to their own and either create reasoned arguments why their view is superior or change their mind.

Well, that wouldn't me my take. This is political correctness sort of gibberish, in my opinion, playing at being intelligent rather than trying to get reality right. But that's just my take.


It's been this way since Darwin himself - "fit" and "survive", for instance, are anthropomorphic concepts. They have no analog in the physical sciences, so evolution has not been a purely scientific concept since day one. I've come to realize that evolution is a modern origins myth. It is a totem for the modern culture.

Google used random variation and a fitness function (common AI techniques based off of evolutionary theory) to realize a reduction in word error rate on their search engine from 23% to 8%. It is much more than a concept, the ideas of random mutation and fitness are used every day to improve computers in the areas of speech/image/handwriting recognition, machine learning, and plenty of other areas.

Yeah, and I think google is run by humans, for humans, no? So how is this an argument against anthropomorphism? My argument is not that these are invalid concepts, but that they could only be used by sentient entities like google engineers, not by blind physics. Physics knows nothing of fitness, or survival, or better, or many other sloppy terms used by people arguing for a mindless process.
This space for rent.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 12:46:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 8:06:54 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Well, that wouldn't me my take. This is political correctness sort of gibberish, in my opinion, playing at being intelligent rather than trying to get reality right. But that's just my take.

The fundamental problem is you draw a distinction between intelligence and getting reality right. In your view those two are mutually exclusive because intelligent people (for example leading scientist) overwhelmingly don't share your view of reality.

On the other hand, getting reality right is being intelligent and your viewpoint is the one that makes no attempt at getting reality right. In order to get reality right you have to expose yourself to ideas other than what you currently hold to test the validity of your ideas and learn if there are better ideas out there.

For example, heliocentrism was heretical when it was first proposed. Under the views being espoused, it would have been a waste of time for anyone to read De Revolutionibus or other works that argued for heliocentrism because they only have limited time to read so why would they waste their time on something that obviously isn't true.

It's been this way since Darwin himself - "fit" and "survive", for instance, are anthropomorphic concepts. They have no analog in the physical sciences, so evolution has not been a purely scientific concept since day one. I've come to realize that evolution is a modern origins myth. It is a totem for the modern culture.

Yeah, and I think google is run by humans, for humans, no? So how is this an argument against anthropomorphism? My argument is not that these are invalid concepts, but that they could only be used by sentient entities like google engineers, not by blind physics. Physics knows nothing of fitness, or survival, or better, or many other sloppy terms used by people arguing for a mindless process.

If you can't watch a nature show and realize the idea of fitness and survival are inherent to all living beings and not just human ideals then I am not sure anything I can say here will further that discussion. Trying to apply fitness and survival to physics is a complete strawman because no one claims evolution applies to things like atoms or subatomic particles.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 2:07:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 12:46:52 PM, Floid wrote:
At 12/17/2015 8:06:54 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Well, that wouldn't me my take. This is political correctness sort of gibberish, in my opinion, playing at being intelligent rather than trying to get reality right. But that's just my take.

The fundamental problem is you draw a distinction between intelligence and getting reality right.

Yeah, maybe it takes a certain amount of intelligence to see the distinction, eh? But not that much, really - we all agree that even Albert Einstein wasn't 100% correct about everything, so clearly intelligence is only an imperfect means for seeking truth. I imagine that integrity is actually far more important in any search for truth.

In your view those two are mutually exclusive because intelligent people (for example leading scientist) overwhelmingly don't share your view of reality.


Actually, that's a stupid thing to say, lol. That's extremism, to go to 'mutually exclusive'. I don't disagree with leading scientists on that much. I probably don't disagree on any issue where they use the scientific method.

On the other hand, getting reality right is being intelligent and your viewpoint is the one that makes no attempt at getting reality right. In order to get reality right you have to expose yourself to ideas other than what you currently hold to test the validity of your ideas and learn if there are better ideas out there.


Yeah, see, reality isn't a 'better' sort of thing. It just is, and we either get it right or we get it wrong. "better" is a moral judgment. Better ideas are great for politics, not so good for physics. Objective right and wrong is what you look for in physics. So when you're right, it's stupid to waste time on people who are wrong, you see.

Look, modern liberalism has substituted a process-oriented thing, i.e. intelligence, for goal oriented truth seeking. Why? Because so much of what is held in post modernism is not true. But if what is not true is held by those who are intelligent, it still has some attraction. So the 21st century version of Eden's lie is "Ye shall be as scientists, being smarter than the average bear" Being wrong is a small price for some people to pay, to be seen as intelligent.

For example, heliocentrism was heretical when it was first proposed. Under the views being espoused, it would have been a waste of time for anyone to read De Revolutionibus or other works that argued for heliocentrism because they only have limited time to read so why would they waste their time on something that obviously isn't true.

But heliocentrism is correct, so you WOULD want to spend your time getting up to speed on it. See how that works? The issue being what is true, not what is different for difference sake.


If you can't watch a nature show and realize the idea of fitness and survival are inherent to all living beings and not just human ideals

This is going completely over your head, isn't it? Yes, of course fitness and survival characterize all of life. The point is that they are not characteristics of blind physics, so how can blind physics be the author of life?

Fitness and survival characterize all of life, and they also are sentient concepts. Ergo, it makes sense that life was created by a sentient process, not a blind one.
This space for rent.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:16:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 2:07:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Actually, that's a stupid thing to say, lol. That's extremism, to go to 'mutually exclusive'. I don't disagree with leading scientists on that much. I probably don't disagree on any issue where they use the scientific method.

You don't disagree "on that much" because most of what they say does not contradict your religious views. The Bible doesn't really make claims within the realm of physics so no problem there, the Bible doesn't really make any claims within the realm of chemistry so you are good there... but biology... those guys aren't intelligent because the Bible says man was created by God 6,000 years ago, duh.

You don't get credit for "agreeing with science" just because most scientific claims don't overlap your religious world view. You either embrace a reasoned approach to examining claims or you don't. Through your previous statements showing a willingness to limit exposure to contradictory ideas and most everything else you say it is pretty clear where you fall.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:48:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:16:50 PM, Floid wrote:
At 12/18/2015 2:07:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Actually, that's a stupid thing to say, lol. That's extremism, to go to 'mutually exclusive'. I don't disagree with leading scientists on that much. I probably don't disagree on any issue where they use the scientific method.

You don't disagree "on that much" because most of what they say does not contradict your religious views. The Bible doesn't really make claims within the realm of physics so no problem there, the Bible doesn't really make any claims within the realm of chemistry so you are good there... but biology... those guys aren't intelligent because the Bible says man was created by God 6,000 years ago, duh.

lol. I guess this is what it's like to be black - everybody knows so much about you just by looking at you. So this is bigotry, and it's classic ad hominem - and you're just wrong in your bigoted guess about my positions. And you're still not getting the distinction between intelligence and objective reality. Engage your brain, please.


You don't get credit for "agreeing with science"

Try to understand: I don't want 'credit'. I am not you, I have a different mindset. I'm trying to explain: On matters of science I am goal oriented, not process oriented. I want to be right, not get approval.

...You either embrace a reasoned approach to examining claims or you don't.

I do. Do you? Or do you try to look smart by picking what you think is the winning side?

Through your previous statements showing a willingness to limit exposure to contradictory ideas

And have you read ID books, I wonder? "Signature in the cell", "Darwin's black box", anything like that? Seems to me you're the one exhibiting an unwillingness to expose yourself to contradictory ideas. Right here, right now, with me.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:03:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:16:50 PM, Floid wrote:
...You either embrace a reasoned approach to examining claims or you don't.

And I didn't notice at first reading: This is still your process-oriented mindset. You embrace an 'approach', you don't say that you embrace truth itself. So sure, embrace a reasoned approach, but don't worship it. Sometimes you know by other means, and you need to simply embrace truth. As the Grateful Dead song says "You know better, but I know him, and he's gone. Nothin's gonna bring him back"
This space for rent.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:42:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 4:03:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
And I didn't notice at first reading: This is still your process-oriented mindset. You embrace an 'approach', you don't say that you embrace truth itself. So sure, embrace a reasoned approach, but don't worship it. Sometimes you know by other means, and you need to simply embrace truth.

Without a consistent approach you leave yourself to believe anything. One such approach is the scientific method which has led to most advances in the last 300 years so it seems to work. Religion, as an alternative to science, has lead to thousands of years of stagnation in human advancement (see the Dark Ages for the period in which Christianity had the most influence, or the modern Middle East to see what the influence of Islam can bring).
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 11:46:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 3:48:06 PM, v3nesl wrote:
And have you read ID books, I wonder? "Signature in the cell", "Darwin's black box", anything like that? Seems to me you're the one exhibiting an unwillingness to expose yourself to contradictory ideas. Right here, right now, with me.

I have read Darwin's Black Box, Does God Exist, and Mere Christianity (I guess only one is truly a book on evolution). On the other hand the only evolution book I have read is Why Evolution is True and the only "atheist" books I have read are a few writings of Bertrand Russell. Seems fairly balanced to me.

lol. I guess this is what it's like to be black - everybody knows so much about you just by looking at you. So this is bigotry, and it's classic ad hominem - and you're just wrong in your bigoted guess about my positions. And you're still not getting the distinction between intelligence and objective reality. Engage your brain, please.

What a laughably childish statement. Poor you...