|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I have the best answers, you just simply are denying them.
You don't have any answer at all.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 203 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Thought Experiment 1: Let us assume that there is a teacher or professor who has 50 students in a given class. The teacher/professor would like to give test/examination to the class with questionnaire, having 100 questions. The teacher/professor will surely explain to the students that the passing score is, say, 70 scores, and the perfect score is 100 scores. As you can see, that the teacher/professor is asking the students to make two solutions, one for passing score and one is for perfect score, in one given exam (problem). From this, we can derive intelligence. No, the teacher asked the students to make 100 solutions. Each question is a potential solution or not. Whether or not they get 70 of 100 correct is an arbitrary threshold already set by the teacher, a design (intelligent) choice that (presumably) tells their grade. Your other threshold for the students makes no sense as an determination of intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Erroneous thought experiments are not science.
If you are not doing actual research in the field of biology you will never succeed in falsifying the Theory of Evolution. So far, you still have not demonstrated any way to tell if something is designed or not. And no one has ever been able to show human designed artifacts in any way resemble living organisms. Humans may be modifying organisms, but no aspects of unmodified life can be shown to be designed. Humans are the only known designers in the Universe.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 666 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I didn't say it was either universal or correct. I suggested it as a starting point.
OK, do you really accept that your definition of intelligence is universal and correct? MrIntelligentDesign writes:
You're jumping way too far ahead. We can't discuss whether or not something "is" intelligently designed until we can agree on what "intelligence" and "design" mean. Let us test that, answer these questions from your definition of intelligence.Is biological cell intelligently designed or not? If you don't like my definition, suggest improvements."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Oh, yes, of course. But the rolling stones, when they stop rolling, may gather moss . . .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 850 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
I certainly haven't used the word "intelligence" incorrectly. If you think I have, you're welcome to give the reasons you think so.
The biological cell is obviously not "designed." Look at the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes. Eukaryotic cells developed (naturally) as prokaryotic cells took other prokaryotic cells as internal organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and, of course the nucleus of the eukaryotic cell itself. As for your claims that evolution is wrong: (1) the living organisms around you reproduce by the usual means (bacteria divide, hawks lay eggs, cats give birth) that we are familiar with (2) living organisms have been doing this for millions and billions of years (3) living organisms on the planet in past times, say ten million or a hundred million or a billion years ago, were very different from the ones we see around us today (4) the living organisms alive today are descended from those earlier living organisms (5) therefore living organisms must have evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
We may never know that. They haven't stopped rolling. They are about to start a two-month European tour.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 203 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Tangle writes:
This statement is breathtakingly bad. You do realize that there is no math without logic.
Logic is of no use when trying to understand cosmological problems. You need maths Terrible move, lazy.
Not really. Just seeing if y'all can think. Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths.
There's no reason to assume this - unless of course you'd care to give us one.
I will...but I'll let y'all think about it first. Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17918 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: To prove that you’d have to assume both a finite past and that each cause takes a minimum amount of time to produce its effect. Since neither of these assumptions is logically necessary I’d have to say that an infinite regress is a logical possibility. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths. Show us.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
You do realize that there is no math without logic.
I'm pretty sure that Tangle's point was that logic by itself is insufficient.
Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible.
Of course, it is possible. That often happens in mathematical models.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 203 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Paulk writes: To prove that you’d have to assume both a finite past and that each cause takes a minimum amount of time to produce its effect. My challenge was specifically not assuming a finite past, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise. Now when you use the word "time" in this context, you have to be careful. Since the beginning of our universe (which is granted so far) is the beginning of time in our experience. In context of anything outside our universe, you must be meaning something else that has similar properties to "time". I referred to it as a "temporal" something. But I am willing to use the term "time" to refer to whatever this property outside the universe would be. So that said, the amount of time it would take for a cause to produce an effect is irrelevant as long as it is not zero. Are you are suggesting a cause and its effect are both created at the same instant?
nwr writes:
But that is not what he said. He said: "Logic is of no use". That is a very different meaning than 'insufficient'. I agree that logic alone is insufficient. But it is a necessary part. And 'maths' is based on logic. So at the very least, his statement was a self-contradiction.
I'm pretty sure that Tangle's point was that logic by itself is insufficient. Of course, it is possible. That often happens in mathematical models.
But mathematical models do not always represent realities. They are always conceptual. So to help y'all along. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Wookie writes: This statement is breathtakingly bad. You do realize that there is no math without logic. Oh, please. Tell me, what's logical about quantum theory? By logic here I'm meaning our ability to simply think philosophically about a problem and hope to solve it. The universe is not something that makes normal, logical sense.
Not really. Just seeing if y'all can think. Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths. Fuck off, if you have a point to make, make it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17918 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: That was not in the post I replied to, but that hardly makes it better for you. Given an infinite past, an infinite chain of cause and effect is not only possible, it seems to be very likely.
quote: Again, that doesn’t really matter for my point - since I am arguing that you are wrong even if past time is finite.
quote: I am not arguing that that is the case - indeed since I am arguing from mathematics, the time can be greater than zero and the argument still works (which is why I specified a minimum time rather than arguing that the time must be greater than zero). The integral calculus only works because adding an infinite number of terms - each greater than zero - can have a finite value. (That is first year stuff for university mathematics). However, in a similar discussion I have seen someone arguing that our universe was created assert that cause and effect can be simultaneous. Indeed, unless you assume that there was a time - or “temporal something” before our universe that assumption is necessary to claim that our universe DID have a cause. And of course it is a logical - and scientific - possibility that there was no time preceding our universe. It therefore seems that you must concede that it is possible that our universe did not have a cause. Edited by PaulK, : Added a minor clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17918 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: Logic and mathematics are clearly not your strong point. First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof. Second if you admit the possibility of an infinite past you accept that an actualised infinity may exist. Third for any continuous quantity any finite portion of that quantity can be infinitely subdivided. Therefore unless space is quantised, any length is an actualised infinity and unless time is quantised any duration is an actualised infinity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024