|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: I'm not sure I understand, pls provide further elaboration
quote: Unfortunately I haven't read a single ID book yet. Only books and material against ID. Most of my knowledge on ID comes from them actually. So I'd be curious to find out as well. I will though, because I'm about to start reading Dembski & cie soon.
quote: I never thought of it that way. It may very well be, since ID is still under debate.
quote: I don't see ID as a mechanism, but rather what the mechanism points to. For Nug and friends, the mechanism points toward "randomness". I don't ask them to explain the mechanism of "randomness", there is no such thing. We infer randomness, and that, based on an EHDI as Fisher says. This is where me and everyone else disagree. But they unfairely ask me for a mechanism when i never argued that there is one in that sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: There he goes with his nit picking, avoiding the central issue. I never said you did read it either btw. what is your point here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
there is no such thing. We infer randomness, I think you are utterly wrong but then maybe I just haven't a clue what you are talking about. I think I've reached a point where it is clear we are totally unable to communicate and it is just wasting time so you don't have to bother answering this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
ausar_maat writes: what is your point here? That you are representing our conversation in a very dubious way. I think I've had enough. Goodbye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I don't see ID as a mechanism, but rather what the mechanism points to. For Nug and friends, the mechanism points toward "randomness". I don't ask them to explain the mechanism of "randomness", there is no such thing. We infer randomness, very good point
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Hummm...wasn't it Ned who said: "In this context "random" is a description of the outcome of the detailed mechanisms." According to what I read, you didn't call "randomness" a "mechanism" in this case, but "the description of it's outcome". This sounds an aweful lot like what I said, which was, that "randomness" isn't the mechanism, but rather, to quote myself, "what the mechanism points to". Two ways of saying the same thing, so does it mean we are both wrong in our understanding of randomness then? Maybe you will explain? If not, I rest my case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I have a couple of minutes that I can waste so I'll reply.
We are totally unable to communicate. There is no further need carrying on a discussion. Since I have been complimented on my communication abilities when dealing with very complex subjects I'd suggest that there is at least a 5/50 chance that the problem mostly lies with you. I don't really care what you think so carry on as you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
case rested
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Anyone ever compliment you on your niceness abilities, Ned? You show more patience with the most incalcitrant debaters that most other people I know.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: You're debating skills amaze me. But I don't think free insults will win any arguements here. Statistically, I've received more insults then valid points unfortunately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Was that post directed at me, ausar_maat? Because your reply doesn't seem to make sense here.
I don't recall insulting you; maybe I have, but I don't remember it. Nor was my post part of an argument, so I don't know why you think I am trying to "win an argument here". Now I readily admit to having intentionally insulting other members. But either the insult was meant to be entirely gratuitous and not part of any argument, or the the insult was one comment in a longer post that contained (what I intended to be) a much more substantive argument. Perhaps you meant your post to someone else? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
I meant everybody else...
just about
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I was just wondering, since you made a comment about my debating skills. I interpreted your comment
You're debating skills amaze me. as sarcasm, and that you didn't think much of my debating skills. Have you been following any of the threads on which I have participated? Do you have any criticisms of my debating skills? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
quote: I say ID, you say random...the rest of this discussion deals with why we disagree on that very specific point remember? Still, it isn't obvious that your arguments have anything to do with this. It's a question of whether the original mutations are random, so the improbability of the result of accumulated mutations would not be relevant. Incidently, I personally disagree with "Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution." IMO the driving force of evolution is biological reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5498 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: It may not be obvious on both sides actually. Because I had to debate this subject on alot of different levels with alot of different people at the same time. All the while, as the late rapper Tupac Shakur would put it, it was "Me against the world" on this thread. So I can understand that the debate became confusing to follow. Because at each turn, I was answering a number of different people none stop, each with their own different and specific questions and objections. In another context, perhaps it would have been easier to get certain points accross more clearly without having to rewind a 20 page long thread before posting with a full scope of the debate in question. Nonetheless, since I think we are clear on what we disagree on, though we may not agree, I personally enjoyed discussing this topic with everyone of you. I've learned of many interesting ways to look at the subject in the process. Looking forward to bumping into each one of you in other topics here on EvC. thank you
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024