Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me understand Intelligent Design
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 286 of 303 (253391)
10-20-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Annafan
10-20-2005 11:02 AM


Re: Obfuscation
quote:
1) would you feel like your "concerns" would be addressed (and confirmed) if some sort of self-regulating principles were discovered (comparable to emerging order in chaos theory and such...) which would show that there is a naturalistic means by which NS is provided with "better than random" material? Would you feel like such a discovery would illustrate your point? Would it matter whether this is a naturalistic mechanism or something undefined (like a "designer")?
I'm not sure I understand, pls provide further elaboration
quote:
2) do you think there's research going on in that direction and do you think this research is done under the "ID" banner?
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:
Or, in other words, is it your assumption that our hope to find something along these lines rests with those who go under the "ID" banner, and do you feel like opposing "ID" sort of equals blocking any research in this direction?
I never thought of it that way. It may very well be, since ID is still under debate.
quote:
3) do you have concrete examples of objective evidence, aside from "gut feeling", that some such mechanisms should exist?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Annafan, posted 10-20-2005 11:02 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2005 1:29 PM ausar_maat has replied
 Message 290 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 1:33 PM ausar_maat has not replied

ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 287 of 303 (253396)
10-20-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Parasomnium
10-20-2005 1:10 PM


Re: Comparing objections
quote:
You only said that after I pointed out the first time that you endorsed Grassé's view. I could not have read your modification because you had not written it yet.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Parasomnium, posted 10-20-2005 1:10 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Parasomnium, posted 10-20-2005 1:33 PM ausar_maat has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 288 of 303 (253397)
10-20-2005 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 1:23 PM


randomness inferred?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 1:23 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:10 PM NosyNed has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 289 of 303 (253399)
10-20-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 1:28 PM


Re: Comparing objections
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 1:28 PM ausar_maat has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 290 of 303 (253400)
10-20-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 1:23 PM


Re: Obfuscation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 1:23 PM ausar_maat has not replied

ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 291 of 303 (253413)
10-20-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by NosyNed
10-20-2005 1:29 PM


Re: randomness inferred?
quote:
I think you are utterly wrong but then maybe I just haven't a clue what you are talking about.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2005 1:29 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2005 2:15 PM ausar_maat has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 292 of 303 (253417)
10-20-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 2:10 PM


Resting
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:10 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:19 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 294 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 2:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 293 of 303 (253420)
10-20-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by NosyNed
10-20-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Resting
case rested

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2005 2:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 303 (253423)
10-20-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by NosyNed
10-20-2005 2:15 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2005 2:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 295 of 303 (253426)
10-20-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Chiroptera
10-20-2005 2:27 PM


quote:
Anyone ever compliment you on your niceness abilities, Ned? You show more patience with the most incalcitrant debaters that most other people I know.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 2:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 2:43 PM ausar_maat has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 303 (253430)
10-20-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 2:36 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:36 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 297 of 303 (253435)
10-20-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Chiroptera
10-20-2005 2:43 PM


I meant everybody else...
just about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 2:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 2:55 PM ausar_maat has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 303 (253436)
10-20-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 2:51 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 2:51 PM ausar_maat has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 299 of 303 (253447)
10-20-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by ausar_maat
10-20-2005 12:16 PM


Re: 5 More insults - Still no answer
quote:
The accumulative selection of "Random" Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution.
My problem is with the "Random" part in this equation.
I say ID, you say random...the rest of this discussion deals with why we disagree on that very specific point remember?
Hmm, yes, I do remember that. My apologies.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 12:16 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by ausar_maat, posted 10-20-2005 4:56 PM nwr has replied

ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5498 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 300 of 303 (253474)
10-20-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by nwr
10-20-2005 3:20 PM


Re: At least we understand what we disagree on
quote:
Hmm, yes, I do remember that. My apologies.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 3:20 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 5:13 PM ausar_maat has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024