Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
112 online now:
dwise1, Tangle (2 members, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,181 Year: 6,293/6,534 Month: 486/650 Week: 24/232 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
nwr
Member
Posts: 6038
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 391 of 470 (893726)
04-19-2022 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by MrIntelligentDesign
04-18-2022 11:29 PM


Re: Bump: No Help. Let's Try Again
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:29 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 392 of 470 (893728)
04-19-2022 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign
04-18-2022 11:40 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:40 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3435
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 393 of 470 (893735)
04-19-2022 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign
04-18-2022 11:40 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:40 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19752
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 394 of 470 (893736)
04-19-2022 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by MrIntelligentDesign
04-18-2022 11:28 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:

OK, do you really accept that your definition of intelligence is universal and correct?


I didn't say it was either universal or correct. I suggested it as a starting point.

MrIntelligentDesign writes:

Let us test that, answer these questions from your definition of intelligence.
Is biological cell intelligently designed or not?


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.

If you don't like my definition, suggest improvements.


"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:28 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 395 of 470 (893746)
04-19-2022 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by AZPaul3
04-18-2022 10:11 AM


Oh, yes, of course. But the rolling stones, when they stop rolling, may gather moss . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 10:11 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2022 1:59 PM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 396 of 470 (893748)
04-19-2022 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by MrIntelligentDesign
04-18-2022 11:00 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:00 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 397 of 470 (893749)
04-19-2022 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Sarah Bellum
04-19-2022 1:34 PM


Rolling Stones
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-19-2022 1:34 PM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 398 of 470 (893754)
04-19-2022 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Tangle
04-18-2022 4:45 PM


Tangle writes:

Logic is of no use when trying to understand cosmological problems. You need maths


This statement is breathtakingly bad. You do realize that there is no math without logic.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2022 4:45 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 3:03 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 400 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2022 3:31 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 401 by nwr, posted 04-19-2022 3:37 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2022 5:11 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 399 of 470 (893755)
04-19-2022 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 2:41 PM


quote:
Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 2:41 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 4:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 400 of 470 (893759)
04-19-2022 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 2:41 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 2:41 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6038
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 401 of 470 (893761)
04-19-2022 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 2:41 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 2:41 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 402 of 470 (893764)
04-19-2022 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by PaulK
04-19-2022 3:03 PM


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:

I'm pretty sure that Tangle's point was that logic by itself is insufficient.


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.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 3:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 5:17 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 5:27 PM WookieeB has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8579
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 403 of 470 (893768)
04-19-2022 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 2:41 PM


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.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 2:41 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 404 of 470 (893769)
04-19-2022 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 4:16 PM


quote:
My challenge was specifically not assuming a finite past, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise.

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:
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.

Again, that doesn’t really matter for my point - since I am arguing that you are wrong even if past time is finite.

quote:
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?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 4:16 PM WookieeB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2022 6:26 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


(1)
Message 405 of 470 (893771)
04-19-2022 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by WookieeB
04-19-2022 4:16 PM


quote:
So to help y'all along. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2022 4:16 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by WookieeB, posted 04-20-2022 2:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022