The trouble with that analysis Lois is, you’ll never find a person who actually admits to doing that sort of scheming, even if they actually did it. In this case, they’d all be dead since the idea of ID is a couple hundred years old at least. Even the people who resurrected it recently would claim that they read something or collaborated with others and put these ideas together based on existing research plus maybe some new discovery. And all of that is verifiable, so whether or not they are sincere in believing their own conclusions is nearly impossible to verify.
Of course, claiming that knowledge comes to you just by sitting and thinking about it really messes up logical conversation too. Most people believe what the people around them believe and they don’t spend much time looking into things if what they hear is at all plausible. If there is a nationally selling book about it, that helps a lot, and people who write those books are validated by people buying them, so you get a self referencing system.
The trouble with that analysis Lois is, you'll never find a person who actually admits to doing that sort of scheming, even if they actually did it. In this case, they'd all be dead since the idea of ID is a couple hundred years old at least. Even the people who resurrected it recently would claim that they read something or collaborated with others and put these ideas together based on existing research plus maybe some new discovery. And all of that is verifiable, so whether or not they are sincere in believing their own conclusions is nearly impossible to verify. Of course, claiming that knowledge comes to you just by sitting and thinking about it really messes up logical conversation too. Most people believe what the people around them believe and they don't spend much time looking into things if what they hear is at all plausible. If there is a nationally selling book about it, that helps a lot, and people who write those books are validated by people buying them, so you get a self referencing system.We think we are thinking and making decisions and we use that as a default, even if we know that it is not accurate. It is human nature to think we are making our own analysis and making our own choices. Even hard determinists, like me, do this. We probably could not function in everyday life if we didn't take this position. It's all part of being human. It doesn't always make sense when looked at objectively. We have to take human nature and human tendencies into account. But, IMO, it's ALL determined by our genes, environment and experiences, without our conscious control. LL
The trouble with that analysis Lois is, you'll never find a person who actually admits to doing that sort of scheming, even if they actually did it. In this case, they'd all be dead since the idea of ID is a couple hundred years old at least. Even the people who resurrected it recently would claim that they read something or collaborated with others and put these ideas together based on existing research plus maybe some new discovery. And all of that is verifiable, so whether or not they are sincere in believing their own conclusions is nearly impossible to verify. Of course, claiming that knowledge comes to you just by sitting and thinking about it really messes up logical conversation too. Most people believe what the people around them believe and they don't spend much time looking into things if what they hear is at all plausible. If there is a nationally selling book about it, that helps a lot, and people who write those books are validated by people buying them, so you get a self referencing system.We think we are thinking and making decisions and we use that as a default, even if we know that it is not accurate. It is human nature to think we are making our own analysis and making our own choices. Even hard determinists, like me, do this. We probably could not function in everyday life if we didn't take this position. It's all part of being human. It doesn't always make sense when looked at objectively. We have to take human nature and human tendencies into account. But, IMO, it's ALL determined by our genes, environmrnt and experiences, without our conscious control. LL We don't think we need another thread that turns in an argument about determinacy, so I'm not going to respond to that.
Met my preacher friend for coffee this morning at Denny’s. The waitress who served us is a very religious friend of my preacher friend. She came from Africa. She explained to us how human thought is put into the brain by god. You can’t argue with anyone with that point of view. I said nothing. But was thinking it was the same thought process many of the people had when Jesus was on his mission. Jesus must of been forced to use a deity to be able to preach to people with this type of thinking.
The trouble with that analysis Lois is, you'll never find a person who actually admits to doing that sort of scheming, even if they actually did it. In this case, they'd all be dead since the idea of ID is a couple hundred years old at least. Even the people who resurrected it recently would claim that they read something or collaborated with others and put these ideas together based on existing research plus maybe some new discovery. And all of that is verifiable, so whether or not they are sincere in believing their own conclusions is nearly impossible to verify. Of course, claiming that knowledge comes to you just by sitting and thinking about it really messes up logical conversation too. Most people believe what the people around them believe and they don't spend much time looking into things if what they hear is at all plausible. If there is a nationally selling book about it, that helps a lot, and people who write those books are validated by people buying them, so you get a self referencing system.We think we are thinking and making decisions and we use that as a default, even if we know that it is not accurate. It is human nature to think we are making our own analysis and making our own choices. Even hard determinists, like me, do this. We probably could not function in everyday life if we didn't take this position. It's all part of being human. It doesn't always make sense when looked at objectively. We have to take human nature and human tendencies into account. But, IMO, it's ALL determined by our genes, environmrnt and experiences, without our conscious control. LL We don't think we need another thread that turns in an argument about determinacy, so I'm not going to respond to that. That's ok. i know how hard it is to make an intelligent argument against determinism. Lois
That's ok. i know how hard it is to make an intelligent argument against determinism. LoisYou should really put a smiley face after statements like that.
What are you talking about? I have not gone anywhere. I debate at other websites and can only spend a limited amount of time at each one. Besides, I have a life off-line. And what arguments did any of the skeptics here present against my OP? ANSWER: None.You didn't actually read my initial response, did you? Reply #45? For your convenience, I'll repeat it here. I think I see the problem. You START with a definition of “accident" as “an unfortunate result", in other words “something bad" and go from there. No wonder your conclusion is skewed! So let’s just drop the word “accident". The question you’re asking is this: Is the order inherent in the universe a natural consequence of what it is, Or was this order deliberately imposed on the universe by some outside intelligence? We Naturalists go with the former. When the big singularity happened and created the universe we live in, these are just the laws of nature we ended up with, like it or not. The fortunate result for us is that these laws allowed the evolution of complex living things like ourselves. If they hadn’t, we would not be here arguing about it. Either way it was not an “accident" the way you definite it. It is simply natural. Try to look at it from our point of view for a change. Your challenge to us is to explain how this “precision" just randomly appeared. The question makes no sense to us because it’s simply the way the universe is. Could YOU explain why it was necessary for this “precision" to be deliberately imposed? You actually can't. You START with the assumption that there must be a Creator, so that seems normal to you. Therefore you accuse us of being willfully blind to what you regard as the "truth". By the way, I'm glad you're back. Now, if you could only demonstrate that you're actually READING what we post, by actually RESPONDING to our arguments, that would be a tremendous step forward. :)
That's ok. i know how hard it is to make an intelligent argument against determinism. LoisYou should really put a smiley face after statements like that. The smiley face is in my signature. %-P Lois
That's ok. i know how hard it is to make an intelligent argument against determinism. LoisYou should really put a smiley face after statements like that. The smiley face is in my signature. %-P Lois You know that's not a smile, he's sticking his tongue out. ;-P
Precision is hard won. If and where there’s precision in nature it’s been hard won as well through millions of years of the trials and errors of evolution.
No gods required.
MzL
That's ok. i know how hard it is to make an intelligent argument against determinism. LoisYou should really put a smiley face after statements like that. The smiley face is in my signature. %-P Lois You know that's not a smile, he's sticking his tongue out. ;-P He's smiling with his tongue out! Anyway, they're all called smileys, even the ones that are scowling. >:-( :cheese:
That's ok. i know how hard it is to make an intelligent argument against determinism. LoisYou should really put a smiley face after statements like that. The smiley face is in my signature. %-P Lois You know that's not a smile, he's sticking his tongue out. ;-P He's smiling with his tongue out! Anyway, they're all called smileys, even the ones that are scowling. >:-( :cheese: LMAO.... :lol:
Of course there are many stories of floods, there have been many floods from well before the appearance of modern humans. These great natural events are memorized by the organism’s individuals as well as collectively.
It has been proven that even the BRAINLESS slimemould learns from repetition and can anticipate a potential problem, in addition to acting intelligently in many ways, but without a brain at all.
See below for example of the slime mould anticipating a cold spell from experience.
Another set of experiments suggests that slime molds navigate time as well as space, using a rudimentary internal clock to anticipate and prepare for future changes in their environments. Tetsu Saigusa of Hokkaido University and his colleagues—including Nakagaki—placed a polycephalum in a kind of groove in an agar plate stored in a warm and moist environment (slime molds thrive in high humidity). The slime mold crawled along the groove. Every 30 minutes, however, the scientists suddenly dropped the temperature and decreased the humidity, subjecting the polycephalum to unfavorably dry conditions. The slime mold instinctively began to crawl more slowly, saving its energy. After a few trials, Saigusa and his colleagues stopped changing the slime mold's environment, but every 30 minutes the amoeba's pace slowed anyway. Eventually it stopped slowing down spontaneously.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/ As to ID, I don't think that anyone would adopt the explanation of simple duplication. ("It just cannot be as simple as that)! Actually yes, this aweinspiring complexity we see in the universe is the result of simple natural mathematical functions and processes. Before the appearance of male and female reproductive functions, many older organisms tried the method of simple duplication for procreation, but it led to less variety and made the organisms more vilnerable to extinction. A few survivors are the fern, and some single celled organisms. See below of an example of such a system;
For starters: if the Borg and the Clone Wars had a baby it would be a pyrosome. One long pyrosomes is actually a collection of thousands of clones, with each individual capable of copying itself and adding to the colony. And like members of the Borg, which are mentally connected, pyrosome members are physically connected– actually sharing tissues.http://deepseanews.com/2013/08/the-60-foot-long-jet-powered-animal-youve-probably-never-heard-of/ The universe is fractal, which is the simplest possible duplicating function. Fractals are everywhere!!! Do a little reading on the subject and it becomes readily apparent that exquisite beauty and majesty can be achieved by a set of simple triangles. Ain't that GRAND? But It ain't a biblical god. The appearance of apparent order was not accidental at all, it was an INEVITABLE outcome from the laws of physics, chemistry, and spatial shapes and Energy.
It has been proven that even the BRAINLESS slimemould learns from repetition and can anticipate a potential problem, in addition to acting intelligently in many ways, but without a brain at all. See below for example of the slime mould anticipating a cold spell from experience.Hey, Write, we had that already]. The most you can say is that theoretically one could base an intelligent system on such optimisation algorithms. But it is like neurons: neurons are not intelligent, but they can work together in highly complicated structures like the brain, that is intelligent.
Lois and Lausten,
It is pretty clear where the ID movement comes from.
See the Wedge Strategy].
See also the timeline of intelligent design].
One of the funniest events described, is of how a creationist school book was changed into an intelligent design book:
1987 In a new draft of Pandas [and People], approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design, with "creationists" being changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".See also here]:
Example of earlier creationist edition (emphasis added):"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."Example of new Improved Intelligent Design edition (emphasis added):"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."This evidence and things like the Wedge Document helped lead John E. Jones III to his verdict that intelligent design was the same as creationism and that the ID movement was a subversive attempt to inject creationism into the classroom.
Lois and Lausten, It is pretty clear where the ID movement comes from. See the Wedge Strategy]. See also the timeline of intelligent design]. One of the funniest events described, is of how a creationist school book was changed into an intelligent design book:Good links. Lois1987 In a new draft of Pandas [and People], approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design, with "creationists" being changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".See also here]:Example of earlier creationist edition (emphasis added):"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."Example of new Improved Intelligent Design edition (emphasis added):"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."This evidence and things like the Wedge Document helped lead John E. Jones III to his verdict that intelligent design was the same as creationism and that the ID movement was a subversive attempt to inject creationism into the classroom.
From a show (Wander Over Yonder) my kids watch:
Take care,
Derek
DEFINITION OF "ACCIDENT": a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary) The fact that all of the first 60-discovered elements are precise and they are all interrelated is the first clue that theirs is not an "unfortunate result" because an "unfortunate result" would have caused them NOT to be interrelated and would have caused NOT to each be precise.I think I see the problem, Alter. You START with a definition of "accident" as "an unfortunate result", in other words "something bad" and go from there. No wonder your conclusion is skewed! So let's just drop the word "accident". The question you're asking is this: Is the order inherent in the universe a natural consequence of what it is, Or was this order deliberately imposed on the universe by some outside intelligence? We Naturalists go with the former. When the big singularity happened and created the universe we live in, these are just the laws of nature we ended up with, like it or not. The fortunate result for us is that these laws allowed the evolution of complex living things like ourselves. If they hadn't, we would not be here arguing about it. Either way it was not an "accident" the way you definite it. It is simply natural. Advocatus: I see your problem. You have managed to convince yourself that if you merely identify something as "natural"--despite the fact the thing is repeatedly precise (meaning it is exactly as required)--then that means the thing created itself spontaneously. As soon as you can present evidence that precision among human creations can repeatedly happen spontaneously--meaning the precision was not intended--you will have made a point. Truth be told, everybody reading this thread is aware that your argument makes no sense. Why so? Because if something "natural" (not man-made) is always precise, it disqualifies as an accident or a spontaneous event. Why so? Because precision, by definition, is something that is exactly as intended. Below is the definition of "precision". precision [pre-sizh´un] 1. the quality of being sharply or exactly defined. 2. in statistics, the extent to which a measurement procedure gives the same results each time it is repeated under identical conditions http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precision Below is the definition of "spontaneous". DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS": "Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse." http://www.yourdictionary.com/spontaneous Now, suppose you explain to the rest of us how something that is "simply natural" and is repeatedly precise = "spontaneous event"? Alter2Ego
Alter2ego, evolution is neither random nor spontaneous, it is selective. You are arguing a straw man position.
Try to look at it from our point of view for a change. Your challenge to us is to explain how this "precision" just randomly appeared. The question makes no sense to us because it's simply the way the universe is. Could YOU explain why it was necessary for this "precision" to be deliberately imposed? Chances are you can't. It's just the way you were brought up to believe is normal.Advocatus: What point of view would that be? The point of view that something as simple as a stick of crayon or even a computer is proof of intelligent design (by humans), but our fine-tuned universe, against which the computer looks like child’s play, is evidence of no intelligent design? That is the point of view that every single atheist in this thread has presented thus far. Alter2Ego