narcimund 0 #51 December 22, 2005 Quoteyeah, thats how the thread began No, that's not how it began. I've shown there's quite a bit of theoretical meat to the research even if the conclusions are wacky. I'm not convinced that anyone has benefitted from my explanations. It's pretty clear that most (if not all) people are too dogmatic to follow clear reasoning on any topic unless the conclusions are comfortable. And THAT fallacy is known as argumentum ad consequentiam. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #52 December 22, 2005 QuoteStatistically it's virtually a certainty that other planets demonstrate that, statistically. the sheer vastness of the universe doesn't ipso facto mean it is "virtually certain" that other life is out there. I personally think there may be life out there, but going from vastness to almost certain is an unwarranted assumption. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #53 December 22, 2005 did you just finish philosophy 101? because I have that book too. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #54 December 22, 2005 Ok, forget my point #3 if that's going to be a distraction. It wasn't my main point anyway, and I almost left it out (Although I'm still going to keep working on my wormhole generator if you don't mind.) But presumptions # 1 & 2 are not synonymous. #1 goes to how much learning we have accumulated to date. #2 goes to raw intelligence, i.e., the capacity to learn. Anyhow, saying there's too much complexity to explain by random chance simply means that homo sapiens (a) as a species (raw intelligence) and (b) at the current level of scientific and technological development (accumulated knowledge and understanding to date) have not YET been able to explain it. That doesn't mean that it's forever unexplainable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #55 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteyeah, thats how the thread began No, that's not how it began. I've shown there's quite a bit of theoretical meat to the research even if the conclusions are wacky. I'm not convinced that anyone has benefitted from my explanations. It's pretty clear that most (if not all) people are too dogmatic to follow clear reasoning on any topic unless the conclusions are comfortable. And THAT fallacy is known as argumentum ad consequentiam. i have certainly benefited from your posts, and not just b/c I happen to believe that there some truth behind ID. you have a clear, concise way of explaining things. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #56 December 22, 2005 oh you're no bloody help at all. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #57 December 22, 2005 Quoteoh you're no bloody help at all. and you're not very pretty in your wife's panties. i just wonder what you were getting ready to do w/ your dog. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #58 December 22, 2005 Quotedid you just finish philosophy 101? because I have that book too. It's good that you have it. Have you considered reading it? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #59 December 22, 2005 no real point. you're here now to save us from logical fallacies. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #60 December 22, 2005 QuoteBut presumptions # 1 & 2 are not synonymous. You're absolutely right. They're not synonymous. I was getting bogged down in a complex answer and decided to punt on that point for efficiency. They're closely related however and my point can be made with either of them, so let's consider them a set. QuoteAnyhow, saying there's too much complexity to explain by random chance simply means that homo sapiens (a) as a species (raw intelligence) and (b) at the current level of scientific and technological development (accumulated knowledge and understanding to date) have not YET been able to explain it. That doesn't mean that it's forever unexplainable. And that's why the conclusion "It must be intelligence" is a premature conclusion at best. But it doesn't negate the value of the research if in fact the research discovers anything. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #61 December 22, 2005 >I believe the ID studies typically use the longer, scientifically >accepted time scales. Yes. ID falls under the OEC (old earth creationism) umbrella. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #62 December 22, 2005 Quoteno real point. you're here now to save us from logical fallacies. Oh don't worry about that. No matter how much I explain the fallacies, I"m quite sure you will gleefully continue to exploit them. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #63 December 22, 2005 only if it causes your panties to bunch up tighter. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #64 December 22, 2005 Quotei have certainly benefited from your posts, and not just b/c I happen to believe that there some truth behind ID. you have a clear, concise way of explaining things. I find it grotesquely fascinating that I'm "clear and concise" to people when I argue for their side but I'm "angry" when I argue the other side. I chalk it all up to more fallacies. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #65 December 22, 2005 Bottom line, the most that even intelligent, articulate proponents of ID - what the fuck, let's be intellectually honest in our labels, eh? - creationism - can give us is "You can't conclusively disprove ID (creationism), so you have to acknowledge that it's a possibility." Well, no I don't. Intelligent design is theology, and as such it's an article of faith, not science. And by the way, as to the intellectual dishonesty of claiming that "ID" is not necessarily "creationism", the only way that ID is not synonymous with creationism is if the "Intelligence" which "designed" the matrix (or at least all life on Earth) is a species of life occurring in nature, which whipped up the Earth & its life like a kid with a chemistry set, and not God. If that's the case, maybe we should be wearing little chemistry sets on chains around our neck instead of religious symbols. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #66 December 22, 2005 Quoteonly if it causes your panties to bunch up tighter. Fraid not. I get involved only when I think people actually have a chance of understanding. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #67 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuotei have certainly benefited from your posts, and not just b/c I happen to believe that there some truth behind ID. you have a clear, concise way of explaining things. I find it grotesquely fascinating that I'm "clear and concise" to people when I argue for their side but I'm "angry" when I argue the other side. I chalk it all up to more fallacies. when did I call you angry? I don't recall, but perhaps it was when you were posting angrily? fuck man, give you a compliment and you fuck it all up. but hey, thanks for the insult. and you're hardly on the side of ID... you've made it pretty clear that you think the conclusions are wacky. saying you're clear and concise in explaining something -anything- is hardly saying that I think you're on "my team." christ on crutches. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #68 December 22, 2005 QuoteIf that's the case, maybe we should be wearing little chemistry sets on chains around our neck instead of religious symbols. They could sell those right next to the footed Darwin fish. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #69 December 22, 2005 Quotewhen did I call you angry? I don't recall, but perhaps it was when you were posting angrily? I wrote that badly. I didn't mean YOU personally. I have no memory of you ever saying that. I meant that in general I can easily predict that anyone who comments on my very carefully reasoned posts will compliment my intelligence if they agree with the side I'm arguing or they'll bitch about my personality if they don't. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #70 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuotewhen did I call you angry? I don't recall, but perhaps it was when you were posting angrily? I wrote that badly. I didn't mean YOU personally. I have no memory of you ever saying that. I meant that in general I can easily predict that anyone who comments on my very carefully reasoned posts will compliment my intelligence if they agree with the side I'm arguing or they'll bitch about my personality if they don't. i personally don't give a shit whose side your on. I have a lot of respect for people who can express themselves clearly and with precision. It's a gift I don't have. That is why I tend to listen to people like you, billvon (mostly ), and some others, even if/when your ideological stance is vastly different from mine. If you can speak with erudition and w/o slinging shit and mocking beliefs, (And that is precisely why I don't listen to people like kallend) you will always have me as an audience. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #71 December 22, 2005 Quotei personally don't give a shit whose side your on. That's a rare talent. I admire it greatly. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #72 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteplease point me in the direction of an ID based scientific finding . I don't know anything about the ID findings. I've been explaining what the CONCEPT is because you (and others) seemed to be curious if it was more rigorous and scientific than "god says so". It IS more rigorous than that, at least in theory. Maybe somebody else has current findings. My guess is there isn't much. The scientific method, succinctly, is to form a hypothesis based on existing data, use it to make testable predictions, and test them. ID proponents made such predictions about the eye. Then new data turned up to prove them wrong. At this point a scientist would reject a hypothesis outright, or modify it to fix the incorrect parts. The ID proponents don't do that. They just say "bad choice of organ, try another". Science does not go looking for that one piece of data that confirms the hypothesis while rejecting all data to the contrary as not relevant. ID is not falsifiable as long as a single piece of biology remains unknown. ID is NOT science even if dressed up like it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #73 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuotei personally don't give a shit whose side your on. That's a rare talent. I admire it greatly. Let me amend that... I care greatly what side your on... and that is why I will listen as long as there is mutual respect. But when that isn't first given, I tend to not return it, which is a glaring fault of mine. What I'm not about, contrary to the misperceptions of some here, is make you accept my Catholic world-view and all of that. It's your life and you have to work our your own "salvation," your own unifying philosophy of belief for yourself. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #74 December 22, 2005 Quote If you can speak with erudition and w/o slinging shit and mocking beliefs, (And that is precisely why I don't listen to people like kallend) you will always have me as an audience. They say Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for co-discovering the double helix, was a real smartass and very abrasive. I expect you would prefer to listen to Ronald Reagan discuss science.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #75 December 23, 2005 QuoteQuote If you can speak with erudition and w/o slinging shit and mocking beliefs, (And that is precisely why I don't listen to people like kallend) you will always have me as an audience. They say Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for co-discovering the double helix, was a real smartass and very abrasive. I expect you would prefer to listen to Ronald Reagan discuss science. First, you're no Francis Crick. Second, I can read about Crick's work w/o having to endure his insufferable personality flaws. Third, Ronnie isn't talking much about science these days. Fourth, if you weren't so fucking abrasive and openly contemptuous towards me, I'd pay you more respect. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
