Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…229230232234235…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6932
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,821 ✭✭✭Panrich


    mickrock wrote: »
    Intelligent design should be ruled out before we come to the conclusion that it all happened by chance.

    Wrong way around. Using Occam's razor, I am quite happy to accept that it all happened by chance. Our current knowledge precludes any more elaborate theories. It makes sense to start from the simplest hypothesis and work from there. I am sure that at some point in the future, scientists will fill in the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the origins of life. As you rightly said at the outset, anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and therefore Intelligent design is dismissed on that basis. Next theory please.


  • Options
    #6933
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    robindch wrote: »
    Would anybody be upset if the posts here were moved over to the forum's creationism thread?
    Please do, this thread is taking up valuable internet space that could be used for something more substantial, like lol cats or porn.


  • Options
    #6934
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    mickrock wrote: »
    Of course we, and the whole natural world, have the appearance of design.

    We, who have educated ourselves, appear to ourselves i.e in accordance to the modes of thought we have developed and passed down to ourselves) have the appearance of design. You are caught in a circle of logic. We cannot be the definers of design and then inherit it's qualities.


  • Options
    #6935
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Panrich wrote: »
    Wrong way around. Using Occam's razor, I am quite happy to accept that it all happened by chance. Our current knowledge precludes any more elaborate theories. It makes sense to start from the simplest hypothesis and work from there. I am sure that at some point in the future, scientists will fill in the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the origins of life. As you rightly said at the outset, anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and therefore Intelligent design is dismissed on that basis. Next theory please.

    I happen to to think that because it has the appearance of design that the simplest hypothesis is that it was designed.

    The idea that it happened completely by chance is a lot less plausible.

    Why should ID be dismissed and not abiogenesis? Abiogenesis has no evidence at all. Since there is an appearance of design it's reasonable to infer that it was designed. All other known information-rich systems are the product of intelligence so why should life be any different?


  • Options
    #6936
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    Would anybody be upset if the posts here were moved over to the forum's creationism thread?
    Why would you feel the need to do that?
    Mostly coz this thread is about creationism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6937
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    I happen to to think that because it has the appearance of design that the simplest hypothesis is that it was designed.
    A hypothesis which falls over as soon as your see that if you believe that intelligence can only arise from intelligence, means that the intelligent designer itself must have been designed by another intelligent designer and so on back into infinity.

    It's really quite easy to see the fatal flaw in your argument.


  • Options
    #6938
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    If an intelligence designed life, why did he make farts smell bad? are you calling god a prick because thats much worse than saying he doesnt exist


  • Options
    #6939
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    robindch wrote: »
    Mostly coz this thread is about creationism.

    What's your definition of creationism?

    Is it anything that says life didn't happen purely by chance or does religion have to be involved?


  • Options
    #6940
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,821 ✭✭✭Panrich


    mickrock wrote: »
    I happen to to think that because it has the appearance of design that the simplest hypothesis is that it was designed.

    The idea that it happened completely by chance is a lot less plausible.

    Why should ID be dismissed and not abiogenesis? Abiogenesis has no evidence at all. Since there is an appearance of design it's reasonable to infer that it was designed. All other known information-rich systems are the product of intelligence so why should life be any different?

    Intelligent design depends on an unexplained external agency. I cannot subscribe to that without evidence. The 'appearance' of design is not evidence to me. Evolutionary processes can explain how things appear to be perfectly designed for their surroundings. I prefer to accept that some things are as yet unexplained than try to fill a gap with pure speculation. In the meantime, random chance is less of a stretch than any alternative when a cause for the origin of life is needed.


  • Options
    #6941
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    mickrock wrote: »
    Why should ID be dismissed and not abiogenesis? Abiogenesis has no evidence at all. Since there is an appearance of design it's reasonable to infer that it was designed. All other known information-rich systems are the product of intelligence so why should life be any different?
    Where could this intelligence come from? Who designed and created this creator/designer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6942
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    robindch wrote: »
    A hypothesis which falls over as soon as your see that if you believe that intelligence can only arise from intelligence, means that the intelligent designer itself must have been designed by another intelligent designer and so on back into infinity.

    What about the big bang? Prior to it there was nothing and then the universe came into being.

    Everything ultimately has a prime cause.


  • Options
    #6943
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Even the cause?


  • Options
    #6944
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Panrich wrote: »
    Intelligent design depends on an unexplained external agency. I cannot subscribe to that without evidence.

    I don't see creative intelligence as an external agency (as in a Supreme Being apart from everything) but as an inherent part of all that is.


  • Options
    #6945
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,821 ✭✭✭Panrich


    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't see creative intelligence as an external agency (as in a Supreme Being apart from everything) but as an inherent part of all that is.

    I could conceive of a 'God particle' that remains to be discovered that permeates the universe but I cannot attribute a creative intelligence to such a force. If there was to be such a force, it would be intrinsic to the universe and as such subserviant to the laws of the universe.


  • Options
    #6946
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't see creative intelligence as an external agency (as in a Supreme Being apart from everything) but as an inherent part of all that is.
    What does that mean?


  • Options
    #6947
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    And?

    My point still stands: self-replication is the key to life, not information.

    Sure, an analogy can be drawn between DNA and machine code but that doesn't make the concept of information any more meaningful in biology.

    In fact it is a good example of how it is not meaningful.

    Machine code is simply electrical triggers, the computer does what it does based on these triggers it has no concept of what it is doing or the meaning behind it.

    Likewise there is no meaning in DNA, they are just triggers. They cause something to happen based on physics and chemistry.

    They are glorified coin counters, if something is this do this, if something is that do that.

    kloppse.jpg

    Can someone tell me where the information is in the string of coin sizes.


  • Options
    #6948
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    yawha wrote: »
    What does that mean?

    Who knows, it sounds nice though doesn't it :p


  • Options
    #6949
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    In fact it is a good example of how it is not meaningful.

    Machine code is simply electrical triggers, the computer does what it does based on these triggers it has no concept of what it is doing or the meaning behind it.

    Likewise there is no meaning in DNA, they are just triggers. They cause something to happen based on physics and chemistry.

    The code in the genetic material is the information required to build and maintain a living example of that organism.

    I don't know how you can make out that this information is meaningless. It's what defines life.


  • Options
    #6950
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    mickrock wrote: »
    Everything ultimately has a prime cause.

    So what created the Universe and Life? If you suggest that it was a Deity, then you must also explain how that Deity was created.


  • Options
    #6951
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    JC I'm sorry but we're not going to agree for the simple underlying fact that you seem to feel that because you took one of two parts (assuming your kids ain't the second coming ;) ) in creating a child you should get to teach it to believe whatever you want. I strongly disagree and would do the same with an atheist who taught a child not to believe in god (granted they start out that way...).All children should be taught how to think and then be given as much information on any subject that interests them from as many areas as one can and be allowed to form their own beliefs.
    The parent-child bond is a fact ... and a child will inevitably and naturally learn from its parents ... although this hasn't stopped various Orwellian Totalitarian regimes trying to brainwash children into informing the secret police on their parents religious and political views.

    ... and the 'thinking' that you want to be taught to children is pure Atheistic Humanism - otherwise you would have no problem with all children attending Religious Education and religious ceremonies in School.
    Your pseudo-liberal statement that children should "be given as much information on any subject that interests them from as many areas as one can" ... isn't borne out by your expressed intolerance and desire to eliminate information on Faith and anything else with which you disagree. If you really do want children to be 'given as much information as possible' then you would have no problem with the Christian Faith being taught to all children in school!!!
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    You as a parent have a duty of care for them until they are old enough to take care of themselves; during that time you should have no more carte blanche (sp?) to mould their thought's than a stranger down the street imo
    As a Christian parent I have the God-given right and responsibility to protect my children from people like you ... who would keep them from being Saved, if you could.
    I also have the duty to point out the truth of God's Word to my children and the lies of Satan, in all of its manifestations, ... and no power in Hell or on Earth can stop me.

    ShooterSF wrote: »
    BTW the more I write about this the more hatred I get thinking of the Amish... They're my new enemies :D
    These gentle Christian people have no enemies except Satan and his minions ... so you're keeping some very interesting company, for an Atheist (or are you an anti-theist?).:(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6952
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    These gentle Christian people have no enemies except Satan ...

    What about that guy that went around cutting off their hair and beards and locked one of them in a chicken coop?


  • Options
    #6953
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    BTW the more I write about this the more hatred I get thinking of the Amish... They're my new enemies :D
    ShooterSF has just moved from intolerance to hatred of People of Faith !!!:(

    ... and these are the guys who want exclusive access for themselves and their ideas to our precious children ... and who appear to be gearing up to use the full force of Criminal Law to ensure that such access is provided to them ... and with no alternative opinion allowed!!!!

    ... it is almost unbelievable that this should exist in the 21st Century ... but the words of a lovely old Jewish man (and Holocaust Survivor), that I once had the privelige to meet, keeps ringing in my ears ... "NEVER AGAIN" !!!!


  • Options
    #6954
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The minions of Satan don't like the Amish allright.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting

    The forgiveness of the Amish Community, in the aftermath of the shooting of their children by Charles Carl Roberts IV could teach, the ironically named, ShooterSF, a thing or two about tolerance ... if he is willing to learn:-

    Quote:-
    "A Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them. Amish community members visited and comforted Roberts' widow, parents, and parents-in-law. One Amish man held Roberts' sobbing father in his arms, reportedly for as long as an hour, to comfort him. The Amish have also set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. About 30 members of the Amish community attended Roberts' funeral, and Marie Roberts, the widow of the killer, was one of the few outsiders invited to the funeral of one of the victims.
    Marie Roberts wrote an open letter to her Amish neighbors thanking them for their forgiveness, grace, and mercy. She wrote, "Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need. Gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you."

    I know who I would choose to teach my children anything about morality or life!!!


  • Options
    #6955
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    Everything ultimately has a prime cause.
    Who designed the intelligent designer?


  • Options
    #6956
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    robindch wrote: »
    Would anybody be upset if the posts here were moved over to the forum's creationism thread?

    For the love of Prometheus please do!
    Based on Mickrock's other [naughty text deleted] thread in this forum this thread will fare no better.


  • Options
    #6957
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    For the love of Prometheus please do!
    Done :)


  • Options
    #6958
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    robindch wrote: »
    Galvasean wrote: »
    For the love of Prometheus please do!
    Done :)

    If, in the spirit of Prometheus, you now feel like dousing the whole thread in petrol and setting it alight, don't let us stop you.


  • Options
    #6959
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    yawha wrote: »
    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't see creative intelligence as an external agency (as in a Supreme Being apart from everything) but as an inherent part of all that is.
    What does that mean?
    Roughly speaking, it's a deepity:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity


  • Options
    #6960
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm tired and I have to go meet friends to teach them how to make Irish whiskey, so just take it as gospel when I say there's a whole load of misunderstood molecular biology here. I suppose it's a refreshing that for once it's not J C, but still, this will not stand. I'll be back later. Possibly drunk. But informed and drunk.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6961
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    J C wrote: »
    ShooterSF has just moved from intolerance to hatred of People of Faith !!!:(

    Yes I also hate Mike Tyson as he's a woman beater. I guess I hate all black people now too, darn!

    That's sarcasm by the way.

    _________

    I have said already I'm tolerant of any belief until it impacts on other's rights. Amish children have a right to choose the life they want to live and their parents, rather than giving them as many options as possible enforce one on them. You seem to share their beliefs that you have some "god given" right to manipulate the information a person receives because you played a part in creating them. That I can't accept or tolerate.
    Until you can see the difference and publicly take back the statement above I won't be replying to you as there is little point when you misunderstand the foundation of my argument.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement