"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch · 12-02-2013 07:04PM

nagirrac wrote: »

In this case yes, but I believe adaptation is intelligent. In general terms I would say intelligence is something that displays a cognitive process. I believe we see cognitive processes in all life, from the microbe on up. The human brain is the most obvious real world example.

Can you please define "cognitive process"?

Sarky · 12-02-2013 07:07PM

robindch wrote: »

The only people who've a problem with evolution are the people who don't make any effort to learn anything about it.

And when you go to all the trouble of showing them evidence, and teaching them the basics, they make no effort to acknowledge it. They're just not interested in rising above their ignorance

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 07:10PM

Sarky wrote: »

Brains are interesting, fragile things, they "evolve" from a generic stem cell to a network of millions of neurons in the space of a few years. They don't actually require all that much "programming", they mostly develop from learning and experiencing.

But they're very susceptible to the slightest damage. If they weren't, there wouldn't be psychiatric therapy, mental illness, severe learning disabilities, and all the other things on a near-endless list of bad things that can happen a brain. To use your programming analogy, they're more full of bugs than any application ever released by a software company. If they're programmed by someone, they did a sloppy job of it.

Again, if you don't believe me, try altering some of the processes by taking a couple of legal drugs.

I am quite familair with the effect of various mind altering legal and not so legal drugs:)

I agree brains are very interesting. They are incredibly interesting in the developing fetus and first year, a mind boggling array of neurons and connections between neurons, many trillions of them. That is the amazing design. How this vast landscape gets programmed genetically and by environment is also fascinating, but the majority of bugs as you call them, sadly, are due to environment and upbringing.

mickrock · 12-02-2013 07:20PM

"Please define intelligence."

"Please define information."

"Please define complexity."

You hear a lot of this around here. They're fairly straightforward concepts but people who have faith in abiogenesis/Darwinism often seem to use them as dodges.

For example, if asked how the digital information in DNA can be explained by chance and/or material processes, the inevitable response will be for a definition of information.

Doctor Strange · 12-02-2013 07:23PM

mickrock wrote: »

"Please define intelligence."

"Please define information."

"Please define complexity."

You hear a lot of this around here. They're fairly straightforward concepts but people who have faith in abiogenesis/Darwinism often seem to use them as dodges.

For example, if asked how the digital information in DNA can be explained by chance and/or material processes, the inevitable response will be for a definition of information.

Define irony :pac:

Seriously, we've provided so much information to you, that you in turn regularly ignore. I for one won't be entertaining your refusal to engage in proper debate any more.

darjeeling · 12-02-2013 07:44PM

Counting down to 10,000 posts...

How will it end? Will Darwin get the girl? Will the dog turn up alive? Will there be a sequel? :eek:

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 07:45PM

robindch wrote: »

Can you please define "cognitive process"?

Will we eventually get to the point where I have to define the alphabet?

a composite from the free Dictionary: "the process of obtaining and storing knowledge and putting it to use"

whats next? what is knowledge?

Roger_007 · 12-02-2013 07:50PM

There is one thing that puzzles me about creationist theory. Adam and Eve and all that. Where did the next generation come from. There were the 3 sons of Adam and Eve. One of them murdered the other. So that left 2 males. Did they mate with their mother or what.

Sarky · 12-02-2013 07:53PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Will we eventually get to the point where I have to define the alphabet?

a composite from the free Dictionary: "the process of obtaining and storing knowledge and putting it to use"

whats next? what is knowledge?

Stop using words one way for an argument when in the context of that topic they mean something else, then.

Sarky · 12-02-2013 07:54PM

darjeeling wrote: »

Counting down to 10,000 posts...

How will it end? Will Darwin get the girl? Will the dog turn up alive? Will there be a sequel? :eek:

Surprise twist- J C shows up to finally apologise.

Zombrex · 12-02-2013 07:58PM

nagirrac wrote: »

We don't have "known" natural processes that account for life so you should stop saying it as repeating it won't be true. I have no doubt that there are natural processes that account for life and expect that we will eventually understand them.

We have known natural processes that can account for life. We don't, and possibly will never know, which of them is responsible for life on Earth because little to know evidence remains of the origins of Earth. But the important thing is that we know this can happen by natural process, no divine intervention required.

nagirrac wrote: »

The reason to introduce intelligence is that everywhere we look in the natural world we see intelligence. How this intelligence arose is the interesting question, not whether it exists or not.

It arose through evolutionary processes. Which raises the question, if a divine creator exists how did it's intelligence arise?

nagirrac wrote: »

I know its controversial to say on this forum but my belief is that all life is intelligent and uses intelligence to adapt to its environment.

Based on what?

Life adapt to the environment through mutation and natural selection. There is no evidence that the organism in the now can manipulate this process. This was once considered along side Darwinian evolution, but was rejected due to lack of evidence.

So I have to ask again, what do you base that belief on?

Zombrex · 12-02-2013 08:02PM

mickrock wrote: »

"The theory of evolution via natural selection completely transformed the world of science 150 years ago and its ramifications rippled across all aspects of life, including politics and religion. It is as well accepted in the world of biology as the Earth orbiting the Sun is in astronomy"

What a load of specious nonsence.

There are people who believe the world if flat, ignoring all the evidence otherwise.

There are people who believe the Earth is the centre of the solar system and all the planets and the Sun go around it, ignoring all the evidence otherwise.

There are people who believe Darwinian evolution is nonsense, ignoring all the evidence otherwise.

We can happily put all these people into the same set of silliness.

nagirrac · 12-02-2013 08:03PM

Zombrex wrote: »

We have known natural processes that can account for life. We don't, and possibly will never know, which of them is responsible for life on Earth because little to know evidence remains of the origins of Earth. But the important thing is that we know this can happen by natural process, no divine intervention required.

If we have no evidence, how do we know how life emerged? I also believe life came from natural processes but we do not understand the natural processes involved, so its a circular argument.

The rest of your questions I have answered in previous posts.

darjeeling · 12-02-2013 08:06PM

Sarky wrote: »

Surprise twist- J C shows up to finally apologise.

Someone send her a PM or she'll miss her big moment.

Zombrex · 12-02-2013 08:12PM

mickrock wrote: »

"Please define intelligence."

"Please define information."

"Please define complexity."

You hear a lot of this around here. They're fairly straightforward concepts

Then they should be easy to define.

Yet for some reason people are very reluctant to actually do that.

It is almost as if these words are kept intentionally vague so that they can be used as a go too rejection of any and all evidence presented for evolution. Whats that, you have evidence that evolution can do X, ah yes but can it increase "complexity", can it produce "information, no I'm not going to define those terms so you can actually answer the question!

Corkfeen · 12-02-2013 08:34PM

This thread requires an epic score for the final 38 posts.... The end is nigh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl5McGN2L-E

One of the most educational topics around but at the same time, it can be completely mad and idiotic.....

The Mad Hatter · 12-02-2013 08:48PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

This thread requires an epic score for the final 38 posts.... The end is nigh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl5McGN2L-E

One of the most educational topics around but at the same time, it can be completely mad and idiotic.....

On default profile settings, we're also about to hit page 666:eek:

mickrock · 12-02-2013 09:07PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Whats that, you have evidence that evolution can do X, ah yes but can it increase "complexity", can it produce "information, no I'm not going to define those terms so you can actually answer the question!

Supposedly Darwinian mechanisms can explain how a bacterium could evolve into a bird.

A bird is more complex than a bacterium.
"Why is a bird more complex than a bacterium? What makes something more complex than something else? Please define complexity."

Where does the information come from for the body plans of a bird? For wings, avian lungs, eyes etc
"Please define information. Anyway, talking about information is just a ploy used by creationists. Many small changes over a long time explains the evolution of a bird."

Zombrex · 12-02-2013 09:14PM

mickrock wrote: »

A bird is more complex than a bacterium.
...
Where does the information come from for the body plans of a bird?

Both of those things are explained currently by evolution and supported with evidence.

But you reject them off hand because you claim the individual examples of change in life forms are not "complex" enough for you, and you reject them off hand because you claim the individual example of creation of new genetic code in life forms is not enough "information" for you.

So again, define what you mean by "complex" and "information" in a fashion that we can definitively say that some evolutionary change is or isn't complex enough for you, and that the information change is enough of an information change for you to be satisfied.

Put up or shut up.

PopePalpatine · 12-02-2013 09:20PM

Sarky wrote: »

Surprise twist- J C shows up to finally apologise.

I want to believe (s)he's mentally handicapped, but that would do a disservice to those who really are handicapped who do their best to live with their disability.

robindch · 12-02-2013 11:51PM

mickrock wrote: »

"Please define intelligence."
"Please define information."
"Please define complexity."

For example, if asked how the digital information in DNA can be explained by chance and/or material processes, the inevitable response will be for a definition of information.

At this point I was going to try to explain how, when people who are serious about a topic communicate, they usually agree, frequently by default, things like terms of reference, common definitions, rules of debating, topic boundaries and so on. It creates a framework for an interesting, fruitful and worthwhile discussion.

However, creationists don't do this. They uniformly ignore attempts to ringfence a topic, they ignore any requests to define what they mean by any of the meandering, dribbly terms they use, they change topic at random and debate with all the honesty and attention of sugared-up junior infants in a schoolyard.

And their discussions -- like yours here in this forum -- are correspondingly uninteresting, fruitless and worthless.

Lucy8080 · 13-02-2013 12:56AM

Thanks for the video Ghengis, as we can see, experimental mathematics can get beyond infinity to even bigger infinities. ad infinitum!

So that's infinity from the p.o.v. of maths.

I would imagine that from the p.o.v. of creationists or intelligent design proponents, it must mean an absence of finite stuff like birth/death disease and destruction!

Basically , the garden of Eden , before the apple (?) was eaten (according to creationists).

So, i'm slightly baffled as to how they propose to find evidence of I.D. in fossils (evidence of death and disease) ,floods ( evidence of destruction) or anything else finite that they study...whilst also maintaining that god, an intelligent designer/creationist, is not responsible for it .

It's a bit of a sticky wicket!

If the garden of Eden story is entertained, an infinite god created beings that cannot suffer death or disease unless they eat an apple.

If they eat the apple ( which is intelligently designed also) , the consequences are unintelligent design...i.e....you die ,suffer pain etc.

If creationists follow through on their own beliefs, the only possible evidence of I.D. they could find would be traces of something poisonous( the apple).

Maybe its c.f.s.i.

Paradoxically , if they remove it (assuming it exists), they could save themselves ...which might open another can of worms.

Scientific study would be their saviour!

nagirrac · 13-02-2013 03:12AM

wrong forum. or perhaps wrong universe

Lucy8080 · 13-02-2013 03:18AM

I'm not sure if that response is to me Nagirric,...but just in case it is...i have not proposed any belief here....i'm just chasing through the logic of creationists/ .i.d. proponents ...and the arguments they propose.

Maybe your interpretation of what i have written is something for yourself and not me!

Your own universe perhaps?

nagirrac · 13-02-2013 03:33AM

I don't mean to be offensive Lucy8080 but Creationists are devout Christians. If you want to understand how they think and what they believe I suggest the Christianity forum.

Lucy8080 · 13-02-2013 03:49AM

I know they are /claim to be Nagirric.

No offence taken on my part.

I hope you won't take offence if i suggest that you may have misunderstood my post.

nagirrac · 13-02-2013 03:51AM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I know they are /claim to be Nagirric.

No offence taken on my part.

I hope you won't take offence if i suggest that you may have misunderstood my post.

Maybe I did
They don't claim to be devout Christians, they are devout Christians.
They accept as factual everything in the bible.

Sarky · 13-02-2013 04:47AM

Blimey, has it really been that long since J C wandered into an ordinary thread about how bloody stupid it was to have a minister for science endorsing a sh*tty book written by an ignorant loon, then proceeded to spam it with a seemingly endless supply of terrible arguments and outright lies?

My, how the time flies by. I'm going to miss this thread. Not because of J C or any of the crazies who flew by with the same tired old rubbish, but because of the sharp minds who tirelessly showed him to be talking bollocks again and again. I've learned so much from you guys.

mickrock · 13-02-2013 10:36AM

robindch wrote: »

However, creationists don't do this. They uniformly ignore attempts to ringfence a topic, they ignore any requests to define what they mean by any of the meandering, dribbly terms they use, they change topic at random and debate with all the honesty and attention of sugared-up junior infants in a schoolyard.

I'm not a creationist or even religious. Calling someone a creationist is a ploy used by Darwinists when someone disagrees with them.

When asked how Darwinism can explain increased complexity and the arising of the new informaton for the complexity they just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat their mantra that many small changes add up over time. Time is the Darwinist's superhero.

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

Zombrex · 13-02-2013 10:53AM

mickrock wrote: »

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

A surface that has a hole in the middle of it certainly seems more complex than simply a smooth surface. For a start there is a hole.

But then you seem to be using a notion of "complexity" that only you know.

Any time you want to define it for the rest of us.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments