What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.
This question only makes sense if we agree that no claim can be disproven with 100% certainty. It's like asking.

Do you believe it's possible that a crab like creature is living three feet under the surface of Titans lakes? Yes or No? By answering yes, you in no way imply that it is likely.

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Foxcanine1's post
01-03-2013, 11:38 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage
Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

If so, where did that intellect come from? What guided its evolution?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
01-03-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 07:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You are doing the exact thing you accuse the posters here of doing. You say they are taking the word "guide" too literal to mean existence of intellect.... while YOU are taking the word "blind" from Dawkins to mean-not manipulated by factors.

Clyde, if you watch the relavent portion of the video clip, Dawkins says that evolution doesn't home in on a target like his computer program....that is it blind. Convergent evolution shows us that evolution isn't blind, that it does home in on certain forms as dictated by the fitness paradigm or selective pressure. Dawkins clearly errs there.

Perhaps you could re-watch the video clip and give us your interpetation of what Dawkins means when he says evolution is blind in the context that he did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 11:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 01:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you agree that in principle(not that it actually happened) an intellect could have designed the evolutionary system on this planet to produce an intelligent being like a human?
By answering yes, you in no way admit that an intelligence was likely.
yes or no....the question is open to everyone.

If so, where did that intellect come from? What guided its evolution?
Your question raises another question. Is intellect a fundamental property of the reality. Can reality exist without intellect?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 04:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 03:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 07:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You are doing the exact thing you accuse the posters here of doing. You say they are taking the word "guide" too literal to mean existence of intellect.... while YOU are taking the word "blind" from Dawkins to mean-not manipulated by factors.

Clyde, if you watch the relavent portion of the video clip, Dawkins says that evolution doesn't home in on a target like his computer program....that is it blind. Convergent evolution shows us that evolution isn't blind, that it does home in on certain forms as dictated by the fitness paradigm or selective pressure. Dawkins clearly errs there.

Perhaps you could re-watch the video clip and give us your interpetation of what Dawkins means when he says evolution is blind in the context that he did.

Clyde,
He has no clue what he's taking about, and is incapable of learning. As we pointed out DIFFERING forms of movement ALL of which are very different are not "convergent", and in fact we know mutation favors DIVERGENCE which is evidenced all around us, everywhere. If "convergence" were the only rule, by now there would only be a few forms of life. In fact there are milliions of diverse organisms. So what has happened is PRECEISELY the opposite of what he's trying to say. He's made up a false paradigm, and slapped it on to VASTLY DIFFERENT systems, and in the future will be making assertions about what it should tell us. He's simply full of crap, and the evidence for that has been presented. He is too obtuse, and too uneducated to get it. Yet, he thinks he is smart enough to challenge Dawkins. He needs help.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2013, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 04:00 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 03:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Clyde, if you watch the relavent portion of the video clip, Dawkins says that evolution doesn't home in on a target like his computer program....that is it blind. Convergent evolution shows us that evolution isn't blind, that it does home in on certain forms as dictated by the fitness paradigm or selective pressure. Dawkins clearly errs there.

Perhaps you could re-watch the video clip and give us your interpetation of what Dawkins means when he says evolution is blind in the context that he did.

Clyde,
He has no clue what he's taking about, and is incapable of learning..... He is too obtuse, and too uneducated to get it. Yet, he thinks he is smart enough to challenge Dawkins. He needs help.




Another Ad Hominem attack that is not worthy of a "thinking atheist"

Convergent evolution is a fact that is not in dispute.....except by Bucky.

Bucky, I forgive you for calling me obtuse, uneducated, and incapable of learning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 04:03 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 03:55 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Clyde,
He has no clue what he's taking about, and is incapable of learning..... He is too obtuse, and too uneducated to get it. Yet, he thinks he is smart enough to challenge Dawkins. He needs help.




Another Ad Hominem attack that is not worthy of a "thinking atheist"

Convergent evolution is a fact that is not in dispute.....except by Bucky.

Bucky, I forgive you for calling me obtuse, uneducated, and incapable of learning.

Do you know what an Ad Hominem is? It's an attack on the persons character to discredit his argument. An insult IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

Example of ad Hominem: John is a smelly pig, therefore he is wrong.

Example of an insult: You're a smelly bitch, John.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
01-03-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 04:03 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 03:55 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Another Ad Hominem attack that is not worthy of a "thinking atheist"

Convergent evolution is a fact that is not in dispute.....except by Bucky.

Bucky, I forgive you for calling me obtuse, uneducated, and incapable of learning.

Do you know what an Ad Hominem is? It's an attack on the persons character to discredit his argument. An insult IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

Example of ad Hominem: John is a smelly pig, therefore he is wrong.

Example of an insult: You're a smelly bitch, John.
Read the post exchange again. It more closely resembles your example of an Ad Hominem than your example of an insult.

He was basically telling Clyde he shouldn't listen to my counter argument(to clydes argument) because I am incapable of being correct. I admit I often mis-use "Ad Hominem" and I am sure you can correctly call me out on it somewhere....but not here. This is clear cut case of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 04:17 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 04:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 04:03 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Do you know what an Ad Hominem is? It's an attack on the persons character to discredit his argument. An insult IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

Example of ad Hominem: John is a smelly pig, therefore he is wrong.

Example of an insult: You're a smelly bitch, John.
Read the post exchange again. It more closely resembles your example of an Ad Hominem than your example of an insult.

He was basically telling Clyde he shouldn't listen to my counter argument(to clydes argument) because I am incapable of being correct. I admit I often mis-use "Ad Hominem" and I am sure you can correctly call me out on it somewhere....but not here. This is clear cut case of it.

Nope, you wrong. He never stated that you were wrong because you were an OBTUSE FUCKING MORON. He said you were wrong AND you were a fucking moron. He's implying a correlation, not a causation.

Therefore, no ad Hominem.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
01-03-2013, 04:20 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 04:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 04:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2013 04:03 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Do you know what an Ad Hominem is? It's an attack on the persons character to discredit his argument. An insult IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

Example of ad Hominem: John is a smelly pig, therefore he is wrong.

Example of an insult: You're a smelly bitch, John.
Read the post exchange again. It more closely resembles your example of an Ad Hominem than your example of an insult.

He was basically telling Clyde he shouldn't listen to my counter argument(to clydes argument) because I am incapable of being correct. I admit I often mis-use "Ad Hominem" and I am sure you can correctly call me out on it somewhere....but not here. This is clear cut case of it.

Wrong. I told him not to listen because YOUR EXAMPLE YOU presented was wrong, and your paranoia interpreted it as a personal attack.

Evolution works in more than one way, and your example is not an an example of "convergence", and there are milions of examples of DIVERGENCE. So get over it.
You did not prove anything, and birds, insects and bats were NOT responding to the SAME environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolut...verge.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: