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
03-03-2013, 03:06 AM
Re: RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 01:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-03-2013 10:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And I watched the video area of the computer.. the way Dawkins means blind to the future is still absolutely true I have lost any idea of what you think you are right about. Evolution works formed in selective measures, but it isn't moving toward a perceived goal. There isn't a magical sentence at the end of the path or consciousness/knowledge as a target. If the development is working, it will keep developing but not with a guided or noticed goal.



The fitness function, or selective pressure, or fitness paradigm, what ever you want to call it is what determines the forms. Design the fitness paradigm and you are targeting a form.

Evolution is used all the time to accomplish specific goals so your statement isn't true for all evolutionary processes. Now you may be talking only about biological evolution, but if you say it is blind you are assuming there is no God(or some other intellect). I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem if you then go on to claim that evolution shows God is not needed. If you do that then your reasoning is circular.

Evolution is blind because there is no intellect determining the the fitness paradigm, Therefore evolution shows there is no God.

I hope you can see that the above is bad reasoning.

I see terrible reasoning above... "Atheist world view?" the persecution and world view argument of the few who walk in,and out if here is ever more ridiculous and frequent.

No the fitness paradigm isn't the goal or guide as you're overlooking again. It's part if the process but not a lite at the end of the tunnel or hand on the back...

Evolution can be used to accomplish goals, yet that's not the same as saying evolution had goals.

And in this discussion it's pointless to waste the time to say, as it mostly adds up or qualifiers to say it's not absolutely non influenced. Yet that's the answer from the evidence. But thanks for putting assumptions in my thinking, that's real world view shaking and not elicit of behavior that makes people neg rep... Just bring Christian causes that.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 03:17 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 02:58 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 02:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Biological evolution started with abiogenesis and there is no credible explaination for that. People have ideas but nothing you could call a theory and certainly nothing you could say was demonstrably true.

You should probably stick to a single debate in a given thread. I've seen you alternately arguing against evolution and abiogenesis within this one alone. It has caused some confusion I cannot with confidence say you aren't exploiting.

I won't speak for anyone else here. As for me, I can't explain abiogenesis, but I find the theistic explanation unsatisfactory and frankly silly. But, evolution is a rather different subject and has been explained, tested and measured more than any other current theory. I'm not alone in feeling confident that it sufficiently explains biodiversity on Earth. Lets not muddy the line between the two please.

Also, that you feel abiogenesis requires god...is not new to us. Most of us here have been around the block a few times and have been exposed to current trends in creationist ideas.

I'm curious: are you even aware what you're doing that causes you to seem so arrogant?


I believe that post was the first time in this thread that I used the word abiogenesis. I only brought it up to refute the error made by poolboyg88 who errantly claimed that we have natural explainations for "all these starting points/initial conditions"
A lot of times I will simply ignore bad posts...like poolboyg88, but his error was of a nature that I thought I needed to correct it.

I apologize if tangent caused by poolboy8g's post befuddled you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 06:33 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 12:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 02:00 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  For those rightly confused...

The User is arguing for a non interventionist "god". The god "saw" into the future, and "created" the universe in such a way that it would create an earth, then life, then humans.

Breeding. But instead of a dog breeder being physically present, they automated the dog kennel, and sat back and watched.

The User hasn't provided any evidence that a "god" exists, and for it having created the Universe or primordial earth or what have you.

All these "starting points/initial conditions" have natural explanations. There's no evidence or room or need for magic.

It's called the Blind Watchmaker argument, and it's been thoroughly debunked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
It's one of the "teleological arguments". And this version/rehash is just a pathetic attempt at the old Deistic argument, also thoroughly debunked, (and actually a non-interventionalist god is 100% antithetical to the entire history of Judeo-Christianity, as they firmly believed their god intervened all the time.) So Hey-would-ja-blow-me is certainly neither a Jew, nor a Christian.
Hey-would-ja-blow-me would know that, as he never went to school. Dawkins even has a Book by that name, in which he debunked that nonsense. This is just a rehash of the Classical teleological "watchmaker" thingy.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-03-2013, 06:37 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
He would also know nothing about the current state research regarding the origins of cellular life, since he has no education, but what he stated is 100 % wrong. Dr Jack Szostak's lab is almost there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

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
03-03-2013, 06:40 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 01:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do those theist challenge the atheistic world veiw?
I would like to answer your question, but I have no idea what the "atheistic world view" is supposed to be.

(03-03-2013 01:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Read the reasons why people have given me a bad rep. Do you think any of them are warranted?
No.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 06:42 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 06:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 01:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do those theist challenge the atheistic world veiw?
I would like to answer your question, but I have no idea what the "atheistic world view" is supposed to be.

(03-03-2013 01:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Read the reasons why people have given me a bad rep. Do you think any of them are warranted?
No.

You really are whining and worried about that, aren't you. How many times have you brought that up ?

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-03-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 06:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 06:40 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I would like to answer your question, but I have no idea what the "atheistic world view" is supposed to be.

No.

You really are whining and worried about that, aren't you. How many times have you brought that up ?
I would like to be like and respected on this forum. I know thats not going to happen because there are too many individuals are so wrapped in their world view that anyone who challenges it(regardless of whether the challenge is valid or not) is a troll, or disingenious, or uneducated, or an idiot, or a halfwit, or fucking moron. I knew I would recieve such abuse coming into a forum like this...but it still bothers me a little. When I am called those things....it hurts a little.
And now you know why I whine a little bit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 07:16 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 07:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 06:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You really are whining and worried about that, aren't you. How many times have you brought that up ?
I would like to be like and respected on this forum. I know thats not going to happen because there are too many individuals are so wrapped in their world view that anyone who challenges it(regardless of whether the challenge is valid or not) is a troll, or disingenious, or uneducated, or an idiot, or a halfwit, or fucking moron. I knew I would recieve such abuse coming into a forum like this...but it still bothers me a little. When I am called those things....it hurts a little.
And now you know why I whine a little bit.


If you had originally posted your thoughts as a conversation instead of a diatribe, then things likely would have gone better.

Something like:

"Is it possible that Professor Dawkins is not correct when he states "..." and that there is a fitness ..."

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-03-2013, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 07:38 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I would like to be like and respected on this forum. I know thats not going to happen because there are too many individuals are so wrapped in their world view that anyone who challenges it(regardless of whether the challenge is valid or not) is a troll, or disingenious, or uneducated, or an idiot, or a halfwit, or fucking moron. I knew I would recieve such abuse coming into a forum like this...but it still bothers me a little. When I am called those things....it hurts a little.
And now you know why I whine a little bit.


If you had originally posted your thoughts as a conversation instead of a diatribe, then things likely would have gone better.

Something like:

"Is it possible that Professor Dawkins is not correct when he states "..." and that there is a fitness ..."

None of the anti theist threads are titled that way("Veridiculism" is one of the more egregious examples). Was I wrong in figuring since you athiest can dish out, you can take it too? I'm being honest because If the title of my threads is impacted how they are recieved...then I need to change that for obvious reasons.
As a side not Chas....I think you need to nut up and apologize to egor for your bad form...at least in a pm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 07:37 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 07:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you had originally posted your thoughts as a conversation instead of a diatribe, then things likely would have gone better.

Something like:

"Is it possible that Professor Dawkins is not correct when he states "..." and that there is a fitness ..."
None of the anti theist threads are titled that way("Veridiculism" is one of the more egregious examples). Was I wrong in figuring since you athiest can dish out, you can take it too? I'm being honest because If the title of my threads is impacted how they are recieved...then I need to change that for obvious reasons.

It wasn't so much the title as the presentation of your argument. You started in attack dog mode.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: