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, 07:39 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 07:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.
Thats because I was attacking a claim made by Dawkins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 07:40 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.

Nope. Your arguments are fallacious, and quite ridiculous. KC is well respected here, so your assertions are false. It's about the arguments. From your English useage, it's quite apparent your education was very limited. You cannot expect to engage people who DO know a lot about science when you know very little, and then whine when you get trampled. You have been shown by many people why the argument, (actually it's not even that, it's simply an erroneous assertion), that started this thread was incorrect. Yet here you are whining about not being respected, AND still try to push the same nonsense.

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
03-03-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 07:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  It wasn't so much the title as the presentation of your argument. You started in attack dog mode.
Thats because I was attacking a claim made by Dawkins.


Then expect replies of the same kind.

The way science works is to critique, not criticize. If one has an alternative explanation, then one explains it and points out weaknesses in the other. This is best done in a rational way with objective evidence.

One can be passionate about a theory without going mad-dog.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
03-03-2013, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 08:58 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(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.

You receive treatment based on the manner in which you present yourself. If I had come in here telling everyone how they were wrong (which is fine) without giving evidence to back up my assertions (which is not fine) then I would have negative reps too. Being an atheist or a theist doesn't play into it at all, as you can see there are atheists and theists with high reps.

You are a uneducated when it comes to evolution, there is no getting around that. That's not even a problem, people vary in their understanding of the theory. Yet you jump in here, with no understanding, claiming to be able to refute a claim made by an expert in the field, without providing evidence. When shown why your argument is flawed (which happened early on) you ignore the refutations and continue as if all is fine. How do you expect us to respond to that?

(03-03-2013 07:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  It wasn't so much the title as the presentation of your argument. You started in attack dog mode.
Thats because I was attacking a claim made by Dawkins.

It isn't a fight, you shouldn't be attacking anything. You should be refuting claims if you have reason to do so, if not, then you don't. Simple as that. Jumping in and trying to refute something without understanding the field in question is just plain stupid.

If you want to get a more positive rep, then I recommend at least attempting to be rational.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:24 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Thats because I was attacking a claim made by Dawkins.


Then expect replies of the same kind.

The way science works is to critique, not criticize. If one has an alternative explanation, then one explains it and points out weaknesses in the other. This is best done in a rational way with objective evidence.

One can be passionate about a theory without going mad-dog.
So when someone claims WLC is wrong are they going "mad-dog". WLC is wrong about a great many things and it perfectly okay to criticize him. However is seems Dawkins can't be wrong so it is wrong to criticize him.
Bucky basically said(I'll paraphrase). "How dare you claim Dawkins is wrong". Well I do dare because I think for myself. I don't let some book like the Blind Watchmaker do my thinking for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:57 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(03-03-2013 03:06 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.
These are all valid arugments. A valid argument isn't necessarily true. An argument is valid if the conclusion flows from the premises.
A valid argument can be false if one of it premises are false. Let play pick a permise and show why it is false.

Premise 1A: If evolution is blind a blind process we should not observe Convergent Evolution.
Premise 2A: We observe Convergent Evolution.
Conclusion A: Therefore Evolution is a not a blind process.

Premise 1B: According to Dawkins evolution is blind because it does not home in on particular targets.
Premise 2B: A target can be a particular form or a set of similar forms.
Premise 3B: Convergent evolution suggests that evolution does home in on certain forms or similar sets of forms.
Conclusion A: Therefore Dawkins statement that evolution is blind is errant.


Premise 1C: If evolution were blind we would not be able to predict the forms evolution is going to produce.
Premise 2C: We sufficient understanding of the fitness paradigm we can predict which forms evolution is going to produce.
Conclusion C: Therefore evolution is not blind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 03:59 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Premise 1A is false because evolution being blind does not preclude convergent evolution. See below.

Premise 1B
is technically correct but misunderstood; Dawkins was stating that evolution does not have an end goal in mind, that is evolution does not pick a form and evolve toward it, but rather evolution is caused by selection pressures to cause some forms to increase in population.
Premise 3B is false because convergent evolution does not "home in" on certain forms, certainly not in the context that Dawkins was using the phrase. Dawkins was using the phrase "Home in" in the sense of being driven toward a specific end goal. Convergent evolution only "homes in" in the sense that certain forms are well optimized for certain environments, and certain environments are persistent over the long term.

Premise 1C is a composition fallacy, implying that since we cannot predict which traits and mutations will occur in specific species, we cannot make generalizations that some forms are optimal for some environments and may evolve in multiple genera.
Premise 2C, see 1C. To elaborate, your argument is akin to saying that because we cannot predict whether or not it will rain on a specific day next year, we cannot therefore say that a certain season is prone to higher rainfall than others.



Your entire argument is based on a faulty understanding of convergent evolution and evolution in general, which is what we've been telling you since page one. You seem to have made some progress; let's hope it continues and is not conveniently forgotten.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Phaedrus's post
04-03-2013, 04:14 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 04:44 AM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
User still appears to be arguing for a non interventionist god (like) being that set up the "selection pressures" so organisms would evolve a certain way.
"It had a goal in mind, set up the universe/earth is such a way that certain organisms would evolve." Still the automated dog kennel argument, breeding specific dogs with the breeder sitting on the side lines.

"An intelligence wanted plants to be green, so created the earth in such a way that plants would have to be green."

But the User might be flip flopping between an interventionist god/thinks that "evolution" itself is some sort of sentient being? "Plant spirits saw that it needed to be green on earth, so became green." In any case, once again-

There is no evidence for or need of a sentient agency in the evolution of organisms on earth, and there's no evidence or need for sentient agencies in the formation of the earth or of the universe as we know it. As mentioned (and quickly rejected for the following reason) all have natural processes based in reality. No need to call in some alien agency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like PoolBoyG's post
04-03-2013, 05:03 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 10:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in
HONE in. Weeping
Premise 1A: If evolution is blind a blind process we should not observe Convergent Evolution.
Premise 2A: We observe Convergent Evolution.
Conclusion A: Therefore Evolution is a not a blind process.

Similar enviroments can SOMETIMES produce somewhat similar forms. That is why convergence happens. Many time the SAME environment, produces many OTHER forms.
The PREMISE IS FALSE. Divergence in the SAME environment is observed, all the time, all over the planet.
He is essentially saying environmets are designed by his deity, to produce ONE form. There are millions if not billions of observed forms.

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Where are your wings, sir ? Oh you don't have any ? You mean Evolution didn't *home* in on getting a you "pair" ?
Evolution is also divergent, as we have pointed out. Continuing to argue with this obtuse ignorant person, is a complete waste of time.

BTW, if Dawkins said something false, I'd challenge it. This is not false. The point was not that DAWKINS was being challenged, but that the likes of YOU were doing so.
Got it ? Jesus H. Fucking Christ

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
04-03-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(04-03-2013 05:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in
HONE in. Weeping
Premise 1A: If evolution is blind a blind process we should not observe Convergent Evolution.
Premise 2A: We observe Convergent Evolution.
Conclusion A: Therefore Evolution is a not a blind process.

Similar enviroments can SOMETIMES produce somewhat similar forms. That is why convergence happens. Many time the SAME environment, produces many OTHER forms.
The PREMISE IS FALSE. Divergence in the SAME environment is observed, all the time, all over the planet.
He is essentially saying environmets are designed by his deity, to produce ONE form. There are millions if not billions of observed forms.

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Where are your wings, sir ? Oh you don't have any ? You mean Evolution didn't *home* in on getting a you "pair" ?
Evolution is also divergent, as we have pointed out. Continuing to argue with this obtuse ignorant person, is a complete waste of time.

BTW, if Dawkins said something false, I'd challenge it. This is not false. The point was not that DAWKINS was being challenged, but that the likes of YOU were doing so.
Got it ? Jesus H. Fucking Christ
I forgive you for calling me an obtuse ignorant person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: