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, 12:07 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(28-02-2013 11:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And BTW, the original example with Gray Wolf skull and Tasmanian Wolf is meaningless, as they obviously had a common ancestor.
Yes Bucky, every living thing on this planet shares a common ancestory. The common ancestor of the gray wolf and tasmanian wolf looked like a shrew, and If remember correctly it was a monotreme(meaning it had one hole to poop, pee, reproduce).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 12:08 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2013 12:16 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 12:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 11:55 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Heywood, you seem to wield the phrase "it's a red herring" like Wonder Woman wields her bracers.

You used it on me in another thread. I just thought you might like to know it feels cheap and sleazy when you use it. It also left me the distinct impression I'd been used for your own purposes. Just FYI.
It is a very common argumentive error. I find myself making it all the time so I don't think less of you because you made it. This thread isn't about my education so whats the point in bringing it up other than to derail it? If I told these guys I was a PHD they would still think I was wrong.

No. They wouldn't have asked, if you had demonstrated any real understanding of Evolution. You are wrong because you are wrong. It's that simple. However, for one to have the balls to say that Dawkins made a blunder, wihtout ANY credentials in the field is simply delusional.
But hey Hey, everything will be OK, Hey. You are special. We now all know that. Very very special. Weeping

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, 12:16 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 12:06 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Again, is your point that God guided/created the "selection pressures" (ie everything I mentioned in my post above)?
That's what is sounds like to me.

I haven't made that argument. I can and will in the future make an inductive argument that an intellect was probably involved in the establishment of natural evolution on earth. But even then I could not show that it was God. It could have been space aliens or some other lessor intellect.

The point I was making here is that evolution can be used to evolve specific things because it is not a blind process suggested by Dawkins. Nor would it require interference from an intellect or God once it was going(like the IDers seem to believe).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 12:22 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I haven't made that argument. I can and will in the future make an inductive argument that an intellect was probably involved in the establishment of natural evolution on earth. But even then I could not show that it was God. It could have been space aliens or some other lessor intellect.

The point I was making here is that evolution can be used to evolve specific things because it is not a blind process suggested by Dawkins. Nor would it require interference from an intellect or God once it was going(like the IDers seem to believe).

"Hey guys, look at this! I'm going to blow your minds with my opinions! Education? Psht, that's overrated. I don't need some fancy Phd's to tell me what evolution is."

Herp Derp.

[Image: herp-derp-durr-1.jpg?w=500]

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
01-03-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
Evolution being "used" is called breeding. That requires an intelligent agency. There is no intelligent agency in nature.

Essentially all plants (all the hundreds of thousands of species) are GREEN. They have all evolved to be that colour. There was no intelligent agency behind this. It was blind.

A similar response: All rivers flow down stream. There was no intelligent agency behind this, there was no thought, no cosmic spirit. It's a product of blind nature reacting to specific laws.

Blind = no intelligent agency. That's all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PoolBoyG's post
01-03-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
I think this is how it'll all end as per Heywood:

1) God creates the universe
2) In it is the planet earth, not too far and not too close to just the right size star
3) He then manipulates the planet so that certain "selection pressures" are created with the final goal of Homo sapiens evolving
4) He tweaks and guides these "selection pressures" for the last 3.6 billion years (or 4.6 billion if you say he had to lay the groundwork for life first)
5) Out pops Adam and Eve

By using this argument Heywood isn't attacking evolution at all.

Is this your point Heywood? I'm just trying to cut through the smoke and mirrors, I had enough of that from PleaseJebus already. I think we'd all appreciate you laying out your case instead of dicking around the edges. Thanks in advance.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:03 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 12:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 11:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And BTW, the original example with Gray Wolf skull and Tasmanian Wolf is meaningless, as they obviously had a common ancestor.
Yes Bucky, every living thing on this planet shares a common ancestory. The common ancestor of the gray wolf and tasmanian wolf looked like a shrew, and If remember correctly it was a monotreme(meaning it had one hole to poop, pee, reproduce).

Great. And if the shrew were "designed for fitness" that would be the end of the line, now wouldn't it ? It wasn't. So your premise is false, and your conclusions are false. Evolution continues, and there is no "fit" state. In fact instead of CONVERGENCE, Evolution demonstrates DIVERGENGE, in countless billions of ways, (which was the point of the common ancestor post, which obviously went over your head). So, actually, you have it precisely backwards, and are 100 % WRONG.

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, 01:07 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 12:25 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Evolution being "used" is called breeding. That requires an intelligent agency. There is no intelligent agency in nature.

Essentially all plants (all the hundreds of thousands of species) are GREEN. They have all evolved to be that colour. There was no intelligent agency behind this. It was blind.

A similar response: All rivers flow down stream. There was no intelligent agency behind this, there was no thought, no cosmic spirit. It's a product of blind nature reacting to specific laws.

Blind = no intelligent agency. That's all.

I'm not talking about breeding. When you breed, you pick and choose which members of the population get to mate and with whom.

I am talking about manipulating or manufacturing the fitness paradigm to achieve a certain result. Suppose I have a colony of bacteria and I expose them to a small dose of antibiotic. Many die but the most resistant live on. The population rebounds. I adminster the dose again. Eventually I get a colony of bacteria which is completely resistant to the antibiotic.

Suppose God designed the universe so that complex life would arise on some planets. He may include a filter, like large asteriods striking the planet every 100 million years or so. If a class of organism evolves and comes to dominate the planet but doesn't evolve enough intelligence to deflect asteriod impacts it will get wiped out, clearing the way for evolution to have another shot at evolving intelligence. Eventually evolution will produce an intelligence capable of deflecting asteriods. Design the fitness paradigm and you determine what it is evolution will produce.

It is logically possible there is no intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.
It is logically possible there is an intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.

Both those premises can be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:14 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 01:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  It is logically possible there is no intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.
It is logically possible there is an intellectual agency that designed the fitness paradigm called earth.

Both those premises can be true.

Possible intelligence? Yes.

Probable intelligence? NO.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2013, 01:16 AM
RE: What do Richard Dawkins and the Intelligent Design movement have in common?
(01-03-2013 12:27 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think this is how it'll all end as per Heywood:

1) God creates the universe
2) In it is the planet earth, not too far and not too close to just the right size star
3) He then manipulates the planet so that certain "selection pressures" are created with the final goal of Homo sapiens evolving
4) He tweaks and guides these "selection pressures" for the last 3.6 billion years (or 4.6 billion if you say he had to lay the groundwork for life first)
5) Out pops Adam and Eve

By using this argument Heywood isn't attacking evolution at all.

Is this your point Heywood? I'm just trying to cut through the smoke and mirrors, I had enough of that from PleaseJebus already. I think we'd all appreciate you laying out your case instead of dicking around the edges. Thanks in advance.
I take issue with number 4. There is no need to continually tweak and guide selection pressures over 3.6 billion years. Of course you can tweak and guide, but evolution is robust enough to create enough diversity and complexity that with the right combination of filters from the get go, you can use it to create what you want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: