|
|
#332
12-03-2005, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
If there is an Intelligent Designer of the universe the universe will show signs of design. [/ QUOTE ] that's absurd. Some of the greatest architects have designed some gawd awful works. If there is a Idesigner it does not mean there has to be signs of it in this universe. If there were signs of it, it doesn't mean it wasn't a one-hit wonder by some whacked out unintelligent designer. Next question. 
|
|
#334
12-03-2005, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Some of the greatest architects have designed some gawd awful works. [/ QUOTE ] Did you notice this word in your sentence: designed. [ QUOTE ] Ok, ok, I'll spell it out. There could be no evidence of design yet still be an intelligent designer. In fact, one of it's goals of a really IDesigner may have been to design something that showed no evidence of design. So the claim that "If there is an Intelligent Designer of the universe the universe will show signs of design" is absurd. next question
|
|
#336
12-03-2005, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong!
Original flawed statement- [ QUOTE ]
If there is an Intelligent Designer of the universe the universe will show signs of design. [/ QUOTE ] part of the reply to it - [ QUOTE ] There could be no evidence of design yet still be an intelligent designer. [/ QUOTE ] Now, from the outer reaches - [ QUOTE ] Why does this post make any sense when there is design? [/ QUOTE ] Because you screwed up bigtime. Your claim isn't about design, it's about it being mandatory that a designer leave evidence. Is a Truly Intelligent Designer not capable of designing something that doesn't look contrived. The fact you believe there is evidence of design ( whether you are right or wrong) is not related to your claim. You're confusing this absurd claim with your usual one about design-looking = designer did it. Totally different claims. oh, I realize it's a localism but I've always used "next question" to mean, pleeeeze, make the questions tougher, not easier. [ QUOTE ] How does chance produce order? [/ QUOTE ] I'm going to answer this on 3 levels but after not being able to follow the above I don't like our chances here. 1) it makes no sense to say "order produces order" so at least intitially, if order is 'produced' chance is the only source. 2) "How" is a conceptual trap. If it could be explained in an orderly way, than it wouldn't be chance. cheeesh. 3) Chance will always produce order, it has no choice. a)given enough time, every alignment is possible, including all the ordered ones. If some alignments were ruled out because they were orderly, then that rule is a form of order which means chance isn't operating. b) given limited time, any random alignment, ordered or disordered may be the order of the day. If I shake a deck of cards in a bag, the 1st outpouring is just as likely to be suited in order as the 10,000,000th. Now, if one of those chance alignments is one that has just the tiniest amount of 'stickiness' to it, then lookout.. mega order is about to emerge. A Much better question is "how could chance not produce order". hmmmm.... that one I don't have an answer for.
|
|
#337
12-03-2005, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Wrong!
[ QUOTE ]
If there is an Intelligent Designer of the universe the universe will show signs of design. [/ QUOTE ] In response, an excerpt from Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker: [ QUOTE ] If you walk up and down a pebbly beach, you will notice that the pebbles are not arranged at random. The smaller pebbles typically tend to be found in segregated zones running along the length of the beach, the larger ones in different zones or stripes. The pebbles have been sorted, arranged, selected. A tribe living near the shore might wonder at this evidence of sorting or arrangement in the world, and might develop a myth to account for it, perhaps attributing it to a Great Spirit in the sky with a tidy mind and a sense of order. We might give a superior mile at such a superstitious notion, and explain that the arranging was really done by the blind forces of physics, in this case the action of waves. The waves have no purposes and no intentions, no tidy mind, no mind at all. They just energetically throw the pebbles around, and big pebbles and small pebbles respond differently to this treatment so they end up at different levels of the beach. A small amount of order has come out of disorder, and no mind planned it. [/ QUOTE ] So the question is, how do we know whether there was a conscious force that structured the design with that particular end in mind? (No scripturally-based answers are acceptable, as they already assume ID, making the argument circular)
|
|
#339
12-04-2005, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bayesian logic misapplied: Chance and necessity
Good post, IMO, except for one part :
[ QUOTE ] You are assuming that your wooden chair MUST have come to be a certain way because that's how it is now. But if you backtrack and think that the outcome was only one of many possible outcomes, you find that the occurance of a wooden chair is more likely. Simple Bayes. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, if we reverse in time, in order to examine the origins of the chair and we examine all the potential developments out of an original, no-chair situation, the eventuality of the chair coming up will NOT appear necessarily as more likely. Bayes' got nothing to do with it. (Actually, some people use, even without knowing it, Bayesian logic, albeit erroneously, when they suggest that Man would appear anyway. They confuse chance for necessity. Cue for my monthly recommendation of the Ur-book on the subject, Jacques Monod's "Chance and Necessity".) If, by reversing back in time, we discover northing more about the chair-scenario that we do not already know (i.e if we do not "discover" circumstances that make the future appearance of a chair more likely), then we have no reason at all to assign a greater probability to a chair appearing. As far as I know, the underlying randomness factor in biology has been established quite satisfactorily. (BTW, random does not mean equiprobable.) --Cyrus
|
|
#340
12-04-2005, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bayesian logic misapplied: Chance and necessity
Excellent book!!! Demolishes the obscurantists pseudo arguments.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
